Google Releases Chrome 5.0 For Win/Mac/Linux

ddfall writes "Four months after the release of version 4.0 for Windows, Google has announced the availability of Chrome 5.0 for Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux — the first stable release to be available on all three major platforms. Chrome 5.0.375.55 is available to download from google.com/chrome. Users who currently have Chrome installed can use the built-in update function."

Comments

Google is catching on fast

[microbee]

Just look at the version numbers. It's already 5! On the contrary Firefox is still lagging behind with 3.6.

Re:Google is catching on fast

[Anonymous Coward]

Well my "Hello world" program is on version 9001.

Re:Google is catching on fast

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that's just a reflection of how Chrome is a sleek, fast, efficient browser, while Firefox has rapidly become a bloated, memory-wasting slug.

I'm not joking, either. It's far easier to develop for WebKit-based browsers, because they're designed intelligently, unlike Gecko-based browsers.

Re:Google is catching on fast

[e2d2]

Yeah but it's not officially awesome until the version is 3000.. [Thunder from the sky]Guuuuuuidooooo!

Re:Google is catching on fast

[Kabloink]

Microsoft has both of them beat with IE 6.

Re:Google is catching on fast

[natehoy]

Yeah, but remember, they are shooting for version 10^100. They have a long way to go.

Re:Google is catching on fast

[baka_toroi]

Versions over 9000 will be officially awesome.

Re:Google is catching on fast

[fermion]

Kind of reminds me of IE. IE1-IE5 were released in a four year time period, mostly to play catchup to Netscape version 4. After that development all but stopped (relatively speaking) and 10 years later we only at IE 8.

One hope that in a year or so when Chrome is at 9.0, even with the new release of MS they will stop release a major version every time they fix a bug. I don't think any of us want to have to say Chrome version 10,257 every day. Of course at that point they will likely drop the other numbers and we will just cycle through version 0-9 every year.

An an up note, if they have flash and java and HTML 5 working, I will likely use it on Windows machines instead of IE. MS is so concerned with promoting their business structure that each update of IE becomes less useful.

Re:Google is catching on fast

[Anonymous Coward]

You can get the premium version, which is IE 8, if you go to the microsoft site. I'll try to find a link.

I actually prefer the the sites that are available on IE 8 to the ones that are available on Firefox. IE offers more options.

Re:Google is catching on fast

[poetmatt]

please. IE8 isn't about options. That's why bing is set as the default search engine.

see? It makes your job easier!

Re:Google is catching on fast

[phil reed]

Nigel Tufnel: The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and...

Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten?

Nigel Tufnel: Exactly.

Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder?

Nigel Tufnel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?

Marty DiBergi: I don't know.

Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?

Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven.

Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.

Marty DiBergi: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?

Nigel Tufnel: [pause] These go to eleven.

Re:Google is catching on fast

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

The web is only 3.0 !!?

This is confusing!

Re:Google is catching on fast

[Tetsujin]

Well my "Hello world" program is on version 9001.

So, it's over 8000, then.

Re:Google is catching on fast

[unix1]

Microsoft has both of them beat with IE 6.

That's nothing - Netscape was already at 9.x in 2007!

Re:Google is catching on fast

[Anonymous Coward]

Google's Chrome beta's now say 6.0 so it won't be long! hah.

Re:Google is catching on fast

[indre1]

"Users who currently have Chrome installed can use the built-in update function."

This feature is a bit hidden under the wrench -> About Google Chrome.
There you are, saved you 10 seconds of thinking time that you have wasted by now reading this comment.

Re:Google is catching on fast

[edumacator]

saved you 10 seconds of thinking time that you have wasted by now reading this comment.

No you didn't. I had to do a quick Google search to find it...that took ten seconds, THEN I read your comment, then I replied to it, spending nearly thirty seconds trying to think of something pithy to say. In reality, your post cost me over forty seconds. Next time please post useful tidbits of information as the first post.

Re:Google is catching on fast

[Draek]

Bleh, Emacs is already at version 23. Take that, Microsoft!

