Slashdot Mirror


A Mixed Review For Google Chrome On Linux

omlx contributes this link to LinuxCrunch's short review of Google Chrome on Linux, writing: "The summary of it is that although Google Chrome is in a beta stage, it is fast, stable, and has a simple, clean, and effective GUI design. On other side, Google Chrome has a small number of extensions, doesn't support RSS, lacks integration with KDE, and doesn't support complex scripts very well. Personally, I didn't succeed in using Flash Player on Google Chrome beta 1 (I am using OpenSUSE 11.2) and I wonder how the quality of Google Chrome OS will be, especially if it's based on Linux and Google Chrome."

25 of 223 comments (clear)

  1. UI responsiveness by sopssa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Speed

    If you look for a fast web browser, Google Chrome is the answer to you. The start-up speed is amazing comparing to Firefox. The Google developers did a very well job in this regard. the reason behind its speed is that Google Chrome does not use a cross-platform framework unlike Firefox which uses XUL. Google Chrome in GUN/Linux uses GTK+ directly without any layer in between. It uses also a different GUI library for each operating system it supports.

    While I dont myself use Chrome, I have to agree here. UI responsiveness in such things like a browser is REALLY important. I have asked firefox developers and users many times why the UI isn't more responsive, and the sum answer of that is XUL. I love Opera's UI responsiveness. I love Chrome's UI responsivess. But Firefox's and IE's is just shit. It's really something Mozilla should work with, because until it's on those twos level I wont be using Firefox. What is the real reason to use it then? Many people say its easily extensible. sure, XML like language probably is. But you could even try to optimize it. Convert it to byte or machine in run time, or something. Firefox is really lacking behind on this aspect and I'd really like to see them improve it.

    But why are both Opera and Chrome better in UI responsiveness than Firefox, IE and other problems? Is it because they see the advantage on it, or is it really that hard? What could be done for it?

    1. Re:UI responsiveness by Hurricane78 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don’t know how many times I have recommended this simple and effective solution to the XUL problem:

      Just compile the damn stuff into something faster! Like a library, but a bit safer (sandboxed).
      Leave the XUL files where they are, monitor them with inotify or at specific events, and re-compile them if they were changed (e.g. by installing a extension. Do not accept pre-compiled stuff in an extension. That way you still get to see all the source.

      There, done. I don’t get what’s so hard about this. The whole parsing and error handling thing is already done. Just walk the tree with functions that replace the nodes with binary code or something alike. And get the dragon book if you haven’t already. :)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    2. Re:UI responsiveness by DrXym · · Score: 4, Informative
      Just compile the damn stuff into something faster! Like a library, but a bit safer (sandboxed).

      It already does. On first boot XUL / JS is parsed into objects which are serialized as prototypes into XUL.mfl where mfl stands for Mozilla Fast Load. The next time the app starts it constructs the prototypes from the fast load file rather than the XML. The mfl file is regenerated when the XUL changes of course.

  2. Flash not working by avandesande · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I thought flash not working is a feature.

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
    1. Re:Flash not working by GF678 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So not being able to view video on sites like YouTube seamlessly (ie. without requiring extensions/workarounds to view FLV files in a 3rd-party player) is a feature?

      And do give me that shit about YouTube not having anything useful to watch. If so, you just aren't trying very hard.

    2. Re:Flash not working by westlake · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I thought flash not working is a feature.

      To the geek.

      To everyone else it is a show-stopper.

      This rule applies to any program, add-on, plug-in, or extension that is considered an essntial download by almost every OSX and Windows user.

  3. Google Chrome linux by cavedweller96 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Personally, I disagree. Flash works flawlessly on chrome. More features can be added later, you have to remember it is a beta. finally, as a person who had compiled Chrome OS, It works great. My only problem with it is lack of wireless card support, but once again BETA.

  4. Re:sigh by pclminion · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Don't criticize it, it's a beta." That's nonsense. The whole reason you release a beta is to get feedback.

    As far as the KDE thing, though, I agree. Exactly what sort of "integration" with KDE was expected?

