Slashdot Mirror
Google Announces Chrome For Mac and Linux Dev Builds
Dan Kegel (who admits to being a Chrome developer) writes to point out a post from Mike Smith and Karen Grunberg, Product Managers for Google Chrome, with some good news for non-Windows users who want to play with Chrome: "In order to get more feedback from developers, we have early developer channel versions of Google Chrome for Mac OS X and Linux (for a couple of different Linux distributions), but whatever you do, please DON'T DOWNLOAD THEM! Unless of course you are a developer or take great pleasure in incomplete, unpredictable, and potentially crashing software." (The announcement continues below.)
"How incomplete? So incomplete that, among other things , you won't yet be able to view YouTube videos, change your privacy settings, set your default search provider, or even print.
Meanwhile, we'll get back to trying to get Google Chrome on these platforms stable enough for a beta release as soon as possible ..." The downloads are available through the Chrome developer's channel.
Meanwhile, we'll get back to trying to get Google Chrome on these platforms stable enough for a beta release as soon as possible ..." The downloads are available through the Chrome developer's channel.
Quote: "How incomplete? So incomplete that, among other things , you won't yet be able to view YouTube videos, change your privacy settings, set your default search provider, or even print."
:)
What the hell did they release? A box of crayons where you have to draw the Internet manually?
But they aren't... SEPARATED INTO PROCESSES!
OK, seriously and drama aside, I do think that's a good idea, and it also seem to help as a way to help out with memory management. I always thought Safari sucked a lot of RAM, especially on Windows.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
I just installed the .deb on this laptop, running Ubuntu 9.10 alpha. So far, seems nice and pleasant :)
I seem some rendering problems, but Hey, I blame google!
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
I've been using Chromium for some time on my Eee 1000, since FireFox hangs intermittently (slow SSD, which does not like apps that write a lot of stuff).
Chromium is a pleasant experience, fast and snappy. It used to crash all the time (e.g. when doing a copy/paste) but has been improved daily, and is now stable and usable. I don't know what the Google branded version would add on top. "DON'T DOWNLOAD" sounds like reverse psychology. Definitely, download, and use if you have a machine that is a little slower than the average desktop.
My blog
Why would I need this? I already have a webkit browser with tabs on top.
Because you want one that doesn't suck.
Why would I need this? I already have a webkit browser with tabs on top.
Because multiple players means competition, and competition means innovation, which leads to a better browsing experience for all of us, regardless of which you're using.
And the masses cried out, "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0!"
Webkit + tabs on top. Those are the only important factors to you? No wonder you bought a Mac.
Cue the "not using until it has adblock" posts in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...
Seriously, nobody cares if you are not using, no need to repeat it every time.
silly me for thinking that my G5 was good enough
There was an unknown error in the submission.
How does this differ from the Chromium daily builds? Is it identical only officially a Google product, or are there technical differences?
I guess it makes sense if you want exceptionally fast javascript, but still disappointing.
I don't think open source software is necessarily about what you want it to be. Just because Firefox is better than the competition today doesn't mean that Firefox will always be the best but if nobody tries to make anything better then stagnation will ensue. Monoculture is bad no matter who is director and I would rather see 20 options than 2.
I'll just wait for the final release.. can't take to long.
from http://dev.chromium.org/getting-involved/dev-channel :
Installing Google Chrome will add the Google repository so your system will automatically keep Chrome up to date. (If you don't want Google's repository, do "sudo touch /etc/defaults/google-chrome" before installing the package.)
But it didn't (and I didn't touch /etc/defaults/google-chrome)
They are not eliminating the competition. They are replacing it with their own baby, that's all. Bye bye, Mozilla...
Apparently you haven't used it enough. Chrome does pop-up blocking, and as far as I know, it works better than Firefox. Notice how sometimes pop-ups come up with Firefox? There's a javascript workaround that is specifically disabled in the V8 engine.
You're clearly biased towards Firefox, irrationally so.
It's thoroughly disappointing to see a team of programmers only able to produce releases for Debian-based systems – the "couple of distros" referred to in the story are Ubuntu and Debian. It's also a huge hassle getting it to compile because it's such an enormous download from SVN (gigabytes, I believe; I gave up when it got to 480 megs). Make it a little easier to test please, guys.
