| 1 |
On 12/11/2015 18:40, Peter Humphrey wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wednesday 11 Nov 2015 20:46:45 Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 13:07:20 -0700, thelma@×××××××××××.com wrote: |
| 4 |
>>>>> Is "www-client/chromium" good alternative to firefox? |
| 5 |
>>>> |
| 6 |
>>>> I much prefer it, but that's all it is, personal preference. Try it |
| 7 |
>>>> and decide for yourself. It's a long emerge so you may want to try |
| 8 |
>>>> with chrome first, it's a binary package so much faster to install. |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>>> I was just checking out on other forums; chromium is an open source and |
| 11 |
>>> not very well maintain. www-client/google-chrome suppose to be better. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> On what is that claim based? Chromium used the chrome source code with |
| 14 |
>> the proprietary bits removed and the same versions of both are available |
| 15 |
>> in portage. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> ...and I'm for ever having to recompile chromium as it seems to change about |
| 18 |
> once a week. Not what you would call poorly supported. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Well the OP did say that the info came from "other forums" and we know |
| 23 |
how reliable those can be. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I'd trust my mother-in-law's opinion on the state of Chromium before I |
| 26 |
trust $RANDOM_ARB_FORUM_ON_TEH_INTARWEBZ |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 31 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives