Happy third birthday, Chrome
googleblog.blogspot.com
googleblog.blogspot.com
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
You're free to go and (try to) disprove this by compiling Chromium so you can compare it with Chrome.
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.
I honestly don't see how it is pedantic or distracting. But I am glad we agree on the facts.
> Rather than complain, we give Google credit for the 99% of Chrome's code that is open source.
That supports my point, I think. I am being modded down in part because people want to praise Google for that 99%, just as you said now. However, that 99% - which is well and good - does not change that Google erred here (and elsewhere) about calling Chrome open source.
You are overlooking that because you like Google overall. But you don't need to always support or always berate Google. You should support it when it does good - which it often does - and berate it when it does bad - which it did right here.
As for my motives, I don't think you know me.
You can call it an oversimplification, I am ok with that. We agree on the facts and that there is an inaccuracy here, the rest is semantics.
As to this specific thing - I did not intend to challenge character or motive.
My point was that by saying "Rather than complain, we give Google credit for the 99% of Chrome's code that is open source", it is clear that Google is being given a pass on mistakes because of the other good things it does. There is a false choice implied in that quote - as if we must either like Google and praise it, or dislike Google and berate it. Instead, we should either praise or berate Google depending on what it actually does. And right here, it did do something wrong.
I hope that clarifies what I was trying to say before.
Seems like just the other day.
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.