2.0 Beta Chrome On Windows, Chromium On Linux

AlienRancher writes "Google launched this morning a new beta version of Chrome 2.0: 'The best thing about this new beta is speed — it's 25% faster on our V8 benchmark and 35% faster on the Sunspider benchmark than the current stable channel version and almost twice as fast when compared to our original beta version.' Other enhancements include user script support (greasemonkey-like) and form auto-fill." And reader Lee Mathews adds news of the open source version, Chromium, on Linux: "Not only has Chromium gotten easier to take for a test drive thanks to the personal package archive for Ubuntu Chrome daily build team, but development on the browser is also progressing nicely. Despite being a very early build, Chromium on Linux feels solid and boasts the same blazing speed the Windows users have been enjoying for months."

Comments

Still waiting for adblock :(

[blahbooboo]

I love Chrome, so fast!! Shame Firefox is so slow nowadays. Just wish there were adblock for Chrome and I am switching!

Re:Still waiting for adblock :(

[Darkness404]

Edit your hosts file (theres even one for Windows), and put in all adservers to redirect to localhost. There. No ads, similarly, no extra bloat from Adblock. Plus, it works on whatever, e-mail, browsers, etc.

Re:Still waiting for adblock :(

[blahbooboo]

Edit your hosts file (theres even one for Windows), and put in all adservers to redirect to localhost. There. No ads, similarly, no extra bloat from Adblock. Plus, it works on whatever, e-mail, browsers, etc.

Thanks for the tip. But this has been discussed before on slashdot the problems with the privoxy and host file mechanisms.

Re:Still waiting for adblock :(

[Tom9729]

At least for me, Adblock is much more convenient (though I do use a hosts file to block some of the nastier stuff). It is updated automatically, it lets me whitelist sites, and it's pretty useful for blocking annoying avatars/signatures on forums.

Re:Still waiting for adblock :(

[keeboo]

Edit your hosts file (theres even one for Windows), and put in all adservers to redirect to localhost. There. No ads, similarly, no extra bloat from Adblock. Plus, it works on whatever, e-mail, browsers, etc.

Thanks for the tip. But this has been discussed before on slashdot the problems with the privoxy and host file mechanisms.

AFAIR Privoxy needs to load the whole page before delivering to the client (that's expected, since it needs the whole stuff in memory in order to analyse it properly).

Anyways, if your problem is restricted to not displaying advertisements, you may try Ziproxy.
It's a transcoding proxy (recompresses pictures and other stuff) and it has a number of weird features, one of those being an option which may be used to replace only pictures from a URL list for empty ones. Not really an ad-blocker proxy per se, but it may be used that way.

Re:Still waiting for adblock :(

[MadMaverick9]

Use SRWare Iron ... it has what you're asking for.

It's based on Chromium, but without all the bad stuff plus AdBlock and more ...

http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_news.php
http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_chrome_vs_iron.php

11.10.2008: Adblocker integrated in Iron

The wish of many users comes true: We integrated an Adblocker in Iron!
With a filterlist so nearly all online-advertising can be blocked. A working list can be downloaded here and just has to be copied to the Iron folder (e.g: C:\Program Files\SRWare Iron\). Note: You must first get the latest version of Iron you can find under "Downloads".
So Iron is the first Chromium based webbrowser worldwide which has an adblocker included.

And ... SRWare Iron has a proper installer - per default it installs in "C:\Program Files", which is where applications belong.

Unlike Chrome - which installs itself in "C:\Documents and Settings\<username>\...." - argh - duh.

Re:Still waiting for adblock :(

[jeanph01]

Well I found out how to do it. I do not have ads anymore in chrome... Go here and follow instructions : http://www.adsweep.org/ Basically, since Chrome now support Greasemonkey scripts, you just have to have a good ad blocking script and adsweep is one. I wonder what will be the future extension mecanism of Chrome but with Greasemonkey, there is something very usefull and integrated in the web pages we use. So this is definitely interesting.

Re:Still waiting for adblock :(

[Tubal-Cain]

Gahhh! eBay users have found Slashdot! NOOOOOOOO!

Re:Still waiting for adblock :(

[Eil]

Edit your hosts file (theres even one for Windows), and put in all adservers to redirect to localhost. There. No ads, similarly, no extra bloat from Adblock. Plus, it works on whatever, e-mail, browsers, etc.

While somewhat effective, that's a very crude way of blocking ads. Adblock can block ads and other content based on regular expressions (for example, */ads/*) and can auto-subscribe to a regularly-updated blocklist. I especially like how you can pretty much click on a particular element and say, "here, block this" whether it's an ad or not. And it doesn't really add any noticeable bloat to the browser. My only gripe is that it doesn't support more browsers.

Re:Still waiting for adblock :(

[Abcd1234]

IMHO, you're much better off with an ad-removing proxy like Privoxy if you really want to live without a built-in solution like AdBlock. It gives you much finer control over what is and isn't blocked.

Re:Still waiting for adblock :(

[Kingrames]

While you and blahbooboo probably won't agree, I, for one, consider noscript to be the "adblock" for firefox.

That, and I want a "firesomething" addon for Chrome. :)

When google supports extensions for its browser, I'll switch. It is nicer, but I have my demands.

Re:Still waiting for adblock :(

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember when firefox was fast. Eventually, people wanted more and more features... more and more addons... more this and more that. Now it's about as bloated as IE.

Be careful what you wish for.. you may get a firefox clone.

Re:Still waiting for adblock :(

[FishWithAHammer]

IE isn't bloated; IE8 feels considerably faster than Firefox (and IE7 feels about the same!).

Firefox is the turd in the punchbowl these days. I still use it because I like AdBlock, but if ABP ever comes out for Chrome, I'm gone.

Re:Still waiting for adblock :(

[fractoid]

Just wish there were adblock for Chrome and I am switching!

Would this adblock filter out google ads? That would seem... somewhat contrary to their corporate goals.

Re:Still waiting for adblock :(

[Anonymous Coward]

agreed. adblock seems to do the whitespace thing a lot better

Re:Still waiting for adblock :(

[blahbooboo]

Use SRWare Iron ... it has what you're asking for.

It's based on Chromium, but without all the bad stuff plus AdBlock and more ...

http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_news.php

http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_chrome_vs_iron.php

11.10.2008: Adblocker integrated in Iron

The wish of many users comes true: We integrated an Adblocker in Iron!

With a filterlist so nearly all online-advertising can be blocked. A working list can be downloaded here and just has to be copied to the Iron folder (e.g: C:\Program Files\SRWare Iron\). Note: You must first get the latest version of Iron you can find under "Downloads".

So Iron is the first Chromium based webbrowser worldwide which has an adblocker included.

And ... SRWare Iron has a proper installer - per default it installs in "C:\Program Files", which is where applications belong.

Unlike Chrome - which installs itself in "C:\Documents and Settings\<username>\...." - argh - duh.

Wow, this is very promising! Thanks for the tip! Trying it out now!

Re:Still waiting for adblock :(

[Thaelon]

Doesn't work nearly so well as adblock.

And with a big enough hosts file windows can take an extra 30 seconds to boot while it loads all that into the DNS cache.

And you can't wildcard hosts, so it's a pretty kludgey workaround actually.

Re:Still waiting for adblock :(

[PitaBred]

That's not proper. Per default it should install to %ProgramFiles%, which is often C:\Program Files, but not always. The user local location is a good safe place to install for most apps, especially beta versions. We really need to get away from the Windows "The only user is me, and I can do anything!" mentality that causes so many problems.

Re:Still waiting for adblock :(

[FishWithAHammer]

Unlike Chrome - which installs itself in "C:\Documents and Settings\\...." - argh - duh.

This is correct behavior. %ProgramFiles% is not the only legal place to put programs.

You do realize you can run programs out of $HOME on Linux too, right?

Re:Still waiting for adblock :(

[geminidomino]

Only if your BOFH has never heard of noexec. Bwahahahahaha...

Seriously, though, if users are untrusted (and all of them are), that flag gets used.

Re:Still waiting for adblock :(

[geminidomino]

Agreed, except I need ABP and PasswordMaker...

I think I'm going to be stuck with the firefox crapfest for awhile. :(

Re:Still waiting for adblock :(

[rxmd]

That's not proper. Per default it should install to %ProgramFiles%, which is often C:\Program Files, but not always.

SRWare Iron already defaults to %ProgramFiles%. On a German Windows it suggests C:\Programme as installation location. I guess the GP poster simply didn't notice the difference because he's using an English Windows.

The user local location is a good safe place to install for most apps, especially beta versions. We really need to get away from the Windows "The only user is me, and I can do anything!" mentality that causes so many problems.

While I agree in principle, there's a "portable" Iron version for download, which will keep its profiles in the same folder as the application. It's meant for installations on removable media, but it's also extremely useful for testing. To me this seems like a much more end-user-transparent solution.

I really encourage you to test it, it's quite a decent program.

Re:Still waiting for adblock :(

[Runaway1956]

It uses a proper installer? Good, I like that. apt-get install srware-iron

Re:Still waiting for adblock :(

[RAMMS EIN]

``And ... SRWare Iron has a proper installer - per default it installs in "C:\Program Files", which is where applications belong.

  Unlike Chrome - which installs itself in "C:\Documents and Settings\\...." - argh - duh.''

Well, for the former, you need write permission on system directories. For the latter, you only need write permission on your own directory. The latter has its advantages.

Re:Still waiting for adblock :(

[k33l0r]

While you and blahbooboo probably won't agree, I, for one, consider noscript to be the "adblock" for firefox.

Uh, isn't AdBlock the AdBlock of Firefox?

Re:Still waiting for adblock :(

[LiSrt]

That, and I want a "firesomething" addon for Chrome. :)

I want Firesomething for the current version of Firefox...

Re:Still waiting for adblock :(

[dotancohen]

I'm not familiar with Windows, but Ubuntu installs programs into an area that is accessible to all users as well: /usr/bin/. The program is accessible to all users, but each user's data (say, his Firefox profile) is in his home directory.

Re:Still waiting for adblock :(

[evanspw]

The thing I love about Firefox that never gets a mention is that it enables you to always use your choice of fonts over the fonts specified in a webpage. Chrome and IE don't let you do this - if a webpage specifies Times New Roman, you're stuck with its god awful screen presence. That single feature, plus Adblock (which can be done now) is all I really really want.

But I am not going to look at webpages unless I choose the fonts.

Re:Still waiting for adblock :(

[Godwin O'Hitler]

It can default to where it likes but it should at least give me the frigging chance to change the location! Like many other users, I never willingly put ANYTHING, least of all user specific stuff, on the root partition.

Until it does have a proper installer count me out.

Re:Still waiting for adblock :(

[Rude Turnip]

I don't want to come off sounding like a troll, but are you that frail that the sight of an ad will bring you great mental stress?

Re:Still waiting for adblock :(

[dave420]

So you can not provide revenue for the sites you clearly like to visit? Nice guy.

Re:Still waiting for adblock :(

[Failed Physicist]

Wow, I find it actually impressive that someone took some of his own time to write something so insignificant. Funny and pathetic in its own way.

Re:Still waiting for adblock :(

[Anonymous Coward]

Please mod parent down.
There's like 15 lines of quoted text just so he can say 'Thanks', and he gets modded 'Informative'?

Re:Still waiting for adblock :(

[BitZtream]

Chrome is fast because it has few features.

Firefox is only slow because you use a lot of crap with it.

'New' apps typically always perform 'faster' than the older apps they are competing with as they just don't have the features that the older more mature app has.

Chrome will eventually join Firefox in the speed department. That is, if its ever going to have the future list that Firefox has.

