Chrome On the Way For Mac and Linux

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Chrome On the Way For Mac and Linux

Posted by timothy on Sunday January 11, 2009 @07:21AM 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.

84 of 308 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

A firm date from Google? by aussie_a · 2009-01-11 07:23 · Score: 5, Funny

Is this a sign of the apocalypse?
1. Re:A firm date from Google? by Savione · 2009-01-11 07:36 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Google "hopes to release versions for Mac OS X and Linux by the first half of the year". That's the closest thing TFA gives to a date, and Google hardly promises anything. The summary is somewhat misleading.
  
  --
  See it there, a white plume over the battle - A diamond in the ash of the ultimate combustion - My panache. --Cyrano
2. Re:A firm date from Google? by j-pimp · 2009-01-11 08:15 · 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.
3. Re:A firm date from Google? by Firehed · 2009-01-11 09:14 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I think it's more a matter of engineering resources. When you're a web-centric company, you'll do anything in your power to bring about the death of IE6.
  
  --
  How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
4. Re:A firm date from Google? by __aailrp9629 · 2009-01-11 09:49 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  The summary is somewhat misleading.
  You must be new here.
5. Re:A firm date from Google? by secmartin · 2009-01-11 09:52 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  According to the mac status page for Chromium, the browser currently fails 10% of the Webkit layout tests; work hasn't even started on building a user interface yet. So I think a release within six months is a bit optimistic.
  If you'd like to get a preview of the Mac release, there are up-to-date builds available here so you don't have to compile it yourself.
6. Re:A firm date from Google? by InlawBiker · 2009-01-11 10:23 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  They have a goal to sell their online Office suite and other apps and services, almost all of which are accessed via the browser. What would happen if the next version of I.E. broke some of their apps? They can't afford to be at anybody's mercy.
7. Re:A firm date from Google? by Daengbo · 2009-01-11 22:06 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Just because you use the "beta" version of their software doesn't mean that there's not a release available -- it just doesn't have the same features. Google does have paid for services in addition to the free ones, or didn't you know that?
  
  --
  Put identity in the browser.
If only... by samexner · 2009-01-11 07:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

They've been promising Linux and Mac ports for Google Talk for several years. Still hasn't happened.
1. Re:If only... by buddyglass · 2009-01-11 08:31 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Who needs the Google Talk IM client when its an open API and you can use Pidgin or Adium?
2. Re:If only... by buddyglass · 2009-01-11 12:54 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It's XMPP with custom extensions to support voice, and possibly other features as well. From the horse's mouth:
  
  Google Talk uses extensions to XMPP for voice signaling and peer-to-peer communication. Source code and documentation for these extensions is now available.
  In addition, these extensions are in the process of being reviewed by the XMPP standards body as official enhancements (known as XEPs) to the standard. Note that the source code for Google Talk's current implementation of these extensions varies slightly from the proposed specs. Upon ratification of the specs, Google Talk (and the source code) will be updated to be in full compliance.
3. Re:If only... by NekoXP · 2009-01-11 14:44 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Two problems with that
  1) Google Talk client doesn't support AIM (even though the web version does, sigh) or the video chat. That means you wouldn't use the Google Talk client as much as you might want to
  2) Pidgin crashes a fucking hell of a lot. I've never used a version that didn't blow up on exit, or nuke when a file is downloaded, or if someone messages you, or if you enable ANY plugin at all. The quality of the project is absolutely down there in the sewers, and the same bugs affect both the Linux AND Windows builds exactly the same way.
  So, neither of them are any good for anything.
4. Re:If only... by ardin,mcallister · 2009-01-11 21:36 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I've never experienced any problems with pidgin, and I've been using it since way back when it was still "gaim" and slackware 7. The linux versions had no problems for me at all... maybe you should look into what you're doing with it.
  
