Yes, epiphany is better integrated and gnome supported, but chromium is faster than epiphany (at least on my quadcore pc) due to it's architecture. If epiphany can deliver the same speed chrome does, it'd be even a better alternative than chrome. <div class="gmail_quote">El 13 de diciembre de 2009 11:22, Milan Bouchet-Valat <<a href="mailto:nalimilan@club.fr">nalimilan@club.fr</a>> escribió: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"> Le dimanche 13 décembre 2009 à 11:01 +0000, José Luis Ricón a écrit : <div class="im">> I agree with considering chromium (or even a canonical remix of it) as > a default browser. The only thing firefox has over it are extensions, > but in a few months, the most useful extensions will be probably > ported. </div>I think you're over-optimistic. AFAIK Mozilla extensions are based on the very nature of their architecture, notably based on XUL for writing GUIs. Porting extensions to Chromium, which is using WebKit, would imply almost complete rewrites. I for one use some niche extensions such as Zotero that won't get a Chromium equivalent for a long time. <div class="im"> > The main reason why currently it's not being considered is because it > can't be compiled against default webkit, only with it's own > google-tweaked webkit. But even with that, chromium is a binary and > has source code. It's open!, there aren't really any problems. </div>Sure, but are there problems with Epiphany either ? It's pure GTK+, and fully working thanks to support form GNOME. Regards </blockquote></div> -- José Luis Ricón