Ralf Mardorf wrote: > There only is one valid reason to install Chrome and completely no > valid reason to install Chromium. Don't hold back Ralf. Tell us what you really feel about Chromium. :-) (chuckle) Since you were so harsh to Robert who was 99% right I must make some jokes here. Because people who read your posting will get the completely wrong idea. As Robert said Chromium is a free(dom) software version of Chrome. It is mostly the same. Except where it is explicitly different! The wikipedia reference you cited lists those differences and is a good reference for it. Your feeling is just a feeling. If only it were a good feeling! I am not a chromium fanboy either but that is no reason to sell it short. Chromium is a very good browser and there are many good reasons to install it over the nonfree Chrome. To start with there is exactly that nonfree thing. Chrome isn't free(dom) software. If this is philosophically and politically important to you then that is enough just by itself. But even if not then the free(dom) chromium has more eyes on the code and if it follows other software projects then it will be much better supported in the long term. And by better supported for example I mean available on more architectures. If you are using one of the architectures that isn't supported by Chrome then you can't use it. And keeping within the official Debian archives for installation bits means being able to use the same bug tracking and the same rest of the infrastructure as everything else in Debian. Very likely the problems you experienced with chromium had to do with the nonfree nature of Adobe Flash. Since it is nonfree it can't be part of Chromium. But so many sites need it that AFAICT most people install the nonfree Flash plugin anyway. (If you can avoid it then great! If not then the free chromium with the nonfree Flash is incrementally "better" than the nonfree Chrome with the built in nonfree Flash. Life is a compromise.) Since Chrome has Flash built into it you don't need to install it separately. This is an advantage to the masses of non-technical users that always have out of date software. With Chrome it is bonded together and updated together with Chrome itself. That is the major advantage to most of the unwashed masses using Chrome. But if the Flash plugin is installed then Chromium and Firefox will both use it just fine. If you have already installed Firefox and have already installed Flash then there isn't any incremental downside to installing Chromium since Flash is already seperately installed. Same thing for PDF viewing. Chrome has a nonfree one built into it. Chromium and Firefox will use the system installed viewer. It is also possible to install the nonfree Adobe PDF plugin. > One issue is caused by my ISP's homepage. If I use Firefox, Opera, or > what ever browser, then I sometimes can download my bills, but most of > the times it doesn't work. It can take more than an hour to get the fine > bill. They don't allow right click on the PDF, it's some java crap. When > using Chrome I didn't run into this issue. The homepage of Alice, aka O2 > is a PITA. It's possible to use another ISP, but similar issues appear > from time to time not only for the ISP. My neighbours have the same > issues when using Firefox on Windows. I don't know what does cause the > issue and I don't care, but Chrome can handle lot's of stuff that can't > be handled by Firefox, Opera, Midori, QupZilla etc.. I use either Chromium or Firefox (Iceweasel) or Midori on all of my web sites including banking and business web sites without problem. YMMV. But Chromium is definitely usable on every web site I routinely access. That is my experience with it. In practice if I have a problem with any site then I always try Chromium as my gold standard. Mostly because I always run Firefox with NoScript and FlashBlock and BetterPrivacy plugins. Which makes Firefox my main browser for normal well behaved sites. > Compare Firefox 25.0 and Chrome 31.0.1650.57. Open > http://www.o2online.de/ and just move the mouse cursor and you'll see > the difference between Firefox and Chrome. There are completely no > issues for Chrome, but with Firefox there's an unwanted effect. Once > you're logged in, it's much more evil. I tried that site with both Chromium and Firefox and as far as I could tell (I don't have an account and don't speak the language either) both browsers appear the same to me. Both seemed to handle the site fine. I couldn't find any obvious differences in behavior between Chromium and Firefox. And as far as I could see the site behaved as it was intended. Too much fancy animation for my taste. I didn't like it. But it appeared to work as intended. Bob
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature