Slashdot Mirror


Google Returns Chrome To Beta, Touts Speed Boost

CWmike writes "Google yesterday reversed its decision to ditch the beta label from its Chrome browser, saying it is restoring the moniker to some builds to get faster feedback to developers. 'Since we took the 'beta' tag off Google Chrome in December, we've been updating two release channels: developer and stable,' said Brian Rakowski, a Chrome product manager, in a new blog Google kicked off on Tuesday. 'With our latest release, we're re-introducing the beta channel for some early feedback.' The first beta, Chrome 2.0.169.1, includes several new features, said Rakowski, and it boasts a significant speed increase over the current stable version of the browser, 1.0.154.48. According to Google's tests, the beta is 35% faster than the stable build when measured by the SunSpider JavaScript benchmark suite, and 25% faster on the company's own V8 tests." Reader Al notes too that "Google has launched Chrome Experiments, a site where Javascript coders can upload projects that make use of Chrome's speed and processing abilities. The site already features a handful of cool 'experiments' including a balls that jump between browser windows, a gravitationally-challenged version of the Google homepage and a game that runs through nine different browsers. It's cool stuff alright, but some experts wonder whether browser security might be a more important thing to focus on."

110 comments

  1. Is it going to come to Linux? by SultanCemil · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It'd be nice if a company that prided itself on not being evil released the browser for more than one platform (dare I say, the evil one?)....

    --
    Cemil.
    1. Re:Is it going to come to Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      There's an unofficial Linux build called Chromium:

      http://code.google.com/p/chromium/

      A story ran on it yesterday on a familiar website... I think it's called "Slashdot" or something:

      http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/17/2345216

    2. Re:Is it going to come to Linux? by moderatorrater · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What does the platform have to do with evil or not? 90% of the software out there only works on one platform, and surely you're not going to say they're all evil. Chrome is open source and has been from day one; if it doesn't work on another platform, do the work yourself to get it there. As it is, they're releasing for the platform that has far and away the most users and not diluting their development efforts.

    3. Re:Is it going to come to Linux? by IceFox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who cares about 90% of software, we are talking about browsers. Browsers come on all platforms these days. And to top this Chome is advertising on slashdot which is known for have tons of Windows Loving users and users who like to talk about windows only software in positive ways. As long as Chrome does not exist on LInux or exists in a form that is a joke expect it to get trashed on slashdot. And for the second part I have contributed to Chrome to help get it to compile on Linux, but it is a long way off before these is anything close to what a user would expect. Chrome really has a PR problem with Linux which a lot of early adopters use.

      --
      Do you changes clothes while making the "chee-chee-cha-cha-choh" transformation sound?
    4. Re:Is it going to come to Linux? by basementman · · Score: 5, Informative

      I tried Chromium and at this stage it is so buggy and slow that it is totally unusable. At this point I am forced to run FireFox with a bunch of add ons to try and mimic chromium's functionality, but that won't help you get to the speed of Google Chrome.

    5. Re:Is it going to come to Linux? by Aeolien · · Score: 1

      Downloaded and ran it as a result of that story. Ironically, going to code.google.com in Chromium caused a segfault. It's definitely not ready for primetime, something the devs are the first to admit!

    6. Re:Is it going to come to Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use Chromium, although not for Linux, because they offer a portable version which doesn't pollute my registry with useless entries.

    7. Re:Is it going to come to Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Just because they don't release the browser on the platform nobody cares about doesn't mean they're evil.

    8. Re:Is it going to come to Linux? by moonbender · · Score: 1

      Hey, it crashed on me on mail.google.com - I think I see a trend there.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    9. Re:Is it going to come to Linux? by andypflueger · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if anyone else had the same problems I had with Chromium, but my instance compiled and was able to run Chrome. However, SSL was non-functional as was combo boxes with HTML forms. Maybe it's a specific issue on my system (Ubuntu 8.10). I've not yet attempted to track down the issue though since I have the source. ;)

      --
      Long live the penguin...Linux rulez!
    10. Re:Is it going to come to Linux? by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      I was just gonna bring that up. Posting from it now actually :)

      It doesn't really work well - I have no tabs, it crashes whenever I try to create a tab, it crashes whenever I click a link from my google homepage, it crashes...well, it crashes a lot. But I'm still debating using it over firefox - the speed boost and fact that it doesn't eat up all my system resources all the time are making it a rather pleasent experience.