  --
  "Some men just want to watch the world burn..."
What's the rush? by HangingChad · 2009-01-11 07:27 · 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
1. Re:What's the rush? by icebraining · 2009-01-11 08:24 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Except that StarOffice is a paid version of OpenOffice, while Chrome doesn't use many (if any) code from Firefox, not even the rendering engine. Besides, Mozilla isn't "owned" by Google, they receive funds in exchange of providing Google as the default search engine.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
2. Re:What's the rush? by jbolden · 2009-01-11 09:15 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Google is a customer / partner of Mozilla. Mozilla offers a service (default search engine) and Google pays a fee for that service.
3. Re:What's the rush? by andy_t_roo · 2009-01-11 16:19 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  ah, but my 15 extensions worth of bloat is quite different to yours (except for noscript and addblock, probably). Since we both just get the features we want, is it rely bloat, which tends to be defined as extraneous and vaguely useful features that have been hanging around for a while.
4. Re:What's the rush? by martin-boundary · 2009-01-11 18:45 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I (personally) subscribe to the unix philosophy, so I actually still consider it bloat. Rather than having one tool with exactly all the features I want, I prefer having many smaller tools with only some of the features I want (also, I actually use w3m because it integrates much better with the bash shell, and lets me use a decent editor for filling out html text boxes).
Why is it taking so long? by ClaraBow · 2009-01-11 07:28 · 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 Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-11 07:37 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  They wrote a Windows wrapper around cross platform libraries. Then they had the nerve to deny it, even when anybody who looked at the source code immediately after initial release could see the truth of the matter.
2. Re:Why is it taking so long? by ultrabot · 2009-01-11 07:43 · 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
3. Re:Why is it taking so long? by chill · 2009-01-11 07:47 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  A lot of the core components were basically Windows-specific. They had to either wrap them, or rewrite the UI, which is what is taking the time.
  
  --
  Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
4. Re:Why is it taking so long? by itsdapead · 2009-01-11 07:54 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I just don't understand why it is taking Google so long to release a Mac and Linux version.
  Well, according to this they used Windows' own HTTP protocol implementation for the first version - they've now written their own.
  I suspect that Google are less concerned about taking marketshare from Safari (Mac) and Firefox (linux) than they are about getting established on Windows. Methinks their priority is to ensure that there is a Google-branded alternative to IE they can use as a web app platform just in case Microsoft does something to break Google Docs on IE (inadvertantly of course - no company with Microsoft's reputation would stoop to telling their developers that "IE9 ain't done until Gmail won't run"...)
  
  --
  In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
5. Re:Why is it taking so long? by Sentry21 · 2009-01-11 07:54 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  GUI programming and inter-process communication are vastly different on Windows than Linux/Mac; a lot of their code for Chrome was to make the existing code (WebKit) work with this design, but a lot of the rest was code that has to be completely rewritten - and chances are, a lot of the code that they wrote that they can keep needs to be updated to work on more than just Windows as well.
6. Re:Why is it taking so long? by drfireman · 2009-01-11 07:54 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  No two operating systems are exactly the same, from the programmer's perspective. The available operating system interfaces for everything from file access to network interface control can be very different. Not just the names of library functions, but how the needed functionality is divided into operations. It turns out that the major division in widely used desktop OSes right now is between Windows (does everything its own way) and everyone else (does everything the UNIX way). It's not to say there aren't many consequential and subtle differences between UNIX variants (among which are Linux, OSX, and the many BSDs), but if you make it your first priority to support the most widely used OS, Windows, then it could be a while before you get around to Linux and OSX. Whereas if you made one of the UNIX-like OSes your first priority, the rest of those would probably follow more quickly than the Windows version.
  I don't have any firsthand knowledge of how Google develops software, but in general terms this is why you might not get the Windows version and the OSX/Linux versions all at the same time.
7. Re:Why is it taking so long? by IceFox · 2009-01-11 08:04 · 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?
8. Re:Why is it taking so long? by patro · 2009-01-11 08:26 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The question is: why were the core components windows-specific?
  Why couldn't they choose cross-platform components in the first place? I doubt it would complicate things much (note I'm only talking about choosing cross-platform components, not about making sure the whole thing compiles on other OSs), and they could have spared much of the later hassle of porting the core components.
9. Re:Why is it taking so long? by blind+biker · 2009-01-11 08:26 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I think Google is a better strategist than you are giving them credit to. Google doesn't give a shit whether there is Chrome on Mac or Linux, because those platforms are covered by Firefox and other non-Explorer browsers, and Google is fine with that. Google even sponsors Firefox, by the tune of millions of dollars.
  Google has one goal in mind: increase the non-IE marketshare. IE only exists on Windows, hence Chrome only needs to be able to fight on that platform.
  Now, if you don't even understand why Google needs to increase the non-IE marketshare, I can't help you.
  