Even if the rest of that argument (let's not have competition now that the browser I think is good is winning) made sense and all that matters is killing IE, Chrome is an additive force. In a world with only IE and Firefox, if you disliked Firefox, there'd be no alternative. There are people who like Chrome better than Firefox; if your goal is killing IE, that's *more* switchers, even if a bunch also switch back and forth between Firefox and Chrome.
However, outside of that, there's nothing bad with having many browsers around. What is bad is having many contrary *concepts* around. Chrome didn't drag a new rendering engine in, they used WebKit, which is good. Actually, they used a fork of WebKit, which is bad, but WebKit has been able to handle this stuff by merging in the necessary abstractions in the past.
The "monoculture" of firefox-icefox-ubuntufox-iceweasel.... ? :)
Mainly it is conflict of interest.
Mozilla have went too far at adding ever-more useless features to the Firefox code, instead of fixing the ACTUAL problems with it.
Google do not want that, they went to leave the features entirely to plugins. (more-or-less)
And considering the way that Chrome will handle plugins, i can say this as fact: Chrome >>>> Firefox
Chrome won't waste resources on plugins, you don't want one active? The sub-process is terminated, memory is released, simple. No restarts needed.
Firefox? "Oh, sorry bub, looks like you're going to have to shut 'er all down and wait while i get 'er back on her feet, should take a few minutes if you're lucky."
It is a shame what has happened to Firefox, it could have been so much more, but Mozilla ruined it all. (IMO)
Instead of adding a "billion more features", they could have spent time streamlining the code, actually making the browser more modular to save on resources.
"[...]but whatever you do, please DON'T DOWNLOAD THEM! Unless of course you are a developer or take great pleasure in incomplete, unpredictable, and potentially crashing software."
Of course I do. I used Windows 95 for years!
They say it like it's something dirty!
Girl: "Mom, I've got a new boyfriend."
Mum: "Really, pumpkin?"
Girl: "Yes. He's a Chrome developer!"
Mum: "Oh!" *faints*
Dad: *finally looks over his newspaper* "Straight to your room YOUNG LADY! You're grounded for a week with no telephone!"
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
Not on a Mac it doesn't. While Fx 3.0 is far better than previous versions on a Mac, it's still pretty poor. And you can't use Fx 3.0 on older Macs at all.
Adblock and flashblock etc are coming for Chrome. I use Firefox now, but unless Fx4.0 works significantly better on a Mac, and is multi-threaded, my continued use of it is time-limited. That's entirely Mozilla's own fault. They seem to be focusing on rebuilding Firefox as the Netscape suite, rather than actually making the core browser work efficiently.
Google has, unfortunately, been very slow about developing Chrome for Mac (as they usually are for all their software, Macs users appear to be an afterthought for them). This version appears to be intel only -- I sincerely hope that this is going to change. I have an old G3 running 10.3 that looks great and works well for surfing and playing music. I'd absolutely love to get Fx 2.0 off it, and use a browser that works effectively.
Trust me, I admire Google. But I am mad at them for using the "wrong" toolkit in developing Chrome for Linux. Slashdotters, this is *my* opinion having used both toolkits and deployed software though not as complex as a browser on all operating systems.
And I have at least one supporter on this front.
What they should have done is to fund development of Chrome using the "right" tool for the job. What would be wrong with that?
Let's give Dan Kegel even more spam by posting his e-mail address.
I just did..
$ apt-get install chromiunm
I am writting this from version 3.0.182.0 from the ubuntu repositories. I kind of like Chromium/Chrome over Firefox. And this is from a guy that develop XUL applications (lol!).
Reason to install chromium?
The ability to expand a textarea. Is usefull to edit some SQL in phpMyAdmin... I can probably add a plugin to firefox to do that, but with chromium/chrome is a standard feature.
-Woof woof woof!
Most Eee PCs have two SSDs: a large, slow one and a small fast one. Firefox became a lot snappier once I moved my profile directory to the fast SSD. Obvious in retrospect, I know...
If it's working at all for you, you're very lucky. I've been trying every .deb update for a (short) while now, and none of them can even load their own start page. Or google. Not sure if the startpage is google. All I see is an MacOS=9.x-style and/or AtariST-style crashed icon in the center of the page area.
