Jump to content

Talk:Chromium (web browser)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jonathanmjefferies (talk | contribs) at 16:44, 10 May 2013 (→Opera now switching to Chromium: Added suggestion to removed talk about Opera from the page.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Untitled

Regarding the necessity for this site: Talk:Google_Chrome#Chromium_distinction Please discuss directly there. Unapiedra (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stable/Preview Releases

You may notice that there are two releases mentioned in the infobox, both exactly the same. This is because when I made the original template for the software release cycle I made a mistake and made out the trunk build to be a "stable release" (here), after which I a new template, this time listing it as a "preview release" (see here, which it technically is. I'll nominate the stable release template for deletion, if anyone objects please complain on the relevant deletion page.P.Marlow (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 2000

It is Notable that Chrome/Chromium does not support Windows 2000, even though it is very similar to XP -- this seems like a somewhat artificial limitation. There is some discussion of ways to trick Chrome into trying to run under 2000, with perhaps some reported success. If the program is really open source, is there a fork that does run on 2000? There seem to be many portable versions floating around, some of which claim to run under even Win9x, which is probably not true. Do any portable versions run well under Win2000? -71.174.188.171 (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indirectly at least, as Spotify uses Chromium technologies and that runs on Windows 2000 out of the box depsite a claim of XP minimum. --109.156.237.144 (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chromium logo svg?

Any chance of someone creating the chromium logo svg? (not google chrome, chromium, the blueish one) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.93.77 (talk) 04:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the svg logos:

http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-discuss/browse_thread/thread/3ff1bc1f49952e73?pli=1

http://rv.pri.ee/madis/muud/chromium.svg

http://sites.google.com/site/medigeekdata/home/chromium.svg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.91.255 (talk) 09:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Size Section?

How can there be a Size section if there isn't even a stable release? :) If it's talking about a subversion, the size is a variable that may change on each commit.

Patent lawsuit

According to a cease and desist letter being sent to operators of mirror sites, Red Bend Software is suing Google for patent infringement relating to software update mechanisms which are allegedly included in Chromium. 18.26.0.5 (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally pending lawsuits seem inappropriate to Wiki for three reasons, any of which is compelling:
  • A lawsuit may result in the defendant being completely innocent. It may be there was no wrong-doing, in which case writing about it in Wikipedia unnecessarily casts doubt on the honesty of the defendant.
  • Wikipedia is not a crystal ball for future events WP:CRYSTAL. Lawsuits are for lawyers and courts to decide, not Wiki kangaroo courts.
  • Lawsuits are filed frequently against companies. There isn't necessarily anything notable, anything encyclopedic, even if a company is held in the wrong. For example, they could have made an innocent mistake, on a minor technical matter, and been forced to pay a small fine. That lawsuit may not have any significant effect on the company or product. Sincerely, Piano non troppo (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot caption

I have now twice removed the listing of the operating system from the caption on the screenshot. In general we have been not mentioning these on application screenshots as it isn't relevant to the image and if anyone cares which operating system is being used in the image they can check the image page. If anyone thinks it should be included then please explain why you think it is required and gain consensus here to include it. - Ahunt (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RLZ-tracking

Ok, it tells google for example, when and where Chrome has been downloaded. What other info does it transmit? 190.100.246.23 (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following the link in footnote 11 (http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-discuss/browse_thread/thread/574c792f23ab2ffd/8bbf44e8b1d877a0?pli=1) the discussion ends on Aug 13th with the following post:

"Just to follow up on this, the bug has been fixed as of revision 56032: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=56032 I tested on version 6.0.493.0 and it works as expected again (no RLZ.)

We've also made some changes in this revision to help prevent it from happening again."

Can the RLZ-tracking issue be retired now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.2.192.193 (talk) 03:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collection and transmission of usage information?

According to the article, there is a community release which disables collection and transmission of usage information. Therefore, i assume that chromium's chrome (just like google chrome) does collect and transmit that info. If this is true, then it should be explicitly noted in the main part of the article, because being it an open-source project, many people are assuming that chromium is spyware free. 190.100.246.23 (talk) 04:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You bring up a good point - the section was badly written, although I have now fixed it. Chromium does not include tracking features, these are added by Google and the resulting browser is released as Google Chrome. SRWare Iron does not remove these features as the Chromium source code does not have them in the first place. I hope the section makes more sense now? - Ahunt (talk) 12:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

history

we need a history section, about when the project started, etc 200.144.37.3 (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that would be a good addition! Got any refs for that? - Ahunt (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I found none, that's why I came here in the first place. 187.27.55.240 (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there are lots of articles that chronicle the history of Chromium, although no one artcle that sums it all up. It would entail compiling a history from a series of articles. There is a good list of them on Ars Technica which is a relaible source. - Ahunt (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a start on putting together a history, from combing though the Ars Technica catacombs linked from above. If anyone else has any sources then please feel free to add more text and refs. - Ahunt (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RLZ in Chromium

