[anon3_]

> That would prove nothing since there'd be no evidence to back up said statement and that the statement originates from someone on Google's payroll to begin with.

Are you new or unfamiliar with free software? Open source software and web browsers of all things shouldn't have any need for secret code.

It's highly suggestive.

> If you're really that paranoid about closed source components within Google Chrome then the only recourse is not to use Google Chrome. Thankfully the alternatives are plentiful.

Sure, why don't we just leave our countries to go live somewhere else when things don't go our way? Why not just give up?

[laumars]

> Are you new or unfamiliar with free software? Open source software and web browsers of all things shouldn't have any need for secret code. It's highly suggestive.

Indeed. But that doesn't change my statement.

> Sure, why don't we just leave our countries to go live somewhere else when things don't go our way? Why not just give up?

Because you'd still have the same browser choices if you did move :p

In all seriousness though, what are your options:

1. fork Chromium and remove the closed components

2. use another browser

3. moan on the internet

You've got 3 nailed but that doesn't seem to be helping the situation. So maybe you should start a fork instead? Or perhaps go with my suggestion of boycotting Chromium since it actually turns out to be the easiest practical solution despite your exaggerative remark.

[anon3_]

> In all seriousness though, what are your options:

An obvious one, getting an explanation from the vendor / upstream before we proceed to any decision.

Vendors do tend to care about us.

> 1. fork Chromium and remove the closed components

It's normal to have a collection of patches in the package file / port.

> 2. use another browser > 3. moan on the internet

Issue trackers (such as one in the aforementioned posts) allow attachments / patches. They tend to be constructive.

[laumars]

> An obvious one, getting an explanation from the vendor / upstream before we proceed to any decision.

I'd already addressed that. In fact you quoted it when you posted your condescending reply. An explanation is worthless if the code cannot be reviewed. Such a feature should either be opt-in and/or open source.

I couldn't care less what explanation Google give, I just don't want this built into my browser.

> It's normal to have a collection of patches in the package file / port.

It is, but then you're relying on your package maintainers to patch Chromium (or compile the software yourself). Thus personally I think it's easier just to use another browser which doesn't need to be patched to remove an unwanted feature.