Slashdot Mirror
Google Releases Chrome V2.0
RadiusK writes "Google has released the second major version of the Chrome browser. This version features more speed improvements thanks to a newer version of V8 JavaScript engine and WebKit. JavaScript-heavy web pages will now run about 30% faster. Other new features include form autofill, fullscreen mode, and improved New Tab page. If you're already using Google Chrome, you'll be automatically updated with these new features soon. If you haven't downloaded Google Chrome, you can get the latest version at google.com/chrome." A version for Linux or OS X would be nice.
Does it have AdBlock Plus?
As soon as it does, I'm ditching Firefox.
Way ahead of you.
http://adsweep.org/
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
for me, most of the lag I experience is latency related. Once the webpage gets to me, I'm fairly happy if it takes under a few seconds to render.
Then, I'd like a stable connection, and working webpages (ie without bugs).
Next, I'd like more intelligent tabbing: one which tracks my current surfing location as a whole, and bookmarks that. (I'm thinking a tree structure for tabs, with parents and children and all that; and a dynamic bookmark, that would follow me clicks, for when I'm reading online documentation, or any multipage document.)
Ok, after all that, now I'm interested in js performance. Sorry :(
[a question for those who want adblock in this browser. You realize that while Google makes themselves out to be a search and indexing company, that they are really a very high tech advertising company, don't you? For them to implement adblocking, that would undercut their entire business model. If they did it anyway, and left their ads unblocked?, well, that would just be illegal, under antitrust laws.]
If the masses were blocking ads, what would happen?
1) The web would become a marvelous place without any ad anywhere.
2) Tons of web site would just close
3) Tons of web site would require you to pay per view
4) New, more intrusive, difficult to block, kind of ads would go mainstream. (similar to spam filters vs spammers).
To tell the truth, 1) would only happen in a fairy tale.
{{.sig}}
I'm pretty sure you're being modded Insightful because you list three points that are very good, no matter how sarcastically you state them.
Property is theft.
I used to ask the same question. I now work for a small startup. Most of us develop on Linux, a couple on Windows, and a couple on Mac. If we could afford to do a linux-only version, we would. But in order to have any kind of marketshare on the desktop, we need to output a Windows version.
The mac and linux versions mostly "just work" and simply need testing. But about a month before release, the entire team needs to stop what they're doing and get the Windows version fully working and tested. Windows development is a resource hog (in terms of people). In some ways, Windows is just different, but it seems in many ways, Windows is deliberately incompatable with anything else at the source code level. Windows makes it as difficult as possible to be cross-platform.
As a result, we get the Windows version out and working before we have time to test the Linux and Mac versions. It kinda sucks to spend that much time and resources on a Windows version. It's either that, or re-route our development resources to Windows-only and ignore the other platforms. Of course, we don't want to do that.
This is why I switched to the Chrome beta almost full time.
It doesn't lock up on bad Flash sites, it just kills flash (good riddance), it doesn't fail to load JavaScript on Slashdot (Firefox), it doesn't sit on 1GB of my RAM for no apparent reason (Firefox) and it doesn't crash for no apparent reason (Safari).
All that you say is true, but there is something not credible about the length of time that it has taken for them to get this done. It seems to have taken longer for them to do the linux port than it did for them to build the entire windows version.
Having said that, I don't really suspect there's anything sinister going on here ... something tells me it is more to do with there being fundamentally more difficult challenges on linux than windows. When I compare Firefox across ubuntu and windows it is noticeably slower and uglier in linux - there's no two ways about it. I strongly suspect that Google is being a perfectionist here and are simply not willing to release something that doesn't meet the incredibly high bar they have set for chrome.
I doubt it. Have you looked at the Chrome code? It's littered with hard-coded windows-only bullshit. It's just very unelegantly designed, that's why it's taking so long.
As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields.
