Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 12 May 2020 13:57:34 +0200
From:      Polytropon <>
To:        Maciej Suszko <>
Subject:   Re: Microsoft Teams for Linux
Message-ID:  <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References:  <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Tue, 12 May 2020 13:35:26 +0200, Maciej Suszko wrote:
> On 5/12/20 1:21 PM, Polytropon wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 May 2020 07:11:16 -0400, Jerry wrote:
> >> It is my understanding that FreeBSD does not support Google Chrome.
> >> That is not Microsoft's fault. That is a failure on the part of
> >> FreeBSD. You should be taking the problem up with them, or perhaps
> >> Google. Whether there is no one willing to maintain the port, or a
> >> systemic failure on the part of FreeBSD is the real question here.
> > 
> > As Chrome, unlike Chromium, is not distributed in source form
> > (i. e., it is not open source), distribution would only be
> > possible as a binary blob, as for example nVidia does it.
> > The interesting question could be: Why does nVidia provide
> > a binary blob used by the FreeBSD port, and Google does not?
> > You would guess that a graphics driver is much more dependent
> > on bein tied closely both to the OS and to X, whereas a web
> > browser is, more or less, "just" a user application program
> > that should be quite portable.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >> The bottom line is this in not Microsoft's fault.
> > 
> > That is correct. Chrome is supported, Chromium is not.
> > And Chrome is not Chromium. And not Firefox.
> What's the difference between Chrome and Chromium that is a stopper for
> Microsoft to support this browser? What's wrong with Firefox that it
> can't be used... or maybe what it lacks?

That's a good question! As you know, Chrome "enhances" Chromium
with certain functions, such as video and audio codecs (might be
important here) as well as autoupdater (which performs the task
a system-controlled updating mechanism is supposed to do), or
it is about the DRM (digital restrictions management) stuff that
is "important" for a working video conferencing tool? By "important",
I do not imply "neccessary" - two totally different things. But
if a certain web app makes itself dependent on functions found
in Chrome, but not in Chromium, it's obvious that it won't work
in anything else; however it's still a valid question _why_ such
a decision has been made...

Yes, I can actually imagine the codecs and the DRM that are
present in Chrome, but not in Chromium, are the "Google
extensions" that are required.

> So we have the situation having two modern browsers mostly useless in
> such web applications.

Correct. As I mentioned earlier, web browsers have become a very
complex thing comparable to an operating system - it they are
also _used_ like operating systems, i. e., distinct platforms
to run web code (as opposed to native code) on; of course the
metaphor "write once, run everywhere" that more or less used
to be true for HTML content doesn't apply anymore. A web app
can be very specific about which browser you can use, and what
version of said browser is required. If you don't match those
exact requirements - no soup for you.

Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...

Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>