> Firecrap will support HTML5 DRM. What kind of choice are you talking about? We have _no choice_
Though I agree with your basic argument, it must be noted that you have a choice to fork Firefox. You cannot do that with Chrome.
Yeah everyone will start about Chromium but it's not equivalent. There is no sync, PDF viewer, Flash Player implementation, print system (and print preview), auto-updater, AAC, MP3 and Opus codecs, and maybe other things I'm forgetting.
If you want to fork Chrome, you'll have to build all of that yourself. If you fork Firefox, you get the whole deal and you can really make it the way you want it to be while staying up-to-date with upstream patches.
> Yeah everyone will start about Chromium but it's not equivalent. There is no sync, PDF viewer, Flash Player implementation, print system (and print preview), auto-updater, AAC, MP3 and Opus codecs, and maybe other things I'm forgetting.
As a matter of fact, Chromium does support open media formats such as Opus, and (now that Google and Foxit have open-sourced PDFium) Chromium has the same PDF viewing and print preview system that Chrome has long enjoyed.
Both Chromium and Chrome allow you to sync your profile (bookmarks, extensions, etc.). The auto-updater is a difference on Windows and Mac, but not on Linux, where Chrome simply uses the same repository and package update systems other applications use.
It is true that Chromium does not, by default, come with Flash bundled or support proprietary media tags (AAC, H.264, and MP3), but the reason why that is the case should be clear.
If you do want Chrome's Flash plugin in Chromium, you only need to copy the file into your Chromium directory. There are even Linux repos that can keep it up-to-date for you.
> Though I agree with your basic argument, it must be noted that you have a choice to fork Firefox. You cannot do that with Chrome.
Except that in reality, no, you don't. Except if you are a team. And have funding. No one can possibly go through all those changes and apply them in a clean manner while having compatibility in mind. And even if that happens (waterfox), I (as a user) cannot trust them because I (and many more) don't have the time to search through all the commits to see what the fork is _actually_ doing (which in reality is just wasting time).
From one hand, I actually love how firefox is open and transparent and I trully believe the main devs and the whole project deserves so much more, but at the same time I consider many of their choices very poor and without thought.
Though I agree with your basic argument, it must be noted that you have a choice to fork Firefox. You cannot do that with Chrome.
Yeah everyone will start about Chromium but it's not equivalent. There is no sync, PDF viewer, Flash Player implementation, print system (and print preview), auto-updater, AAC, MP3 and Opus codecs, and maybe other things I'm forgetting.
If you want to fork Chrome, you'll have to build all of that yourself. If you fork Firefox, you get the whole deal and you can really make it the way you want it to be while staying up-to-date with upstream patches.