Firefox for Linux is actually quite shitty, they haven't fixed that scrolling bug in ages.
- Posted from the x64 .deb version of Chrome, which is working suspiciously well.
Well there is already Chromium for Linux and it contains adblock preinstalled which obviously original Chrome won't have.
Here's why I'm excited about/anxious for Chrome on OS/X:
I used Firefox for awhile, a couple of years back. It bogged down the CPU, especially after running for awhile.
So I switched to Opera (and shortly thereafter went from Windows to OS X). It was a peppier experience. But with newer releases, and the increasing use of Flash (I think) on the Net, it started getting slower and slower. I don't like having my fan run while I'm simply sitting and reading a static page. Turning off all plugins seems to avoid that, so I point the finger at Flash. But not having Flash, or only having it on demand, is fairly annoying. Also, there's some sites Opera just won't render properly. Not many, but some.
So I switched back to Firefox, with the advent of 3.0. Even doing nothing, sitting with a few static pages open (and Adblock, Flashblock) it seems to still hover at 10% CPU usage. Bleh. Enough to keep my fan humming all the time.
When I tried Chrome on Windows, I was quite excited, with the process-per-page approach. I can see *what* page is slowing things down, and kill it if I chose. That's my biggest beef with Opera/Firefox (I won't even let IE into the discussion :P): you can't tell *what* page is slowing down your browser. I've tried JavaScript debuggers, other dev tools to try and found out, but have had no success.
I'm praying that Chrome on OS/X will be my salvation (although I've become dependent upon some Firefox extensions, particularly vimperator :P). Upon first glance, it looks pretty good (and I'm using it to post this article). It seems to suck up 30% CPU for 20 seconds or so *after* finishing loading a page, but then does settle down.
Right now I have about 5 tabs open, and each is using 2-3%, which is slightly concerning. That could add up to be just as bad as Firefox/Opera. But for now, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt of being an early release, and keep my fingers crossed that the "Browser That Finally Doesn't Suck [CPU]" is on the horizon...
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
Your joking, right? The Debian package distribution method is older and more sturdy than the RPM method of packaging. I remember trying to update to KDE 3.5 (when it was new) Suse ( 7 I believe ) and the system did not come back up due to dependencies. Debian's APT System is more intuitive, and contains checking inter-dependencies that RPM just does not have. The only method of distribution that is equal to it is the tar.bz2 / tar.gz methods.
RES PUBLICA NON DOMINETUR
Final release 2.3?
.0 release.
But seriously, this is how it's done KDE. Note that people still want to download it and test it despite the fact that it is not labeled a
I find the Chrome interface quite revolting. But what's even worse is the psychotic bitchings of Ben Goodger, former Mozilla developer. My response to Ben discusses the issues he raised.
There's an extension which allows you to block these javascript popups, i'm fairly sure it's called Tab Mix Plus! (might be wrong on this)
Because you want one that doesn't suck.
And that would be the one that doesn't let you change the (marketing dept. approved I presume) privacy settings and search engine?
I smell a rat.
Most Eee PCs have two SSDs: a large, slow one and a small fast one. Firefox became a lot snappier once I moved my profile directory to the fast SSD. Obvious in retrospect, I know...
If you have >512Mb in your netbook you could do what I've done: I keep the entire profile in RAM (on a tmpfs filesystem). On bok the profile is copied in to the ram drive and on shutdown it is rsynced back to the SSD (using --inplace to reduce copy+write operations on the urlclassifier db).
OK so it lengthens boot time a little, but it isn't often the machine is properly shutdown anyway (it tends to be suspended when not in used instead) so doesn't do a full boot often.
The urlclassifier db appears to be the main culprit for the "unexpected" IO in firefox. and even with all the relevant features turned off it seems to keep updating the file. If you don't want to put your whole profile in RAM (there is the risk of losing important bookmarks and cookies and such if the machine unexpectidly loses all power including battery or if normal shutdown scripts otherwise fail to be callde) you could probably just copy this file in and replace it with a symlink.