      Oh, it also needed 10GB of hard drive space to compile everything. And took about an hour to get all the dependancies, another hour to download the sources, and a good hour or two to compile it. Plus about 6 hours wasted due to it being too damn big to fit on my hard drive (dual booted a dirt cheap Dell...don't have much space)

    11. Re:Is it going to come to Linux? by nschubach · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You could show your interest and give them an email list of Linux hopefuls...

      http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/linux.html

      Who knows, maybe that actually look at the count of email addresses to decide on the proper resources to allocate.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    12. Re:Is it going to come to Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol... linux sure sounds like fun.

    13. Re:Is it going to come to Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was going to try that until I noticed special instructions for compiling on 64-bit machines...because it only supports 32-bit. I'm not going back to using a 32-bit browser, let alone figure out how to compile one on a 64-bit machine.

    14. Re:Is it going to come to Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it is not available for Linux. It is only available for Ubuntu, Fedora and OpenSUSE. You can not compile the code for other distributions. Even that these three distrubutions are using Linux operating system, the Chromium isn't possible to get installed on them from source.

      I am not going to switch distribution to try a browser. Same reason was on me to not switch operating system to try it in the first place.

      If Google want to be a good for all of us (that does not men it would be evil either), then it should design their software to follow the LSB (Linux Standard Base) what is a standard for the Linux OS what rules what basic libraries and applications the software system should include.

    15. Re:Is it going to come to Linux? by fredrik70 · · Score: 1

      WHy not run the Firefow 3.1 beta with the JIT enabled, maybe not as fast as Chrome, but still damn faster than current firefox release. Don't forget to enable the JIT for the Firefox UI as well

      --
      if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
    16. Re:Is it going to come to Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love how this post got modded down even though the guy is absolutely correct. You fucking Linux tools are always going on about how you are "free" to change your software and how if someone doesn't like something, then they should change it themselves.

      It was all bullshit. You dumb fucks don't know the first thing about writing code or designing software, which is why you don't practice what you preach and why Linux STILL sucks ass after all these years.

  2. No Linux Release != Evil by andrewd18 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just because a company's informal motto is "Don't be evil." doesn't mean they have to release their products for Linux.

    Now I think it'd be unwise if they didn't release it for Linux, but it definitely doesn't make them evil.

    1. Re:No Linux Release != Evil by SultanCemil · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm just saying, on a scale of 0 to 100 (0 being kittens rolling around, 100 being Vader running hell), not releasing Chrome for Linux is somewhere around 70. That's all. Fell free to disagree. Discuss amongst yourselves.

      --
      Cemil.
    2. Re:No Linux Release != Evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Except they are releasing it. It's just gonna be a while (current build is "experimental"). There will be a linux release eventually. It's not particularly evil when it's difficult to create cross-plaform software with the goals google has in mind for the browser (It will probably require various hooks into the specific operating system). It's to be expected that they focus on windows first.

    3. Re:No Linux Release != Evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C-

      Your scale looks padded to me. Should have been a 7 out of 10, not a 70 out of 100.

    4. Re:No Linux Release != Evil by anexkahn · · Score: 1

      I prefer 7 Billion out of 10 Billion

      --
      Curious about Storage and Virtualization? Check out
    5. Re:No Linux Release != Evil by xant · · Score: 5, Funny

      Kittens are a zero? Man, kittens can *kill* you. I almost choked on one once.

      --
      It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
    6. Re:No Linux Release != Evil by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      I'm just saying, on a scale of 0 to 100 (0 being kittens rolling around, 100 being Vader running hell)

      Carter: Security Systems has its tendrils into every element of our society - the government, our homes, the police, the courts - I'm not gonna spike this story just because it deals with dollar amounts beyond your comprehension! It's too important!
      Murray: ...cerebral...
      Theora: Murray, we're trying to play this takeover as a threat to our average viewer. Nobody knows who's doing it. I mean, we all deal with SS every day - what if some really dangerous people got control of it?
      Murray: Who do you think controls it now?

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    7. Re:No Linux Release != Evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm thinking a 14. Seeing as how a browser with what, 4% market is being asked to make a version for a loosely confederated set of GNU/Linux based OS'es with a less than 5% market share?

