Quoting Adam Borowski (kilobyte@???):

> Most people seem to be using these two names interchangeably, even though,
> as you rightfully point, they do differ. I did not go into a tangent of
> correcting this as it was not relevant to bashing PulseAudio.

'Ah, the rare valid point', as Josh Lyman said in one of my favourite
West Wing episodes. Fair enough.

> But, chromium as in Debian/Devuan is not good either:
> https://bugs.debian.org/792580 claims it phones home even in "incognito"
> mode -- and not just to update extensions or some such, but to freaking
> Google Analytics.

No kidding! Wow, I didn't know that. This bug nicely underlines the point
(that I often make, FWIW) that Google Chrome / Chromium is from a firm
much more massively in conflict of interest than is the sponsor of
Firefox (though the funding of Mozilla, Inc. creates a significant
problem, too). Good work on the part of the bug-submitter who thought
to vet Chromium's behaviour using Wireshark. That should probably be a
standard check on all code coming from ad-supported commercial
enterprises.

> > The Chromium extensions programming interface is impoverished compared
> > to XUL / XPCOM, but uMatrix and uBlock Origin are decent.
>
> These don't seem anywhere as functional as Adblock (real, not WebExtension)
> or Request Policy.

No, they're not. That's why I said they're merely 'decent', but
hindered by Chromium's impoverished extensions programming interface
(soon to be matched by Firefox's ;-> ).