  --
  "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
10. Re:Why is it taking so long? by Aladrin · 2009-01-11 08:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Because Google projects are usually side-projects that the developers work on with part of their time as a 'fun' project.
  The developer that chose to do this was probably just having fun and didn't really expect it to be picked as one of the ideas that gets launched to users. So he did it however he wanted.
  Now that it's a big project, it's being fixed.
  
  --
  "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
11. Re:Why is it taking so long? by FST777 · 2009-01-11 08:32 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Because they want Chrome to be fast. While python is fast for a scripting language, it is not up to the task of delivering the fastest browser known to man.
  
  If I were Google (that is a great sentence) I would base it on QT 4. Fast, customizable, cross-platform, modern and integrated with WebKit.
  
  --
  Free beer is never free as in speech. Free speech is always free as in beer.
12. Re:Why is it taking so long? by cryptoluddite · 2009-01-11 08:43 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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
  Or, to put it another way, Google's entire contribution to the Chrome browser was a non-crossplatform, non-portable UI. V8 and WebKit were done by others and are cross-platform. Google knows their browser is just polish on other people's success with WebKit and V8 which is why they stole the name "chrome" from Mozilla.
  There's basically one thing that makes Chrome special and that's running tabs in a separate process (for plugins, nspluginwrapper already does this).
  Google gets a lot more credit for Chrome than they deserve. If it wasn't done by Google it would be hardly even notable.
13. Re:Why is it taking so long? by Sancho · 2009-01-11 08:55 · 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.
14. Re:Why is it taking so long? by he-sk · 2009-01-11 08:57 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Bad idea. Qt apps just don't feel right on the Mac. Case in point: Google Earth.
  
  --
  Free Manning, jail Obama.
15. Re:Why is it taking so long? by kripkenstein · 2009-01-11 09:02 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  If I were Google (that is a great sentence) I would base it on QT 4. Fast, customizable, cross-platform, modern and integrated with WebKit.
  Qt is nice, but its licensing prevents Google from using it in this way. To use Qt, Google would need to either pay for a license, but it wouldn't be transferable to others, or Chrome would need to be GPLed. Google goes to great effort to license it's code under the Apache/BSD/etc. licenses whenever possible, as it considers this better for it's business (and that's a reasonable position to take).
  
  Until Nokia relicenses Qt to something like the LGPL - many of us would welcome that! - GTK will remain the library of choice in situations like this.
16. Re:Why is it taking so long? by Serious+Callers+Only · 2009-01-11 09:03 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Until their machine comes with Chrome bundled as the default browser - that's the end game Google are aiming for here.
  Then you'll see IE user-share decline rapidly.
17. Re:Why is it taking so long? by BorgCopyeditor · 2009-01-11 09:09 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  True. But it's horrid across many platforms!
  
  --
  Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
18. Re:Why is it taking so long? by pohl · 2009-01-11 09:10 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  ...which is why they stole the name "chrome" from Mozilla.
  Sorry to ruin this with fact, but "chrome" is jargon that has been around for a very long time. I encountered it long before Netscape even had a product.
  