      So they would run on, let's see, 3,752 machines?

    8. Re:No Linux Release != Evil by __aamnbm3774 · · Score: 3, Funny

      4% market share, but 99% awesome.

    9. Re:No Linux Release != Evil by cafard · · Score: 1

      Always bless the tin...

      --
      This post is awesome.
    10. Re:No Linux Release != Evil by Crayon+Kid · · Score: 3, Funny

      GP meant it as in various shades of evil. That "kitties rolling around" is actually "rolling around in a frying pan".

      --
      i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
  3. Who asked for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Who wanted really fast JavaScript?

    1. Re:Who asked for this? by camcorder · · Score: 1

      Users of Google services, which abuse JavaScript usage beyond initial intention of this scripting language design.

    2. Re:Who asked for this? by Rayban · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah... I hate seeing anyone use a language with closures and prototype-based-objects for more than form validation and yellow backgrounds for results.

      We should go back to static HTML pages and get it right this time!

      --
      æeee!
    3. Re:Who asked for this? by buchner.johannes · · Score: 1

      That's a good question. Maybe for having a haskell-interpreter written in javascript.
      Imaging how you would address the dom-tree though ...

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    4. Re:Who asked for this? by rockNme2349 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Google's applications all run based on javascript. The current browsers didn't run javascript very fast, so performance lagged. Google released a browser and spat really fast javascript in the face of mozilla and microsoft. Next thing you know firefox and ie have new releases with faster javascript to compete with chrome. People switching to chrome is just a side affect for google. They're goal of making other browsers faster is completed. I have to say, evil or not, they're really smart guys, and know how to get what they want.

      --
      Sewage Treatment Facilities - "Our duty is clear."
    5. Re:Who asked for this? by nschubach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the Mozilla javascript engine projects (Tamarin turned Tracemonkey) were well on the way before Google "spat" out Chrome. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    6. Re:Who asked for this? by rockNme2349 · · Score: 0

      I choose to believe what I was programmed to believe!

      --
      Sewage Treatment Facilities - "Our duty is clear."
  4. Linux version by WillKemp · · Score: 1

    When can i get a Linux version???

    All i've got at the moment is CrossOver Chromium v.0.9.0 - which isn't much use really.

    1. Re:Linux version by dkegel · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are daily builds you could try. They're pre-alpha, though, so don't expect too much yet. Or you could build it from source, it's not too hard. See http://chromium.org/

    2. Re:Linux version by nschubach · · Score: 1

      http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/linux.html

      Put your name on the list. Well, um... your email that is.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
  5. worst summary ever by jgarra23 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Chrome is not in beta, there has ALWAYS been beta builds around for Chromium & they are advertising those builds more since the new features are pretty solid (and the speed too) but Chrome is NOT in beta.

    1. Re:worst summary ever by caffeinejolt · · Score: 2, Informative
    2. Re:worst summary ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the link, but I'll bet once they make it easy to install on Linux that those charts start going way up. Also, they have such an aggressive campaign through their ability to promote through AdSense that those charts will look much different in a few months.

    3. Re:worst summary ever by sysstemlord · · Score: 1

      It's true that the summary is wrong. What does it mean Chrome returns to beta? There is a current stable version which is 1.0, and there is a beta version 2.0, and that's the case in almost all products.

    4. Re:worst summary ever by caffeinejolt · · Score: 1

      I doubt a Linux release will have substantial impact on their market share given current Linux client usage. But I do think it is important for Google to offer support for Windows/Mac/Linux if they want an edge on IE.

    5. Re:worst summary ever by whoop · · Score: 1

      I suppose the submitter thought Google would just stop developing it after moving the old beta to the stable branch. So it was news to him. But this is just a dupe of the of the story yesterday.

    6. Re:worst summary ever by msgtomatt · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like gMail. It has been in beta forEVER! Maybe they are to stupid to make an actual release.

    7. Re:worst summary ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever?

      You must be new here.

  6. Cool Experiments by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One of the cooler ones I saw for Firefox 3.1b3 was real-time chroma-key replacement* in video. (i.e. The blue screen technique) Does anyone know if this new version of Chrome supports the video tag yet? I've been doing experiments with real-time video effects in Firefox, but I'd like to start ensuring that they're cross browser.

