Slashdot Mirror
Examining Chrome's Source Code
An anonymous reader writes "Chrome is open source, and there's clearly still some work to be done on it. In this article, Neil McAllister decided to take a peek under Chrome's hood and view it through the eyes of the developers who will improve and maintain it in the coming years. It seems Google's open source browser currently has much to offer prospective hackers — provided they use Windows. Quoting: 'The Chromium site explains how to download the source code for Linux, Mac OS X, or Windows. Unfortunately, if you're eagerly awaiting a Mac version of Chrome, you shouldn't hold your breath. As the Mac OS X area of the Chromium developer site explains, "Right now, the Mac build is a work in progress that is much closer to the start than the finish." In fact, according to the latest status report, the Chrome developers have yet to get even the browser core running under Mac OS X. Rendering actual Web pages is still a long way off, to say nothing of a usable Aqua GUI. Then again, the Linux version is in arguably even worse shape.'"
And google is really happy with that. They don't need to target the linux market because Mozilla is already working for them here.
The target is obviously internet explorer.
They still have a near monopoly on the entire Linux desktop market!
Truth is, I don't really care if Chrome runs under Linux or not. What _is_ important is that there is a lot of buzz about a non-IE browser out there, and that will help Linux users no matter which browser they use. Chrome will get the attention of at least some PHBs and Frontpa^w webdevs who code IE-only websites. I have been complaining about this for years but now there finally is a product that they will have a hard time ignoring. Firefox was close, but was only talked about by gearheads. Even my mother-in-law asked me about Chrome. Which is too bad, as she's on Ubuntu and feels left out...
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
I suppose it's good business sense to write software for the most popular platform. With around 75% of the OS hits being from Windows, it would be prudent to sink resources into a windows browser, rather than Mac or Linux.
On the other hand, Mac use is steadily climbing and climbing among young people. Young people are typically drawn to free and shiny (one might say, Chromed) things. They're also good at starting and perpetuating trends. In that light, it might make sense for Google to sink more resources into making an OS X version. It's important to not only have a good product, but to make it fashionable to use that product. Lord knows how many people are still using IE, not because they like it, but rather because they don't know there's anything faster or better out there out there.
They might as well forget about Linux though. Everybody knows that Linux users are crotchety and only really want to use wget and for really special pages, lynx. I for one can't remember the last time I used a window manager and LIKED that new fangled environment. Too many colors and flashing lights, it's like those arcades that them darn kids like to visit.
This one's tricky. You have to use imaginary numbers, like eleventeen... --Hobbes
And they don't want to destroy the innovative, anti-Microsoft, pro-Google Firefox or Safari browsers. No sensible parasite kills its host. They only want to take down IE, which drives traffic to MS search.
There are parts of Google Chrome that are shipped closed source. For starters: GoogleUpdate and RLZ.DLL.
Chrome is currently faster than Firefox at most things even when Tracemonkey is enabled. I mostly work with browser based math/finance apps, and one of the most intensive things that can be done is a numerical integral. No other browser even comes close to Chrome in terms of speed. The only drawback is that it isn't cross platform yet. From what I hear, Tracemonkey is working really well on different processors so it will be an interesting match up. Try pasting this code into JavaScript Shell from Chrome and Firefox for a comparison.
It uses webkit for layout, but it uses a (sort of) homegrown library for rendering:
http://gigaom.com/2008/09/02/google-open-sources-skia-graphics-engine/
http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/skia/
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
When MS uses the word Beta, they really mean pre-alpha. Release is Beta. If you want a release quality MS product you need to look for the discontinued tag.
Google is simpler, they got beta, beta and beta. One works, one doesn't, the other works for everyone except you and just when you became totally dependent on it, they kill the project.
Linux has Beta and RC. RC is solid but out of date so nvidia doesn't have drivers for it anymore, beta is solid but nvidia doesn't have drivers for it yet.
Solaris has only one version, more solid and sensible then a rock, it is labelled "Giving your accountant a heart attack".
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
It isn't designed just to work on those, they just haven't done others yet. When building a VM it is bad to start out having to support 10 different architectures as it requires you to test them all for every little change you do. It also requires that all developers know these architectures very well if they are to do proper changes.
Besides V8 is probably the most portable thing there is in Chrome, it already works on Linux, OS X and Windows, and they provided two different architectures, making it much easier to do a 3rd and a 4th for anyone who should wish to do so.
How do i know this? Because Lars Bak who leads the V8 team happens to be teaching my VM course, and a guy asked that specific question.
But of the eleventy billion IE users who still haven't switch to !IE, why would they switch to Chrome? I think the vast majority of them can be split into two groups: their bank/intranet/some stupid thing/fucking activex/etc doesn't work right elsewhere, and "the blue e takes me to the internet!". The first group can't switch and the second just doesn't care - why/how would Chrome change that?
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Do you mean to say that OS-X breaks convention by using non-standard keyboard shortcuts?
In OS X, option-left and option-right skip one word to the left or right respectively. This has been the case since the first release of MacOS in 1984. Windows did not exist then, and there were no standards in early X11 toolkits (there still aren't - in 2005 I was using an X11 desktop and had four applications open with different shortcuts in text fields - gtk, tk, Qt and XUL were all doing things subtly differently). Windows standardised on control-left/right, because PCs didn't have an option key and alt was used for the menu (because PCs didn't have a meta key either). It's nothing to do with OS X 'innovating' and 'using non-standard shortcuts,' it's to do with Qt refusing to respect a core element of a user interface that has remained unchanged on a platform for 24 years.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Let me clarify a common misconception. Windows is _NOT_ POSIX compliant for all practical intents and purpose for one simple reason: an application using the POSIX subsystem doesn't have access to the Win32 subsystem, making it completely useless.
For example, you cannot use POSIX functions (fork, etc) and use Win32 GUI at the same time. Thus the need for solutions like Cygwin, which emulate POSIX with enormous performance cost.
I hope this puts the Windows POSIX compatibility myth to rest forever and nobody on SlashDot will make it ever again :-)
If a large enough subgroup of "the blue e takes me to the internet" group starts thinking that google=internet, then a convenient "Download chrome! Make your google experience even better." link on every search page can easily convert them.