It doesn't have to get that feature list of course, but it also means there will always be people saying 'I wish there were adblock for chrome!'

Re:Still waiting for adblock :(

[Anonymous Coward]

I've only seen installations in the user directories on vista for applications which want to be accessible & writable by all users.
 
WoW is an example of this .. installs to c:\users\all users\games\world of warcraft\

Re:Still waiting for adblock :(

[FishWithAHammer]

Depends on the environment. I've got a machine where I just don't want to give root out to folks, but I don't care if they're running updated versions of PHP, Mono, etc. for testing purposes. So it's not noexec.

Re:Still waiting for adblock :(

[Elwood P Dowd]

Sucks when localhost has a webserver.

Re:Still waiting for adblock :(

[Anonymous Coward]

Pshaw!

I just pipe my SLIP connection through sed, with a script that dynamically rewrites the whole web for easy viewing in links2. (Yep, it transcodes images into ascii art, too.)

Re:Still waiting for adblock :(

[Kingrames]

take the old version, open it with winzip. one of the files within has a text-set limitation on what versions support it. just change the number, and you too can have a firesomething that works up until firefox version 6.022x10^23

Re:Still waiting for adblock :(

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 for SRWare Iron. Fast as hell without all the "Googleadge"

I use it as my secondary browser. Still can't leave Firefox and all my plugins. That and the search box with the variety of search engines I use daily. That's an essential feature for me.

Re:Still waiting for adblock :(

[AP31R0N]

Adblock isn't bloat, imo, it's something i installed for a purpose. Adding to the size of Firefox isn't worthy of the epithet of bloat. i thought bloat is when a program becomes needlessly/pointlessly bigger. If adblock itself is poorly written such that it's getting bigger and slower, then maybe. FF itself is fairly trim until you start adding the toys that make it Firefox.

What are the adservers? Is there a list somewhere?

And for the uninitiated, how does one find and add entries to the hosts file?

Re:Still waiting for adblock :(

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

sudo apt-get install srware-iron
[sudo] password for user:
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
E: Couldn't find package srware-iron

Bummer :(

Re:Still waiting for adblock :(

[LINM]

Don't worry, they will put on adblock like extensions and other bells and whistles. Soon it will be as full feature (and slow) as Firefox.

Wake me up when...

[Anonymous Coward]

Until Adblock+ and NoScript are available for the Linux version I'm not the least bit interested. And if there are Google-specific exceptions to ABP, forget it.

Re:Wake me up when...

[Darkness404]

Edit your hosts file to block all ad servers. Its quick and painless. As for NoScript, I'm not a huge fan of it (its more of a pain then anything else, and as a Linux/obscure pre-alpha release user most generic attacks fail) so I haven't found a substitute.

Re:Wake me up when...

[tpgp]

Edit your hosts file to block all ad servers. Its quick and painless.

Not as quick & painless as Adblock. Especially when it comes to maintenance.

Re:Wake me up when...

[cryptoluddite]

Edit your hosts file to block all ad servers. Its quick and painless.

www.example.com/index.html
www.example.com/ads/annoying.swf

When people say they want adblock and noscript and you say "just edit your hosts file" you sound like another fanboy making up excuses. When I was using adblock I had */ads/* and a bunch of others that are not even possible with a hosts file.

As for NoScript, I'm not a huge fan of it (its more of a pain then anything else

Wha? NoScript can occasionally be a mild hassle, but it basically automatically block all annoying ads automatically AND all that useless unrendered crap like google-analytics AND in practice it makes your browsing a hell of a lot more secure than separate processes.

Re:Wake me up when...

[owlnation]

adblock is definitely easier. While adblock is necessary, it's flashblock that is an absolute must have for me. I can almost live with ads, I cannot live with flash running without control.

I did read somewhere that flashblock and adblock were being worked on for Chrome -- does anyone know more?

As soon as there's a mac version of Chrome, and adblock and flashblock, Firefox is done for me.

It's a shame, Firefox's gone from being the most innovative, fast, must-have browser to being the least innovating, slow, bloated browser in the space of 4 years. What are the Mozilla developers thinking? They only have themselves to blame. The writing has been on the wall for them for about a year. It's a dead browser surfing. It's only a matter of time before it goes the way of Netscape at this point.

Re:Wake me up when...

[Anonymous Coward]

And it's not just ABP and NoScript!

What about the awesome web developer toolbar? firebug? selenium? tamper data? foxyproxy? DOM inspector? down them all? ...

What it lacks in [literally countless] features (built-in or via extensions) and customizability (is that even a word?), it makes up for in spyware seemingly (RLZ identifier, clientID, logging everything you type in the address bar, etc)

Thanks, but no thanks.

Re:Wake me up when...

[ion.simon.c]

It's a dead browser surfing.

My anecdotal evidence disagrees, but whatevz. :)

Re:Wake me up when...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hypocrite.

Aside from the fact most ads are hosted by a company other than the one you are looking at, meaning ads can be blocked for multiple websites by one line in your host file, there are similar alternatives that would allow wildcards to be used at will.

Also, then you can do things like try other browsers and still not see ads. It doesn't restrict you, and especially for THIS crowd should be a trivial thing to do.

Oh and about NoScript, I'm sure its great once you have it setup but considering the number of sites I had to add exceptions and the like for in the first few days of use and having to fiddle with crap in order to see websites I've never been to before for no real reason just made it usless to me.

I also find it funny you are willing to twiddle with NoScript but editing a host file is too much work for you so you refuse to use anything but FireFox on the grounds they don't have a FireFox plugin...

Re:Wake me up when...

[Vexorian]

I also find it funny you are willing to twiddle with NoScript but editing a host file is too much work for you

It is ages away from being as complicated as a hosts file, but whatever editing hosts is not that difficult, however, it doesn't really work as well as a javascript black/white list. Noscript does wonders, and well if you can't get used to it/use it effectively, that's not my problem. I still enjoy it and I would seriously, miss it if I had to run chrome instead of firefox.

so you refuse to use anything but FireFox on the grounds they don't have a FireFox plugin...

Hell yeah, and you know what? Me, too! I am far, far , far away of ever caring at all about browser speed, and I have tried both firefox 3.1 and chrome in windows, I just cannot notice any difference in speed! Ok, maybe I am immune to placebos - maybe most of my browsing time is consumed by downloading the webpage rather than by rendering speed - maybe chrome focuses on high-end computers and fails absurdly on my beloved 5 years old computer - I have no idea, I just can't notice any difference !

I am sure you will post zillions of benchmarks about how chrome is faster than firefox... But, I don't care! I care the most about MY browsing experience,

So listen slowly, firefox is actually open source, and not "pretend source" which means it isn't like Chrome which has some open source off-spring from which it takes free code while the official thing completely removes all your freedom... firefox can actually run all the addons I like. Things that make MY browsing experience easier, so maybe you don't like them or something, that's the whole reason firefox has addons... a browser without addons is just a very stupid idea... Firefox actually runs in Linux, windows and OS/X, and guess what? It actually looks like it belongs to the host OS! No, they didn't have the brilliant idea to replace the whole interface so it looks 'cool' as defined by some google employee...

And yes, I prefer using noscript as a single "temporarily allow this page" every time in three days when I want to run a javascript is much easier than having to periodically add new hosts to ban to a hostfile and also having to temporarily remove them - My god that would be stupid, at least ubuntu allows you to edit hosts from an actual dialog - Besides of the little fact Hosts files don't work as they will disallow you from the whole site while noscript can just allow you to stop using javascript in one site while you STILL have access to it! Such an innovation!

So, yeah, as long as Chrome doesn't qualify as a good browser in MY definition, I won't use it, cause I decide what stuff to use and not some nerd posting benchmarks or getting too excited about google's little plan to make all web pages become apps... I don't care about speed cause it really makes no difference in my life , and I don't get any fuzzy warm feeling inside when yelling "TEH BROWSR I USE IS TEH FASTEST" to other people... I do care about memory and chrome was a little dissapointing there in comparison to latest firefox 3.1, I don't really care THAT much about memory anyway, so if chrome managed to become good ( open source, cross platform, addons, no horrid interface that goes against the host's theme) I would use it - but until then...

Re:Wake me up when...

[Anonymous Coward]

Privoxy allows for wildcard filtering.

Re:Wake me up when...

[blind biker]

I'm a relative newcomer to Adblock (imagine that - used FF for years without it. Yeah, yeah, hand in your geek card etc.), perhaps because I wasn't bugged very often by ads. Anyhow, I decided to try it, and while I noticed that it blocks some stuff I used to see occasionally earlier, it also seems to have rendered my browser less stable, requiring more frequent restarts and generally slowing down every operation.

I think editing the hosts file does have some major advantages over Adblock, no matter how strange that assertion may sound at first.

Re:Wake me up when...

[aetherworld]

Use the modified one, SRWare. If you don't want to, there's always privoxy.

Or, if you don't want to maintain a HOSTS file yourself, but still don't want any other software, there's this excellent ad-server list which can be downloaded in all kinds of formats (yes, even as a HOSTS file). If you're REALLY lazy, you can use this link along with a 1 line shell script and a crontab entry (or windows scheduler or whatever it's called) to automate updating your HOSTS file.

Re:Wake me up when...

[Runaway1956]

Uhhhh - you might have taken the time to learn how to USE THE HOSTS FILE, before running at the mouth. In your examples, a single entry would have taken care of both - www.example.com. Further, there are a number of programs available to help the ignorant to manipulate their hosts file. Hostess may (or may not) be the best. Yes, the hosts file is effective. No, the hosts file is not exceedingly difficult. Yes, I recommend using the hosts file - at least for the nastiest stuff.

Re:Wake me up when...

[Dhalka226]

Presumably he's talking about a situation where a site you want to visit (example.com) is hosting annoying advertisements on its own server. It's not impossible, but it's definitely a niche case.

Re:Wake me up when...

[Anonymous Coward]

host integration? so how would you like a web browser taking half of the screen space for the nightmarish ribbon interface? In regards to memory usage, chrome is so fast that in the routine usage I close and reopen it on demand, and when it's closed uses way less memory than any other browser out there. Firefox is simply to slow to allow fast closing and reopening of the whole program, and then you have to keep it opened all time.

Do not insist in using chrome in the way you're using firefox, because it's a different browser.

Re:Wake me up when...

[shutdown -p now]

Not as quick & painless as Adblock. Especially when it comes to maintenance.

C'mon, man, you run Linux! Set up a cron job for rsync to auto-update your hosts file already; *click-click-click* is for wussies. ~

Re:Wake me up when...

[NorQue]

e.g. heise.de, a German publisher for IT magazines, which also offers the best informed German language IT news and a very good online magazine on society and culture, hosts all ads themselves. Blocking heise.de would mean also blocking one of the best sources for Germans on the net. Adblock (with a German blocklist), on the other hand, conveniently blocks all the ads and doesn't touch anything else. Impossible with a hosts file.

Re:Wake me up when...

[eulernet]

Note also that when using hosts, the whole computer tends to slow down when your hosts file is very large (install SpyBot and use the vaccination tool, and you'll see what I mean).

Also, when you use XP Pro with a webserver, the localhost blocking will show your site, since basically you do something like www.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1, which is VERY uncomfortable.

Re:Wake me up when...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the hosts file is effective.

Yeah, I especially like the part where suddenly all the pages take five minutes to load while they wait for my machine to timeout on the ads. That's really fun.

Re:Wake me up when...

[ndixon]

Edit your hosts file to block all ad servers. Its quick and painless.

Not when you don't have local admin rights.

It's also a system-wide setting.
You can't have a per-user hosts file.

