Talk:Chromium (web browser)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

history

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

I agree that would be a good addition! Got any refs for that? - Ahunt (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

They both look the same to me - are you sure it wasn't a "caching" problem? - Ahunt (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

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://upload.wikimedia.org/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)

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)

Is this a Google project?

 Done

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

Not according to the project's homepage. It is an open source project that Google sponsors. - Ahunt (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! I never was able to figure that out. --Nathan2055^talk 22:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem - collaboration works! (Thanks for the cookie) - Ahunt (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

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/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)

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)

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)

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)

Its similar to Firefox, no mention there. Widefox (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Spotify...

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Removed it. However I don't really get why Chromium and Chrome are two separate articles, that just makes it a mess. --pcworld (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Mostly because they are two different projects. Chrome is just one browser of many based upon Chromium. - Ahunt (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

IMO this point needs to be made more obvious in the article. It IS clear in the lede but then in the History the two almost immediatley become conflated. If the two are separate projects (and please God that Chromium long manages to remain so) then the history should be from Chromium's perspective. When was it began, and how, and by who? What other browsers were also first, if that was the case? At the moment the history begins in 2008 with the words:

Google Chrome was first introduced in September 2008, and along with its release, the Chromium source code was also made available

This clearly presents Google as the originating actor in the tale, a fact which is only amplified by the preceding section that states the differences from Google Chrome - surely this should be the differences between the browsers based on Chromium (so presently a Category Error?). LookingGlass (talk) 09:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Blink and differences between Chrome and Chromium

Hi, I assumed since http://www.chromium.org/blink "Blink is the rendering engine used by Chromium."

and Chrome (28) has Blink_(layout_engine), Chromium (29) web browser does also.

See revert of my change: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chromium_%28web_browser%29&diff=556872608&oldid=556762394

Maybe this needs to be clarified why Blink (or other features of Chrome) are not in Chromium? Comp.arch (talk) 10:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Licensing -- code allegedly lacks free-as-in-freedom license

Here is a sentence in the article that seems flat out wrong:

As of August 2013, some parts of the code lack an appropriate free license.[2]

https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=28291

Bug#28291: "Pass the Ubuntu license check script". 19 November 2009.

This sentence has been around for quite a long time, with the as-of-datestamp portion updated from time to time. The 'source' being cited is in the chromium bugtracker, which is not really a reliable third party source. More importantly, I think the sentence is not justified by the source. The source is a long-running bug, which is about *automated license-text verification* by a test-script. There are bugs in the test-script from time to time, and there are 'bugs' in the licensing-sentences of the unreasonably gigantic codebase from time to time. But these are not places in the codebase where the actual license, as interpreted by a human, would be considered non-free; they are merely places where the automated-license-verification-script fails to parse things correctly. That is what the source in question is talking about. Rather than being an indication that some parts of the code lack a free license, it is instead evidence that the google chromium folks are trying quite hard to make sure every file in the codebase has a well-documented and automatically-verifiable free license! The proof is in the pudding, of course: debian[1], fedora[2], and various other freedom-conscious distros include chromium in their repos. GoogleChrome is excluded from freedom-conscious distros for proprietary-licensing reasons -- chromium definitely is not in that category.

That said, there *is* something that keeps chromium from being available in many Linux distros: churn, and failure to upstream that churn. (Android was originally entirely outside the Linux kernel, but is now mostly integrated upstream, so perhaps this is a temporary state for chromium?) Here is Fedora[3] and Debian[4] kicking out chromium from their 'official' repos, with no mention of licensing-related concerns. These links are a couple years old now, and it seems that the default Lubuntu browser is chromium, and maybe soon the default Ubuntu browser as well. So perhaps the churn-related-difficulties are being resolved.

Anyhoo, tl;dr, I have removed the offending sentence from the article -- the 'source' cited does not say what the sentence claims. If anybody wants to re-add the sentence, please cite something that says it, preferably a third party reliable source, of course. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Your arguments make sense so I have removed it from the article. - Ahunt (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Your speed is impressive and my head is spinning.  :-) I had the article open in another tab, and went to edit it, and when I clicked edit on the Licensing section, the sentence was gone... so then I clicked edit on the full article, and the sentence was *still* gone, but when I clicked back there it still was (pulled from my browser's cache). I was about to file a bug against wikipedia, but then I thought to check the article-history, and saw you had fixed it for me. Thanks. I think that the package-churn stuff is probably useful info, so I'm going to add that. I'm not saying exactly where, though, cause this time around *I'm* making the edit. <grin> 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

LOL, Wikipedia is the "real time" encyclopedia! That is team work! - Ahunt (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Ordering by relevance, rather than by alphabet, in community-builds section