I would bet that while you can't print, view YouTube videos or change your privacy settings yet, the core functionality of aggregating data about the user's browsing behaviour and sending it to Google with a uniquely identifiable ID is firmly in place.
As a state gets corrupt, its laws multiply; the most corrupt states have the most numerous laws. (Tacitus, Annales 3:27)
Great..., another package that wants me to install half of gnome.
( it's linked against gconf. )
As a kde user i'll have to say no this round.
I'll stick to firefox/konqueror for the time being.
Most of us have suffered quite enough from "innovation" in web browsers, thank you very much.
Using the Fedora Linux here and have been for a rather long time. I am very much "anti-advertiser" simply because they have a huge propensity to "go too far" with their advertising and data collection. (I have nothing against advertising when it comes to respectful means that the customer seeks out for himself.) Google, for everything else they do in terms of evolving the internet technologies, is still an advertiser. I don't trust them. I can't imagine why anyone else would either.
Really, an alpha build is expected to be considered a finished product? They never said we won't let you change privacy settings/search engine, it's called "we haven't even bothered coding features because this isn't stable".
If your ass smells like rats, that explains where your head is.
My computer's all black. I don't want any Chrome. I wonder how they're going to do automatic updates in Linux.
Health Freedom is almost as popular as Freedom itself.
I have an old G3 running 10.3 that looks great and works well for surfing and playing music. I'd absolutely love to get Fx 2.0 off it, and use a browser that works effectively.
The latestOpera still works fine on 10.3. It doesn't "look" very Mac-like but I'd call it effective.
You can also try iCab which has interesting features of its own. It uses the system WebKit engine, though, which in 10.3 is outdated.
Sorry for the extra reply. I forgot to recommend Camino which uses the Gecko rendering engine but is a real Mac application, and has built-in ad blocking.
I think parent means safari.. (captain obvious to the rescue!)
well, I, for one, welcome our new sarcastic overlords
-- Sig under construction...
And how it doesn't suck then?
I'd say that Safari and Chrome are comparable. But setting speed aside, Chrome 2.0 really felt more like 0.2 when compared to FireFox. Long list of missing features, blatantly non-existent integration with Google own on-line applications...
I understand the enthusiasm about faster surfing (Chrome is about only browser which can render /. new layout in near real time), but otherwise they have quite long way before minimalist's feature parity.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
...but whatever you do, please DON'T DOWNLOAD THEM! Unless of course you are a developer or take great pleasure in incomplete, unpredictable, and potentially crashing software.
Nothing new here. I get the same thing on Windows. Browser of choice does not matter.
By no means nothing against Windows. But it was the absolute first thing that came to mind when I read it.
Yes, hurry up with that.... so you can keep them in BETA for 5+ years afterwards. :p
Reply to That ||
DON'T DOWNLOAD THEM! Unless of course you are a developer or take great pleasure in incomplete, unpredictable, and potentially crashing software.
How ironic, they announce new Mac and Linux versions and tell you not to download them unless you use Windows.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Speaking of browser innovation, why is it that we still don't have any major browsers that have detachable/retachable tabs? Konqueror has done this for years: you can right click on an open tab and detach it to its own window, or drag one window into another to consolidate them.
I personally find this really handy, to the point that I am willing to overlook that several popular javascript libraries (like jQuerry) are buggy in Konqueror which breaks a lot of useful websites (google aps, yahoo mail...) and I use it anyway.
Yet none of the other browser people have done this. Does anybody know why?
weirdest thing I ever saw: scientology advertising on slashdot.
Besides, that is just an excuse to anyone browsing Slashdot. I understand that my grandmother can't do that but the folks here should be able to download some local proxy (Privoxy is lightweight and works on multiple platforms) that can be configured to block ads. If they really would otherwise want to use chrome but didn't because of adblock, they could work around it.
People on Slashdot complaining "I don't use product X because of Y" remind me of people signing petitions or joining facebook groups about boycotting some company from which they wouldn't have bought products anyways.
What's so bad about Firefox on the Mac? I mean, really? Admittedly I've been using the pre-3.5 betas for a while now, but even before that I didn't have problems with 3.0. Neither did I have problems with 2.x. It eats a lot of memory, but apart from that, no problems.