  --
  The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
19. Re:Why is it taking so long? by Curunir_wolf · 2009-01-11 09:17 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Well, according to this they used Windows' own HTTP protocol implementation for the first version - they've now written their own.
  Which is one of the major reasons I had problems using Chrome as a default browser. Not having something like the "foxyproxy" plugin was bad enough, but dealing with Chrome's hooks into the Windows/IE proxy settings was really annoying.
  
  --
  "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
  --- Jerry Garcia
20. Re:Why is it taking so long? by philgross · 2009-01-11 09:18 · 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.
21. Re:Why is it taking so long? by Klivian · 2009-01-11 09:48 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Qt is nice, but its licensing prevents Google from using it in this way. To use Qt, Google would need to either pay for a license,
  This would be no problem. Fact is, Google already does exactly this for other products.
  
  but it wouldn't be transferable to others,
  ??? What are you talking about? Companies sell, eg transfer, software developed with Qt all the time, it's what is made for after all. Obviously the license allow it.
  
  or Chrome would need to be GPLed. Google goes to great effort to license it's code under the Apache/BSD/etc. licenses whenever possible, as it considers this better for it's business (and that's a reasonable position to take).
  No need for GPL, you can freely use Qt with a wide range of open source licenses like Apache/BSD/etc. Please check your facts. http://doc.trolltech.com/4.4/license-gpl-exceptions.html
22. Re:Why is it taking so long? by aschran · 2009-01-11 09:52 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Uh, V8 was not "done by others." That was all Google.
23. Re:Why is it taking so long? by Goaway · 2009-01-11 10:28 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Write once, horrify anywhere.
24. Re:Why is it taking so long? by Barraketh · 2009-01-11 10:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Actually, I don't think this was a 20% project. Chrome had a team of engineers working on it, and at its core it has the V8 Javascript engine. You don't just wake up one day and say "Hey, why don't I write an optimized Javascript engine from scratch!" This is a project that fits in with Google's strategic vision, and it had the necessary manpower allocated to it.
25. Re:Why is it taking so long? by idlemachine · 2009-01-11 15:00 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  They wrote a Windows wrapper around cross platform libraries.
  No, you've inverted it, they wrote a "cross platform layer" that currently only has a Windows libraries based implementation:
  
  Chrome uses abstraction libraries to draw the GUI on other non-Windows platforms, but for now, what sits underneath part of ChromeViews is good ol' WTL.
  (from Scott Hanselman's analysis of the Chrome code)
  This indicates that Google did have multiplatform support in mind from the beginning. If they hadn't used native Windows libs for the GUI, I'm pretty certain we'd be hearing just as much bitching about how cross platform libs never perform as solidly as native ones.
  
  Then they had the nerve to deny it, even when anybody who looked at the source code immediately after initial release could see the truth of the matter.
  Citation, please.
26. Re:Why is it taking so long? by kripkenstein · 2009-01-11 17:42 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Companies sell, eg transfer, software developed with Qt all the time, it's what is made for after all. Obviously the license allow it.
  Not what I meant by 'transfer'. You can copy the software, but not transfer the license. In other words, you can distribute your product, but others are not free to fork your product and redistribute it. The forkers would need to purchase a license as well.
  
  No need for GPL, you can freely use Qt with a wide range of open source licenses like Apache/BSD/etc Please check your facts. http://doc.trolltech.com/4.4/license-gpl-exceptions.html [trolltech.com]
  I am aware of this, but not entirely sure about what it means. After all, you can already link GPL code with BSD code (that's how the BSDs use ext2/3 code, for example). That's because the BSD license is compatible with the GPL, which means BSD can be relicensed to GPL - the overall project is then considered as GPL. The same is true for almost all the licenses in the list there (except perhaps for Apache, last I heard).
  