    * I did my own version of the Chroma-Key replacement that ran a Javascript function for each pixel. It managed real-time playback even on slower PCs!

    1. Re:Cool Experiments by AKAImBatman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I looked up the Firefox 3.1b3 experiments in case anyone is interested. Here's the experiment itself:

      https://developer.mozilla.org/samples/video/chroma-key/index.xhtml

      Here's the page explaining the experiment:

      https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Manipulating_video_using_canvas

      Don't let the small video size fool you. I've managed much larger videos thanks to TraceMonkey's high performance. In doing my own experiments, I realized that they shrunk the final product so that areas where the color wasn't being properly replaced (or worse yet, reflections from poor camera technique) wouldn't be as visible.

    2. Re:Cool Experiments by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      How can I be lying when there's evidence in the post immediately above you?

    3. Re:Cool Experiments by theolein · · Score: 1

      I was just thinking that the current round of very fast Javascript machines might have one side effect that will have far reaching consequences: Effects like you posted might make Flash (since a good deal of Flash on the web is used for video) and Sliverlight irrelevant ina couple of years, and when that happens, Microsoft and Adobe are going to have to find other things to do.

    4. Re:Cool Experiments by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      Flash yes--Silverlight, not so much. Silverlight's ability to integrate horizontally and vertically with other .NET stuff is going to be a lot more useful than a video codec in the future.

      (Side note - I just installed the new Chromium on Windows, and this thing flies. Chrome 1 was too slow for my tastes, but this is awesome. I absolutely love this.)

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    5. Re:Cool Experiments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the cooler ones I saw for Firefox 3.1b3 was real-time chroma-key replacement* in video. (i.e. The blue screen technique)

      Unfortunately it seems that "the blue screen technique" is available only in the Windows builds.

    6. Re:Cool Experiments by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Works fine on the Mac. And since it uses OGG, it should work fine on Linux, too.

  7. Perfect for Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It makes perfect sense for Google to release a fast Javascript browser. Many of their apps require active javascript and the performance of these apps, or at least the perceived performance, is directly related to the javascript speed.

    On Linux it's an interesting story. Firefox is slow. I use it on a daily basis, and unfortunately, it's annoyingly slow. Bugs that should have been fixed months ago are still evident. Granted, some of these problems are related to Flash, but not all.

    (I'd go as far as to say that Adobe Flash is deliberately being crippled because it works so poorly on Linux.)

  8. This is so misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The article summary refutes itself.

    There are multiple Chrome release channels.

    There is a stable, non-beta channel (1.0.x).

    There is a beta channel (2.0.x stable-ish).

    And there is a dev channel (2.0.x, bleeding edge, weekly builds)

    They are not "returning" Chrome to beta. They are working on the next version of Chrome.

    The version numbers are kind of a big tipoff. FYI.

  9. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looking through a few of these (especially one called "balldropping") I can't help but think "this is one of the coolest things I've seen in awhile".

    I'm more entertained trying to make music out of balls and lines than anything else right now.

  10. Noo . This is the 2.0 Beta by AlienRancher · · Score: 5, Informative

    Google has not reversed their position. This is the beta for what will be 2.0 eventually. The 1.0 branch is and will be release. See: http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/17/2345216

  11. What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do they really think wannabe testers are too dumb to download a Chromium nightly? It's not that those nightlies crash all the time. I'm using them and I can't complain.

    I kinda liked the model of "force updates on computer illiterates" to get rid of updating compliance issues and version confusion. But that relies on those forced updates being really stable, not beta in any sense. Are they reversing that now and going back to the oldfashioned release model?

  12. Firefox bashing incoming by BenoitRen · · Score: 0

    Firefox bashing will commence in 3... 2... 1...

    1. Re:Firefox bashing incoming by ionix5891 · · Score: 1

      nah they too busy restarting their browser

    2. Re:Firefox bashing incoming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In addition Safari 4 sucks, it crashes browsing The Inquirer. I didn't ask for a browser with taste, goddammit.

      I'm sure I should make a joke about Apple users here, but I'm actually typing this on Safari (the stable 3.x branch).