The simple answer in terms of your G3 is this - it's old. New stuff will run slow. Deal with it.
I am posting this from Chrome for Ubuntu, and although Webkit and the engine itself is a great experience(after the 50% CPU usage for the first two minutes), I don't think I will use anything based on this until it gets a Firefox skin.
I am sure many people like this useless eyecandy that looks great on their slow candybloat window managers, but I still use Firefox 1.5 style tabs with one close button and 15 minwidth for maximum capacity. Chrome tabs look ugly and slow. Over or under the adress bar doesn't matter that much, just ugliness and bloat. Somebody fix that please.
I am not sure why this is news, actually. The repository for Chromium has been available for Ubuntu for some time. Instructions for adding it are here:
https://launchpad.net/~chromium-daily/+archive/ppa
The big advantage to this is that you get the nightly builds automatically every time you update; no need to mess with downloading and installing debs
weirdest thing I ever saw: scientology advertising on slashdot.
For those okay with using a browser which is under heavy development, Midori is another great option.
It's my main browser on my eeepc for its RAM savings and it has been great. I've been using the PPA (note you also need the Webkit PPA in Ubuntu 9.04 and has been very stable. Many features are missing, however, it is maturing very quickly. Keep firefox around, though, as Midori has had issues with a few sites.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a yo-yo.-Enoch Root
Does it still send unknown encrypted data back to google at will?
Thanks, that's all I need to know about this browser.
REM Old programmers don't die. They just GOSUB without RETURN.
A friend wrote up a Gentoo ebuild for it, which I went and installed (for the amd64 version - I run an almost entirely 64 bit system). Try to run it, and got this message:
That's odd ... double check ... yes, /usr/lib64/libgconf-2.so.4 exists ... No ... they couldn't have ...
$ file /opt/google/chrome/chrome
/opt/google/chrome/chrome: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.8, stripped
*facepalm*
The 64-bit Chrome is *NOT* 64-bit, and will not run on 64-bit systems which are missing a number of 32-bit libraries.
And why do you think Google is interested in preserving Firefox as an end goal? They are not a non-profit foundation. They are much more like Microsoft or Apple: they want to make money.
One potential way to make money is to control the internet content all the way through end-user delivery. It may enable some things that seem otherwise impossible: delivering protected copyrighted content, for example. If they offered a browser that wouldn't let you save YouTube streams, then maybe the RIAA would let them display music videos. Maybe book publishers would let them display Google Books along a Kindle model. Or maybe Google has a workable micro-payment system in place that depends on the browser not spoofing the for-pay site. Or maybe they just want to make sure that Google AdSense and google-analytics can't be blocked by the end users.
A "non-trustable" browser (like Firefox with all its Greasemonkey scripts and Noscript and AdBlock etc.) can't offer the rights-holders enough assurance that they can deliver their data without it being copied. Chrome may be the guarantee that lets them make money.
Before another DRM flamewar erupts, I'm not saying that Chrome can technically offer any more magic solutions than CSS or copy-protected diskettes or any of a thousand other failed DRM schemes. But like Apple's Fair Play, it might be "enough" protection to convince the copyright holders to distribute their content through Google's tubes.
John
Imposter! You are not Captain Obvious because he would of taken *context* and *tone* into account. He was replying to a humorous counter-point to the pro-Safari poster in a manner which indicates he was in support of Safari. This much is obvious to most English readers (most because, apparently, you are one of the few exceptions).
Not on a Mac it doesn't. While Fx 3.0 is far better than previous versions on a Mac, it's still pretty poor. And you can't use Fx 3.0 on older Macs at all.
The last version of Safari for Mac OS X 10.3 was 1.3.2 (January 11, 2006). The last release of the Firefox 2 series for Mac OS X 10.3 was 2.0.20 (20 Dec 2008). That is a helluva lot of dedication and you just stepped all over it.
There was a proposal for the drop of Mac OS X 10.3 support a long time ago for Firefox 3. I recommend you read it. I'll be giving a few quotes below to stress the important parts.
For Gecko 1.8 there were significantly more Panther testers in the community than there are now. That trend will continue over the next 6 months and almost certainly accelerate when Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) is released. By the time we release Gecko 1.9, I suspect that our community Panther testing resources will be so small as to be nearly insignificant.