  In other words, at worst Google would need to GPL the entire app. But even so they could dual-license their own code, under the GPL and the BSD, so they could still say the code was BSD in a sense. And at best, they could just release it under the BSD, as it's compatible anyhow. Yet, in both cases they are releasing a product with a lot of GPL code in it - Qt itself - which means it can't be forked in a non-GPL manner (there are other implications as well). This is something that I believe Google wants to avoid when possible. With the Linux kernel, it isn't avoidable - there is no replacement. But GTK is a respectable replacement for Qt, and isn't GPL (it's LGPL). The same thinking goes on in a lot of other places, leading to high adoption rates for GTK. Again, Nokia can stop this, and I wish they would, simply by relicensing Qt under the LGPL.
27. Re:Why is it taking so long? by Cyrcyr · 2009-01-11 20:17 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Citation, please.
  This is from a guy who calls himself Anonymous Coward, a well known user on Slashdot:
  
  Then they had the nerve to deny it, even when anybody who looked at the source code immediately after initial release could see the truth of the matter.
Firefox extension? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-11 07:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Unless I am grossly misinformed, I do not see how Firefox extensions could work at all on Chrome, let alone 'seamlessly'. A statement such as this essentially says "I will only use exactly what I have now"
1. Re:Firefox extension? by alexborges · 2009-01-11 07:51 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I read it differently.
  I thought it pictures quite well the fact that Chrome will have a huge way to go against firefox if they cannot take some of firefoxes most popular extensions features and offer them in chrome.
  I wanna be able to firebug, addblock and a host of other stuff that, if not available in chrome while most of google works fine with ff, then its useless to me.
  The real trouble will be spelled out next year, when google decides that this or that feature of their cloud will be chrome only.
  We will be damning google for ages after that. But mark my words:
  I foresaw it in my noodles.
  
  --
  NO SIG
2. Re:Firefox extension? by Firehed · 2009-01-11 09:29 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  No, but they have explicitly stated that they'll have extension support in Chrome, and will do nothing to stop a port of AdBlock.
  
  --
  How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
3. Re:Firefox extension? by abhi_beckert · 2009-01-11 10:40 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  > I wanna be able to firebug, addblock and a host of other stuff that, if not available in chrome while most of google works fine with ff, then its useless to me.
  The WebKit team has an equivalent (in some ways better, in some ways inferior â" I prefer it overall) to firebug built into the browser. I don't know if Google intends to pull some of that open source code over to Chrome, but I don't see why not since they already have a fairly advanced task management window.
  I can't see Google doing an adblock feature, it would probably trigger a class-action lawsuit, but *every* browser has some kind of built in or third party adblock solution, so it's only a matter of time â"Âhow long depends on how many people are using chrome.
  > I thought it pictures quite well the fact that Chrome will have a huge way to go against firefox if they cannot take some of firefoxes most popular extensions features and offer them in chrome.
  I agree with you that google doesn't seem to care as much about extensions as the mozilla team, but do they need to? Why should google make another firefox? Better to put their own development muscle behind firefox.
  I see Chrome as a stable, secure and simple browser (like IE and Safari) that is suitable to be pre-installed by PC manufacturers, Linux distros, schools and so on. For that, Chrome is looking very promising.
4. Re:Firefox extension? by remmelt · 2009-01-11 10:41 · Score: 2
  
  Firebug.
  Webdeveloper toolbar.
  Adblocker (I don't care how fast it renders.)
  Greasemonkey.
  And perhaps something like Tabmix if the options aren't present in Chrome.
FireFox extensions by Tink2000 · 2009-01-11 07:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

Sorry, Timothy: it's doubtful you'll see out of the box compatibility with AdBlock for Chrome.
Why would a technology company that generates revenue from ads want to allow you to block the ads?
Slashdot's pretty greedy these days; there's ads in my RSS feed from Slashdot.
I ignore them.