Hello, Ahunt and others. Thanks for cleaning up my rough draft of the community-builds section. I see a problem, however: some crucial information, which I encoded positionally, has been lost. Currently the list of community-builds is sorted alphabetically-by-OS then alphabetically-by-distro-name. Originally, when I revamped the section, I placed the browser-implementations into distro-family groupings, rather than OS-superfamily, and furthermore, organized them internally by prominence-of-chromium-build, rather than alphabetically. Here is the my old version.[5] When this was re-ordered by Ahunt, they left a comment saying "re-org into labeled groups, as previous org did not work" ... which means what exactly? Notice my sneaky insertion of cite-needed tags! Burn!  :-) Did not render correctly for readers? Did not convey some sort of information well enough? Did not comply with some kind of list-heuristic-wikipedia-policy? In other words, I do not understand the problem. For convenience here is the listing of distro-names in short form:

(5 DEB-based). Lubuntu (default), Joli (rebranded default), Ubuntu (under consideration as default), PuppyLinux (Precise/Wary/Lucid re-spins 'unofficially' support), Debian (available but controversial)

(5 TGZ-based). Gentoo (official repo top-five recommended and top-two-or-three stable), Arch Linux (official repo), Slacko Pup (official repo), Slackware (allegedly available), Pardus (allegedly available)

(4 BSD-based). FreeBSD (official repo & chromium dev says impressive-considering-it-is-bsd), OpenBSD (same comment -- highlighted as one of top two), OSX (unofficial repo), PCLinuxOS (allegedly available)

(5.5 RPM-based). ALT Linux (stable but special flags needed), Mageia (official repo methinks), Fedora (unofficial repo but controversial), openSUSE (available), CentOS (allegedly available), RHEL (maybe cf CentOS)

(3 historical). PartedMagic (previously the default browser circa 2011 but no longer), Maemo (project now dead), MeeGo (project now dead).

(1 EXE-based). GoogleChrome (which is officially a 'downstream' build of the chromium source... and highlights the Notable fact that only Google provides a Windows chromium-variant)

Would it help if the family-group-names (deb/tgz/rpm/etc) I explicitly used here were incorporated into the article? Would it help if OSX got to have a family-group-name all by itself? Note that the ordering by 'prominence' within the family-groups is definitely subject to interpretation. I originally had Joli at the bottom of the DEB-family, for instance, but chromium is the default browser there, so I moved it up to be next to Lubuntu in the shortlisting above. For contrast, here is the organization into OS-super-family and then alphabetical-by-distro-name:

(three BSD starts with B). FreeBSD, OpenBSD, PCLinuxOS ... which despite the name is BSD-based methinks!

(fifteen-and-three-quarters Linux starts with L). ALT, Arch, CentOS/RHEL, Debian, Fedora, Gentoo, Joli, Lubuntu, Maemo, Mageia, MeeGo, openSUSE, PartedMagic, Puppy/Precise/Wary/Lucid && SlackoPup, Ubuntu.

(one OSX starts with O). OSX.

(one Windows starts with W). GoogleChrome

Note that I've made a couple corrections alphabetizing here... in particular, openSUSE was originally next to Gentoo for some reason. Now, an obvious advantage of using distro-family-groups instead of OS-super-families is that we don't have OSX all by itself (WP:UNDUE) and we also don't have discontinued projects like Maemo (WP:UNDUE) lumped in with active projects like Gentoo. One compromise would be to keep the bsd/linux/osx sections (although I would prefer combining bsd+osx I don't really care enough to whine about it beyond this rparen), but to split the list of Linux-distros into family-groups. Like this:

(3or2 BSD starts with B). FreeBSD, OpenBSD, PCLinuxOS*** ... 'controversial' placement, but despite the name is BSD-based methinks!

(5 Linux starts with L + DEB starts with D). Debian, Joli, Lubuntu, Puppy#1 (Precise/Wary/Lucid), Ubuntu.

(5.5 Linux starts with L + RPM starts with R). ALT, CentOS/RHEL, Fedora, Mageia, openSUSE,

(3to5 Linux starts with L + TGZ starts with T). Arch, Gentoo, Puppy#2*** (SlackoPup), Slackware***, Pardus*** 'controversial' inclusions that may need better sourcing(?)

(3 Linux starts with L + VeryOldAndDiscontinued starts with V). Maemo, MeeGo, PartedMagic,

(one OSX starts with O). OSX. ... alternatively could be placed with the other BSD-variants 'controversially'

(one Windows starts with W). GoogleChrome*** 'controversial' inclusion, see comment above by me, plus comment elsewhere on talkpage by others

Some of the entries are marked with asterisks, where it is disputed whether they should be included. I don't care where pcLinuxOS is categorized, but I do think the refs I provided for SlackoPup were sufficient; chromium is in the official repo, and it is an official-blessed-by-the-distro-creator Puppy Linux spin (as opposed to the hundreds of community-pups which are not), so I think it qualifies as sufficiently Notable to be in the listing here. Slackware & Pardus, meh, but I'd rather we at least did a two-minute bit of googling to see if we can turn up any chromium cites for them -- they are TGZ, so almost certainly *some* person has compiled chromium for them, even if the effort was unsuccessful in the end. Slackware is historically a very Notable distro, of course, and even today is still somewhat strong on servers.

