Slashdot Mirror
Google Chrome Is Out of Beta
BitZtream writes "This morning Google announced that Chrome is out of Beta, and showing improvements for plugin support, most notably video speed improvements. It also contains an updated javascript engine, claiming that it operates 1.4 times faster than the beta version, and work has begun on an extensions platform to allow easier integration with the browser by third parties."
I have to give the Chrome team credit. Chrome has been improving in stability and usability almost like magic. From day to day, it seems like problems I had previously just disappear. As it turns out, Chrome has an automatic updater that runs in the background. The browser is constantly and silently upgrading itself as the Chrome team push out new updates. The results are quite impressive.
If you'd reading this in chrome and want to force the most recent update, just go to the "About" screen. Chrome will tell you if an update is available and allow you to manually run the updater. There's a good chance that most users are already updated, but it doesn't hurt to check.
The killer feature that I still think is missing is the ability to exit and save tabs. Chrome can Restore after a crash (most of the time), but you can't manually restart the browser without loosing the history you have open. Another issue I wish they'd fix is remembering the last save directory when doing a "Save As...". I realize that keeping a single Downloads directory is userfriendly, but using it as the default location when the user is overriding the download location is annoying. If I need to download 10 files, I need to navigate to the same directory 10 times. That's just ridiculous.
Otherwise my gripes are mostly minor and have no real bearing on its use in day to day activities. (e.g. I hate that I can't view the properties of an image. Sometimes I need to verify that its under a certain size. Or that there's no easy method of tracking page errors.) Thankfully, most of my gripes are developer-related and are better served by keeping a copy of FireFox around.
Kudos to Google for working on another alternative to Internet Explorer! If Chrome and Firefox can each grab a significant marketshare, Internet Explorer's hold over the Internet will disappear. Firefox's popularity has already caused it to wane. I look forward to the day when using IE will net you nothing but pages telling you to upgrade your web browser. :-)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Am I the only one surprised just to hear that Google has taken something out of beta?
I am sorry, I can not conceive the internet any more without add-block...
I'd love to try it, but I'm still waiting for the Mac and Linux ports. But I guess if they take it out of beta before those are out, it's not on the top of their list.
I'm sure Google is trying to work out deals with OEM's to bundle Chrome on Windows PC's. Obviously, they can't do this while the browser still carries the "beta" tag, which is akin to a scarlet letter.
It's interesting they chose to drop out of "beta" before they implemented one of their supposed top features, namely, cross-platform compatibility.
This space left intentionally blank.
They should look into that advertising thing, I hear there's a market.
Call me when I can get it in .dmg format, or just
sudo apt-get install GoogleChrome
Informatus Technologicus
The WebKit team and anyone who ever contributed to it should also get praise. Without it Chrome would never have seen the light of day. Google Chrome is essentially Google's chrome around the rendering engine and any tweaks they provided to WebKit.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Sorry Google, but if you're looking to finish what Netscape started -- namely, making the Internet an application delivery platform that does an end-run around Microsoft's monopoly -- you had damn well better make Linux, Macintosh, and appliance-embeddable versions available before you remove the "beta" label.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
"We absolutely promise that we only want to completely screw over Microsoft with this, and certainly not Mozilla Firefox," said Google's Sundar Pichai. "That we put a pile of our sponsored Mozilla developers on the project is completely irrelevant. We're not evil, remember."
"We are so, so happy with Google Chrome," mumbled Mozilla CEO John Lilly through gritted teeth. "That most of our income is from Google has no bearing on me making this statement."
Microsoft was unfazed. "Browsers don't need to be integrated with online apps," said marketing developer Ian Moulster. "Certainly not like the operating system ... I'll just get back to you."
Google's new browser will give you their web and email services, photo processing, mapping, office applications that will run in said browser and will make you a cup of tea. This is all paid for by personally-directed text ads in your tea leaves, based on analysing a DNA sample taken when you sip the tea and sending your genetic code back to Google for future targeting.