--
Why do I M2 everything negatively?
1. Re:FireFox extensions by owlnation · 2009-01-11 07:40 · 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.)
2. Re:FireFox extensions by Sentry21 · 2009-01-11 08:01 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The only reason to block ads for most people is because they are distracting.
  The reason that I block ads, aside from being ugly and distracting from content, or from being intrusive, is because 99% of the time when a page is insanely slow to load, it's because it's waiting on some Javascript or image from the ad server, which is apparently overloaded.
  Most of the time when I try to load a page and it won't load, it's an indicator that ad blocking is off. I also block Google Analytics and Digg badges as well.
  
  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.
  
  'Most people' (that use ads) use predefined ad lists, which include Google ads. Unless a covenant was reached to remove Google from those lists, they'd stay there; the only other option would be for Google to make its own adblock list without its own ads and ship that to the browser.
  Though imagine if a company that was the biggest ad provider on the internet released software that let users browse the internet with only their own ads. I can see some people getting pissed off about that.
3. Re:FireFox extensions by Dwedit · 2009-01-11 08:07 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  SRWare Iron (A modified version of Chrome) has built in adblocking, but it's nowhere near as good as what Adblock provides.
4. Re:FireFox extensions by argiedot · 2009-01-11 08:10 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I don't, and I suspect most people don't, ever block text based ads. I've no problem with them.
  With newer filter-sets, people no longer block anything that annoys them - they just block the whole lot.
5. Re:FireFox extensions by Al+Dimond · 2009-01-11 08:16 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Is there actually a precedent for successful legal action over stuff like that? Have advertisers sued VCR manufacturers, Tivo, etc? What about the old adware junk that would look at ads and let users see competing offers? I know advertisers complained, but did anything ever come of it? I don't think there's a specific law against it, and there aren't contracts between any of the parties involved.
6. Re:FireFox extensions by De+Lemming · 2009-01-11 08:20 · Score: 4, Informative
  Via an older article on Cnet I found the Chrome extensions document, spotlighted on November 29th by Google programmer Aaron Boodman. From the document:
  
  Use Cases
  The following lists some types of extensions that we'd like to eventually support:
  Bookmarking/navigation tools: Delicious Toolbar, Stumbleupon, web-based history, new tab page clipboard accelerators
  Content enhancements: Skype extension (clickable phone numbers), RealPlayer extension (save video), Autolink (generic microformat data - addresses, phone numbers, etc.)
  Content filtering: Adblock, Flashblock, Privacy control, Parental control
  Download helpers: video helpers, download accelerators, DownThemAll, FlashGot
  Features: ForecastFox, FoxyTunes, Web Of Trust, GooglePreview, BugMeNot
  This list is non-exhaustive, and we expect it to grow as the community expresses interest in further extension types.
  Emphasis mine.
7. Re:FireFox extensions by Christianfreak · 2009-01-11 08:21 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Most people install FilterSet-G with AdBlock. It blocks Google text ads by default
  
  --
  The Anti-Blog
8. Re:FireFox extensions by lilmunkysguy · 2009-01-11 08:43 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Have advertisers sued VCR manufacturers, Tivo, etc?
  Yes.
  
  NBC, ABC and CBS filed a lawsuit Wednesday in federal court in California against Sonicblue, claiming the ReplayTV 4000 would violate their copyrights by allowing users to distribute copies of programs over the Internet. The networks also complained that technology in the personal video recorder can automatically strip out commercials. In a joint statement, the networks said the device "violates the rights of copyright owners in unprecedented ways" and "deprives the copyright owners of the means by which they are paid for their creative content and thus reduces the incentive to create programming and make it available to the public."
  
  http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2001/11/48065
9. Re:FireFox extensions by RebelWebmaster · 2009-01-11 09:11 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Please don't use Filterset.G. There are far better options out there.
  http://adblockplus.org/en/faq_project#filterset.g
Good News After An Understandable Delay by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-11 07:30 · Score: 3, Informative