Anyways, if you dislike the idea of a splitting the Linux distros into four smaller lists, then I would suggest we need to bite the bullet and go with a table. That could be sorted by OS-then-distro-name alphabetically, as the default, but we can also add a package-management column (DEB/RPM/whatnot) and an active column (for e.g. historical meego). This approach would also permit adding a color-coded column indicating how well-supported chromium is on the distro (default browser / official repo / unofficial repo / controversial repo / compile and pray / known not to work / banned by the founder / etc).

Let me know your thoughts please. Once you have figured out what you think the best approach is, I don't mind doing some of the editing-work; ping my on my talkpage. Alternatively, if you like the split-linux idea, or you like the table idea, and want to edit immediately, don't let worrying about what I might think stop you, just go for it. WP:BOLD Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing the discussion here. I saw your original organization but it contained lots of errors and didn't make any organizational sense to a casual reader. For instance Puppy is not Ubuntu-based. Some versions of Puppy have used some application binaries from Ubuntu, but the distro itself is independent. There were lots more like that included. Even if all those mistakes were addressed the list would still be very confusing to readers. Why is there a need to list the distros in anything but alphabetical order? Who is going to look though them by family? What benefit is there for the reader to do that? In looking at what we have for a list right now I think it needs to be simplified and cut down further, not expanded or turned into a table. I would suggest making it just a simple list of distros that carry Chromium without any text details on when and where.

Keep in mind that this list was started when Chromium was new and few distros had builds available. Since most operating systems and most distros now carry it, I think a good argument could be that the list could simply be eliminated altogether. In comparison we don't list all the individual operating systems and distros that have Firefox, SeaMonkey, Epiphany or other browsers available. - Ahunt (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Having reviewed this discussion and the section in question carefully I have a more extensive proposal. Since other browser articles do not list the operating systems in detail that offer them (only a very short "Linux, Mac, Windows" list) I don't see why this browser should. As I noted above this list was started when only a few Linux distros offered Chromium, but now they pretty much all do. Listing them all would run to at least several hundred distros and would run afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Given that fact, I proposed that the list be removed entirely, leaving just the lead section statement under Community builds: "Most Linux and BSD variants offer 32-bit and 64-bit Chromium in their software repositories. Chromium has also been compiled by third party developers for use with Microsoft Windows and OS X." When the introduction of Chromium to a distro was notable then it should be added in the article History section under the version which was first introduced instead. - Ahunt (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Ahunt, thanks for your response. I'm a bit swamped now, but I'm still interested in this topic. I agree my original needed some fixing, and I appreciate your teamwork fixing it up. However, not all your corrections were of actual mistakes -- I swear that PrecisePup is an ubuntu-based distro. Barry is the founder of Puppy Linux, and uses the T2 environment to recompile 'the puppy app suite' so as to run on top of the distro of his choice. Recently his choice has been Ubuntu. Look it up if you wish, or I'll come back and provide additional refs (but I think I cited refs in my original edit that might give you what you need). As to the benefits of listing by family... if you run CentOS, you can download and run almost any RPM, either via EPEL, or via Dag Wieers, or similar repos. But getting a dot DEB to run is quite hard. If you run ubuntu/debian/precisePup/kubuntu/xubuntu/lubuntu/crunchbang, you can download and run most any DEB, but getting an RPM to work is quite hard. Lubuntu is for low-ram boxen, PrecisePup is for low-hassle, Kubuntu is for KDE fans, debian is for webservers (among other things). But they are all ubuntu-family-of-apps distros... and this article is about an app, chromium.

   If chromium is available as a DEB, it is probably available for ubuntu, and then getting it to work for precise-pup is minimally difficult. But if there is no RPM, getting it to work for fedora is rough (see the dispute fedora folks have with google about the package-churn ... debian folks have the same dispute but ubuntu folks do not). Anyways, the bottom line is, google offers chrome downloads, with proprietary special sauce, for both RPM and DEB. People that do not want the proprietary sauce, or that want better control over how much data their browser sends to google servers, will want chromium... and whether they can get it working depends on packaging-family. So I think of organizing it by family as a reader service... and also as a reflection of relative notability. Once it is running on FreeBSD, it is not surprising that it runs on OpenBSD, right? Little work required. Getting it to OSX is way more difficult. Getting it from BSD/OSX into DEB is difficult. The canyon from DEB to RPM is not as wide as the chasm from DEB to BSD, but it is arguably as wide as the canyon separating OSX from BSD, and is definitely wider than the line in the sand separating FreeBSD from OpenBSD.