I think you can guess how small a minority of a minority is. At that time, Omnigroup was was estimating "2% of their users were on Panther at the end of 2006." I wonder what that percent is now in 2009? Instead of supporting 10 people on Mac OS X 10.3, I would rather have the Mozilla folks focusing on making the experience better for versions that actually have users. The development team only has so many resources to use.
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
As an Opera user, I haven't suffered at all from all of the innovation.
Also notice that I did not need to put the word innovation in quotes.
It might be good enough for you, but it aint good enough for Apple.
Several approaches are being investigated; see
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/LinuxSandboxing
http://lwn.net/Articles/332974/
http://www.imperialviolet.org/2008/11/27/sandboxing-on-linux.html
Stainless is the only Chromium-based browser so-far that does what I hoped Chrome would do: let me have true separate sessions in each tab or window. To be clear: I can be logged in to every one of my gmail accounts in different tabs at the same time. It's still fairly immature, but hopefully it'll get to the point where I can use no-script and be done with FF.
Despite our hopes, FF is not immune to the Mozilla disease, that almost lupus-like systemic breakdown over time, inflicting its greatest damage just at its most critical point in life, when its every extremity is needed to fend off competitors but each slowly degenerating to useless dead weight easily torn, eaten, spat out on the remains of its predecessors.
Avoiding software monoculture. On both OS X and Windows, Safari has been shown to have a substantial number of security flaws. Even if I liked its minimal configurability and general look and feel (I don't, but that's a personal thing) the security issues would lead me to avoid using it, much like IE6. (Hmm... is this some kind of rite of passage for a browser bundled with an OS? I hope Apple gets its security act in gear faster than Microsoft did - they're starting to become popular enough to be a worthwhile target.)
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
I've never really understood how it could help with memory management - because now in addition to the memory you'd consume to load each page, you have additional overhead for each instance of the executable. It would seem, then, that viewing the same number of pages in distinct processes vs within the same process would use more memory. The additional overhead I'm referring to isn't the memory used by the code itself - obviously that's loaded just once - but instead it's all the dynamic initialization and allocations performed by that code. Am I missing something?
I don't know if you've noticed but Flash tends to crash Safari all the time. If it can now only crash a single tab instead of the whole browser due to separate processes for each tab then that would be great. I hope Apple follows suit with Safari.
And how it doesn't suck then? I'd say that Safari and Chrome are comparable.
Chrome is obviously not ready for real use on OS X or Linux yet, but it is an architectural leap forward. It has real sandboxing of tabs so that one tab can't make the others unresponsive or take down the browser is a huge leap forward. With the Web being so central to most people's workflow these days this is akin to the move to a multitasking OS. I think that's what has most of us excited, not speed or new features at this point. It has a long way to go, but the underlying architectural decisions provide for more potential.
It would seem, then, that viewing the same number of pages in distinct processes vs within the same process would use more memory.
This is true, but perhaps chrome uses some clever copy-on-write VM technology? Or (gasp) perhaps windows does? Any VM guys want to comment?
But the GP's claimed memory management benefits come from the ability to find pages that cause memory leaks somehow and close their processes, I believe. No idea how well it works in practice, but when I have ventured into windows and used chrome in the past, closing down lots of tabs would indeed free up lots of memory, for sufficient quantities of lots, and it did seem to exhibit far more aggressive reductions than firefox.
Well, the other day I tried out the new Opera on OS X, so I might as well give Chrome a spin. It scores 100 on ACID3, although it does say the linktest failed. The javascript performance is quite good, beating even the Webkit nightly 846 to 963. To give you some reference here the Safari beta 4 gets 7223 and regular Safari does 3144, so we're seeing javascript running 3 times as fast as the fastest of the currently, stable browsers and actually faster than anything else in development I've tested (although not by a lot). Sadly, Chrome does not use the native text handling so it does not currently use the native spellchecking, but a separate one. It can't use the built in grammar checker or dictionary/thesaurus or other cool services in OS X. It can, by default, resize text fields though, so that's a plus. Basically, it isn't there yet for an everyday browser, but it has a lot of potential.
Mod parent insightful. Safari is a glossy, bloated nightmare.