Having been checking out the incredibly high quality Google Chrome code and what it is doing it is understandable that there was going to be a delay for other platforms.
The reason Chrome is so much faster than other browsers - especially even after days of constant webbrowsing is all the platform specific work with memory protection and threading.
I've honestly been using the Chrome source code as a tremendous learning tool to get up to speed on how to write modern threaded application code.
The delay will be worth it when you get your hands on it. Switching to Chrome had that feeling of running your old apps on a new and faster computer. It just feels so smooth no matter how many tab or windows are open or how much Javascript is running in the background.
Mental cost of switching by TeknoHog · 2009-01-11 07:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

Because nobody using Mac or Linux has ever switched from a different operating system.

--
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Why bother on the Mac? by moderators_are_w*nke · 2009-01-11 07:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

We already have a pretty decent, well supported Webkit powered browser with a reasonable userbase. I'm not really seeing google bringing anything new to the party.

--
"XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, use more." - Anonymous Coward
1. Re:Why bother on the Mac? by buddyglass · 2009-01-11 08:28 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  There's benefit to having broad OS availability. Safari is available on OS X and Windows but not Linux. Safari is also pretty closed as far as plug-ins are concerned. So is Chrome, at the moment, but they're working to rectify that. If Safari ran on Linux and had an open platform for add-ons, I'd be more inclined to agree with you that there's no need for Chrome.
  Presumably Google's other motivation is to provide a run-time environment for future web-based applications they might release. If they own the browser on which these applications will run, they can more easily remedy any bugs or performance concerns that crop up instead of having to wait for a third-party to take care of them.
Re:Market Share by larry+bagina · 2009-01-11 08:05 · Score: 5, Informative

The browser shell is raw win32. No abstraction or other platform considerations.

--
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Re:Should be tagged !opensource, !free, and whocar by larry+bagina · 2009-01-11 08:07 · Score: 2, Informative

It's open source.

--
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
extensions by burris · 2009-01-11 08:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

Wake me when they have NoScript, AdBlock+/ElementHiderHelper, Repagination, ChickenFoot, FoxyProxy, RefControl, etc...
1. Re: extensions by Constantine+XVI · 2009-01-11 08:35 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Funny you should mention that, Opera has all those out of the box.
  -AdBlock ("content blocker")
  -Foxmarks (Opera Link)
  -Greasemonkey (User JS)
  -Firebug (Dragonfly)
  
  --
  "I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
Re:Market Share by FST777 · 2009-01-11 08:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

Don't forget the brand-new JavaScript engine they had. The move to OS X will be just as hard (and for a big part exactly the same) as the move to Linux.

They made a win32 browser and they are now going to translate it to *nix. Seems like they are going to do that properly this time (unlike Picasa and, to some extend, Earth).

--
Free beer is never free as in speech. Free speech is always free as in beer.
No strategic interest in Linux and Mac by blind+biker · 2009-01-11 08:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

Google doesn't have a strategic interest for Chrome on Linux or Mac, as there IE is nonexistent. Chrome was created specifically to fight against IE. And IE exists on Windows only.
So far, Google's tactical move has worked, by chipping almost 1 percent of marketshare from IE. Firefox users aren't going to switch to Chrome (in general) but some IE users will.

--
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Re:Market Share by FST777 · 2009-01-11 08:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

Ah, I forgot about something. Not just the JavaScript engine is probably win32 specific, but Chrome also relies heavily on inter-process communication (since each tab in each window has its own process).
I'm betting good money that this is very hard to do properly cross-platform.

--
Free beer is never free as in speech. Free speech is always free as in beer.
Re:Enough already... by hobbit · 2009-01-11 08:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

Replaced with what? Silverlight?

