
Happy third birthday, Chrome - Uncle_Sam
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/happy-third-birthday-chrome.html
======
azakai
> It’s hard to believe that it’s already been three years since we launched
> our open source web browser, Chrome.

Chrome is not open source: It contains plenty of closed-source code, from
Flash to the print preview implementation. And it isn't just that they wrote
"Chrome" instead of "Chromium" in that post - they tout the closed-source
features of the browser later down. So it's clear they mean Chrome, not
Chromium.

I realize this is not news for anyone here on hacker news, but it is
disappointing to see Google making this kind of inaccuracy. You can't have
your cake and eat it too: If you want to be fully open source you can't
include closed-source code, and if you want to include closed-source code you
can't call yourself open source. I'm not saying one is good and one is bad,
just that you can't do one and call yourself the other.

~~~
mkr-hn
edit: I just realized that I got trolled. Sorry about the mess. You can safely
page down past this tree without missing any valuable conversation.

Can you list the things that are part of Chrome and not a separate blob? As
far as I know the closed stuff is separate from the executable. Unless you
believe shipping an open source product with closed source blobs makes it
closed source. Which would be weird.

~~~
azakai
As I mentioned, Flash is bundled and is closed source, and the print preview
functionality as well. There is also the closed-source PDF viewer (which is
related to the print preview functionality in some way). And some audio codecs
are present in Chrome but not Chromium, but I do not know if they are closed
source or not (perhaps they are missing for other reasons).

Those are the main things we know about. The bigger issue, though, is that by
definition a closed-source application can contain any amount of code that you
don't know about.

If the closed-source blobs were entirely separate this would not be an issue.
If, for example, I could build Chromium from source myself and copy over a few
clearly-defined blobs, and I would get something identical to Chrome, that
would be one way to separate them. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe
that is not the case here (if it is, I am honestly curious to see this -
please explain how I can do that).

Side note: I'm kind of disappointed to see I'm being modded down for saying
things that are true. Has fanboyism reached even hacker news, that anyone
saying something against their favorite product - even something true - is
modded down?

Edit: And now I'm being called a troll, ah well. I hope it's obvious that I am
100% sincere in my opinions here, and the fact that I have already conceded
the point to wmf should make it perfectly clear no trolling was going on from
my side. (wmf says it's an oversimplification, I prefer to say it's an
inaccuracy, but they both mean basically the same thing and I am fine with
using either term.)

~~~
mkr-hn
I'm just glancing at the Chrome directory on Windows, but I see these:
gcswf32.dll (flash), pdf.dll

Which tells me the functionality for Flash and PDF viewing are handled
externally. That also tells me Google is intentionally keeping these separate,
so the other things are probably external too.

~~~
azakai
That isn't strong evidence either way (I am sure for example that closed
source browsers have separate modules for various closed source things). The
question is whether the reset of the code is identical or not to Chromium. I
suggested one way before to get a clear answer, but to my knowledge there is
simply no way to know.

~~~
mkr-hn
So what you're saying is that you lack the basis to claim Chrome, the browser
and not the components that ship next to it, is closed source.

~~~
azakai
No.

Chrome is shipped by Google in binary form, and without instructions for
generating it in its entirety from source. That, by definition, is not open
source.

It contains parts that are, otherwise, known to be open source. The same is
true for Safari and Opera. It contains many more such parts than those
browsers, to be sure, but it is still not fully open source.

~~~
mkr-hn
The source, as best as anyone can tell, is Chromium. It's just a branding
difference until you demonstrate that Chrome != Chromium + blobs. The blog
post and everything Google says indicates that Chrome is just Chromium
rebadged and shipped with some stuff.

You're free to go and (try to) disprove this by compiling Chromium so you can
compare it with Chrome.

~~~
azakai
If Google claims Chrome is open source, the burden of proof is on __Google __.

I have not even seen Google say that Chrome is identical to Chromium except
for some DLLs, which is what you appear to believe. Or have I missed that? If
so, please link me to it.

~~~
mkr-hn
It appears to be open source by their standards. What is there to prove?
Disprove it by your standard and present the evidence. Then realize there's no
point in trying to argue "facts" when each faction has its own.

~~~
azakai
The point is that there are accepted standards to the meaning of the term
"open source".

~~~
mkr-hn
In the same way that there are accepted standards of HTML.

------
funksta
My hat is off to Google; the progress they have made with Chrome (in terms of
both marketshare and features/performance) in just 3 years is remarkable.
Chrome has greatly increased my enjoyment of the web as both a user and
developer.

------
marcamillion
Has it been 3 years already?

Seems like just the other day.

~~~
kmm
I've got the opposite feeling. Only three years and so much has happened.

~~~
marcamillion
Well, I guess it's two sides to the same coin. I meant, wow...it's been 3
years already, it has flown fast - because they have done so much.

------
callahad
If you click on the browsers in the lefthand pane, you get a series of
screenshots for each major release of each browser. It's really quite nice.

But you know what's better?

The upper corners of the screenshots are sensitive to clicks, so you can
actually close the screenshot by clicking on the appropriate native widget in
the screenshot.

~~~
jamesgeck0
Which means clicking on the maximize button in the Windows 3.1 screenshots.

~~~
callahad
Both of the upper corners are active, so you can also click on the... the
other side. What's the name for the [-] widget on the left? The one you could
double click to close the window?

~~~
duncans
The Control Menu.

------
ck2
So at this pace, version 30 in 3 more years? The end of minor version numbers,
oh well.

~~~
CrazedGeek
If the version number is almost never seen by users (and is rather unnecessary
for developers considering the auto-updater), does it really matter?