   Anyhoo, I think the family-groupings are useful, but I'd be just as happy with a sortable table, since not all readers will be interested in family groupings. I've tried to explain why I think the readers would care, above. There is also the reason why historians would care: although you claim that chromium is available for all systems, it is still historically interesting which order they appeared. Notability is not temporary, as the relevant wikipedia saying goes. But more importantly, there is an ongoing battle for market share, right this minute, between the google-branded-chrome, and the freedom-branded-chromium. That's why I made it to this article, in fact, was researching the browser-wars. They are not over, by any stretch. Arguably they have only begun: mobile platforms tend to be walled gardens, and just like trench warfare in WWI, the ability to consolidate a strong position and defend it against seemingly-overwhelming external force means that warfare could go on a long time. Wikipedia is currently not documenting this war, because it is seen as commercial (who cares if apple or google or microsoft has more users? not encyclopedic by brittanica standards). This is flat wrong. The browser wars are commercial, but they are also ideological: the license of EULA-derived Win8, BSD-derived OSX, GPL+BSD-derived Android, and GPL3-dual-license UbuntuPhone are *not* all about which company has better marketing and sleeker-looking products. Look at the history of wikipedia -- it was an example of Bomis Inc managing to beat Microsoft Corp and Scholastic Inc for the online encyclopedia market-share, sure... but it was also an example of *freedom* trumping the *payware*. And arguably, that is still an ongoing battle; many wikipedia services we rely on every day are closed-source, for instance.

   I will return when I have more time to devote to fixing up the article, but if you see the need to simplify, I would agree. Rather than deleting, though, I strongly suggest we should instead make a collapse-top and collapse-bottom section with the table I'm suggesting (which I will draft when I can). That way, the casual reader can see something like "as of 2011 chromium was ported to all platforms, but as of 2013 there is an ongoing battle for marketshare against partially-proprietary google chrome, and against other web browsers, see table for details". Thanks for improving wikipedia, See you around. Ping my talkpage if you get impatient waiting. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I agreed above that when we know which operating system introduced Chromium that should be recorded, but in the "history" section under the applicable Chromium version that was introduced. Otherwise I don't see the point of a very incomplete list of distros that have Chromium available, regardless of how they are organized. Basically because Chromium is now available for just about every operating system the list is only incomplete and non-notable, which is why you don't see a similar list for other browsers. - Ahunt (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will draft such a list (not today though), and see if you find it more notable when there is something concrete to discuss. I doubt it will be a complete list... just because some blogger somewhere compiled chromium for distro $foo at one point, does not make the event notable, even if chromium is 'available' for that distro in some pedantic sense. As for it being available on 'every operating system', please reflect on the most popular operating system ... and ask yourself why there is no chromium there? But my main point is that chromium's fate is part of a larger bit of history, the N-way battle amongst proprietary EULAs/SaaS, freemium TOSes, vastly-proprietarized-BSDs, somewhat-proprietarized-BSDs, dual-licensed-GPLs, and so on. The introduction of chromium onto any given OS might be a historical footnote, now... but the current mindshare/marketshare of chromium vs chrome vs firefox vs others on that platform remains a notable topic (and of course is tightly entwined with EULA/BSD/GPL wars). Anyways, thanks for wading through the wall of text. If you do decide that the list needs immediate slimming, go ahead, but if you don't mind, please leave some diff-links here on the talkpage, so I can easily pull old versions when I start working on my draft table. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, well given that there has been no more discussion or action on this item for two weeks now I am going to go ahead and do that, as I discussed above. - Ahunt (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

freedom vs freemium

I have made a few quick edits, to illustrate my point about ideological-slash-licensing battles. Most of the differences between chrome and chromium are driven by the license, trademark, or patent issues. This has wide-ranging impacts, from the name of the project (chromium is not trademarked by google) to the way auto-updates happen, plus a variety of 'plugin' features like flash/video/audio/pdf/etc. In some ways you can look at these things as merely value-add features, but in general you cannot. The announcement by google that they would drop H.264 makes zero sense, until you know that apple and microsoft have patents in that space, and that iOS relies solely on AAC, and that Google introduced theora/webm/etc in a bid to unseat Apple's proprietary de facto standard... but google lost. Brendan Eich of firefox-slash-mozilla fame is urging firefox to give up the battle, and adopt H.264 now, as well. (The public statement by google was back when firefox and google were still on the same 'team' in terms of licensing-ideology.) HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

how change preview release version?

i update preview version to 34.0.1769.0 in [+/-] but yet has 34.0.1758.0 like change to update version.