--
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
Re:BSD too? by MarkKnopfler · 2009-01-11 08:59 · Score: 2, Informative

{Free,Net}BSD has linux binary compatibility I think. A linux port should be running on them. Opera flies that way I think.
ITYM Keyhole by xant · 2009-01-11 09:33 · Score: 2, Informative

Google bought Google Earth from Keyhole. I doubt their core teams use QT much.

--
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Re:Market Share by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-11 09:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

> Not just the JavaScript engine is
> probably win32 specific
V8 was developed on ubuntu iirc ;)
only IM, no video, no voice by feranick · 2009-01-11 09:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

You would be correct if any of those (Pidgin, etc) would support video and voice (which they don't). It's been years since we have been promised at least voice support, but it isn't there. So, Pidgin and Co. can do IM just fine, but that is about it.
1. Re:only IM, no video, no voice by buddyglass · 2009-01-11 10:07 · 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.
2. Re:only IM, no video, no voice by Jeremy+Visser · 2009-01-11 13:02 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The only reason Pidgin can't do it is that they haven't supported it yet (and probably won't, because the devs are very stuck up).
  Ever heard of libjingle? It's the "video and voice" component of Google Talk, which is basically an extension to XMPP.
  Any client that supports libjingle (I use Empathy, see screenshot) can do voice calls to Google Talk users.
Not Intel-only on the Mac, please by DiLLeMaN · 2009-01-11 10:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yes, I know I'm hopelessly behind the times with my *ancient* G4 mini, but if there's a group that needs a faster browser, it's us "obsolete computer users". Obsolete meaning the computer, not the user.
I know that x86 is the way forward, but I see more and more Intel-only apps that make me wonder what exactly prohibited the devs from making it a Universal Binary.
Microsofts Live Mesh comes to mind (I wanted to install it to compare it to Dropbox); not even a decent message stating that it was Intel-only, it just said that my device wasn't supported or something. Dropbox on Linux/PPC is another culprit, btw.
I'm hoping V8 gets ported to PPC as well, although I'm somewhat worried that it won't, since a JS interpreter sounds a bit more involved than a file syncing thingy.

--
/var/run/twitter.sock is a twitter socket puppet.
Re:BSD too? by jeremyp · 2009-01-11 10:27 · Score: 2, Informative

You'd have better luck porting the Linux version. The Mac OS X user interface API is very different from anything that runs on BSD.

--
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
it's a little unclear what the market dynamics are by Trepidity · 2009-01-11 13:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

It's true that Mozilla providing a default search engine is a service that search-engine companies find valuable. On the other hand, having a useful default search engine is also something that Mozilla's users find valuable, so Mozilla is constrained in how they can sell that particular service.
If Some Guy's Horrible Search That Doesn't Work offered Mozilla a bazillion dollars for placement as the default search engine, they would likely have to turn it down, if they wanted their users to not hate them.
Now Yahoo or Microsoft Live aren't quite Some Guy's Horrible Search, but they are different, and in many ways not quite as good, as the status quo Firefox users expect. Basically, people use and expect Google Search, and will be annoyed if they don't get it. That means that if Google were so inclined, they could probably drive a hard bargain and reduce the amount they're paying for default-search placement, and Mozilla would likely grudgingly go along with it. At the very least, I would imagine that Microsoft or Yahoo would have to offer a considerable premium over Google's offer to make it worth the negative reactions of switching to them.

--
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
What about chrome://? by Requiem18th · 2009-01-11 19:26 · Score: 2, Informative

Talking about not caring about the name of a browser, I'm still offended that they went for a name directly from Mozilla's codebase, chrome. They read a page from Microsoft it seems.

--
But... the future refused to change.
...regarding adblocking by sznupi · 2009-01-11 23:18 · Score: 2, Informative

I'll throw this in before some Firefox fanboy gets in with the usual "but in Opera it's only manual"...
http://www.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/opera/
Works at least as good as AdBlock + any proper list, light (no extension needed after all/uses build-in Opera features) and leaves almost no empty spaces.

--
One that hath name thou can not otter