Re:Wake me up when...

[BenoitRen]

When you're blocking the ad servers, you're already blocking their JavaScript, so NoScript isn't helping there. You can block Google-Analytics with Adblock as well, if you haven't already.

NoScript is nothing more than a fad. Possible vulnerabilities in JavaScript get patched really quick by Mozilla. Exploits in the wild are rare. Just keep your Firefox/SeaMonkey/Flock/K-Meleon/Camino/(insert other Gecko web browser here) up-to-date, and you're fine.

Re:Wake me up when...

[Nicolay77]

The most innovative was Opera until a year ago, now Safari and Chrome.

Firefox has never been the most innovative IMHO.

Privoxy = Adblock for Chrome

[Markos]

See title.

Re:Privoxy = Adblock for Chrome

[LiSrt]

I tried it once, there just wasn't the speed and ease-of-use that adblock plus provides:

*right click*

*block*

*edit filter*

*OK*

Done.

About the benchmarks

[Faryshta]

Was those benchmarks taken on Linux, Windows or both? If the answer is both, can we see a comparation? If the answer is only Windows, well there you go some journal material folks

Still waiting...

[egcagrac0]

Chrome on Linux. Any decade now. (Chromium isn't quite the same.)

Re:Still waiting...

[Tubal-Cain]

I agree. Chromium completely lacks Google Updater, Google Toolbar, Google Desktop Search....

Re:Still waiting...

[AnalPerfume]

Yep, you can't love without all the Google data mining tools tracking everything your browser does.....well, some can't. Personally it's the main reason I won't be touching the official Google Chrome on ANY platform. At least an Open Source port can be built without all that shit in it.

Oh yeah, I echo the calls for an AdBlock and NoScript type functionality in Chrome.

Re:Still waiting...

[Anonymous Coward]

Chrome dosnt come with Google Toolbar or Google Desktop Search at all.
And you can stop it sending back information as an option with a few clicks.

Re:Still waiting...

[Puls4r]

So you say you'll never use the browser, and yet you're advocating what features you want added to it...

Re:Still waiting...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.reptilelabour.com/software/chromium/

Yep - no tabs, not address bar... It's like it's *completely* different...

Re:Still waiting...

[BitZtream]

OMFG GOOGLE IS TRACKING YOU?!?!?! With browser plugins?!!??!?! Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Of course, if you realized for a second that they can track you anytime you use their services without google updater, toolbar or search. They don't need a cookie or special app to track you, they already have your IP, just like everything else you connect to on the Internet.

All that extra crap just makes what they do marginally more accurate, but your an idiot if you think they need it to track you. Or at least, you've never seen the amount of information that can be gleened from an apache log file.

Re:Still waiting...

[witherstaff]

It exists just fine, run firefox and go to chrome://browser/content/browser.xul.

direct download link (server already slow)

[Anonymous Coward]

Try this with a multi-connection download

http://cache.pack.google.com/edgedl/chrome/install/169.1/chrome_installer.exe

but does it

[TheSHAD0W]

...still have the stupid installer that won't go away?

Re:but does it

[Blue Stone]

Do you mean the stupid and annoying Googleupdate, that sits there. All the time. Running even when you aren't using any Google software? And that even when it runs on a schedule, will sit there all the time anyway, doing nothing?

Definitely a negative side to using any of Google's apps.

Re:but does it

[Anonymous Coward]

You can turn it off.

Out of habit I turn off trying-to-be-resident apps via msconfig, I'm not sure if it can be configured to do so directly. But you're on slashdot so it shouldn't be that big of a deal to circumvent it.

It certainly doesn't require googleupdate.exe to be running.

Re:but does it

[Slackwise]

You can get a standalone version without the Google Update installer...

http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html?standalone=1

Not so blazing

[malignant_minded]

no first post

Namespace collision

[Valacosa]

Chromium? A year from now, when I do an apt-get expecting to download a Raptor-style shooter, I'll be downloading a browser instead. Why didn't they pick a name which wasn't already taken?

Re:Namespace collision

[natrixgli]

To apt-get the browser, you'll need to use "chromium-browser" so I don't think it'll be an issue.

Re:Namespace collision

[Anonymous Coward]

$ aptitude show epiphany{,-browser}
Package: epiphany
State: not installed
Version: 0.7.0-2
Priority: optional
Section: games
Maintainer: Joerg Jaspert
Uncompressed Size: 250k
Depends: epiphany-data (>= 0.7.0), libc6 (>= 2.7-1), libgcc1 (>=
                  1:4.1.1-21), libsdl-mixer1.2 (>= 1.2.6),
                  libsdl1.2debian (>= 1.2.10-1), libstdc++6 (>= 4.2.1-4)
Description: clone of Boulder Dash game
  Epiphany is a multi-platform clone of Boulder Dash. In this
  game, the player must collect all the valuable minerals
  scattered in each level, while avoiding being hit by a falling
  boulder or, worse, by a bomb.

  Boulder Dash was one of the best games ever made for the
  Commodore 64.

Tags: game::arcade, implemented-in::c++, interface::x11,
            role::program, use::gameplaying, x11::application

Package: epiphany-browser
State: installed
Automatically installed: no
Version: 2.24.3-2
Priority: optional
Section: gnome
Maintainer: Josselin Mouette
Uncompressed Size: 32.8k
Depends: epiphany-gecko
Description: Intuitive web browser - dummy package
  Epiphany is a simple yet powerful GNOME web browser targeted at
  non-technical users. Its principles are simplicity and
  standards compliance.

  This dummy package installs Epiphany with the Gecko backend by
  default.
Homepage: http://www.gnome.org/projects/epiphany/

Tags: implemented-in::c, interface::x11, network::client,
            protocol::http, protocol::ssl, role::program,
            scope::application, suite::gnome, uitoolkit::gtk,
            use::browsing, web::browser, works-with::text,
            works-with-format::html

Re:Namespace collision

[danhm]

It's only called "Chromium" because it's an unofficial build; once Google finally releases a GNU/Linux version it is expected that it will also be called Google Chrome. At least that's what the article implies.

Re:Namespace collision

[Tubal-Cain]

It's only called "Chromium" because it's an unofficial build

You seem to think Chromium is to Chrome what Minefield is to Firefox (Can't that be represented as Chromium:Chrome::Minefield:Firefox?)
I am pretty sure that Chrome is more of a branded fork, like IceCat (Iceweasel?) is to Firefox.

Re:Namespace collision

[xiaomai]

Yeah, epiphany is this way too. Definitely a non-issue.

Re:Namespace collision

[sfraggle]

Incorrect. Chromium is the name of the open source project under which the browser is developed. "Google Chrome" is a browser from Google based on the Chromium source code. You can see this explained very clearly in the screenshot here. It's like the difference that used to exist between Mozilla and the Netscape browser.

Re:Namespace collision

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't be bothered to identify every package. So when I get chromium* and realize I've installed Google's crap browser I'll be pissed. (obviously I can't be bothered to plan for the future either)

emerge -s chromium

[corychristison]

Searching...
[ Results for search key : chromium ]
[ Applications found : 1 ]

* games-action/chromium
            Latest version available: 0.9.12-r6
            Latest version installed: [ Not Installed ]
            Size of files: 1,710 kB
            Homepage: http://www.reptilelabour.com/software/chromium/
            Description: Chromium B.S.U. - an arcade game
            License: Artistic

Doesn't look like it's available on Gentoo.

Chrome - Feels Like A Running A New Computer

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure how Google does it but running Chrome gives that feeling of when you get a new computer and all of your old apps seem lighting quick and responsive compared to before.

But it isn't just the incredible speed of Chrome it is the fact that no matter how long you run it still feels exactly as quick and responsive as when you started it up. When I use to run Firefox a few months ago before switching to Chrome I could feel Firefox getting slower and slower and slower as the hours of use ticked by until finally getting annoyed enough to have to quit the app and restart it. Doesn't seem like a big deal but I would end up restarting Firefox three to four times every day just to clear out whatever 'junk' it seems to accumulate.

I thought there were going to be all sorts of extensions I would miss but with Privoxy for ad blocking there isn't anything else that care about. Extensions in Chrome will be nice but so far Chrome + Privoxy is browsing heaven.

Re:Chrome - Feels Like A Running A New Computer

[DomainDominator]

No kidding. I was tired of Firefox bloat and I haven't looked back! I only use Firefox for Netflix instant viewing since they haven't implemented Silverlight to work inside Chrome. Which is really strange because I've gotten my own Silverlight apps working inside Chrome no problem.

Re:Chrome - Feels Like A Running A New Computer

[Yfrwlf]

Wow, maybe Firefox 1 and 2, but 3 seems to have done away with that problem. I leave Firefox 3 open all the time and never have an issue, and I'm running an oldish computer by today's standards (AMD Athlon 64, AGP GFX, etc).

Re:Chrome - Feels Like A Running A New Computer

[Twinbee]

Not enough importance and effort is given to latency with software. Clicking between tabs, resizing windows, opening/closing tabs, clicking back/forward (which isn't ideal in Chrome btw), opening and closing the software - they all are underrated imo.

Re:Chrome - Feels Like A Running A New Computer

[hb253]

I run FF3 on WinXP on an Athlon XP 1800+ with 1 GB and it runs like a champ. I've never experienced slowness or excess memory usage as some here have noted.

Re:Chrome - Feels Like A Running A New Computer

[Slackwise]

Not sure how Google does it but running Chrome gives that feeling of when you get a new computer and all of your old apps seem lighting quick and responsive compared to before.

Pretty simple: Each tab is a process.

Close Tab == Close Process == Release all memory for that process.

Re:Chrome - Feels Like A Running A New Computer

[argiedot]

You're fortunate. The Linux version is a dog. I ran Sunspider on Firefox 3 in a Virtual Machine running Windows XP and it beat Firefox 3 on the Ubuntu host by a huge margin. The Linux version (or at least the Ubuntu one) is terrible.

Re:Chrome - Feels Like A Running A New Computer

[Anonymous Coward]

Rule 5 of Slashdot: You are not allowed to change your opinions when $VENDOR fixes $SOFTWARE.

Re:Chrome - Feels Like A Running A New Computer

[Yfrwlf]

The only thing that sucks for me is Flash is slower than the Windows version, otherwise Firefox 3 in Linux works faster for me than it does on a faster Windows machine. I love having the freedom to keep using an older comp with an updated OS. :)

Re:Chrome - Feels Like A Running A New Computer

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, FireFox 3 suffers the same problems. I have to Save and Quit once a day just to get some of the 700MB of memory it's using back.

Linux version.

[Ragingguppy]

Sure would be nice to be able to download the Linux version of chrome some time soon. Been waiting for it for months.

Is this a WINE wrapper?

[bootup]

I didn't read the article- but is this the WINE supported version or an actual x86 compiled native build for GNU/Linux they refer? Or is this something completely different altogether? Based on the few comments I actually read it sounds like this isn't Google's browser even.

Re:Is this a WINE wrapper?

[corychristison]

Not a wrapper.

Check out the Chromium Wiki for more info:
http://dev.chromium.org/Home

Re:Is this a WINE wrapper?

[dotancohen]

I didn't read the article- but...

You know, the article addresses that very question.

Re:Is this a WINE wrapper?

[entgod]

It might not be a wine wrapper but it sure feels like one!

It works slow as hell (read: slower than firefox) on my arch-laptop and everything feels very windowish, single clicking on the url bar selects the text like it does in the windows firefox. Do not want.

Hope it gets better for the official chrome release.

Re:Is this a WINE wrapper?

