why not Iron?
Am Mittwoch 09 Dezember 2009 14:15:44 schrieb Andreas Radke:
> I've already thought about this a few times though I haven't used it
> mayself so far.
> I have a big problem with google's way violating users privacy. That's the
> reason I'd rather like to see us packaging Iron:
> Another major issue I see is the included 3rd branch of webkit. Right we
> package webkit-gtk and Qt ships it's own webkit. It would be stupid to
> build another browser inclusing its own static webkit branch.
> And there's one more major issue: Google calls their software open source.
> But the development process is happing behind closed doors.
> For now: -1 from me for any Google applications in our official repos. But
> I can imagine to provide Iron packaged in the community repo.
I have more objections against Iron. There is no vcs, bug tracker, mailinglist
etc. and the soruces are hosted on rapidshre (wtf?).
The privacy thing can be disabl by GUI; of course users should know wht they
are doing. Btw: firefox has similiar issues.
They indeed provide some of their modified 3rdpart libs (like webkit,
ffmpeg...). But they are trying to get those thing upstream. But there are
things that require chagnes to that 3rd party code. Lot's of projects are
doing this: Qt, php etc.
The have mailinglist, irc and a public bug tracker etc.. So I don't really get
your problem. I am not that happy with some/most of their services either and
would never use e.g. gmail. But there work at chromium is not that bad
compared to other open source projects.
I think we should stay objective and fair.
Pierre Schmitz, https://users.archlinux.de/~pierre