    3. Re:Firefox bashing incoming by larry+bagina · · Score: 1
      I'm typing this on Safari 4. After one day I got sick of the title bar tabs and disabled them. After two days, I was sick of the awesome bar-style results and disabled them. Now it's like Safari 3, but without the reload/stop load button. Putting it right next to the rss feed button, far away from the forward/back buttons seems like a bad decision to me.

      The web inspector is much better, though.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  13. Hilarious that speed is key evaluation by presidenteloco · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I find it vastly amusing the amount of press that browser "speed" gets (compared to trivialities, like, say, "usability in peoples' computer-based work patterns").

    Ok sure, javascript engine speed might be important, but javascript clearly is inadequate as a rich-client development platform anyway.

    I for one do not sit here on my macbook or my dual-core 2.6GHz 2G RAM pc and think to my self "damn these 70 browser windows and tabs are rendering slow - damn damn damn". No, I pretty much never have to think about that, thanks to good work done by hardware and software engineers over the last 15 years or so.

    Speed is SO NOT the key issue anymore. Netbooks prove this. Usability in the context of always-on info and my persistent context and where the hell is the stuff I was working on etc. is way way more important as a surfing quality of life issue.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:Hilarious that speed is key evaluation by castorvx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm guessing you don't use some pretty heavy duty JavaScript sites? There is a substantial difference in performance between browsers on some sites, and I say this with a very high powered system.

      There are a lot of performance issues that could still be resolved. While your other points are relevant, I would say that the issue of performance is a long way from being resolved, and not just with JavaScript.

    2. Re:Hilarious that speed is key evaluation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And 64k is enough for everybody.

      It's true that websites run perfectly well in modern browsers -- otherwise you would be annoyed at how slow the site is and browse to someone else's faster website.

      But if the browser becomes more capable, and executes javascript code with greater speed, then what those web developers can actually include in their website for you expands, and the things you can work on with a website expands, and we continue to advance forward.

    3. Re:Hilarious that speed is key evaluation by WoLpH · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is a very simple reason for it, speed is one of the few things that can be measured objectively. All forms of usability tests tend to vary per person.

      That makes it really easy to post some benchmarks while any article about usability will be bashed to no end.

    4. Re:Hilarious that speed is key evaluation by Braino420 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm guessing you don't use some pretty heavy duty JavaScript sites?

      *shudder*

      --
      They call me the wookie man, I guess that's what I am
    5. Re:Hilarious that speed is key evaluation by prockcore · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Speed is SO NOT the key issue anymore. Netbooks prove this

      Netbooks prove the opposite. Throwing hardware at the problem isn't a solution anymore. No one in their right mind is going to run an office suite on a netbook. The browser is the one place where speed and lightweight memory usage *has* been important. That's why netbooks pretty much run browsers and that's it.

    6. Re:Hilarious that speed is key evaluation by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      My god man, how heavy can these sites get on Javascript? The most demanding sites I've been to, in terms of tax on the system (flash not included) are Slashdot and Digg. How much worse than the "4+ seconds to render the comments page" I experience on my system could it be?

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    7. Re:Hilarious that speed is key evaluation by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      I agree with you completely. It isn't speed that's the issue, so much as usability.

      I put up with the bloat of Firefox on my 512Mb laptop on the sole basis that it's functional. It has the extensions I need, and I can work it in around how I do my other work. Opera crashes incessantly, though it's probably second best in terms of 'usable'. And IE doesn't even approach either. Chrome, the little I've used it, is closer to IE than the other two (and not that much different than Firefox in terms of memory use).

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    8. Re:Hilarious that speed is key evaluation by SpinyNorman · · Score: 1

      I find it vastly amusing the amount of press that browser "speed" gets (compared to trivialities, like, say, "usability in peoples' computer-based work patterns").

      To an extent they're related...

      Speed doesn't just mean rendering speed (where they're all good enough) - it also includes JavaScript speed where you can never be fast enough (websites/applications - such as slashdot - will continue to push the limits of what's possible with current speed), and overall responsiveness.

      One huge advantage of Chrome over Firefox is that Chrome (I believe IE8 has this too) has a process per tab so your whole browser doesn't lock up when you have something slow to load in one tab. This was a huge usability issue for me - one of my major browser usage patterns is opening up eBay search results one per tab, and it sucks when you've got 20-30 tabs open then the browser locks up because someone has a slow loading/hanging graphic linked to in their eBay listing.