[entgod]

Uh oh. I feel pretty embarassed to admit this but it seems like the chromium I installed via AUR (arch user repository) actually IS a wine wrapper :)

Firefox is a stinking pile of garbage

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's just sum up the state of the three major browsers:

Chrome
Multithreaded Javascript and code for each tab.
Memory protection for each tab so no single tab can take down the browser.
Quick and responsive native UI.

IE
Multithreaded Javascript and code for each tab.
Memory protection for each tab so no single tab can take down the browser.
Quick and responsive native UI.

Firefox
All tabs and Javascript run in one giant mess. One execution heavy tab drags down the performance of the entire browser
No memory protection. Everything is in one gigantic soup of data. One tab crashes, down goes the whole browser
Clunky and slow crossplatform UI implementation

The latest IE 8's absolutely smoke Firefox in performance and stability. What an absolute humiliation for the Firefox developers. They had years to get their shit together. But they sat on their asses and now they have been left in the technological dust by both Google and Microsoft.

High five Firefox devs!

Re:Firefox is a stinking pile of garbage

[Daniel Phillips]

Let's just sum up the state of the three major browsers:

Chrome
Multithreaded Javascript and code for each tab.
Memory protection for each tab so no single tab can take down the browser.
Quick and responsive native UI.

IE
Multithreaded Javascript and code for each tab.
Memory protection for each tab so no single tab can take down the browser.
Quick and responsive native UI.

Firefox
All tabs and Javascript run in one giant mess. One execution heavy tab drags down the performance of the entire browser
No memory protection. Everything is in one gigantic soup of data. One tab crashes, down goes the whole browser
Clunky and slow crossplatform UI implementation

The latest IE 8's absolutely smoke Firefox in performance and stability. What an absolute humiliation for the Firefox developers. They had years to get their shit together. But they sat on their asses and now they have been left in the technological dust by both Google and Microsoft.

High five Firefox devs!

Well given that that AC's post is technically accurate I don't really think it's a troll. It's true, Firefox failed to advance in many respects, the way it should have giving its high level of funding. It leaks like a sieve, everybody knows that. I too have to restart it every couple of days or it ooms my machine. Keyboard navigation is still very dodgy. It has big problems with spinning on on web pages that konq just loads gracefully. Etc.

Yes, you can say it's better than IE 5/6/7. I don't know about IE 8, jury is out.

Re:Firefox is a stinking pile of garbage

[Vexorian]

Firefox is cross platform?! Damn those evil firefox developers.

Re:Firefox is a stinking pile of garbage

[anaesthetica]

Sadly, Firefox developers shifted from "fast and simplified feature set" to "include lots of features to make the web fun & easy." They're working on Firefox 3.5 and 3.6 right now, both of which are feature-driven releases. Astonishingly, the one feature for Firefox 3.5 that makes the release competitive with Chrome & Safari—the new javascript engine, TraceMonkey—was almost cut from the release because it is/was too buggy to fit into their release schedule.

The Mozilla 2.0 project, which is supposed to refactor a good deal of the Gecko code in order to make it leaner and easier to deal with, is not getting much attention at all while the feature-driven point releases consume everyone's attention. Mozilla developers have lost any focus they once had on the fundamentals of browser innovation, and are now given over to the same level of feature bloat that killed the original Mozilla browser (now SeaMonkey). Extensions were supposed to be the solution for this: extra features could be implemented by users so that developers could focus on making the browser faster. Not anymore.

It will not surprise me if the hard core of geeks that abandoned Mozilla Suite for Firefox now abandon Firefox for Chrome and Safari. The first one of those browsers to get an extensions/plugin framework allowing for ad-blocking and development tools will start sucking a lot of folks over.

Re:Firefox is a stinking pile of garbage

[Anonymous Coward]

Processes != Threads, and I'm surprised an inaccurate post like this would get modded up on slashdot. Chrome and IE8 are multiprocess, sure, but if you really think Firefox isn't multithreaded you should refrain from talking about anything related to software at all, as you clearly don't know anything about programming.

Re:Firefox is a stinking pile of garbage

[Anonymous Coward]

Except it's not accurate, as threads!=processes. Chrome and IE8 are multiprocess, but Firefox has to be multithreaded. Here, a random search on bugzilla turns up this bug which is directly related to multithreading - there's no reason a program would lock on a semaphore if it wasn't multithreaded. Or this one, race conditions are solely a problem with multithreaded applications.

Re:Firefox is a stinking pile of garbage

[lordSaurontheGreat]

A little revolution every now and then is a good thing, don't you think?

Netscape -> Mozilla -> Firefox -> Webkit (Chrome and Safari)
                  -> IE 6 ->

Re:Firefox is a stinking pile of garbage

[Runaway1956]

Throwing IE8 into the comparison may or may not be unfair. I won't argue that. But, calling Firefox garbage is most definitely unfair. I mean, HOLY SHIT MAN!! Just how long has Internet Explorer had something so simple as tabbed browsing, now? Face it, IE had to reverse engineer the best parts of FF to come up with something new. Chrome? It's entirely new, build on totally different engine. I like Chrome, but, hey, comparing it to Firefox is a bit like comparing a motorcycle to a car. An air-cooled two cylinder isn't ANYTHING like a water cooled 4 or 6 cylinder - how can you compare them? Firefox has been a great browser, and it has shown the world how a browser should look. If Chrome really is a better browser (time will tell) we should remember that Chrome stands on Firefox's shoulders. As well as Safari's shoulders. ;)

Re:Firefox is a stinking pile of garbage

[Anonymous Coward]

All of the Firefox UI, as well as anything that ever touches anything DOM, run on the same thread. That's why the new worker threads stuff doesn't support .responseXML - that would require a DOM, and touching that on a background thread is a good way to crash Firefox.

Firefox uses threads for network requests. Not for DNS lookups though, that would confuse proxy auto-config scripts.

Your first bug hasn't got debug symbols so I can't tell what's going on, but the second on is a race between network requests and threads are not directly related in the way you think.

Re:Firefox is a stinking pile of garbage

[shutdown -p now]

It will not surprise me if the hard core of geeks that abandoned Mozilla Suite for Firefox now abandon Firefox for Chrome and Safari.

I don't think it will be the geeks that will abandon Firefox first, I think it'll be the casual users. Here's a browser that 1) is visibly much faster, and 2) is from a well-known brand. And... "adblock"? what's "adblock"?

Plugins will surely follow, nonetheless. Maybe not in Chrome per se, but hey, it's OSS for a reason...

On the Linux front things are interesting, too. Gnome is slowly but steadily moving to WebKit for all its HTML rendering needs, including Epiphany. From what I heard, KDE4 is also going to replace KHTML with WebKit (or did they backtrack on that?). It seems that everyone is converging on WebKit as the cross-platform, OSS Web browser engine. And I don't think that bodes well for Gecko or Firefox.

Re:Firefox is a stinking pile of garbage

[shutdown -p now]

Or this one, race conditions are solely a problem with multithreaded applications.

Race conditions happen in multi-process systems all the time. Ever seen one process create a file, then try to open it, while another deletes it right as it was closed?

Re:Firefox is a stinking pile of garbage

[El_Muerte_TDS]

Memory protection for each tab so no single tab can take down the browser.

I still don't get that selling point. I've been using Firefox from before it was 1.0, and it might have crashed on me once or twice.

Re:Firefox is a stinking pile of garbage

[andy.ruddock]

race conditions are solely a problem with multithreaded applications.

No they're not. They're a problem when a single resource is to be used by multiple consumers.
Wikipedia explains it quite nicely.

Re:Firefox is a stinking pile of garbage

[aojensen]

I completely forgot about the person who left Netscape with his last words "You can't polish a Turd" after Netscape open sourced their browser and morphed into Mozilla Foundation.

Besides the fact that your technical comparison is correct, it's incredible how fast people are at ditching Firefox for being slow -- while at the same time embracing Firefox when a new version of Internet Explorer is released. I'd call it the fallacy of browser competition.

I'd love to use Chrome. I actually tried the latest stable release on Win32 a couple of time, and it's incredibly fast. But I use Mac OS X on my desktop, and Google haven't ported the browser yet.

Google, keep up the good work and port the browser to Mac OS X as soon as possible!

Re:Firefox is a stinking pile of garbage

[Anonymous Coward]

The "Linux" Chrom(ium) is 32-bit only, and everything indicates it is also Linux-only, meaning they just replaced crappy platform-dependent WinAPI code with not-less-crappy Linux code. Wake me up when I can compile Chrapmium on OpenBSD.

There is no way you can compare a visualbasic gui slapped on top of WebKit with a full-featured cross-platform browser like firefox. Process separation sounds like a good idea now that everyone has crappy code that crashes every now and then.

I would rather Firefox developers focusing in making the code more stable and threadable instead of adding unneeded process overhead.

Re:Firefox is a stinking pile of garbage

[Yvanhoe]

Just to nitpick : Chrome isn't multi-threaded, it is multi-processed.
And in my humble opinion, the main drawback of IE8 is that it doesn't run on linux.

Re:Firefox is a stinking pile of garbage

[eulernet]

Mod the parent troll !

Chrome is very responsive, but come on, IE 7 is slow as hell !
Try to use about:blank as the start page, and you'll see that it takes around 2-3 seconds to start, with a message saying that it starts to connect !
Its Javascript engine is super slow, so using GMail is a PITA. As a developer, I have encountered nasty bugs in IE (like authentication problems, that need to reset the preferences !), so I don't trust this browser.

I didn't test IE8, since I never install MS betas anymore. Having tested a few of their hard-to-remove products was enough for me.

Anyway, I agree that Firefox gets worse and worse, not because of the memory isolation (who cares ?), but because it's slow to start.
Anyway, the plugins definitely make it the best browser experience !

Chrome is very fast and nice, but if you wait for AdBlock, it's like waiting for TV channels to stop ads.

Frankly, you should stop using speed as a reason to use a browser.
The main point now is TRUST.
I trust in Firefox+AdBlock+NoScript more than any other browser.

Re:Firefox is a stinking pile of garbage

[Jugalator]

It leaks like a sieve, everybody knows that.

The memory benchmarks I've seen shows that Fx 3 has that issue fix, and well beyond being fixed too. While converesely, IE is far worse off. Are you sure this is not about leaking extensions?

Re:Firefox is a stinking pile of garbage

[mirshafie]

Is it only me who finds the Chrome GUI sluggish? If I don't use Chrome for a while, or if I use a RAM-heavy app like a game, Chrome will actually freeze my computer for 3-10 seconds while it re-reads my tabs into memory. That's a problem.

Re:Firefox is a stinking pile of garbage

[fredrik70]

I'd be very suprised if the modern javascript engines suddenly started doing things in multiple threads. The javascript environment has been single threaded since is invention and now intruducing multithreaded behaviour would break a lot of things.
Also, ANYTHING that touches the UI on Windows and as far as I know on all the other big OSes must run in the same thread as the UI itself. The DOM is most likely running in the UI thread, hence the workers cannot touch it, not without some sort of synchronisation.
In fact, as fast as Chrome's V8 is, I cannot find a single note that it would run in a multithreaded way, surely they put in something like gears, however, they are most likely going to have the same problem as Mozilla with call UI and/or DOM from their workers. Looking at the Gears API, which I assume will be the same for all browser implementing it, it certainly looks like tyhey wont allow it. Sure they might go for the lowest common denominator, but i cannot find anything that says so.

Re:Firefox is a stinking pile of garbage

[BenoitRen]

are now given over to the same level of feature bloat that killed the original Mozilla browser (now SeaMonkey)

This is a popular myth. The reality is that a bunch of people didn't like the direction that the Mozilla project was taking with Mozilla, so they got together and started the Phoenix project.

