From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1QSWoU-0002HU-3x for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 03 Jun 2011 16:01:30 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F2BA91C0D3; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 15:59:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ww0-f53.google.com (mail-ww0-f53.google.com [74.125.82.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1A1A1C0D3 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 15:59:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wwj40 with SMTP id 40so1644048wwj.10 for ; Fri, 03 Jun 2011 08:59:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references :in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :message-id; bh=xM7vpedsOnSf8USeBXIBK3CVtQ3I+33TaVtNWk8lMxI=; b=rCTL82+uk0820wi/nghCY2yQ3lWxlhE4sGCQrVIYEEs7FyDK6/pMSC5loiLgC4tQ6F ex/U7eA+zaCAF19347FZSqJBUskiw7vVYybsYB9ge0ZHk7nT/qSsIBOZy+1rZv4ZOl4D BT0oXnZHx+12+xirwOhobg/NaUzXNYT6ZUXjc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; b=i98yFqGIhNyWb7DCMcywwsl7otmpXoEYHv61jPHSPU4DiuQHAOeSAol3Gch9epfER0 yrzDt5lReCMedxne1vjJT42RvFKGbIodP14429IbvbCYWWgeSqlwUIlCetb+XLYh71dE y2gc1yBBBnv+3C76EFSqmZg4sfEgeck2+0R0A= Received: by 10.227.178.135 with SMTP id bm7mr2069526wbb.52.1307116775830; Fri, 03 Jun 2011 08:59:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nazgul.localnet (196-210-183-215.dynamic.isadsl.co.za [196.210.183.215]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o19sm1130605wbh.55.2011.06.03.08.59.31 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 03 Jun 2011 08:59:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Alan McKinnon To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: chrome and everything Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 17:58:46 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/2.6.39-ck; KDE/4.6.3; x86_64; ; ) References: <20110603111229.GA12797@gaurahari.merseine.nu> In-Reply-To: <20110603111229.GA12797@gaurahari.merseine.nu> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201106031758.46907.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 6eeec2b1796f5112de764ffe4b156d3c Apparently, though unproven, at 13:12 on Friday 03 June 2011, Indi did opine thusly: > On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 09:20:01AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: > > Compare how Google goes about doing things with how Adobe does it. > > > > The Google Chromium team appears to take security seriously and are open > > and up-front about what they do. > > > > Adobe likes to stonewall on issues and create an aura of how sekrit stuff > > is. > > > > Which one inspires confidence in fellow geeks? > > Neither. Adobe is utterly incompetent and apathetic, google is evil > and wants to sell ad space for h3rb41 v14gr4 in your brain. > > Flash is a necessary evil for a lot of us, chrome(ium) is not. I think of it more a case of there being no viable alternative to Flash[1] whereas Chrom{e,ium} is just one more browser amongst many. I use Flash myself even though I hate the way it performs. [1] There are flash alternatives, but by and large only support out of date features, so they are not really "viable". -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com