Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Chrome On the Way For Mac and Linux

Posted by timothy on from the oozing-brightly-into-all-corners dept.

TornCityVenz writes "I've seen many complaints in the feedback on Slashdot every time an article on Google's Chrome browser hits; the calls for true cross platform availability have struck me as a valid complaint. So now it seems Google is answering your calls, promising in this article on CNET a deadline for Mac and Linux support." I'd really like to not care about the name of the browser I'm using, but the mental cost of switching could be high for someone used to particular Firefox extensions, unless or until they can all be expected to work seamlessly with Chrome.

9 of 308 comments (clear)

  1. What's the rush? by HangingChad · · Score: 4, Interesting

    but the mental cost of switching could be high for someone used to particular Firefox extensions, unless or until they can all be expected to work seamlessly with Chrome.

    What's the big rush? I tried Linux several times before I finally dual booted, then went on later to make the switch. If Chrome offers some features you find compelling, there's no reason they can't share browsing duty.

    A little competition is a good thing. Though I do have to say that opening up their platform for custom user extensions was a brilliant move by Mozilla.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  2. Why is it taking so long? by ClaraBow · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I just don't understand why it is taking Google so long to release a Mac and Linux version. Can someone explain some of the technical issues that would cause such a delay? I"m just curious.

    1. Re:Why is it taking so long? by ultrabot · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I just don't understand why it is taking Google so long to release a Mac and Linux version. Can someone explain some of the technical issues that would cause such a delay? I"m just curious.

      Chrome codebase is not "cross platform", in that you can't just go ahead and compile it for Linux. They are still implementing a Gtk ui - see

      http://dev.chromium.org/developers/faq

      --
      Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
    2. Re:Why is it taking so long? by IceFox · · Score: 5, Interesting

      At least for Linux I wrote up a bunch it two months ago here: http://benjamin-meyer.blogspot.com/2008/11/status-of-chromium-on-linux.html Summary: It didn't even compile on anything but a very specific windows compiler when it was launched in September. Chrome was done by a Visual Studio team entirely on Windows. Now they are discovering all the fun of not planing ahead for cross platform.

      --
      Do you changes clothes while making the "chee-chee-cha-cha-choh" transformation sound?
    3. Re:Why is it taking so long? by Sancho · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Every single person I know that uses Chrome switched away from Firefox.

      I know that's only a few data points in the pool, but you can't deny that people who don't "get" alternate browsers will probably never change away from IE.

    4. Re:Why is it taking so long? by philgross · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Nope. Win32 is emphatically not Unix. If anything, it's closer to the old DEC VAX VMS OS (Dave Cutler's earlier OS). While there are POSIX compatibility adapters, the native OS provides services that look pretty different from the classic UNIX ones (process creation, IPC, security, etc.).

      I recommend Windows System Programming by Hart if you want to get a feeling for it. It's arguably a better (and certainly more modern) API than the classic UNIX set. I mean, fork() is a pretty weird way to create a new process, if you think about it.

      This is _not_ an endorsement of the entire Windows OS, which has miles-deep layers of cruft and crap on top -- just talking about the kernel and core system services.

  3. Re:FireFox extensions by owlnation · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Google would lose nothing from allowing adblock. In fact, they would only gain from it.

    The only reason to block ads for most people is because they are distracting. This means flash, animated gifs, and rotating scripts. If ads didn't move, there would be a much reduced need to block them. Personally I just can't read a page if something is blinking in the corner. Prior to adblock, I'd have to put pieces of paper over parts of the screen, or scroll it to hide ads. Advertisers have always lost me as customer by advertising in this way.

    I don't, and I suspect most people don't, ever block text based ads. I've no problem with them. Thus Google's ads get through. Google understands that text based ads do not bug most people, hence it's always been their ideology to use them.

    If adblocking of moving images is more widespread, then text based ads become the primary way of reaching customers. That's a win for everyone -- especially Google. (the only losers are low-life flash ad designers, whose unemployment is most welcome.)

  4. Re:A firm date from Google? by j-pimp · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Well, let's not forget that Google rarely seems to advance a software "release" to anything beyond "Beta."

    They did for Chrome, which is the particular piece of software we are talking about here.

    Also, they are really pushing this browser, to end users. I don't think their plan is browser dominance. I think their plan is to prevent any browser from becoming too dominant.

    --
    --- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
  5. Re:only IM, no video, no voice by buddyglass · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Honestly, if you want voice, pick up a phone. Or use Skype if your motivation is to avoid charges. I'll cede that Google Talk (the client) isn't 100% available on non-Windows platforms. But I'll add that the portion 99% of its users actually use, i.e. IM, is 100% available on non-Windows platforms by way of Pidgin, Adium, etc.