It would have to be redesigned, but why when you already have Chrome ? I don't care that much for speed. In fact I'd prefer to run without swap and not worry about Chrome hogging all the RAM just to be a bit faster.

My vote is firefox and it is my main web browser.

I use google chrome only on two exceptions: 1) A site requires flash higher than 11.2 and 2) to watch Netflix

Mainly use Firefox, but I'm using Google Chrome solely for my free month trial of Netflix. Haven't decided yet whether to make it permanent or not.

Netflix may be the main reason people have Chrome on their Linux computers. I don't care for DRM, so I don't care for Chrome either. I can wait till they come out on DVD.

I prefer HULU... not even+! ;) ...qdʇ Or, Blu-ray.

Happy with

opera-developer_27.0.1670.0_amd64.deb

so far.

Runs a bit snappier than my Chromium or Firefox installs. I have only been running it for a hour or so.
I was busy watching "Radioactive Wolves Of Chernobyl - Scary Mutations [Full Documentary]" before I posted.

Edit: Kinda cool

Just added it to Opera.

Firefox. Been using it for many years, and there are so many useful addons here that I am used to and don't want to leave behind.

Not true for me. I use Chrome and Firefox on a 2GB RAM netbook, not a powerful machine. Chrome definitely runs faster, so I use it for Facebook because Facebook is a horrible resource hog. For everything else, I use Firefox because of the many indispensable addons, such as NoScript, Pentadactyl and other customizable keyboard commands.

Perhaps we should note that Firefox has been losing that single one but very powerful strength, because addons and themes are dropped with every new release. I still miss themes that I used to have from 2003 to 2008, all of them have disappeared so now I have to use the default one, and many other addons have been dropped. If I ever lose NoScript, Pentadactyl and the general ability to customize keys, then I'll move to Opera or Chrome, because Firefox is slow and well nigh worthless without the addons.

Use what works best with your browsing habits. There is no ultimate "best".
As mentioned previously the Pepperflash plugin allows one to use the latest version of Adobe Flash in Chromium.
As an aside:
DVDs have DRM called CSS and the people you (and I) are paying every time you (and I) buy one persecuted a man called Jon Lech Johansen because he worked around it which, in the end, lead to the DMCA and other similar laws. In buying DVDs you (and I) are paying the people who bribed governments into enacting these laws so you might as well just use DRM'd streams when it makes sense.

They aren't quite identical. DRM is harder to crack and can impose time or number of times based limits. Philosophically, they are similar, but I still have the right to make and keep one backup copy of whatever I own in the US.

I agree that, in practice, it is often better to buy DVDs and I tend to myself. However, when I just want to watch something once (what used to be called "renting") I'll stream if I can.
If you're avoiding using DRM content on the internet because you'd rather buy than rent and/or it makes more practical sense to you then of course that's what you'll do.
I was commenting more on the fact that whether you buy the DVD or rent a DRM stream on the internet your money is being spent in the same way so you aren't voting with your wallet or doing anything morally superior by buying DVDs. Not that I am suggesting anything about your motives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digita...t#DRM_and_film

The Google chrome browser in linux is using adobe flash and not pepperflash. I entered in the url chrome://plugins and this is what it is using for flash.

Below is a partial output of typing chrome://version/

No pepeerflash mentioned anywhere.

A quick google would have saved you the bother of posting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPAPI#PPAPI
https://www.adobe.com/support/flashp...downloads.html

I guess streaming would be an equivalent to renting, except for the DRM part, which is more a philosophical issue. However, I'd have to say that you can actually vote with your wallet. You decide what you buy and how much money they get for their product. If their product has DRM, and I don't agree with them "managing" my rights, then I just won't buy it, and if other people do the same they will fail in implementing it. If you just want to rent an item, I guess go ahead and stream it, but if you want to own consider the possibilities carefully. I don't even know if it will be possible to own anything in a DRM future.

My point is that there is no philosophical issue or voting with your wallet as long as you're paying the movie companies. They don't care whether you gave them the money for a DVD or fora stream they'll still spend the money on lawyers and DRM implementations. While it is (probably) true that if nobody paid for DRM content they wouldn't produce it what you do as an individual makes no difference unless you don't pay the monopolists anything.