On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Walter Dnes <waltd...@waltdnes.org> wrote:
> On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 11:28:49AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote
>
>> However, my whole point wasn't to throw stones at the chromium team -
>> I think that they've been doing a great job of fixing this problem,
>> and will continue to do so. I just was pointing out that Google's
>> practice of bundling dependencies wasn't to my liking, but that I
>> wasn't going to give them too much of a hard time precisely because
>> I'm not being part of the solution.
>
> I think Chromium's problem is that it's based on Chrome. And Google
> is "pulling an AOL" by trying to turn Chrome into an OS for its
> Chromebooks. To paraphrase the old emacs joke... Chrom(e/ium) is a
> mediocre OS that lacks a lightweight web browser. I just did a
> "pretend" build for Chromium. I fail to understand why a *WEB BROWSER*
I would argue that the Chrome Team's idea of what a 'WEB BROWSER' is
and your idea of what a 'WEB BROWSER' is are vastly divergent. That is
totally OK and you are free to use whatever software you prefer. I
somehow doubt Chrom{e,ium} is losing tons of users due to their udev /
dbus / etc requirements.
Disclaimer, I work at Google (but not on any Chrom{e,ium}(OS) related projects.)
-A
> needs elfutils and dbus and udev as hard-coded dependancies. The udev
> dependancy is a show stopper for me, as I've migrated over to mdev. See
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Mdev That page is now mostly other
> people's contributions. I was the rabble-rouser who started it.
>
> --
> Walter Dnes <waltd...@waltdnes.org>
>