People rallied behind it because it was new and fresh, and then the Mozilla Foundation started to do marketing for it, which the Mozilla Suite never got. This culminated into the release of Firefox 1.0, and eventually the dropping of the Mozilla Suite.

Re:Firefox is a stinking pile of garbage

[maxume]

Are you on Windows? My anecdotal observation is that other platforms get quite a bit less QA.

Re:Firefox is a stinking pile of garbage

[Squeeonline]

"I too have to restart it every couple of days or it ooms my machine. " Oh come on, that's hardly a problem. I restart my FF3 every hour or two to keep it top shape. Its the same as restarting your computer/laptop every day to clear out shite that builds up.

Re:Firefox is a stinking pile of garbage

[Anonymous Coward]

The truth is you don't need to go deep into each browser's design or implementation. Firefox (formerly firebird) started like Mozilla's light browser and it seemed like a good alternative to the omminous IE.

These days, FF doesn't seem such a good alternative even when IE has not been improved as much as it should.

I use to recommend FF to all my non-IT friends&family but honestly I don't see a reason to keep doing that anymore.

And frankly I think chrome is doing remarkably well considering all the bad publicity that multiprocess programming has traditionaly had. It was high time someone realized this paradigm is not so bad. The benefits of it clearly outweighs the memory overuse.

Re:Firefox is a stinking pile of garbage

[TravisO]

Do you work for Microsoft? I haven't seen such an obvious attempt at smearing reality like this in awhile.

What I'm referring to is the fact you are comparing IE8 beta to Firefox 3 release. You do realize Firefox 3.5 beta, while it doesn't have multithreading per tab, runs Javascript just as fast as Chrome and IE8.

So while Firefox 3.5 isn't a silver bullet, it's still a bullet in flight. I'm just asking you to compare apples to apples, comon, this is /., stop talking like a marketing zombie.

Re:Firefox is a stinking pile of garbage

[naetuir]

It will not surprise me if the hard core of geeks that abandoned Mozilla Suite for Firefox now abandon Firefox for Chrome and Safari. The first one of those browsers to get an extensions/plugin framework allowing for ad-blocking and development tools will start sucking a lot of folks over.

It's already too late on both of those. Chrome + Privoxy is a very solid setup, though I'm not happy with that particular development setup. Safari 4 actually has the best development set of tools (or the ones I like the best, at least). It comes real close to the Firebug plug-in that you get for Firefox, and it all runs and much, much faster speeds. I'm not 100% off of Firefox yet, but I'm headed that direction. I can't deal with Firefox crashing 4-5 times per day, just because I have a bunch of plug-ins. If I can't use plug-ins, I might as well be using Chrome or Safari 4.

Re:Firefox is a stinking pile of garbage

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Indeed. I just close my browser when I'm done with it, and open when I need it. The start time (.5 - 2 seconds) is not the end of my world.

Its the same as restarting your computer/laptop every day to clear out shite that builds up.

I dunno about that - it really isn't necessary on modern OS's. I shut my laptop down once a week or less, and sleep it the rest of the time. And *gasp* it's running WinXP!

Re:Firefox is a stinking pile of garbage

[ultrabot]

I would rather Firefox developers focusing in making the code more stable and threadable instead of adding unneeded process overhead.

So instead of creating a more robust architecture, squash every little bug in the codebase?

Processes are the most efficient cleanup mechanism around (short of power cycle). This is why operating systems don't come to screeching halt all the time, even if there are tons of bugs in userspace software.

Sadly, processes are underutilized, now that kids think threads/mainloop dispatchers and memory sharing are the way to go. Hopefully Chrome taught them a lesson.

Re:Firefox is a stinking pile of garbage

[Pope]

IE
Multithreaded Javascript and code for each tab.
Memory protection for each tab so no single tab can take down the browser.
Quick and responsive native UI.

And where can I get this native IE for Mac and Linux (Ubuntu preferably)?

Re:Firefox is a stinking pile of garbage

[Squeeonline]

I use ubuntu 8.10. I dont have to restart, but sometimes I do. I only have a laptop, so I find myself restarting quite a bit anyway.

Re:Firefox is a stinking pile of garbage

[badkarmadayaccount]

No, that's Windows swapping like a demon.

Re:Firefox is a stinking pile of garbage

[badkarmadayaccount]

They should sit them down in front of a pre-X Macintosh. Interrupt-unsafe HDD drivers FTW!

Re:Firefox is a stinking pile of garbage

[badkarmadayaccount]

Think of the JS interpreter as a library being invoked the JS code. Now, is that dependent on the interpreter? Of course, multi threading within a process is complicated, check kernel mailing lists for details. But separate processes, that's much easier.

Re:Firefox is a stinking pile of garbage

[MarysDuby]

Mod the parent troll !

Chrome is very responsive, but come on, IE 7 is slow as hell ! Try to use about:blank as the start page, and you'll see that it takes around 2-3 seconds to start, with a message saying that it starts to connect ! Its Javascript engine is super slow, so using GMail is a PITA. As a developer, I have encountered nasty bugs in IE (like authentication problems, that need to reset the preferences !), so I don't trust this browser.

I didn't test IE8, since I never install MS betas anymore. Having tested a few of their hard-to-remove products was enough for me.

Anyway, I agree that Firefox gets worse and worse, not because of the memory isolation (who cares ?), but because it's slow to start. Anyway, the plugins definitely make it the best browser experience !

Chrome is very fast and nice, but if you wait for AdBlock, it's like waiting for TV channels to stop ads.

Frankly, you should stop using speed as a reason to use a browser. The main point now is TRUST. I trust in Firefox+AdBlock+NoScript more than any other browser.

Dittos to that and i did notice Firefox getting slower since the last update--i just thought it was me

Re:Firefox is a stinking pile of garbage

[Lord Kestrel]

As someone who has played with Firefox since it was a patch bundle you had to apply to the Mozilla source tree, I disagree. Firefox was considerably faster than the Mozilla of the day (M9 or so I think?). I don't think it started as Phoenix either, I thought there was something earlier, but whatever.

It was faster, and more stable than the Mozilla bundle. That alone made it worth using. By the time it hit 0.3 or so, it was actually good enough for everyday use. By the time it hit the 0.8/0.9 range, the Mozilla Foundation had realized that it was so much better a browser than the full suite that it was able to compete with IE, and that's when the advertising started. The Mozilla Suite was competitive with the Netscape Communicator suite, not IE. And Netscape was in a rapid downward spiral, so it wasn't exactly difficult to take market share from it even without advertising. IE is where the real battle was, which is why they didn't start advertising until Firefox was actually good enough to compete with IE.

Re:Firefox is a stinking pile of garbage

[BenoitRen]

It was faster, and more stable than the Mozilla bundle.

You do realise that that was the case because it was as bare-bones as it could get, right?

By the time it hit the 0.8/0.9 range, the Mozilla Foundation had realized that it was so much better a browser than the full suite that it was able to compete with IE, and that's when the advertising started.

This is blatant revisionism. The truth is that because it was new, people got excited, and flocked to it. This is how it got exposure. What also added to the spotlight a lot was that it tried to be an IE clone in terms of looks. Just check the articles of back in the day as far back as Firebird 0.6. The Mozilla Foundation decided to follow the wave. The roadmap shows this: http://web.archive.org/web/20030801081914/www.mozilla.org/roadmap.html

And Netscape was in a rapid downward spiral, so it wasn't exactly difficult to take market share from it even without advertising.

If that was true, Mozilla would have had a bigger market share back in the day. Yet many stayed with Netscape.

Did they say it was to be based on GTK?

[bogaboga]

I think I heard that somewhere. Here is my hope: -

As Google releases these betas, those capable keep up and push out a native QT (and therefore KDE) based "Google Chrome" browser. I hope this is not too much to ask for.

On a side note, I wonder why they have to call it "Google Chrome" on Windows and "Chromium" on Linux.

Re:Did they say it was to be based on GTK?

[Plug]

See the "this browser is not ready" start page:

Chromium is an open source browser project. Google Chrome is a browser from Google, based on the Chromium project. This is a build of Chromium. No versions of Google Chrome for Linux will exist until Google makes an official release.

Re:Did they say it was to be based on GTK?

[Tubal-Cain]

There is Chromium for Windows, and it doesn't come with all of Google's tack-ons.
Latest build here.

Re:Did they say it was to be based on GTK?

[kripkenstein]

I think I heard that somewhere. Here is my hope: -

As Google releases these betas, those capable keep up and push out a native QT (and therefore KDE) based "Google Chrome" browser. I hope this is not too much to ask for.

The Google devs are using GTK, the reason given was that the relevant people had GTK expertise already so they preferred it. The community might conceivably create a Qt version, but I doubt it: We already have great WebKit support in Qt, and Konqueror as well, and V8 isn't obviously much better than SquirrelFish Extreme.

On a side note, I wonder why they have to call it "Google Chrome" on Windows and "Chromium" on Linux.

The name is the same on both. Chrome is the full browser, which uses the Chromium open source library as its base. Chrome itself might contain non-open source components in theory, non-free artwork branding, etc. - but I don't know if it does.

Re:Did they say it was to be based on GTK?

[HyperQuantum]

a native QT (and therefore KDE) based "Google Chrome" browser

The use of QT does not imply KDE! (FYI)

Linux Repositories == FAIL

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to go Linux! Gotta love those idiotic distribution BandAids that are repositories!

Listening to the Linux fanboys trying to convince the 99 percent of the computing world they are missing out the 'amazing' Linux application distribution method.

Windows: Click on a link in the story about the new software app. Installer takes care of everything.

OS X: Click on a link in the story about the new software app. Simply drag it to anywhere you want.

Linux:

Post link crying about how it isn't in the repository of your distro. Possibly go grab the source and try to compile it yourself. Spend hours tracking down library and build dependencies. Give up. Finally find a link to someone who has managed to build for your distro version. Try to manually place the right files that are scattered throughout the Linux files system because the is no standard App bundle format like on OS X. Meanwhile the bearded-GNU freak with the chiliburger stained Star Trek uniform teeshirt who is in charge of packaging software for your distro has woken up from his night of World of Warcraft raiding and bong hits and decides to get around to getting your software into the repository servers sometime next week. Maybe.

Re:Linux Repositories == FAIL

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux:

Post link crying about how it isn't in the repository of your distro. Possibly go grab the source and try to compile it yourself. Spend hours tracking down library and build dependencies. Give up. Finally find a link(...)

blah blah blah <trolling> blah <flamebait> blah blah

This kind of rubbish got old. Please try a troll recycling course and update yourself.

Re:Linux Repositories == FAIL

[Anonymous Coward]

...and next week I'll be thanking that "bearded-GNU freak" because he actually fixed the packaging so that it doesn't break things or install hard to remove update services behind your back. Seriously, the people who do not understand the beauty of package management and must shout their stupidity to other people are way more annoying than the people who think package management is the perfect solution for every problem.

Re:Linux Repositories == FAIL

[Anonymous Coward]

If I remember correctly, I've installed ubuntu .deb packages from my browser as well - click on a link in a story about the new software app. GDebi takes care of everything and resolves dependencies.

Your rant == FAIL

The funny thing is, 99.9% of 'new' software is already in the repository, so there is no need to click-save-run installer. It's as simple as typing 'apt-get install ' for installing it from aptitude or synaptic.

After installation, the package manager handles automatic updates. I don't know is OSX does that, but Windows sure doesn't.

Re:Linux Repositories == FAIL

[Goaway]

You know, I just spent the better part of twenty minutes trying to get this installed, and it still doesn't work.

