I see the disconnect now. You’re mistaking “open source” for 'inherently good."
Because the source code is preloaded with Google crap which infringes heavily on the privacy of end users and internet health in general, the forks either have to either maintain an increasingly complex list of patches to apply to fix what Google does to Chromium (the browser that runs two thirds of the web) or simply accept it.
I see the disconnect now. You’re mistaking “open source” for 'inherently good."
Uhhhh no you don’t see anything. I didn’t say anything like that.
the forks either have to either maintain an increasingly complex list of patches to apply to fix what Google does to Chromium (the browser that runs two thirds of the web) or simply accept it.
I see the disconnect now. You’re mistaking “open source” for 'inherently good."
Because the source code is preloaded with Google crap which infringes heavily on the privacy of end users and internet health in general, the forks either have to either maintain an increasingly complex list of patches to apply to fix what Google does to Chromium (the browser that runs two thirds of the web) or simply accept it.
Uhhhh no you don’t see anything. I didn’t say anything like that.
And they do the former.
So I ask again, what’s the problem?
Yes, you did. In your first comment in this thread.
Your inability to grasp the problem after having it explain to you by multiple people, multiple times
If you’re just going to blatantly and plainly lie about what I said, where everyone can see it, I’m not going to continue engaging with you. Bye now 👋
Here’s your first comment, where you imply Chromium is not bad for the web:
I asked for clarification, and you confirmed my suspicion.
Which in no way resembles “open source is inherently good”, but thank you for reading my comments back to me.
Then why did you say what you did?