--Patrios (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It might be a wiki database issue, there have been a few of those in the last few days, just running slowly. - Ahunt (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

History section needs summarising

The history section of this article is overly detailed. It is also rather long compared to the rest of the article. Perhaps it should be split off into a separate article and a summary placed here. In any case, not every release is noteworthy. The history should contain the most significant events concerning Chromium and not become a diary or log over every bug fix. Rincewind42 (talk) 14:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The history is a summary of the highlights of each release only. Please consider too that the level of detail in this article was 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". So obvioulsy it is serving a reader need. - Ahunt (talk) 12:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

There are a great deal of things Wikipedia could include that would be useful to some or even many readers. However, Wikipedia is not a great deal of things. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. The current history section might find a place in an article titled History of Chromium (web browser) or List of Chromium releases but not here. Rincewind42 (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah thanks for the lesson on Wikipedia. I have actually edited here a bit and am familiar with WP policy. Articles are written so that readers will read them. I disagree that the history section should be split, as the remaining article would be little more than a stub. - Ahunt (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's use a table. Here's an example:

Chrome version	Initial release date	Initial release version	Last release date	Last release version	Notes
50.0	18 January 2016	50.0.2624.0	13 April 2016	50.0.2661.75	Bugfix release, with 20 security fixes implemented.
51.0	28 February 2016	51.0.2662.0	25 May 2016	51.0.2704.63	Bugfix release, with 42 security fixes implemented.
52.0
53.0
54.0	2 July 2016	54.0.2786.0	?	?
55.0	27 August 2016	55.0.2841.0	?	?
60.0	TBA	Unreleased	Un­known	Unreleased	Major new features include X, Y, Z (example).

All this needs is marking {{beta}} or {{experimental}} for upcoming release, and maybe a table row for {{nightly}} if that's a good idea. We can use {{yes}} to mark "supported release" and {{no2}} for unsupported.

Pinging @Ahunt: for opinions. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

That is an interesting idea. The main objections I can think of is that the earlier versions had extensive changes that wouldn't fit into table format very well. Would we do some years as a table and some as text? The other thing is that the table you have added seems to just end up as WP:NOTCHANGELOG. The other factor is that the existing format of the article has been singled out in the tech press, Gary Richmond of Free Software Magazine wrote in his article Google Chromium, Chromeplus and Iron Browser: Why Source code and Distribution Models Matter "Wikipedia has an excellent feature and release timeline summary". So that tends to indicate that the current way of doing it is useful to readers.

I do agree that the last couple of years' summaries have become repetitious, but that us due to the fact that few new features have been incorporated in the browser, it seems to be just bug fixes now. Perhaps it would be better if I rework the last few years to cut them down and summarize them to reduce repetition? I would be happy to give that a try and you can see if that improves things. - Ahunt (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ahunt: Do like in Firefox release history, move the history to its seperate page. Tag the history section in this article with Template:Main article. See Firefox § Release history for an example. I agree with the original notion in this discussion. The version history will be still available and should not disrupt the press article reference on release timeline summary. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

While the version history can be split off into a separate article the remaining Chromium article will be quite short. How about I start with compressing what is there now as I described and we can see if it still needs splitting then? - Ahunt (talk) 14:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ahunt: As you'd like. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I should have a chance to do that later on today. I'll leave a note here when done. - Ahunt (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay I have read through all of the history section and have combined entries where there was more than one version that was just a security/bug-fix version. These were all in the last two years. My concept was that newer versions would not get mentioned unless there were significant changes, like there were in the early development stages. See what you think. - Ahunt (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ahunt: It's better, though I still favor the idea of using tables in the future. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The main problem with going to tables is capturing some of the complex changes and the controversies, like with Chromium 43.0, for instance. Adding in that sort of thing to a table would make it very long. As new releases come out I'll build up this year's section and perhaps combine them over time if no new stories beyond security/bug fixes appear. We ca revisit this issue at year end and see how it looks then, if you like. - Ahunt (talk) 10:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ahunt: I'm not saying of completely removing the prose, but instead adding tables to help the flow. Is List of AMD graphics processing units a better example of what I'm talking about? It's a bit more difficult to apply to this article, however. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I think that would be hard to do here, just due the complex text descriptions required. - Ahunt (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

360 Secure Browser

A number of editors have added 360 Secure Browser as a browser based on Chromium. The refs cited don't say it is based on Chromium. The company website says only that it uses both WebKit and the proprietary Microsoft Trident layout engines. We really need a ref that says that this is Chromium-based to include it, so I have removed it until one can be found. - Ahunt (talk) 12:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Windows XP support

Windows XP support is declared in the "operation system" item of the web browser Infobox, but the latest build doesn't support XP. IMHO info in the web browser infobox should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Komsomolec 1 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a ref that shows that it is no longer running on XP? - Ahunt (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I came here to ask the same thing! It's not possible to run on Vista, either; the developers have started pulling out XP and Vista code. Do these pages work as references or are they ineligible due to being a primary source? http://chromium.woolyss.com/ https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=579196 --Fritzophrenic (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The http://woolyss.com/ ref doesn't seem to be a WP:RS, but the bug report is. The only confusion is that the official announcement indicates just XP is no longer supported, but the bug report says XP/Vista. That seems odd as Windows Vista support continues until 11 April 2017. - Ahunt (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Cent Browser

This is a new browser released last year based on the chromium code. It needs to be added to the list. Majinsnake (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Auto-updating

Unlike Chrome releases, Chromium releases do not automatically update.