I found sources.list, I pasted the suggested lines into it, adapted for my Ubuntu version (which I had to guess from the other entries in the file, because everything refers to the code names which are not displayed anywhere), and tried installing through apt-get.

Which didn't work.

So I read more, and notice I have to go through ANOTHER cryptic procedure to add a public key for the repository, and I click through all the configuration tabs and buttons, and all the cryptic links on the webpage, and manage to add it successfully.

And it still doesn't work.

And now I really have no idea how to proceed. But hey, I'm sure that's just my own fault.

After all, I was the one who installed this OS in the first place.

Chrome still misses the point

[billcopc]

I want to like Chrome, really I do, and I applaud them for speeding up JavaScript, but they are completely ignoring the one feature developers love about Firefox: add-ons!

I actually switched to FF roughly two years ago, when I found out about Firebug and a few other creature comforts. Nowadays, the first thing I do on a new machine is install the 15-20 add-ons that make my job easier and my surfing more comfortable. I tweak the shit out of that browser, and yes it does bog it down a bit with all the excess code, but that's peanuts next to the time I save with all these finely-tuned add-ons. Even if I had just Firebug, WebDeveloper and GreaseMonkey, I could still do just about everything I want with the browser.

I don't know how Chrome works out for regular users, but as a web developer, Firefox is still the supreme hotness. I'd be more supportive if the Chrome devs just ditched their browser and offered the same functionality via Firefox mods (or code contributions). They could even replicate the Chrome UI in FF, for the many folks who like the de-cluttered style.

Re:Chrome still misses the point

[Anonymous Coward]

and you are still missing the point ...

the idea behind chrome is a rearchitecting of the browser - and thus, it isn't just something that they could do to firefox via some mods .. its a bit deeper than that

perhaps introduce mods into chromium might be a better method methinks ..

Re:Chrome still misses the point

[cryptoluddite]

and you are still missing the point ...

And you're missing the point.

No user cares about the architecture unless if gives them actual benefits. Firefox addons undeniably give huge benefits to many users.

The only architectural feature of Chrome of note is separate processes per tab. But is that a benefit?

First of all, any crash is unacceptable, and I've been running beta firefox on a daily basis at work and the last time it crashed for me was several months ago. So this is basically no benefit. The only real benefit for stability is running flash in a separate process, which firefox already does with nspluginwrapper.

Now performance. Chrome can make better use of multiple processors, which is great, but it means if you have two tabs open with flash on your dual-core then all your other programs have to compete for resources instead of having an idle CPU to use. Or if you are single-core then you have twice as many procs competing for resources with everything else, making everything else more sluggish. Granted, those are bullshit reasons technically BUT what matter is only what users actually prefer and not what is technically 'best'. Users might prefer all their other apps to be snappy more than their tabs to multitask well.

Memory usage. Chrome can recover memory better when a tab closes, but it wastes more memory for a tab to be open (duplicated images, etc). And once there are ad-ons that need to coordinate among multiple processes, is memory going to explode with each tab? Uncertain. Remember that Java also uses the same concept of a separate process per 'thing' and look how well that works out when you have lots of them running at once.

Frankly, if you give people a 'taste test' between firefox with chromifox theme (makes it look like Chrome) and Chrome, I think you'll find the browser architecture, except to geek fanboys, is pretty low on the totem pole.

Re:Chrome still misses the point

[spaceturtle]

Yes chrome GUI is OK, but the real advantage is that Chrome has an decent architecture so that a crash usually doesn't crash the entire browser (this may also have security benefits, as I understand Google sandboxes the tabs). See: http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/features.html#

You can't do that as a mod to firefox (You'd have to do it as a mod to Emacs instead ;)

Re:Chrome still misses the point

[Joe Tie.]

It might be fair to say they're being a bit slow on getting extensions, but they're hardly ignoring it. It's on the development timeline, people are working on preliminary code for it right now.

Re:Chrome still misses the point

[AnalPerfume]

Google must be split on the idea of addons for Chrome. Without addons Firefox users wouldn't be blocking Google adverts, blocking Google's Analaytics etc at every turn. I don't doubt that this was a major factor in deciding to build their own browser, which won't allow Google's data mining / advertising machine to be blocked. Unfortunately for them, the cat is out of the bag for a lot of users who now know it's possible, and insist that the browser they use be able to do it. Firefox can with addons, Opera can by editing a text file but Google really must be in a quandry over letting Chrome users do it. If they don't adapt to the addon system they will only ever be a minority to Firefox and Opera, if they do then AdBlock and NoScript will appear very quickly. If they then try the Apple approach and ban anything which competes with (or in this case, blocks) their own stuff, they will not only get bad PR which affects the "do no evil" image they've carefully promoted but will push people who converted early to Chrome under the assumption that addons will appear sometime down the line and that these features will appear when they're ready. How many of those will then switch back to their previous browser of choice if they know advert and script blocking ain't gonna be allowed.

Re:Chrome still misses the point

[RoFLKOPTr]

I'd be more supportive if the Chrome devs just ditched their browser and offered the same functionality via Firefox mods (or code contributions). They could even replicate the Chrome UI in FF, for the many folks who like the de-cluttered style.

You obviously haven't the slightest clue about what makes Chrome such a revolutionary browser. Here, let me sum it up for you. Chrome has sandboxing features at every level of the application. Each tab runs in its own process in its own memory space, so if a tab crashes, the program as a whole remains stable. Each app within each tab also runs in its own process, so if Flash Player or Java crash, the tab as a whole remains stable. This memory handling nearly eliminates the possibility of memory leaks, because a tab's process is terminated (rendering its memory allocation empty) when you close a tab. Chrome uses WebKit, which is a very fast rendering engine on its own... but pair that with the javascript engine that Google wrote from scratch to be as fast and efficient as possible, and you get THE fastest graphical browser on the market at release date. I believe the betas of a couple browsers are faster than the current stable Chrome... but I'd like to see how this new beta Chrome holds up.

It is THAT, along with its open-sourcedness, and Google's announcements that their plan isn't to dominate the browser market, but to compete in it to promote more advanced browser technologies (remember that their services are AJAX, whose speed is more dependent upon engine efficiency than coding at this point) that make Chrome so great.

(Let it be known for the record that I used Chrome for about 4 months since it was released before I switched back to Firefox because of add-ons)

Re:Chrome still misses the point

[Onyma]

Parent Mod +1... I would if I had points at the moment.

Re:Chrome still misses the point

[daver00]

As a web developer myself who used to use firebug, Chrome has turned out to be by far the better tool. The javascript console is a whole lot better than firebug. When you are in Chrome, click the little page menu icon, and in the menu there is a flyout called "Developer". They have actually built web development tools into the browser, screw half-assed bodgey addons, Chrome is the ducks nuts when it comes to web development.

I hate using firefox now that I've become accustomed to Chrome, on any system of any spec firefox is just slow as a dog, far slower than IE7 even which is embarrassing. What really gets to me about firefox is the linux build is near unusable in its slowness. I have it on my xubuntu eee pc, and its just about worthless as a web browser, especially in that limited environment.

Re:Chrome still misses the point

[Anonymous Coward]

yes i miss some addons ... but chrome is fast and i use it as my "normal" browser

for webdevs, no doubt we're going to use firefox ... but what percentage of the population are webdevs?

i don't think Google is concerned about AdBlock and NoScript ... the reason they have been successful is because their ads aren't annoying and useful to most people doing internet searches ... if they had ads you wanted to block in the first place, the company wouldn't be making money

i think they are just taking their time to make sure they have a clean addon API that keeps Chrome fast. even if Chrome has thousands of cool addons, i'll stop using it the moment it starts acting slow.

Re:Chrome still misses the point

[martin-boundary]

While addons are a simple way of blocking ads and spyscripts, they are far from the only way to do it.

Even if firefox didn't have addons, all it would take is a proxy filter to remove the ads and spyscripts. The proxy can run locally on the same machine as your browser, and you tell the browser to pass all the web page requests to the proxy. For example, I use Polipo to speed up web browsing, and of course there's the old squid that's bundled with every distro.

The only reason ad blockers prefer to run as a browser add-on is because the HTML page can be accessed easily using the DOM and javascript. If an ad blocker were to run inside a proxy, it would either have to filter the raw HTML like everybody did in the old days, or the proxy program itself would eventually evolve to expose the DOM as a service to various filtering modules.

Re:Chrome still misses the point

[shutdown -p now]

The thing is, Chrome does feel much faster than Firefox, simple as that. Install it and have a look. Show it to your GF (or mom, or whatever). You'll see what I mean.

Architecture that's behind it is interesting to a geek, but obviously not to the end user. Still... it works.

Re:Chrome still misses the point

[Twinbee]

All I can say is fine; use adblock and similar scripts for yourselves, but don't try to advertise it too heavily. Let people come hunting for it, rather than vice versa.

Many websites depend on adsense revenue otherwise they die. I think Chrome should support something like adblock, but it would be sad for it to take off to the point where its advantages are outweighed by the negative effect on webmasters, especially since many surfers actually find these adverts useful anyway.

Re:Chrome still misses the point

[peater]

I agree. I'm a Chrome fan for fast and light weight browsing, but I think I just get a lot more done with GreaseMonkey and Ubiquity combined on FF. But I guess while Chrome needs to support add-ons in the future, FireFox needs to realize that it needs to spruce up its memory and process management. Hopefully the competition will do what it usually does, force the developers on both fronts to get off their asses, improve two WONDERFUL products and make them even better. End result, the end-user wins. I like the fact that FF finally has competition on the loyalty front. On the PR front, FireFox had eaten IE alive but with Chrome catching up on the PR and technology front, I guess FF is in for some real heat. Should be a fun game to watch (and hopefully contribute to! )

Re:Chrome still misses the point

[renoX]

[[ the only architectural feature of Chrome of note is separate processes per tab. But is that a benefit? ]]
Yes!! Because it feels more responsive thanks to its use of several process.. Plus when one webpage use too much CPU you can easily find which one does this (using the built in task manager) and avoid this website..

The biggest drawback of Chrome is that you cannot have Flash blocked by default currently.
I'm using Opera now (switched during FF2 days as FF2 leaked like crazy), but I'll switch to Chrome when it'll have a Flash blocker.

Re:Chrome still misses the point

[Anonymous Coward]

and you are still missing the point ...

And you're missing the point.

No YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT!!!

Re:Chrome still misses the point

[UltimApe]

processes aren't per-tab, but are per-site, so all your pages on slashdot.org are loaded in the same process, and can share memory (aka no dupliated images). you can verify this by looking at chrome's task manager...

Re:Chrome still misses the point

[cryptoluddite]

Yes!! Because it feels more responsive thanks to its use of several process..

How responsive does it feel when you leave Chrome running and switch over to Unreal Tournament 3? Or Warcraft? I've never needed to close out firefox because I always have an idle CPU for whatever else I'm working on.

So my point is that the market might have more important factors than 'feeling responsive'. Like for instance 'dont have to close a bunch of tabs in order to play a game'. You don't know what those factors are, I don't know what they are. Only the invisible hand knows...

Re:Chrome still misses the point

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that Chrome still misses the point, but that's not my major beef with it. I wrote a little firewall service that logs all data sent from my computer to the web. I leave it on all the time, so I can see what websites are leeching information about me. I've never seen a browser initiate the transfer of info; it's always the website code that's doing it. Chrome actually sends a copy of the info to Google - I mean Chrome is initiating the transfer! Talk about privacy invasion! As a test, I went to an online store and entered bogus credit card info. That friggin' Chrome actually sent the credit card info to Google! Number, address, everything - and in clear text no less! I was just testing the browser, and have no intention of using it, of course - I have no interest in supplying info to Google that they'll turn around and make money off of without my knowledge. IMHO, Chrome should be classified as spyware, no less.