From: http://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/LinuxWeeklyNotes
mmoss: release channel setup, first official build
Lack of development? There is development happening for OS X and Linux. It's just not ready for end-users yet.
Because development isn't simply a matter of money. It takes time to develop software, and organisational/human/communication factors impose an upper limit on how fast development can move. Mozilla have a codebase where 15 years have been spent in development. No amount of money can compensate for that head-start. Mozilla aren't developing any faster than Google, they are further ahead because they've been doing it longer.
The original releases of Netscape were far, far simpler products. I could write "Hello, World" in 30 seconds that would run on more platforms than Chrome - does that make me better than Google? No, because the task of writing a modern web browser is substantially greater than writing "Hello, World" - and substantially greater than writing an early 90s web browser.
Yes, because they had less to do. If your codebase is a fraction of the size and has only a handful of features, of course it's easier to port it to other systems. By the way, have you tried running those early Netscape versions on Linux and OS X?
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Just got 2.0 and went straight to http://acid3.acidtests.org/: Passed 100/100.
Actually it's more like I don't want them collecting data on me that they sell later for money without my express permission.
Fair enough. Do you avoid security cameras in stores as well?
So then you would be perfectly fine with your bank, for example, having you do transactions over unencrypted connections? I mean the internet is a public place, right?
If my bank required me to do that, then no, I would not be fine with it. I don't nail my deposits to the side of their building either. And I don't expect any sort of implied privacy when surfing the internet. If I want to do anything private, I'll keep as many hands and eyes off it as possible.
I used to ask the same question. I now work for a small startup. Most of us develop on Linux, a couple on Windows, and a couple on Mac. If we could afford to do a linux-only version, we would. But in order to have any kind of marketshare on the desktop, we need to output a Windows version.
The mac and linux versions mostly "just work" and simply need testing. But about a month before release, the entire team needs to stop what they're doing and get the Windows version fully working and tested. Windows development is a resource hog (in terms of people). In some ways, Windows is just different, but it seems in many ways, Windows is deliberately incompatable with anything else at the source code level. Windows makes it as difficult as possible to be cross-platform.
As a result, we get the Windows version out and working before we have time to test the Linux and Mac versions. It kinda sucks to spend that much time and resources on a Windows version. It's either that, or re-route our development resources to Windows-only and ignore the other platforms. Of course, we don't want to do that.
Just develop your applications using a Qt/C++/gcc framework.
Fast, native code, easy, powerful, free (LGPL) and cross-platform.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_(toolkit)
http://www.qtsoftware.com/products/developer-tools
VLC, Scribus and VirtualBox are good examples of cross-platform applications developed using Qt and Qt creator:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VirtualBox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scribus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VLC_Media_Player
If that doesn't appeal, then use Lazarus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_(software)
Only potential problem with that is that you would have to write in Pascal. For me personally, that would be a bonus not a problem.
Peazip is a great example of cross-platform software developed using Lazarus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peazip
AFAIK all of these examples of cross-platform applications bring out versions for Windows, Linux and Mac at the same time.
All the webcasts I have participated in have them using Google products pretty much exclusively, with what appears to be their personal desktops. Some could be using a customized Ubuntu, but many of the outward facing employees know to pimp Google properties, even if they aren't overt about it.
I just don't understand why they use WebEx instead of some Google version
Chrome is a killer browser. Because it is _very_ fast and renders correctly most of the time.
The problem is that they insist on ALSO breaking a lot of UI conventions and inventing their own. That's nice, but one should have the choice to use a "normal" UI. Firefox with the Chrome engine, or Chrome enginge with Firefox UI would be a killer.
When I compare Firefox across ubuntu and windows it is noticeably slower and uglier in linux - there's no two ways about it.
Your issue with Firefox probably is actually with Pango. IMHO, Pango renders text far more beautifully than any version of Windows does, but it IS a lot slower. You used to be able to disable Pango when building Firefox; I'm not sure whether that is still possible.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?