Quoting Adam Borowski ([email protected]): > Most people seem to be using these two names interchangeably, even though, > as you rightfully point, they do differ. I did not go into a tangent of > correcting this as it was not relevant to bashing PulseAudio.
'Ah, the rare valid point', as Josh Lyman said in one of my favourite West Wing episodes. Fair enough. > But, chromium as in Debian/Devuan is not good either: > https://bugs.debian.org/792580 claims it phones home even in "incognito" > mode -- and not just to update extensions or some such, but to freaking > Google Analytics. No kidding! Wow, I didn't know that. This bug nicely underlines the point (that I often make, FWIW) that Google Chrome / Chromium is from a firm much more massively in conflict of interest than is the sponsor of Firefox (though the funding of Mozilla, Inc. creates a significant problem, too). Good work on the part of the bug-submitter who thought to vet Chromium's behaviour using Wireshark. That should probably be a standard check on all code coming from ad-supported commercial enterprises. > > The Chromium extensions programming interface is impoverished compared > > to XUL / XPCOM, but uMatrix and uBlock Origin are decent. > > These don't seem anywhere as functional as Adblock (real, not WebExtension) > or Request Policy. No, they're not. That's why I said they're merely 'decent', but hindered by Chromium's impoverished extensions programming interface (soon to be matched by Firefox's ;-> ). _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list [email protected] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