Re:Chrome still misses the point

[Anonymous Coward]

If you've ever used Firefox on Linux, I would practically kill for a good webkit browser with fast javascript right about now.

All I can say to this is...

[david.given]

...my god it's fast.

Start up in under half a second. From cold.

When you resize it, the text moves smoothly, the way old-fashioned Xlib apps used to do. My Firefox installation gets about two redraws a second.

Render speed seems to be decent, and it generally feels snappy in a way that Firefox doesn't.

However: this is in no way ready to be used as a browser, even if you're masochistic. No dialogue boxes, so no setting of options. No tab control; you always see the most recent tab, and there's no way of selecting another one. Rendering glitches; Slashdot won't render, for example (although this might be considered a feature). And it's unstable. Five minutes playing made it crash three times.

But I'm going to continue watching with great interest. I'd love to ditch Firefox.

Re:All I can say to this is...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm posting this from Chrome 2, so Slashdot does render, at least on my XP machine. Hasn't crashed in my first 5 minutes either. What are you talking about no dialog boxes/setting options? I was able to get into the options dialog box on the second try (the first time it opened the about box and I swear I clicked on options).

Sounds like your system just doesn't like Chrome 2.

Re:All I can say to this is...

[Leto-II]

He's probably using Chromium on Linux, not Chrome 2 on Windows.

Re:All I can say to this is...

[slyn]

I can't wait until its available for OS X. I switched from Safari 3 to Firefox 3 when FF3 first came out, but in the past few months I've been looking forward to either Chrome for OS X or Safari 4 coming out.

Firefox takes FOREVER to start up. Like 6-8 seconds. CS4 programs start faster than it. I'm sure this is mostly attributable to the 33,000+ site history I've built up since I installed it, in conjunction with the awesome bar (which I am apparently one of the few fans of). If its getting slow because of my large history (which I'm sure pales in comparison to some /.-ers), then they should have picked a method of storing the history info that scales better. Nonetheless, performance degrades over time open too, and it hasn't yet given up its memory hog ways. It crashes maybe twice a week, and JavaScript performance has gotten slow to the point that even just on heavily commented /. articles I can scroll down faster than the page is loading the comments (and download speed is plenty fast).

Firefox is still better than IE, but the truth is that despite market share, IE is no longer its direct competition. IE is already slowly dying, and Chrome, Safari, and to a lesser extent, Opera are its new measuring sticks. Beating IE at "the internet" is like taking candy from a baby, now Firefox needs to realize its competing against some bigger kids, and adjust accordingly.

I hope it does, if only for the sake of competition.

Re:All I can say to this is...

[Onyma]

I had several rendering gliches and took it down lock stock and barrel inside 10 minutes. So much for tab isolation :) It's not ready yet... but with the feedback they got from my spectacular crash maybe it will be in time.

Re:All I can say to this is...

[steelfood]

To be fair, the Windows version of Firefox has great startup times. It's not half a second, but it's pretty good as far as Windows apps in general go. But only a cold install. Once you start downloading add-ons, Firefox slows down significantly. In particular, if you have a lot of Adblock filters, or several subscriptions, your startup time jumps quite a bit.

Re:All I can say to this is...

[blamanj]

FYI: Safari 4 is out (as beta). It screams. Unfortunately a little too buggy to use, but damn, it's fast.

Re:All I can say to this is...

[mrrudge]

You can play with Safari 4 now, it's in beta, but seems pretty stable to me on OSX. YMMV.
http://www.apple.com/safari/download/

FANTASTIC!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is great! A crazy fast browser I cant use because it only supports windows is now even faster! that surely soothes the suffering that it's still fucking windows only.

how about you get it running multi-platform first, before you work on optimization; that way you wont have to re-do the optimization again every time you find that the way you did it only works on windows

Re:FANTASTIC!

[Anonymous Coward]

u need to apt-get waaaaambulance

Re:Obnoxious

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, there is a dialog box when the browser is first run. You likely clicked through it

Other repositories?

[Megatog615]

Is there a repository for good-old Debian Sid?
How about Fedora?

Re:Sorry, but Chrome is Google controlled...

[Anonymous Coward]

Still, it's open source. Wait until they finish the Linux port, then we'll fork it.

Re:Sorry, but Chrome is Google controlled...

[DrDitto]

Its open source. You can create your own fork if you want. Also the Mozilla Foundation gets most of their money these days from Google. Its nice to have companies, that make real money by providing real value, pay people to develop software.

Someone's copying Windows' UI now!

[baxissimo]

This could be the first this is happened in a long while.
The little video on the download site touts "a cool new way to drag tabs out to get a side-by-side view". Look like they ripped that off directly from Windows 7.

I've got no complaints. It's a good idea that the Win7 folks had there, I think. Then again I wouldn't be surprised if TVVWM had it back in 1990. Actually what I'd really like to see borrowed from ancient X win window managers is the "maximize vertically" command. That was really useful.

Re:Someone's copying Windows' UI now!

[irockash]

That got me excited for a second. I was hoping for cascading or tiled tabs, like in Opera.

Then I dragged it out and its a new window, even though the new icon on the task bar says "New Tab."

Still wickedly fast though... Just wondering why they haven't built in any kind of "Google Sync" to keep your bookmarks or notes (again, like Opera). Kind of a no-brainer for Google...

Re:Someone's copying Windows' UI now!

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows 7 has that vertical maximize feature (if it is as the description implies); just drag the upper or lower border to the edge of the screen.

Re:Someone's copying Windows' UI now!

[magamiako1]

It doesn't quite copy the IE functionality in Windows 7. Dragging tabs out is not possible like it is with Chrome.

However, dragging the tabs and using Windows 7's snap abilities (to snap to the right/left side) is actually pretty sweet.

Re:Someone's copying Windows' UI now!

[baxissimo]

Sweet! I've been waiting for that feature to come to Windows since 1995! (which was when a co-worker first showed me the feature in tvtwm.)

how to remove (its not that simple)

[Anonymous Coward]

its not in msconfig as its installed a service (they thought of that) even hijackthis wont kill it due to permissions (it runs as system) if its running it puts itself right back

to remove it you need to
start>run>services.msc
find google service in list, double click it and take note of the service name
it should be something like googleupdatesvc(randomcharacters)
stop the service (if its running)
then open a command prompt (in admin mode if you are on vista) and type
sc delete "nameofgoogleservice"
then go into controlpanel>scheduled tasks
and delete the google job

and voila its not running anymore, then for full piece of mind delete the googleupdate exe in its folder.

As you can see, its just as malicious to remove as most spyware, so we (our company) treats it as such, the fact that its google[donoevil] means nothing to us as we can only judge by an applications behaviour

Re:how to remove (its not that simple)

[Onyma]

I just open task manager, kill the EXE process which ends the service, and then remove it via MSConfig... and it's gone. I also do delete the EXE just to keep Google apps from restarting it.

Re:how to remove (its not that simple)

[Jamie's Nightmare]

if its running it puts itself right back

This is wrong. I have been using Chrome for the past 4 months. I disabled the service the first day it was installed and it remains disabled, even after updating to a newer version of Chrome. Nothing fancy is required.

Re:Sorry, but Chrome is Google controlled...

[Anonymous Coward]

sorry but have to lol this!

Re:Sorry, but Chrome is Google controlled...

[Ant P.]

Next you'll be telling us that castrating MNG support in Firefox was "for the good of the web".

noscript woot

[shuntthepirate]

personally i love noscript, and the overall feel of firefox.. only thing that takes me away from ff is opera, and even then i go back to ff for noscript.

Re:noscript woot

[maxume]

So you are only addicted to cocaine on Wednesdays?

Re:noscript woot

[shuntthepirate]

lolwut?

Last post!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahem! Chaps, very sorry but this is the last post in this thread. Under orders from Her Majesty The Queen, I am bidden to say: 'Last post!'

Nuclear submarines are patrolling the Atlantic. If anyone posts past this point, one of these subs will put to shore and despatch an elite team of Redcoats to come and steal your washing.

You have been warned. Last post, ladies and gentlemen. Last post!

Re:Last post!

[Tubal-Cain]

Nuclear submarines are patrolling the Atlantic.

Better hope no French subs are in the area.

Re:Last post!

[ElectricTurtle]

Redcoats?

Re:Last post!

[Anonymous Coward]

Better hope no French subs are in the area.

That was no accident, it happened because one of the Frenchmen on board posted to Slashdot.fr after 'dernier poteau' was called.

You know what happened to the French, respect the last post call!

Re:Last post!

[Tubal-Cain]

I think I am safe from collisions w/ submarines.

Re:Last post!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I am safe from collisions w/ submarines.

Next time you go swimming mate, watch out. We've got secret back doors into most swimming pools.

It might be years from now, but right when you least expect it, *wham* you'll get a nuclear submarine up the arse.

Re:Last post!

[Tubal-Cain]

Next time you go swimming mate, watch out.

Swimming pools have this nasty tendancy to be build in sunny spots.

Re:Obnoxious

[Anonymous Coward]

File a bug report?

Speed is not an issue

[microbee]

It's already fast enough. Or, put another way, killing all the ads IS the best way to boost performance.

Give me Adblock and TabMix-level control of interface, and I'm ready to switch!

flash

[ScubaS]

I tried this chrome beta but unfortunately, FLASH player is not working properly on some sites.

there's a fork

[nephridium]

I've posted it before and I'll post it again (seems most people still don't know about it): there is a fork from the Chromium project that not only does away with all the "phoning home features" including the annoying background-lurking installer, it also allows for an ad-blocker (looking at the forums, several different ones are available apparently, though I'm using the hosts file myself): Get it here

They also got a "portable" version that requires no installation and stores all settings in the Iron folder (which I'm using).

The source code is also available.

Perhaps, but it wants me to accept other license

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe, but when I try to download it, it wants me to accept 'Google Chrome - Service conditions' which, on a cursory glance, appear to give Google the right to fuck my box until it breaks. No thanks. I'll wait until a proper free as in freedom build arrives.

full screen

[mortram]

not listed among the new features but I hit F11, habitually, and found that there is now a full screen mode

Don't trust browsers from companies that sell ads

[Logic Worshiper]

Google makes it's money by selling online adds. Why would they make a browser giving you the tools to block those adds? They won't. They'll make a browser which gives them more control over your browsing experience, and you less. Hell, Chrome doesn't even let you block 3rd party cookies, because they don't want the 3rd party cookies they put on your computer to be blocked. Any browser google makes will always be limited by google's business model of selling online adds.

Chrome will never give me the control I want of my browsing experience, because that's not in google's interest. Other community developed versions like SRware might do it for me, if they give me the control I want, and block adds.

Re:Don't trust browsers from companies that sell a

[Megatog615]

How would releasing the full source code indicate they're trying to get more control?

Hey, there's nothing stopping you from putting Google's ad servers in your hosts file to block them.

Re:Don't trust browsers from companies that sell a

[Logic Worshiper]

Every other browser lets you block 3rd party cookies. Why doesn't Chrome? The proof is in the pudding.

Re:Don't trust browsers from companies that sell a

[Megatog615]

Oh, well then why don't you submit a patch to include such functionality, or fork the project and write your own cookie blocking feature? You know Chrome isn't release-quality yet, right?

Google, change the name!

[martin-boundary]

There already is a Chromium on Linux, which IMHO has priority on the name. It's an arcade game which has been around for years.

I really think Google should rethink the name 'Chromium' for their browser on Linux. Don't be evil and all that.