A couple of IP address editors have added text indicating that Chromium tracks users through the use of the RLZ token. In both cases this addition has used this blog entry as a reference for this. I have removed this in both cases. Blogs are not acceptable refs for Wikipedia and this particular case illustrates why that is so. In the blog the user complains that his installation of Chromium has sent an RLZ string, and this is held up as proof that RLZ is present in Chromium. If you trace this to the bug reported at Issue 51693: RLZ should not be invoked on Chromium builds the true story quickly emerges. In the Windows version of Chromium 6.0.491.0 the RLZ token was included by mistake. The problem was reported on 10 August 2010 and was fixed on 13 August 2010 with version 6.0.493.0. End of story. This is just a normal error that occurs during the development process of any piece of software. If anyone thinks this is worth adding to the article then we can discuss it, but personally I think since we don't report on every minor bug or bug fix that occurs that this is at best trivia. - Ahunt (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Praise for this Wikipedia article

This Wikipedia article was recently praised by Gary Richmond at Free Software Magazine. In his article Google Chromium, Chromeplus and Iron Browser: Why Source code and Distribution Models Matter he says: "Wikipedia has an excellent feature and release timeline summary" and links here!! - Ahunt (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing

One of the issues preventing large organizations from adopting Chromium is the complex licensing.

The Google-authored portion of Chromium is released under the BSD license,[12] with other parts being subject to a variety of different permissive open-source licenses, including the MIT License, the LGPL, the Ms-PL, and an MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-license.[13]

Is there any effort to combine the open source under a single umbrella license (GPL/BSD)?

Victusfate (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of, because that would prevent Google from taking the Chromium source code and issuing the resulting Google Chrome browser product under their own terms of service instead of under the required GPL, etc. I am guessing that it would be better for Google if the Chromium source code were 100% BSD. I am not aware of any corporation that is concerned about the licencing, but if you can cite a ref that shows that there are some, it would be worthwhile adding it to the article. - Ahunt (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Bookmark sync not in Chromium, right?

In the "Differences between Chrome and Chromium" section there is no mention of the fact that the ability to synchronize your bookmarks to your Google account is only available in Chrome, not in Chromium. At least, I'm pretty sure that's the way it is. Somebody ought to add it. --87.60.182.233 (talk) 08:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. I am running Chromium and I have bookmarks synchronized through Google. It is a standard feature. - Ahunt (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chromium Screenshot Thumbnail Outdated

The screenshot in the top right corner links to the correct picture, but the thumbnail itself shows an old version. Don't know how to fix. --SmilingBoy (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They both look the same to me - are you sure it wasn't a "caching" problem? - Ahunt (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think it is a cashing problem I CTRL-SHIFT-Reloaded several times and I don' think I have been on the article site before. In the article, I see this screenshot: http:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/Chromium_%28web_browser%29.png/300px-Chromium_%28web_browser%29.png (it shows the homepage of Wikipedia). However, when I click on it, I get taken to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chromium_(web_browser).png (which shows the Wikipedia Chromium article). I am using Google Chrome on Windows, but the the same problem occurs with Opera, Firefox and IE. --SmilingBoy (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I am seeing something different, but the thumbnail and the full-sized image look the same to me and both show the Chromium article page, not the Wikipedia home page, but I am using Chromium on Lubuntu. - Ahunt (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a Google project?

 Done

Is this actually a project ran by Google or not? --Nathan2055 (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to the project's homepage. It is an open source project that Google sponsors. - Ahunt (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help! I never was able to figure that out. --Nathan2055talk 22:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - collaboration works! (Thanks for the cookie) - Ahunt (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians self-declared as Chromium users

Interesting that there are, as of October 2011, <100 self-declared Wikipedians who are Chromium users based on the link http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:User_browser:Chromium&namespace=2&limit=100 . --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Safari (web browser) - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 01:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

non-Chromium builds/projects

Why are they listed in this article? I have moved them to "see also", pending someone justifying this. Feel free to slim them down to single internal links in the mean-time. Widefox (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They were included because they are browsers that use the Chromium code. They probably bear mentioning as they are tied to the Chromium project, but perhaps they can be reduced to a list of "browsers based on Chromium" or similar. - Ahunt (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its similar to Firefox, no mention there. Widefox (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually they are listed under Firefox#Licensing, which is an odd place to put that information compared to this article's organization. - Ahunt (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, missed them there. I remember at one point the FF template mentioned them (and I was for back then). Thinking about it, licencing is a good place as its the link between the different articles. Also, the elephant in the room from the missing Chromium list is Google Chrome. Widefox (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chrome could be added there for sake of completeness, although it is covered pretty extensively in the article's lead para. - Ahunt (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotify...

...uses Chromium, or at least its new "Apps" feature. --86.157.84.49 (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

shouldnt these be merged together? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_%28web_browser%29

shouldnt these be merged together?

shouldnt these be merged together? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_(web_browser) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.132.61.165 (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are two different, although related, subjects. For what reasons would you want to merge them? - Ahunt (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opera now switching to Chromium

http://my.opera.com/ODIN/blog/300-million-users-and-move-to-webkit -64.245.0.218 (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually in reading that it looks like they are switching Opera to the WebKit rendering engine as used by Chromium. - Ahunt (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think this bit about Opera is pretty misleading, and should be removed. Opera are just switching their rendering engine to Blink, which Chromium is also switching to. Jonathanmjefferies (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chromium_(web_browser)&oldid=554467586"