  5. Long (relatively) user here. by pwnies · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've been using a mix of chrome and chromium on linux now as my primary browser for the last six months. I'm surprised at how stable it actually is (especially now). When I first started using it, the chromium builds weren't integrated into the UI very well, and were very finicky (especially with plugins). Now though, I've had zero crashes with the latest build (4.0.266.0) that I'm using. Flash works great under Ubuntu 9.04 with chrome, the dom inspector is up and running, networking options are now available (an improvement from the previous chromium build I was using), complex scripts (hebrew, arabic, etc) are working, and UI is operating exactly how you'd expect it to. Oddly enough, the only problem I'm having with it, is if the width of a text input box goes larger than around 600 pixels, I can't select the text outside of that 600px with my mouse (not that it's a problem, I just click elsewhere and use my lovely keyboard to get me where I need to be). Other than that, zero problems. Very happy with it.

  6. Fix how it handles tabs by diamondsandrain · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Until Chrome fixes how it handles tabs I will never use it. I know it sounds like a minor quibble.... but it is practically unusable when you have more than a couple of tabs open. Firefox handles this the correct way by putting arrows at the ends of the tabs and allowing you to scroll across to the remaining tabs. Chrome handles this the wrong way by trying to squeeze all the tabs onto the window at the same time. It doesn't take very long before you get useless tab titles like "A...." and "D..." and you cannot tell which tab is which. I usually have at least 15 tabs open at any given time. This can swell to 30 or 40 at times. Of course, I gave up on Safari because when I tried it out there was no way to save the tabs so that they opened again when you restarted the browser. Another very simple thing that greatly affects my enjoyment of the browser. Maybe they have fixed that since.... I don't know.

  7. Re:I would have tried it by pclminion · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What are those dependencies, and how are they licensed? Depending on the license, static linking could force them to open source the entire application.

    This was a continuing source of irritation back when I worked on a closed source Linux app. The glibc people do not give a crap about binary-breaking changes. This resulted in us having to create multiple variants of our product to link against different versions of the runtime libs (in order to support older distros), multiplying our testing efforts by a factor of three. We desperately wanted to just link glibc statically, but that's a no-no because it's LGPL.

  8. Mostly good here. by headkase · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm running Chrome in Ubuntu under Gnome and Compiz, I have Adobe's flash installed from restricted and swfdec removed (was blocking Adobe's) and all the extensions I've tried work: Feedly, Chromed Bird, Adblock, and so on. The only thing I notice about Flash (it even plays video fine!) is that sometimes input events such as clicking on a button in a flash element will "fall through" and not do anything. Annoying when your trying to select another YouTube video after the current one has finished playing. Overall though, my opinion is that it is already in an excellent state and can only get better from here: in active development.

    --
    Shh.
  9. Re:Not Chrome's Fault by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hell no, bro. I finally transitioned to an all-Linux household after the release of the ultra-mature, ultra-stable Ubuntu 9.10. It worked wonders right out of the box. The only gripe I have about 9.10 is the default desktop wallpaper which is colored like tubgirl's whale-spout.

    My 7 year old Dell Latitude D600 runs the compiz cube and with all the pretty window effects and dosen't even slow down until a skydome image or 3-d windows on cube rotate are added. All hardware is detected with the best drivers and there are no issues with hibernation. There's also no need for command-line boot options. It just works(tm).

    Next up for Linux, media production software. What the fuck is up with Hydrogen and Ardour? Can't they get at least one real musician on their design staff?

  10. Getting Flash to Work by Kelson · · Score: 4, Informative

    I had two systems, both 64-bit Fedora, that I tried Chrome on. On one, Flash worked fine from the moment I installed Chrome. On the other, Chrome didn't even notice the plugin existed. Flash (32-bit, wrapped with mozilla-plugin-config) worked just fine in Firefox on both computers. When I compared the two systems, it turned out that one was missing a symbolic link. The file is in /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins-wrapped, but Chrome was looking in /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins.

    Adding a symbolic link solved it.

    More info: Getting Flash to work on Google Chrome for 64-bit Linux.

  11. Re:I would have tried it by Enderandrew · · Score: 3, Informative

    The entire Chrome application is open under a BSD license. You can check out the licenses of the dependencies as well here:

    http://code.google.com/chromium/terms.html

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
  12. Nothing but praise here by lessgravity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have installed both Chrome and Chromium on about 15 machines and 3 flavors of Linux. In each case the UI responsiveness is amazing. Huge improvement over Firefox. So far everything has worked beautifully on each of these machines. No problems with Flash. I'm surprised that the link review complained about the lack of extensions. There are plenty of extensions. Kinda made the rest of the review look poorly researched.

