| 1 |
On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 18:47:44 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> >>> I was just checking out on other forums; chromium is an open source |
| 4 |
> >>> and not very well maintain. www-client/google-chrome suppose to be |
| 5 |
> >>> better. |
| 6 |
> >> |
| 7 |
> >> On what is that claim based? Chromium used the chrome source code |
| 8 |
> >> with the proprietary bits removed and the same versions of both are |
| 9 |
> >> available in portage. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > ...and I'm for ever having to recompile chromium as it seems to |
| 12 |
> > change about once a week. Not what you would call poorly supported. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> Well the OP did say that the info came from "other forums" and we know |
| 15 |
> how reliable those can be. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Exactly, that's why I asked for some detail. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> I'd trust my mother-in-law's opinion on the state of Chromium before I |
| 20 |
> trust $RANDOM_ARB_FORUM_ON_TEH_INTARWEBZ |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
This is just a random claim without even a citation from such a forum. |
| 23 |
Hell, it even implies that being open source is bad, it's a good thing we |
| 24 |
have closed source alternatives like Firefox... |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Politics: Poli (many) - tics (blood sucking parasites) |
Archives