Curt wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > But since that is nonfree it isn't in the free Chromium. AFAIK only
> > the nonfree Chrome has the builtin Flash and Adobe and other such
> > components. AFAIK that is the difference between Chrome and Chromium.
>
> I was responding to an unqualified statement (I didn't see the nonfree
> restriction, if it existed).
But by now you should know that advocates of free(dom) software [such
as myself] can be an annoying bunch. Like a preacher where every day
is Sunday sermon day we will try to keep people from sliding down the
slippery slope without thinking about it[1]. :-)
So obviously when I heard you extolling the virtues of a nonfree
program I didn't want it to go unnoticed that it was nonfree. It is
an important distinction that should not go unnoticed. After all this
is a Debian mailing list and Debian is all about free(dom) software.
> google-chrome in linux has no builtin Flash (at least not in the 64 bit
> version), nor does it have builtin Adobe. The pdf reader it uses by
> default, is, well, the Chrome PDF Viewer, a "builtin" "house" plugin.
I did not know that. Thanks for the information. On Windows that was
one of their original talking points about Chrome was that it was
fully integrated and so didn't need to keep external components such
as Flash upgraded separately. It was supposed to be one stop
shopping. And therefore more secure since Chrome would upgrade itself
and therefore the entire Internet bundle would be always up to date.
I assumed it was the same on GNU/Linux versions too. If it isn't then
I wonder what is the real difference then? What makes Chrome nonfree?
In Chromium if I open a pdf document it will open an external document
viewer to handle it. Evince in my case.
Bob
[1] "The gates of Hell are open night and day; Smooth the descent and
easy is the way. But to return, and view the cheerful skies,
In this the task and mighty labor lies." -- Virgil, The Aeneid
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature