[SOLVED] Chromium VS Google Chrome Beta

WebReflection · 2015-06-28 22:48:53

Apologies if already discussed, the search didn't help much here.

It's long time that the beta package from the AUR ( https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/google-chrome-beta/ ) supports movie streaming at play.google.com and it also supports videos at motogp.com, or even just facebook videos, without needing anything else.

I wonder if there's any specific flag that the debian build/package uses that could be possible to use in Chromium official package too so that beside developers also regular users could see video content online?

Any idea why Chromium wouldn't show while the beta would? No extra dependencies were installed in here.

Thanks

Last edited by WebReflection (2015-06-29 10:56:38)

Scimmia · 2015-06-28 23:07:43

What's the problem, exactly? I can play things on play.google.com and facebook just fine in Chromium. Tried one or two on motogp.com, but they required a subscription.

If they're flash videos, you'll need a flash plugin (chromium-pepper-flash in the AUR) and if they're DRM protected HTML5, you may need the widevine CDM (chromium-widevine in the AUR).

Last edited by Scimmia (2015-06-28 23:08:57)

WebReflection · 2015-06-29 06:30:50

The problem is that I haven't installed any plugin (and I am not planning to) and by default, freshly installed Chromium doesn't show anything in Facebook or play.google.com or those with DRM content, while google-chrome-beta does.

I haven't changed settings or anything, and I can reproduce this since January 2015 with any hardware you want.

So do you know if the debian package is configured differently?

Scimmia · 2015-06-29 06:48:42

What debian package? If you're talking about the upstream chrome package, it ships with the plugins I mentioned. If you don't want to install them, that's your problem.

WebReflection · 2015-06-29 10:31:27

let me try again from the scratch: do you know the difference between this configuration https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/google-chrome-beta/ and the upstream chromium ?

the one from the AUR does not need any plugin and it works with everything mentioned, if you don't know the difference please feel free to stop replying, thank you

Mr.Elendig · 2015-06-29 10:37:08

Google seems to indicate that debian packages chromium with the DRM plugin. You can always go and look at their specfiles to see exactly how they build/package it instead of insulting those who want to help you.

Last edited by Mr.Elendig (2015-06-29 10:37:54)

WebReflection · 2015-06-29 10:56:03

honestly you are the only one that read what I was asking for and helped with a meaningful answer and I don't see any insult, I actually found rather pointless and annoying an answer like "If you don't want to install them, that's your problem."

So, to you Mr.Elendig, I say thank you!

WebReflection · 2015-06-29 11:00:16

OK Scimmia, I've realized now you are the maintainer of chromium-widevine ( https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/chromium-widevine/ ) so I wonder if that's what is included by default in the ded packages.

I guess I'll figure it out by myself, apologies if you found yourself insulted though, didn't mean to insult, just to understand instead of simply installing stuff.

Take care

Buddlespit · 2015-06-29 11:14:59

OK, the difference between chromium and chrome: Chromium is the free, non-proprietary version of Chrome. Proprietary drivers, plugins, blobs, ect are not bundled with the browser. They can be installed later. But if you're going to install pepper or widevine, you might as well go with Chrome.

WebReflection · 2015-06-29 11:34:16

got that, indeed the mentioned AUR provides pepper-flash too which AFAICT is not free. However, that doesn't provide widevine media player, and after reading this, http://alien.slackbook.org/blog/new-chr … e-plugins/ I was wondering how come I need plugins in upstream Chromium. Probably there's more going on, or the package I am using simply includes widevine too.

Thanks anyway, I understand it's a matter of investigation, it would be great to have playable DRM content within the Open Source repo.

Best Regards

Scimmia · 2015-06-29 15:16:43

Buddlespit wrote:

But if you're going to install pepper or widevine, you might as well go with Chrome.

I disagree with that. I would much rather have a browser built by the Arch devs on a current Arch system against Arch libraries than one built by a 3rd party on who knows what system.

WebReflection wrote:

I was wondering how come I need plugins in upstream Chromium. Probably there's more going on, or the package I am using simply includes widevine too.

As I said, Chrome comes bundled with both plugins.

Buddlespit · 2015-06-29 20:49:57

Scimmia wrote:

I disagree with that. I would much rather have a browser built by the Arch devs on a current Arch system against Arch libraries than one built by a 3rd party on who knows what system.

That's not what we get when we build from AUR?

WorMzy · 2015-06-29 20:58:15

Not when you're just repackaging pre-compiled debian/redhat/third-party packages, no.

Still, I'd be suspicious of what Chromium does in the background anyway.

progandy · 2015-06-29 21:09:10

This thread is confusing. It mentions Chromium, the Chromium Beta and then links to a Google Chrome Beta package. Chromium Beta is not the same as Chrome Beta. Chrome is closed source and only google can compile it.

Chromium itself gained the capability to play DRM protected videos some time ago if the system (e.g. Android) provides the decryption module. Linux does not provide it, so you'll need the decryption module shipped with Google Chrome as packaged by Scimmia.

WebReflection · 2015-06-29 22:37:44

prograndy I guess it's confusing because it's a question for someone (me) indeed confused

I understand Scimmia is providing such package but I didn't know it was implicitly included in the Chrome Dev too because it provides pepper-flashin but it doesn't provide widevine too.

So, if I understand correctly, widevine is the official name of the Chromium/Chrome DRM ability to play "premium content" and beside pepper-flash all I need is the Scimmia AUR package.

If anyone can confirm, I might as well get rid of Chrome Dev and Chromium and install Scimmia package as default browser (p.s. about motogp, I do have (paid) access so apologies for the mention, I'm not doing propaganda or anything, I swear)

Cheers

Buddlespit · 2015-06-29 23:24:00

WorMzy wrote:

Not when you're just repackaging pre-compiled debian/redhat/third-party packages, no

I did not know this! Since I've never downloaded google-chrome from the AUR, and everything I build from the AUR is source and patches, you can see my confusion.

Of course, I'm old and easily confused...

Scimmia · 2015-06-30 04:04:07

WebReflection wrote:

If anyone can confirm, I might as well get rid of Chrome Dev and Chromium and install Scimmia package as default browser

The chromium-widevine package in the AUR is just the plugin, the same way the chromium-pepper-flash program is just the plugin. You use Chromium from the Extra repo, then install the extra plugins if you need them.

Arch Linux

#1 2015-06-28 22:48:53

[SOLVED] Chromium VS Google Chrome Beta

#2 2015-06-28 23:07:43

Re: [SOLVED] Chromium VS Google Chrome Beta

#3 2015-06-29 06:30:50

Re: [SOLVED] Chromium VS Google Chrome Beta

#4 2015-06-29 06:48:42

Re: [SOLVED] Chromium VS Google Chrome Beta

#5 2015-06-29 10:31:27

Re: [SOLVED] Chromium VS Google Chrome Beta

#6 2015-06-29 10:37:08

Re: [SOLVED] Chromium VS Google Chrome Beta

#7 2015-06-29 10:56:03

Re: [SOLVED] Chromium VS Google Chrome Beta

#8 2015-06-29 11:00:16

Re: [SOLVED] Chromium VS Google Chrome Beta

#9 2015-06-29 11:14:59

Re: [SOLVED] Chromium VS Google Chrome Beta

#10 2015-06-29 11:34:16

Re: [SOLVED] Chromium VS Google Chrome Beta

#11 2015-06-29 15:16:43

Re: [SOLVED] Chromium VS Google Chrome Beta

#12 2015-06-29 20:49:57

Re: [SOLVED] Chromium VS Google Chrome Beta

#13 2015-06-29 20:58:15

Re: [SOLVED] Chromium VS Google Chrome Beta

#14 2015-06-29 21:09:10

Re: [SOLVED] Chromium VS Google Chrome Beta

#15 2015-06-29 22:37:44

Re: [SOLVED] Chromium VS Google Chrome Beta

#16 2015-06-29 23:24:00

Re: [SOLVED] Chromium VS Google Chrome Beta

#17 2015-06-30 04:04:07

Re: [SOLVED] Chromium VS Google Chrome Beta

Board footer