This applies to Windows, but not to packaged linux versions. As stated those usually are shipped via repositories, and usually do (auto-)update together with everything else from those repositories. I don't know about Mac OS. Is there a Chromium package in the desktop App Store?

Peetz0r (talk) 06:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Patent encumbered vs patented

A recent edit I made was reverted https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chromium_(web_browser)&oldid=prev&diff=721776084 To my mind calling something patent-encumbered, while not incorrect, implies a non-NPOV because of the negative connotations of the word encumbered. Am I just being sensitive? Talltim (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a bit like saying "non-free" has negative connotations. Yes, it probably does. So what? Context is important. The fact that some coding formats are patent-encumbered (which more or less means non-free) is verifiably something that prevents them from being used in many applications (including Wikipedia). So the negative aspect in this context (i.e. using patent-encumbered codecs in Chrome) is objectively verifiable and helps to explain the sentence, why they are not used in Chromium.

"Encumber" means "to cause problems or difficulties for (someone or something)"[6], "to impede or hinder; hamper; retard"[7] or "restrict or impede (someone or something) in such a way that free action or movement is difficult"[8]. All three meanings are verifiably correct in this context. The fact that the formats use patented methods of compression creates verifiable obstacles, by definition puts restrictions on their use and verifiably hinders, hampers their adoption. Which is why giant tech companies (even those that used to promote patent-encumbered formats in the past) now back up the royalty-free AOMedia Video 1.

I don't think it is something that should be concealed for fear of breaking "neutrality". Neutrality on Wikipedia does not mean not mentioning negative aspects (for example, Health effects of tobacco does not refrain from mentioning negative effects, as they are objectively attributable to reputable sources). In fact, some people may view excluding patent-encumbered codecs from Chromium as a positive thing. The article does not say whether it's good or bad, it only states the fact without judging it. Furthermore, "patent-encumbered" is a fairly commonly used term.

Anyway, as for "patented" vs. "patent-encumbered"—feel free to replace "patent-encumbered" with something different. But it must be correct. The codecs are not patented. Codecs are software (or hardware) implementations of coding formats, that is, codecs are typically programs or libraries. Nobody comes to a patent office to patent an AAC or MP3 codec. The same with coding formats (AAC or MP3 are coding formats), they are not patented either. A coding format simply uses many methods of coding or compression, and some of these methods are patented (either by the authors of the coding format, or by someone else). Coding formats which use patented methods are therefore patent-encumbered.—J. M. (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, your explanation of components of the codec being patented, rather than the whole thing makes sense, so thanks. Unless I can think of a better and non-wordy way of describing it I'll leave as is. Talltim (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chromium (web browser). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130607164906/http://my.opera.com/ODIN/blog/2013/05/28/a-first-peek-at-opera-15-for-computers to http://my.opera.com/ODIN/blog/2013/05/28/a-first-peek-at-opera-15-for-computers

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Checked archived URL to work, but replaced the original URL with a working URL in Special:Diff/751251243. Part of the fault is Opera's inability to redirect old URLs to new ones. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 10:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Confused and conflated still - Google muddying the water

@Ahunt: - pinging you just because you're doing all the work here it seems (and thanks for that!)

This story seems to me a decent example of guile vs guileless:- the Chromium browser; is developed by .. the Chromium project; .. and Chrome is borne, something apparently so similar and yet .. actually fundamentally distinct. IMO though the article isn't clear enough about this. The differences, and their importance, may be clear to me from the lede (maybe not to everyone fortune to stumble across this article though) but from there things immediately become conflated.

Surely the first section of the article - Differences from Google Chrome - should be titled: Differences from other browsers to avoid unintentionally immediately reinforcing the conflation of the two (no smoke without fire)? It seems Chrome/etc is/are subsets/forks of Chromium. If so they should be presented as that - even if Google/Chrome is the cuckoo in the nest. IMO though the section could be deleted, as if the lede has not made this essential point crystal it needs editing to do so.

Similarly, if Chromium (the Chromium Project) and Chrome are separate artifacts (and long may they manage to remain so) then the History section should be written from the perspective of Chromium. When was this begun, and how, and by who? What other browsers were (also?) first (if this was the case)? As it is the history of Chromium is begun well but again almost immediately becomes conflated with Google. Chromium's history begins in 2008 appearently, and the account opnes with the words:

Google Chrome was first introduced in September 2008

which appears clearly to state that the history of Chromium IS IN FACT the history of Chrome, but, if that were not clear/conflated, it continues:

and along with its (CHROME'S) release, the Chromium source code was also made available

also!?!