    9. Re:Hilarious that speed is key evaluation by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      No one in their right mind is going to run an office suite on a netbook.

      Eh? Every single x86 netbook on the market can run an Office suite just fine, and a lot of people use them for that, students especially.

  14. Important question by maxume · · Score: 1

    Is this a master beta?

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  15. Re:If it doesn't run on Linux it is trash. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, since no one cares about your opinion, e.g. "trash", just stuff it. Fact is, running on Linux will have little impact on the usage of Chrome.

  16. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  17. Re:If it doesn't run on Linux it is trash. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is true.

    Google took other people's work, the KHTML engine, added spyware and then broke it so it doesn't work right on the OS it was developed on.

    This is exactly like Microsoft stealing the BSD TCP/IP stack, breaking it, selling it and then demanding the police arrest kids that copy 'their' OS. The courts found that Microsoft willfully copied the BSD code and didn't credit it.

  18. Re:If it doesn't run on Linux it is trash. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A marketing strategy that Chrome only runs on Linux? You don't work in marketing, do you?

  19. faster? so what? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe I'm in the minority here, but what's all the fuss with a "faster" browser, at this point? They're pretty damn fast as they are (pick one). The big problem, in my mind, is their memory use. That goes for both "normal running" memory use, and "my god it's leaky" memory use.

    Currently, Firefox is running with 360M virtual and 131M resident memory utilized. The browser window has been open for 85 minutes with exactly 20 tabs - no flash, and 1 slashdot page. I've got to shut down firefox due to excessive swapping/poor system performance more often than I used to have to reboot Windows 9x due to stability issues!

    Firefox, IE, and Opera have all shot up in their memory use extremely quickly - to the point where Firefox has become almost unusable on my laptop with 512M, while having Tbird and OO.org open at the same time. And that's only with about 20 tabs open, noscript, flashblock, and a bunch of other things to reduce the memory overhead.

    Just because RAM is cheap doesn't mean you should leave people out in the cold who have older stuff. Likewise, if you bloat your products, porting them to portable devices (cell phones, etc.) is going to be a bit troublesome: RAM doesn't seem to be having the same speed or capacity leaps that CPUs are - and in a portable, sticking more RAM in is only going to decrease battery life.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  20. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  21. Do not use this version! by crivens · · Score: 1

    Do not use this version! I'm constantly suffering non-responsive tabs that do nothing for ages and cannot be closed or reloaded without killing the process. Stay away!

  22. Re:Those talking about Chrome on Linux miss the po by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >For us web developers, we should be screaming in joy.

    Chrome-specific bugs suggest otherwise.

  23. Took the words right out of my mouth... by Benfea · · Score: 1

    ...although a browser that's faster than other browsers on a modern dual-core desktop is not necessarily going to be faster than other browsers on a netbook. If people are going to benchmark browsers, there probably should be at least two separate sets of benchmarks.

  24. I agree... sort of. by Benfea · · Score: 1

    I agree that competition is forcing Microsoft to change, but I don't think it is at all fair to say they're "losing badly to competing browsers". They still have a sizable majority of the browser market right now.

    They're not making significant changes to IE because they're losing, but because they want to keep winning.

    1. Re:I agree... sort of. by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Microsofts market share is shrinking, and that alone is worrying for them. It is shrinking fast even, and is reaching the point where they can not be called the de-facto standard anymore. That, and that alone, is what worries them.

  25. High memory by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

    I'm confused when this is said I have 4 tabs open in FF including this one. For addons I have NoScript, Adblock+, Filterset.G updater, bugmenot, Firemacs, Flashgot, McAfee SiteAdvisor, and User Agent Switcher.

    According to Process Explorer the working set is 64mb and the peak is 67.

    1. Re:High memory by Christian+Henry · · Score: 1

      Me, personally: Firefox, 49 tabs, VM size (Windows XP) is over 450 MB. To be fair, however, Outlook currently is taking over 300 MB VM too (!). I realise that this is a large number of tabs, but still...

    2. Re:High memory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have Firefox with Adblock+, NoScript and download statusbar. 10 currently open tabs and the browser has been running a little over 2 days. Memory usage is 1.4GB and I get nice intermittent CPU spikes that push one of my cores up to 100% utilization.

      Fuck Firefox. I'm switching to Chrome, Opera or ANYTHING that doesn't leak memory like this. As far as I'm concerned, IE is even a better browser at this stage.

    3. Re:High memory by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      Oh that maybe it, I usually close it when I'm done/walk away.

  26. Chromium is not yet ready by teko_teko · · Score: 1

    As stated on the warning page.

  27. Re:Join the GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA Toda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Artist: Johnny Rebel Song: who likes a nigger

    L.B.J. was a-flyin' one morn', Over south Louisiana...feeling for alarm, When he looks down below, and what does he see?, Two cajuns pullin' a nigger on ski's!, So he lands, and says, "Thanks for helping your black brother!", And them two cajuns just looked at each other, And said, "He might be smart, but I'll tell you something...", "He don't know a thing about alligator huntin'!", O-wop-bop-bam-bam, Who likes a nigger?, o-wop-bop-bam-bam
    (CHORUS), Who likes a nigger?, o-wop-bop-bam-bam, Who likes a nigger?, And the hatin', everybody, is a-gettin' much bigger, Rich man travelin' down thru the South, Stopped in Mississippi to get a tooth pulled out, When he paid the doctor the charges due, He said "My nigger chauffer's got a bad tooth, too", "Well, I'll pull it...", said the doc, "but you'd better not holler!, Cause I'll have to charge you $200.00, Cause here in Mississippi he can't open his mouth, We'll have to go thru his bottom, to get the thing out!"
    Chorus
    There ain't much difference 'tween a nigger and a donkey, 'Bout as much between an ape and a monkey, Ones a little bigger, but you gotta agree, There's not very much more that you can see., But a mule earns his livin' by the sweat of his neck, While a nigger sits down and draws a gov't check, The nigger should be smarter, as a general rule, But in a spelling contest, I'd pick the mule!

    Artist: Johnny Rebel Song: nigger hating me

    I like sugar, and I like tea, But I don't like niggers...no siree!, There's two known things that'll make me puke, And that's a hog eatin' slop, and a big, black spook!, You know it...cause I show it, Like a barn-yard rooster I crow it!, And the NAACP, Would sure like to get a-hold of nigger-hatin' me!, Roses are red, and violet's are blue, And nigger's are black, you know that's true, But they don't mind, cause what the heck!, You gotta be black to get a welfare check!, And I'm broke...no joke, I ain't got a nickel for a coke!, And I ain't black, you see, So Uncle Sam won't help poor nigger-hatin' me., Jig-A-Boo, jig-a-boo...where are you?, I's here in the woodpile...watchin' you, Jig-A-Boo, jig-a-boo...come out!, No! Cause I'm scared of the white man's a-way down South, You know it!...cause I show it., Stick your black head out and I'll blow it!, And the NAACP, Can't keep you away from little old nigger-hatin' me!, Mirror, mirror...on the wall, Who is the blackest of them all?, A man named King, and there ain't no doubt, That he's causin' lots of trouble with his baboon mouth., Brewin'...he's a doin', It's caused by the trouble he's a-brewin', And the NAACP, Can't win if the white men stick with nigger-hatin' me!, Hey! Mr. President! What do you say?, When are we whites gonna have our day?, The nigger's had there's such a long, long time, I'm white, and it's time that I had mine!, You know it...cause I show it!, Stick your black head out and I'll blow it!, And the NAACP, Can't win if the white man sticks with nigger-hatin' me

    Artist: Johnny Rebel Song: Affirmative Action

    Affirmative action, what's this country coming to?, Affirmative action, what's the white man gonna do?, It's another government handout and simply said, "You've got to hire a nigger instead", I was down at the office, cleaning up the joint, Just doing a little extra, making brownie points, Cause I'd heard somebody say, a promotion's on the line, So I was working hard, I wa.nted that promotion to be mine, So I asked the CEO if I could have a try, He said "you work hard, son and I know you qualify., You're the best man for the job but it's out of my hands, I've got to give it to a nigger, courtesy of Uncle Sam", Oh affirmative action, what's this country coming to?, Affirmative action, what's the white man gonna do?, It's another government handout and simply said, "You've got to hire a nigger instead.", Now I went looking for a new job the very next day., I got an interview and things were surely going my way.., I was asked a lot of questions, I was giving it