You should give it a try.
.
The other feature I think should be universally adopted is tab grouping by site, like you can get with the Tab Kit addon for Firefox.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
So long as your distribution is spelled U.B.U.N.T.U
For everyone else: FUCK OFF!
If this is based on webkit why the H-E double hockey sticks is it taking so long to develop a version for Mac/Linux? If this was Microsoft we would all be up in arms about them dragging their feet. What's up Google? I like Firefox on the Mac but I also like competition and would love to try Chrome. On windows I stopped using Firefox after IE 7 came out. IE 8 is a bit buggy in spots but overall good.
But they aren't... SEPARATED INTO PROCESSES!
Check out Stainless for Leopard... it's still lacking a few features, but it's coming together quite well.
Stop! Dremel time!
please DON'T DOWNLOAD THEM! Unless of course you are a developer or take great pleasure in incomplete, unpredictable, and potentially crashing software."
You're just begging for a windows joke, aren't you?
<Steve Erwin impression>...and here we have one of the rarest of all specimens: the +1 Flamebait </Steve Erwin impression>
Failure to follow this advice may result in non-deterministic behavior.
I always thought Safari sucked a lot of RAM, especially on Windows.
That's like saying "IE sucks, especially on WINE".
The Chrominator is back!!!
I don't think it could possibly crash more than Seamonkey (I hated Phoenix, and I carry a grudge) does for me. It seems none of the devs ever thought to see if their code works with gcc-4.0. Or if they did, they threw their hands up in the air and gave up. It used to be a rarity with Seamonkey, but lately, the browser just freezes up after I look at 'so much' stuff.
This is true, but perhaps chrome uses some clever copy-on-write VM technology? Or (gasp) perhaps windows does? Any VM guys want to comment?
You mean like the everyday common POSIX fork() command? Yes, apparently Windows does have that capability, they just hide it in their API.
Considering they are already running OSX or Teh Lunix, that should be a given.
No its not.
Was IE released for WINE? No.
Was Safari released for Windows? Yes.
Chrome is obviously not ready for real use on OS X or Linux yet, but it is an architectural leap forward. It has real sandboxing of tabs so that one tab can't make the others unresponsive or take down the browser is a huge leap forward. With the Web being so central to most people's workflow these days this is akin to the move to a multitasking OS. I think that's what has most of us excited, not speed or new features at this point. It has a long way to go, but the underlying architectural decisions provide for more potential.
I know they advertise this, but it honestly hasn't proven to be true. I've been using Chrome daily since it came out (less bloat than Firefox, less suck than IE), and when a tab freezes, they all freeze.
"Meanwhile, we'll get back to trying to get Google Chrome on these platforms stable enough for a beta release as soon as possible ..."
... at which point, of course, they will be done.
But that's kind of the point. Finally, we can severely reduce memory bloat due to memory fragmentation by separating tabs into different processes.
Chrome has a higher memory footprint at first, but then as Firefox continues to use more and more RAM, Chrome's memory usage remains consistent.
I haven't noticed the scrolling bug in Iceweasel, but I've experienced it in Ubuntu's Firefox. Is Iceweasel better than Firefox, or am I just lucky? I've been quite happy with Iceweasel, even though I notice Chrome's javscript performance is noticeably better (and Konqueror's, which I'm using right now, is noticeably worse, but still generally acceptable)..
> incomplete, unpredictable, and potentially crashing software
As opposed to other web browsers? Seriously,
when are we going to have a web browser that
actually works properly?
Awesome, we've finally achieved what we had decades ago in native apps. Next you'll tell me we'll get native ways to play video (HTML5) and the ability to update views on the fly (AJAX). My brain can't handle such futuristic features!
The Mac version of Chrome requires Intel CPU and Mac OS X 10.5.6 or later. So the (vast number?) of Mac users that are either still using a PowerPC-based or Tiger will have to sit this one out. With luck and perhaps some prodding, Google will produce a universal binary version that runs on 10.4.x as well. The Leopard dependency might indicate a requirement for Java 1.6, which is not supported in Tiger, unless you have an Intel mac.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress in this period in history.
Awesome, we've finally achieved what we had decades ago in native apps.