So, Google ends up being presented as the originating actor in the tale. And that's what I came away from the article with, even though I also had found out this wasn't true. But the muddying of Chromium and Chrome is powerful and pandemic so ANY prevarication or hesitancy or inferrence that can be read as reinforcing that "truth" will be read as such by those who find that account easier. Only reading the replies on this Talk page did I realize this wasn't the actual intent of the article! So, could someone add those key snippets of inormation that correct this perspectivee, and make the few "minor" edits they require, to remove unnecessarily adding to the conflation? IMO this is an important article, and such an important project. LookingGlass (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your notes here. The wording can certainly be changed for greater clarity, but the key thing is that in the beginning (2008) Chrome and Chromium were moderately different, over the earlier days of development became even more different (RLZ, proprietary PDF reader, etc) but over more recent years, as the project matured they have become much closer. These days Chrome is really just Chromium with a new logo and the proprietary Pepper Flash added. Other browsers based upon Chromium vary greatly. Some are just re-badged (ie Iron), while others have more changes. - Ahunt (talk) 11:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hiya! I don't agree that those differences listed in the article are as you seem to describe them: insignificant. Very far from it. Google would be the first to agree with me, if it were the simple honest Jo of its "alter ego". The reality though is that Google is an immense commercial incorporated multinational behemoth.

My interest in the difference between the Chromium and Chrome is not a technical one but a question of control/ownership/strategic intent etc. So the fact that Chromium and Chrome in the beginning were, technically, almost identical even, would not make any difference to their more fundamental distinction. On the other hand, muddying the distinction is a disservice to the truth of the matter which, in the end, and probably sadly, will out.LookingGlass (talk) 11:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The Chromium website states:-

"Chromium is an open-source browser project that aims to build a safer, faster, and more stable way for all Internet users to experience the web".

So it appears there is no Chromium browser. LookingGlass (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi back! No problem, we are here to write an article for non-technical readers, so that POV is fine to write from. LOL, I am writing this on Chromium 57.0.2987.98 (not Chrome) running on Lubuntu, so apparently there is a Chromium browser. As the lede second para I think makes clear, Google's initial intent was that Chromium would be the dev project and Chrome would be the released browser and that there would be no public offering of Chromium, but, especially in the Linux world, it didn't work out that way, as distros took the Chromium source code and compiled it.

So what would you suggest for wording? - Ahunt (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)'

Ulp! :D At this point I didn't envisage editing it myself. As you were writing I was adding a little to my perspective by way of my first reply to you above. Does that help you see how I would edit it, if I were to, which I don't think I am? Problem is I have only this moment heard of Chromium (getting waaaay sidetracked on a CSS text-rendering issue!)!! My comment re the Chromium website is just that - they say there is no browser. So, where did you get yours if not from their site, or is it "home-made" so to speak? LookingGlass (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

In the case of all the Ubuntu family of operating systems, which all share common software repositories, the source code was taken and complied into a binary and then made available in the repositories. Like all packages in Ubuntu, it has its own page.

Let me carefully go through what you have written above and make some changes to the article and then you can see what you think. - Ahunt (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

And now I'm flattered! I found the page on the Chromium Project site that refers to Chromium: https://www.chromium.org/getting-involved/download-chromium No mention of the latest stable release, just that Google doesn't release non-secure versions.

Anyway, reading through that page it looks like the folk at the Chromium Project don't recognise the difference between them and Google. Maybe that's their multinational vs. people blindness (not recognising the differences between a cell and the animal it's a part of - a metaphore, not a model). It reminds me of the vibe of those gentle folk who invented the software Microsoft gobbled up. Memory, history etc. LookingGlass (talk) 13:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Well there is no stable release, just automatic daily builds. Yeah it seems Google just thinks of Chromium as the basic materials from which Chrome is built. Other Linux distros have different ideas. Let me see what I can do here. - Ahunt (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay I have added some rewording to the lede as a start. Does that help? - Ahunt (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chromium (web browser). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.conceivablytech.com/10040/products/google-tweaks-chromes-interface-adds-prediction-details
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080918005705/http://www.codeweavers.com/services/ports/chromium/ to http://www.codeweavers.com/services/ports/chromium/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20131115172532/http://www.coolnovo.com/help.html?catalog=updatelog to http://www.coolnovo.com/help.html?catalog=updatelog

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2017

Can I edit this? LAND3RMusic (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

www.chromium.org

Ok, nice, but where can I find a link to download Chromium for Windows? Or I am blind... 85.193.235.48 (talk) 03:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

That link is in both the info box and the external links. That said there are no official sources of builds for Windows, because Google wants you to run Chrome not Chromium. - Ahunt (talk) 04:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

So you see two of them and I still can't see any. Could you please copy and paste that link here? I'm looking for a compiled binary version for Windows, not a source code. 85.193.235.48 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I think you missed what I meant: there are no official compiled binary versions for download for Windows that I know of. - Ahunt (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I thought that you meant a link to some unofficial build, the more so the external links had looked promising. Anyway thanks for your help :-) 85.193.235.48 (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

There may well be unofficial builds, but we wouldn't link to them as per WP:EL, mostly because who knows what has been added to them. - Ahunt (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

tech links please!

