Browsers (Was: A very basic blog about D)

[Nick Sabalausky]

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 15:11:21 +0200
"Joakim" <joakim at airpost.net> wrote:

> On Tuesday, 16 July 2013 at 09:02:19 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> > Chrome then all the better (Seriously, why the fuck does Google 
> > have
> > two basically-identical browsers and the whole "Chrome vs 
> > Chromium"
> > bullshit anyway? Makes no fucking sense.)
> Chromium is an open source project.  Chrome is google's build of 
> Chromium, with some additional proprietary bits added, like a 
> closed-source pdf viewer or licensed audio/video codecs compiled 
> in:
> 
> https://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/ChromiumBrowserVsGoogleChrome
> 
> They use a hybrid model with Chrome, where it's 99% open with 
> added proprietary bits, a subject I've talked about before on 
> this NG.

Ok, good to know. I do still think they could have handled it without
splitting it into two barely-different projects. And from what I'm
seen, Google gives off a very strong impression that "Chrome" is their
browser for end-users to actually use, and "Chromium" is
just...some..."thing" for developers (from what I've seen, Google hasn't
been particularly clear on it, ever even really say much about it at
all on their Chrome site, but I do appreciate your clarification).

So if someone came along with a "basically Chrome with some stuff
removed" that's *really* just minor tweaks on Chromium, then I do think
Google kind of brought that situation on themselves. And I don't think
it's necessarily bad, either. Yes, it would be better if SRWare was
more accurate in stating what Iron exactly is, but still, a prebuilt
distro of Chromium, without the lack of clarity on what Chromium is,
and with default settings changed to what a lot of people would change
them to anyway - I do think there is genuine value in that.

Of course, Google could easily counteract that value by saying right
there on their Chrome site "Ok, and here we also have a pre-built
Chromium which is Chrome but without the auto-updater and non-OSS bits,
etc". Or better yet: "Here's the Chrome installer, and it lets
you choose whether or not to install the auto-updater, and whether or
not to include the non-OSS extensions, and has an option for "ultra
privacy" defaults where none of the controversial settings are enabled
and nothing is ever implicitly sent to Google" (Obviously wording can
be adjusted).

But last I looked, Google didn't have anything like that, but Iron
does, so there's value in it.

> > I don't give a shit what the primary motivation of Iron's 
> > creator is or
> > how much work it did or didn't take to create. I use it because 
> > it works
> > the way I want it to and Chrome doesn't.
> You are free to use whatever you want, but when you say you don't 
> care about what this guy has done, you lose all credibility on 
> privacy and security.
> 

Not that I'm trying to change your mind here, but what I'm seeing here
is: Some guy created a useful product (even if it is only minimally
useful) because he wanted to generate ad revenue. There's nothing
questionable or even remotely uncommon about that.

> Haha, now outright lying about how you "massively modified the 
> source" or that you're still "open source" is merely overblown 
> "marketing?"
> 

"Massively" is a highly subjective term. Now I agree with you that if
the changes are indeed what your articles say (and I'm not doubting
that) than that doesn't match what I, or most people, would consider
"massively". But it *is* a subjective term and business *do* exploit
that all the time. I don't like that they do, I wish they didn't, but
we don't go calling every such thing a "scam".

As far as the "open source" thing, well if the source really is closed
off now (and not just some site snafu or something) then yea, that is a
license violation and needs to be changed. And proper public VCS would
be good, although I've seen a LOT of developers who are still stuck in
pre-VCS mode and unfortunately don't really "get" the whole GitHub
thing. Not an ideal way for Iron to work, but since I'm only interested
in using it, not building or modifying it, then it's not a deal-breaker
for me. There's a lot of useful freeware that, for some ridiculous
reason I've never understood, was closed-source. 'Course, most of those
aren't license-bound to *be* OSS.

> You're twisting yourself into pretzels to try and justify this 
> choice.  Maybe you didn't know all this about Iron before, but it 
> seems like an irrational, personal attachment to keep using and 
> defending this browser after all this.

Just because I'm not knee-jerking at some new information (that really
isn't anywhere near as condemning as you make it out to be) hardly
qualifies as "twisting...irrational, personal attachment", etc.