That's what happens when you have such a broken market. The desktop OS market is broken and stagnates. People try to work around it and MS tries to stop them by crippling the Web as well. The real solution is to get rid of MS's monopoly, but in the mean time, we'll see things like this as ways the market tries to make money by moving the state of the art forward.
Example, decades have passed and we still can't use spellchecking in all applications on Windows, at least with Web applications we can do that in most of them.
and anger leads to hate, and hate leads to suffering!!!
http://freelinuxguides.wikidot.com
wake up and smell the github. Forking is not bad.
Amazing magic tricks
Check out Stainless for Leopard...
I don't think so. Everybody's lost interest. Chrome might have been interesting if Google had bothered to include the rest of the community from the start, but it's too late now.
I was waiting for this . But still this page http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/linux.html doesn't speak about this version . Anyhow is Google still planning to release Gtalk for Linux ?
As somebody relatively new to the Mac world, I have a random question. Given how standardized all of the other Meta key commands seem to be from one application to the next, why can't any two programs agree on the same key combination to switch tabs?
Chrome uses Meta+Alt+Arrow. Safari uses Meta+Shift+{}. Firefox uses Ctrl+Tab. Coming from a non-Mac background, Firefox is the only one that makes any sense to me, although I'll admit it's a little odd in that it is the only one that doesn't use the Meta key. And it's a little hard to keep that straight with Meta+Tab / Meta + `. But at least it doesn't require double chording or taking my hand off the mouse.
But really, can't you guys just all agree on the one true way and be done with it? Must I be condemned to constantly hit the wrong key combination every time I switch windows.
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
Hi,
To get Chrome running under Fedora, take the following steps: .deb file .deb file there: /opt /opt
Download chrome
Create a temporary directory in your home dir:
$ mkdir ~/blah
Unpack the
$ cd ~/blah
$ ar x ~/Download/chrome*deb
Unpack the binary code:
$ tar xfz data.tar.gz
Move the binaries to your
$ mv opt/*
Now create a couple of symlinks in /lib so Chrome can find all the necessary libraries (apparently these are named differently under Debian and Ubuntu): /usr
$ cd
$ sudo ln -s libnss3.so libnss3.so.1d
$ sudo ln -s libnssutil3.so.1d libnssutil3.so
$ sudo ln -s libnssutil3.so libnssutil3.so.1d
$ sudo ln -s libsmime3.so libsmime3.so.1d
$ sudo ln -s libssl3.so libssl3.so.1d
$ sudo ln -s libplds4.so libplds4.so.0d
$ sudo ln -s libplc4.so libplc4.so.0d
$ sudo ln -s libnspr4.so libnspr4.so.0d
Now chrome can be started: /opt/google/chrome/google-chrome
$
Create an application launcher on any panel for easy access.
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
Even now, after however long they've had to fix things up, Chrome still crashes like crazy on Windows.
I really cannot use a browser that displays a sad face every second page I open, and asks me to "reload, that might fix it".
Since the core is WebKit, which is rock solid, I can only blame Google's poor code...outside of search they seem to be a bunch of monkeys with typewriters.
Good point, but if it renders significantly different from the other WebKit browsers (and those improvements aren't merged back), it's one more browser to test, which is one of the only actual potential problems with having many browsers.
Who do you think you're talking for here, exactly?
Chrome is obviously not ready for real use on OS X or Linux yet, but it is an architectural leap forward.
The ability to move tabs into different windows is what got me hooked. The separate process thing is nice, but when I'm on my Macs, I really miss the ability to move tabs into different windows.
No, I will not work for your startup
Quote:
:O
.. maybe in simple words this is a broken software which is not even suitable for testing !!
How incomplete? So incomplete that, among other things , you won't yet be able to view YouTube videos, change your privacy settings, set your default search provider, or even print.
End Quote
I was shocked to see a browser which was unable to display web pages
The irony is that it comes from a company which is a leader on the web and uses GNU/Linux extensively .
Other problems being I was unable to open the JS console or task manager
Details:
Running google chrome 3.0.183.1 on Debian lenny 2.6.26-1-686 with KDE 4.1.4
It's about time. I love google chrome and hope they come out with a fully functional version soon.