    1. Re:Nothing but praise here by __aamnbm3774 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It not only has tons of extensions, (all the basics included, like Ad Blocking, Gmail Checker, etc) but has a fantastic way to search for them... on par with Mozillas plug-in search.

      I agree, if I even bothered to RTFA, I would have stopped reading at that point.

    2. Re:Nothing but praise here by eqisow · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Last I checked (two months ago?) Chrome had no ad blockng to speak of. Sure, there's AdSweep and AdBlock+, but they just hide ads with CSS, where Firefox stops the ads from ever being downloaded. When I was using Chromium regularly I ended up using Privoxy for ad blocking.

      As I understood the situation at the time, this shortcoming was due to the functionality not being possible in Chrome. So, the browser from the company that sells ads has limited ad blocking functionality. Is anyone really surprised?

    3. Re:Nothing but praise here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not sure I see the problem here. You dont see the ad (CSS is blocked), advertiser gets their "page view" that they paid for. Unless you are still on dialup, this shouldnt impact load times significantly.

      If this gets the hits for advertisers that prevents paywalls, while keeping you safe from the really annoying stuff, it sounds like a win-win to me. What am I missing?

    4. Re:Nothing but praise here by KlaasVaak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes there is a problem if you are concerned about your privacy and yes big flash ads will slow down page loading no matter how fast your connection is.

      --
      Dyslexics are teople poo
  13. Re:sigh by bvankuik · · Score: 4, Informative

    As far as the KDE thing, though, I agree. Exactly what sort of "integration" with KDE was expected?

    I would appreciate it if Chrome took it's default font size/color from the KDE settings. What would even be better is if there was a KDE theme that also took over the KDE look and feel for the browser window and the tabs, and the buttons and dialogues that Chrome has.

  14. RSS in Chrome by John+Whitley · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's worth noting that RSS support is an extension for Chrome, written by Google. It presents the usual RSS location bar icon, and is configurable:

    The extension comes with 4 feed readers predefined (Google Reader, iGoogle, Bloglines and My Yahoo) but also allows you to add any web-based feed reader of your choice to the list.

    No RSS-as-bookmark folders support, but I don't miss that as I vastly prefer a dedicated (desktop or webapp) RSS reader.

    Works great for me on Linux. OS X users will need to grab a dev channel build for extensions support; the usual disclaimers about unreleased code apply. The recent Mac Chrome release doesn't have extensions turned on yet.

  15. Re:Distribute glibc then ... by pclminion · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We briefly considered that, but decided it was unacceptable. The glibc binary is just too large. One of the things our customers consistently praised us for was that our .exe was under 1.5 megabytes, while the closest competing app was over 15 megabytes. glibc alone was equal to the size of the app. Slicing and dicing the code to the bare minimum wasn't acceptable either, because then it wasn't a stock library anymore and we would have had to put it through testing, and we were not interested in testing runtime libs. Not to mention that if we ever had to upgrade the library we'd have to do it all over again.

    Actually, I briefly undertook a skunkworks effort to trim glibc down to the bare minimum. I gave up after just one evening when I discovered that simply calling printf() drags in almost the entire freaking library by reference. I was dumping linker dependency maps and it was clear that it would take MAJOR changes to make even MINOR effects on code size. The entire glibc codebase is so twisted and interdependent that I gave up in disgust. There's theory, then there's practice.

    Anyway, somebody already pointed out that Chrome is BSD licensed, which I didn't know. In that case, your distro of choice should be building a compatible package for you. Patience!

  16. Re:Distribute glibc then ... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And BTW this is an advantage of Free software as you are automatically entitled to redistributing the library yourself.

    An advantage of Free software is that it lets you, using an arcane and complex process, fix the problem caused by using Free software in the first place?

    Wow.

  17. Re:Fedora 11 and Flash works here... by KiloByte · · Score: 3, Informative

    Uhm, if you have a criminally broken router and feel no urge to work around it, you should disable IPv6 system-wide. No program should deal with such type of configuration on its own.

    And your configuration seems broken: if you don't have any IPv6 addresses better than link-local, glibc shouldn't even send AAAA queries, at least in any semi-recent version. If you have any better addresses (not necessarily globally routable), the queries will be sent but since they go exactly the same way A queries go, there's no way for A responses to come swiftly but AAAA having to timeout, save for something on the way sabotaging them and dropping them silently. And since you claim that this happens for every access, it's something near you.

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.