Mozilla did it when their browser name clashed with an open source database project, too.

Chromium crashes on intrepid

[xiaomai]

I'm really excited for chromium, but I can't get any pages to load with it on Intrepid. Hopefully the next update works better.

Re:Chromium crashes on intrepid

[Dionysus]

I can't get any pages to load with it on Intrepid

Maybe you need to load it on a Constitution class ship? Although I'm a little partial to Galaxy class ships, myself

Re:Chromium crashes on intrepid

[Anonymous Coward]

same here - didn't find a solution :( guess i have to wait.

Linux version isn't ready at all....

[Pausanias]

Allright, I decided to bite and put in the PPA repositories into my synaptic in Ubuntu Intrepid. Installed chromium-browser. Neither slashdot nor NY times loaded at all. Proceeded to remove the repository given that it was a daily build. Not that you can blame them. When the browser stars, it tells you that it's pre-alpha and that it's gotten too much exposure, with too many people trying it out and expecting it to work.

Re:Linux version isn't ready at all....

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, installed on my Ubuntu 8.10 ( Kubuntu ). Simply, doesn't work. No sites are shown. I'll prefer the demo browser from Qt (WebKit). Why a new browser? Why not contribute to WebKit and implements only the NEW concepts? Please: I think we don't need one million of solutions ( at least in framework level ) for one problem.

Re:Sorry, but Chrome is Google controlled...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, open source. Where the bugs are YOUR fault for not fixing them!

What's wrong with firefox?

[AbRASiON]

I love firefox, I can only thing of ONE problem with it.
Performance.
That's it, functionally it does precisely everything I want it to do, EVERYTHING, the keyboard controls, undo close tab, the ad blocking, everything is how I could possibly want a browser.

The only thing I'd like is 5x the speed, I'm willing to throw hardware at the problem but I think it needs to support multiple cores first.
I'd like to see it use disk cache far better (it simply doesn't 'feel' used based on the speed it works at) I'd like to see memory cache used better, I want the whole experience much much quicker, I'd like some better DNS caching too.

Chromes performance is mind blowing, I'll pay that but in my mind it's un-usable, if I were to make an analogy it's an Ariel Atom vs a BMW M3 - one is much quicker around the track but the other is substantially more functional.

Re:What's wrong with firefox?

[acb]

If you're one of the people who's contented to have one browser window and one tab open at once, Firefox is fine. If you, however, open a few dozen windows, open tabs in windows, and run JavaScript-intensive pages, it will gradually slow down and start using up a lot of CPU whilst idling, eventually crashing.

Of course, you could say that once you've got that many windows open, you're abusing the browser and doing so at your own risk. Which is fine if it's still 1997 and browsers are just HTML document viewers, but at odds with the new reality of DHTML, AJAX and the browser as an application platform. Which is why Google developed a browser that's designed as an application platform rather than a document viewer with functionality hacked into it.

Of course, Mozilla may fix bugs in Firefox and make it faster and more stable, but as long as its architecture is that of a traditional web browser, it's a potentially less stable proposition than Chrome, and bugs and vulnerabilities in it are more of a problem than they would be in Chrome.

Re:What's wrong with firefox?

[AbRASiON]

I can't tell from your opening sentence if you're agreeing with me or not but yes that's right FF is a bit slow.

I realise I'm being greedy but honestly, I run between 5 and 80 tabs at a time, normally I'd say I hover in the 15 to 20 range.
I don't care WHAT resources are used, I do not care at all, the fact is, the HDD is not thrashing, yet it's still slow

So it's CPU, GPU, internet link or memory bandwidth.
I don't care which one needs to be tweaked, fixed, cached or patched, I want 5x the performance, I'd love it.
Seems web pages scale, when I had a 56k modem, my browsing was always 30 to 50% too slow for me.
Then 256k adsl, same and 512 and 1.5mbit and now 18mbit, I think the latency here in Australia might be half the problem (that being said Chrome really did blow away FFox)

Either way, just make my browser fast, stupid ridiculous, insane fast, I will throw the CPU at it but give it to me.

Re:What's wrong with firefox?

[maxume]

Try disabling flash (or use flashblock). On Windows, a week with dozens of tabs is fine (but maybe there are issues on other platforms).

Just installed chromium on Intrepid...

[booyabazooka]

time chromium
WARNING: could not read config file (/home/chris/.chromium)
WARNING: could not read score file (/home/chris/.chromium-score)
randomizing.
SDL initialized.
X Error of failed request: BadRequest (invalid request code or no such operation)
    Major opcode of failed request: 143 (GLX)
    Minor opcode of failed request: 19 (X_GLXQueryServerString)
    Serial number of failed request: 11
    Current serial number in output stream: 11

real 0m0.221s
user 0m0.088s
sys 0m0.012s

That's SO FAST! I've never had a browser run less than a second before!

Re:Just installed chromium on Intrepid...

[gzipped_tar]

Is that the game or the browser? What does a browser has to do with SDL and OpenGL?

Re:Just installed chromium on Intrepid...

[booyabazooka]

Good call!

Also, Chrome and IE

[benjymouse]

Also, Chrome and IE are the only browsers with any meaningful sandboxing. Chrome actually leads the pack with multiple sandbox mechanisms on Vista where it uses its own sandbox and in addition to that the Vista low integrity process mode (same as IE protected mode).

Firefox now holds the dubious honor of being the browser with the most vulnerabilities. I believe that this fact along with no sandboxing (no mitigation of vulnerabilities) and a rising market share will mean that it is only a matter of time before FF is hit with exploits. And that will be a downfall for the "secure" browser.

Re:Also, Chrome and IE

[Nicolay77]

And the add-ons.

That's to be insecure by design, not only by implementation.

Chromium on Linux, no Chrome?

[betasam]

Why would Google put all the effort and keep their browser running on Windows with their own linux port being delayed? I have a pet theory to that. Google did in fact sponsor adoption of firefox and provided lots of plugins. Many of us *know* firefox can be a resource hog and also slower at rendering than many, we have few HTML rendering engines that can render most content. I believe that Google is abstaining from releasing a competitor to firefox on Linux platforms for some reason. The "Chrome" and "Chromium" stories are going to stay that way for a while until they have good reasoning to go native. They would still something similar to what they have done with Picasa (integrated wineserver approach.) It has worked before. So Chrome/Linux will be very similar to Chromium.

And it still doesn't work

[Masa]

For some reason, both the release version and this beta-version crash with my work XP in application error (0xc0000005). I have reported this issue already with the release version and now I just sent feedback regarding the beta version.

illegal instruction

[acb]

Does Chromium need a recent or GenuineIntel CPU? I tried installing it on my AMD-based Ubuntu box (which is a few years old) and got an illegal instruction error when I tried to run it. It runs fine on another machine (which is about four years old, but Intel-based).

Re:illegal instruction

[mbrubeck]

Same here, also on an older AMD box.

oh look its slashdot

[circletimessquare]

with another fawning circle jerk of love for google

hey cmdrtaco: with the amount of free pr you give google, you might as well hit them up for some stock, or some google investment in the linux conglomerate that owns you. you want google to buy you out?

google is no different than microsoft in my eyes

now where's my -1 troll for not towing the party line around here?

Re:oh look its slashdot

[DomainDominator]

Hey I'm a Microsoftie, but I've been using Chrome for months now and it's the best from a performance standpoint and the UI is nothing but clean. Sure it doesn't have a plug-in architecture that I'm aware of, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. You can host Silverlight apps if you want a rich UI experience.

Stop the Chrome/Google extention FUD please

[riffzifnab]

Mod parent -1 uninformed

http://dev.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/extensions

Re:Stop the Chrome/Google extention FUD please

[AnalPerfume]

I stand corrected, thanks for pointing that out. As a Linux user / second class citizen to Google I never had a virus compatible OS to test Chrome out on, so I never paid much attention to it. The link you gave was for Chromium which I'll give a try when it gets more mature now there are addon plans for it. I did notice that it was a proposal with bullet points which may or may not go anywhere but you have to give them a chance, and it's still early in the development. I was pleased with a couple of the points though; that it can run without Google services and that it mentions stuff like AdBlock and NoScript and privacy protection. Assuming they don't get derailed it's going to be worth checking back in on at a later date.

It does piss me off that Google's entire front facing business is hosted on Linux, yet Linux users are almost always overlooked when Google do new apps.....well, native apps anyway. Not that I'd use any official Google apps personally, it's just a bit rich not to simultaneously release cross platform for those who do want to use them.

Re:Don't trust browsers from companies that sell a

[Raenex]

How would releasing the full source code indicate they're trying to get more control?

Google has not released the full source for Chrome. Google fooled a great deal of people with their almost-true lies.

Chrome = chromium (open source) + proprietary bits

Re:Sorry, but Chrome is Google controlled...

[Hurricane78]

Yeah. I get -1, Troll for voicing my opinion?

Way to go, oppressing freedom of speech, idiot moderators.

If you disagree, say so in a reply. Look up the definition of "Troll". It fits you better than me.

And you can twist and spin it like you want, but Google is becoming more and more evil. And Google de facto controls Chrome.

And because I do not like such behavior, I chose to keep it away from me.

Every other issue you have with my post, is really an issue you have with yourselves.

There goes Slashdot. Down the tubes...

Re:Sorry, but Chrome is Google controlled...

[Hurricane78]

What? They made an add-in out of it, because frankly, the time of animated image formats is over. If you must, there is the thousand times better SVG anyway. But you rather rant, instead of taking five seconds to enter the query in addons.mozilla.org, right?

Chrome needs its own proxy config

[Chelloveck]

It still shares the Internet Explorer "Internet Options". Maybe, just maybe, I'd like to use different options for different programs. Until there's some way to quickly switch between proxies, I'm going to have to pass.

Re:Sorry, but Chrome is Google controlled...

[Hurricane78]

And when I stick my (pitch)fork up your ass? How about that?

Google is the next Microsoft. They live on ADVERTISING and USER PROFILING! There is no such thing as non-evil advertising. Get that in your thick skull!

Do you really thing creating a fork will put any dent into Chrome? It will only pull off developers from Firefox and WebKit. Way to go...

They will still take over the web. and then they will do *exactly* what Microsoft did with the IE. They are forced by the very principles that define success of businesses.

It always seems, that I am the only one, thinking a step further than the tip of his own nose. You just canâ(TM)t accept yourself, when you know that you got something that wrong. So you have to project it on me.

Oh, and I have tons of Karma. You can kick and scream, but I am still right, and you know it.

Re:Sorry, but Chrome is Google controlled...

[Hurricane78]

Allright. In fact, let's bet $100 on it.

Where should I send the money, in... wait... in what decade will you realize that you completely forgot how full of shit you were right now?

/usr/bin, usr/local/bin, ...

[AliasMarlowe]

SRWare Iron has a proper installer - per default it installs in "C:\Program Files", which is where applications belong.

None of my Linux boxes have a directory with this strange name! Are all the programs installed in the wrong places?

chromium vs. opera 10.0 beta

[jfdecd]

how does chromium/linux fare vs. opera/linux. i downloaded opera finally, on ubuntu, and I love it a lot. the one feature I really like is the way you can go to a form and assign it to a letter. then all you have to do is in the url just start your search with that letter and your search words, as if you had gone there and then put in the search box.

Re:Sorry, but Chrome is Google controlled...

[Ant P.]

A five second search of AMO for "MNG" gives me exactly zero results. It says "No results found" in big lettering.

Which, funnily enough, is the same result when I go looking elsewhere for programs that can create, or even just view, the waste of space APNG format invented by Mozilla as an excuse to remove MNG.