Pichai stressed that Google would maintain complete confidentiality within the marketing department of whatever the browser accessed concerning your confidential business data, bank account details, medical information and personal preferences in pornography. "We're Google. We know where you live. In a completely not evil way. Sponsored link: Get Chrome Browsers on google.com. Or we'll make you use Windows Live."
http://rocknerd.co.uk
I still don't understand why Google and Sun are offering the same software under different names. Google is backing the Mozilla Foundation while supporting their own Chrome (read: they didn't write Firefox, just back it), and Sun is distributing both OpenOffice and StarOffice. Can somebody please tell me why and how companies can do this?
I would have expected somebody to stand up at a meeting and go "Hey, lets merge the products and save money!" at some point, especially in this growing economic hole (didn't Sun just do a huge layoff, too?)
Someone had to say it.
But... Have they removed that "Big Brotherly" unique ID "feature", that each of the Chrome Beta installations came with, that loudly identified you on the web?
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
I'm sure that someone will make a plug-in to block the advertising, but considering that Google is an advertising company that sells web ads as their life blood, I can't see them offering ad-blocking in their own product out of the box. Unless it blocks all ads save for the ones from Google.
It isn't going to replace Opera on my desktop anytime soon, but then again, they'd have to release versions for Mac, Linux, and FreeBSD for it even to run on any of my desktops.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
If your security policy relies on users not being able to install software but the users can install software, you have a problem; not Google.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
I would try an explain it with a car industry analogy, but there isn't one.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
(Please note, I say this as the IT guy who locks stuff down)
Chrome's behavior is shared with many other newer programs(usually if you install them with the "just for me" rather than "for all users" option) and is a good thing. Programs that break unnecessarily because of lack of permissions they don't need are a bad thing. This is all part of the move away from legacy single-user design crap, where virtually everything requires arbitrary rights, programs die if they aren't in C:/Program Files, and there is poor or no separation between immutable system files and commonly modified user files.
If tightly controlling installed applications is necessary, you can use signature or hash based execution restrictions, and solve the problem the right way, rather than relying on the behavior of third parties.
Then let me explain: GM is one company, but releases two virtually identical yet differently-branded trucks with similar names. For example, the Chevy Silverado 1500 and the GMC Sierra 1500.
But, as your parent stated, that is very redundant and dosen't make much sense, especially as the companies are clearly suffering(Sun's layoffs vs. GM's bailout).
So, you mean, it was written properly and doesn't require admin rights. So assuming you've properly configured your PC and network this software is not a major threat since it never needs to elevate itself to admin status. It can still damage files and network resources your user has access to, but thats generally far less damaging than taking over the entire PC and effective any user that logs into it or any network resource it has access to.
Your comment is extremely ignorant and indicates that you have no clue about being a network or systems admin. You can run firefox on any windows machine that has a writable directory on it, same for almost all properly written software. Good luck running a windows PC without a writable directory some where, you'll break to many legitimate apps.
So if your idea of 'security' is because the 'installer' doesnt write to any other directory than the 'program files' directory, then you have no security at all. What do you do about the people who install software on their own PC at home then just copy the files to a USB drive, bring it to your network and copy those files to the %TEMP% directory, or their %USERPROFILE% or %APPDATA% directories, all of which you will typically have write access to?
Google isn't going to 'fix' this 'issue' because the 'issue' is with the person who thinks a flaw, no amount of complaining to anyone is going to help you, all the people you would be complaining to have about a billtion times more of a clue than you do about the 'issue'.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
God dammit there IS always a car analogy! You're a genius!
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
Vauxhall Astra
Opel Astra
Chevy Astra
Saturn Astra
Holden Astra
QED
They never planned to make money directly from the browser, or to dominate the browser market.
They use it as a vehicle to implement web standards, under a license that allows any other browsers to adopt the improvements. Thus the web improves, which directly benefits Google (as well as others)
Dangerous, sexy, turing complete: Femme Bots
A car industry or an analogy?
So what you're saying is
1) Release two virtually indentical products under different names for twice the development cost.
2) ???
3) Bailout!
How much longer until Sun gets a bailout?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Think about the Monty Hall paradox. It's a loose comparison, but work with me. If your customers are just comparing between Ford and Chevy, and your products are equal, you get 50% of the market, all things equal. If you introduce a new brand, let's call it GMC, some of the customers who might have chosen Ford might choose GMC. Since all you have to change is the 1 dollar name plate, it's a good deal.
This is how GM has run their business for 75 years.
I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.