To aid non-tech folk, can someone provide good wikilinks under 'Differences from Google Chrome' eg. for these terms:

Is compiled, linked and packaged into an installer

Has an auto-update system

Thanks a lot. Onanoff (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Screenshot Langugge

The screenshot is in another language i think that is an issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minty tech (talk • contribs)

Why is that? - Ahunt (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it should be in English . That would make it slightly better. I'll upload an English one.Minty tech (talk) 09:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The main reason it was a non-English one was that we didn't have a recent version in English. - Ahunt (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Supported platforms by Chromium

1. Per Template:Infobox_software#Parameters

"If the software product is released for various families of different operating systems, (such as specific versions of BSD, Linux, macOS and Microsoft Windows) so that listing them in the infobox gives it undue length, please leave the details to article body and specify:

   BSD, Linux, macOS and Microsoft Windows"

so even if OpenBSD and FreeBSD are supported *officially* by Chromium, it should be pointed only to *BSD*.

2. The page([9]) you are refer to as the "technical documentation" is just a simple list about all Linux distros and other Unix-like systems that package/compile Chromium and provide it via their repositories. In the same page it is clearly written:

"Are you packaging Chromium for a Linux distro? Is the information above out of date? Please contact thestig@chromium.org with updates."

so it is not a list about Linux/BSD distros that are supported officially by Chromium, just a list about which distros provide it as compiled/packaged.

3. When someone decide to download Chromium via its official website, he never search the source files in the googlesource.com !! he just go to https://www.chromium.org/getting-involved/download-chromium and there is a link to download with the title "Easy Point and Click for latest build:" in the link it is clearly written:

"Supported Platforms: Chromium for Windows x86 || Chromium for Windows x64 || Chromium for Mac || Chromium for Linux x86 || Chromium for Linux x64 || Chromium OS for Linux || Chromium for Android"

another method has the title "Not-as-easy steps:" and its 2nd step says:

"Choose your platform: Mac, Win, Linux, ChromiumOS"

please show us the BSD!

4. Per https://wiki.freebsd.org/Chromium :

"The Chromium web browser is ported to FreeBSD on an ongoing basis. Most functionality has been ported but some Linux-specific code remains."

and per https://www.freshports.org/www/chromium/ :

"Maintainer: chromium at FreeBSD.org"

it clearly says Chromium is a port from Linux to FreeBSD by FreeBSD developers. I can find similar results for OpenBSD but don't have time.

So Chromium does not support BSDs officially, next time first discuss in the talk page to solve the disagreements. Editor-1 (talk) 04:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Specify 3-clause BSD license?

This article says that Chromium is released under the "BSD license", but there's multiple BSD licenses. Should the article be modified to be more specific and state that the project is licensed under the 3-clause BSD license? Sebastian^{Talk | Contrib.} - 16:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure as long as there is a ref for it! - Ahunt (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Chromium uses Google web services

And user Ahunt wants to keep that secret. I think the fact should be disclosed. --Palosirkka (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It is WP:SPAM, the text makes no sense because it is out of context and it doesn't belong in the lede para, regardless. - Ahunt (talk) 11:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It's obviously not spam. Where would you place it then if not into the lede? --Palosirkka (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Probably in a new section after "Licensing", but it would need a whole lot better refs cited than promoting someone's self-published github project, see WP:SPS. To add this it would need much more explanation and context, plus some proper third party WP:RS to explain the issues. - Ahunt (talk) 12:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

There was some scattered coverage of "Ungoogled" Chromium in 2016. Here, for example. And from the Github pull requests, the project still looks like it's under active development. So maybe the project itself is worth a mention in the "Active" list, but not more, as it got only minor attention 4 years ago and almost nothing since. Barte (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Here's a couple more [10] and [11]. --Palosirkka (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Iridium Browser

To the page maintainer(s), FYI: Iridium Browser is based on Chromium, is actively maintained, and appears to be missing from the current list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.175.37.58 (talk)

It is not listed because we do not have an article about it on en.wikipedia to link to. We only list notable derivatives, because it is trivially easy to take the Chromium source code, add a new logo and put out a "new" derivative. If an article about it was started than we could link it here. - Ahunt (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)