Note: if you're thinking of replying "Emacs isn't a web browser!", you clearly have never used Emacs.

Re:Google is catching on fast

[anexkahn]

I don't know whats worse, a produce with version 1000000000.0 or version 1.234.325.234.53 Google seems to be going for the first option.

Re:Google is catching on fast

[fishexe]

Microsoft has both of them beat with IE 6.

Opera 10! Beat that!

Re:Google is catching on fast

[Alphathon]

Perhaps they have a different version numbering system. Just a thought.

Re:Google is catching on fast

[Drathos]

Alright. I'll bite.

Emacs isn't a web browser!

It's an operating system. And it's still ahead of Microsoft!

Re:Google is catching on fast

[WaywardGeek]

There is something useful in that bloat. For example, Firefox is accessible by screen readers while Google Chrome leaves the blind with nothing, at least in Linux.

Re:Google is catching on fast

[chibiace]

no kidding, i put chrome on my ubuntu powered netbook huge improvement to flash and surfing speeds.

Re:Google is catching on fast

[kabloom]

Microsoft has both of them beat with IE 6.

God forbid.

Re:Google is catching on fast

[CAIMLAS]

Yet, I'm browsing slashdot right now using Chrome 5, and it doesn't feel like they're progressing the versioning faster than they are the product.

Chrome 3 was already roughly on par with Firefox and IE, if not better in many ways. I gave it a try then, and it didn't really do anything for me. I switched sometime after 4 was released (in Linux) and I haven't looked back: they improved it enough that not only was I able to do what I had previously done in Firefox, but it worked better. Chrome 5, to me, feels much more like a "polish" release than "shape".

I just fired up the latest 3.6 Firefox. The damn thing feels bloated, slow, and looks a bit dated. From the looks of things (the relative stasis included), Firefox is in the "superglue" release cycle.

Oh yeah, and that's just starting up: actually trying to use it is like trying to use Netscape 4 after Firefox 1 was released: OMG SUCK. Sure, it has multithreading, but even on a single core CPU, Chrome is faster and more responsive.

And IE? Well, let's just say their engine has improved significantly - but it's still the same kludge of a UI, with many of the same technical problems present in 6 remaining.

Re:Google is catching on fast

[Anonymous Coward]

So it has ISO compliance or something?

Re:Google is catching on fast

[syousef]

The web is only 3.0 !!?

This is confusing!

I've only been sold Web 2.0 by the nice guys from that consultancy we hired. Any chance of copying version 3 of the Internet onto this floppy for me??

Re:Google is catching on fast

[Kilrah_il]

He can't. First post is reserved for "First Post! Google is Evil!" comments.
Btw, even if you don't go to "About Google Chrome", the browser automatically updates itself (in a period of hours/few days).

Re:Google is catching on fast

[tenco]

http://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/developers/design-documents/accessibility#TOC-Screen-Reader-Support

At least that's how it should work in Windows. AFAIK Linux has in general bad support for screen readers.

Re:Google is catching on fast

[tenco]

Apples and oranges. Emacs is an OS while IE is only a webbrowser.

Re:Google is catching on fast

[MimsyBoro]

Emacs is only at version 1.23 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emacs#GNU_Emacs

Re:Google is catching on fast

[MrHanky]

Does Emacs even have proper multi-tasking?

Re:Google is catching on fast

[jgagnon]

Version 42 would be cool for so many reasons...

Re:Google is catching on fast

[Anonymous Coward]

yeh but Tex is version 3.1415926

Re:Google is catching on fast

[hpoul]

i'm pretty sure your floppy only supports version 1.44

Re:Google is catching on fast

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait until it goes to version 11!

Re:Google is catching on fast

[SphericalCrusher]

I definitely agree... it's like with a lot of companies, they push out different versions/changes just to makeup for the fact that their browser is still a BRAND NEW browser.

Re:Google is catching on fast

[Nicolay77]

Version 3 requires a USB memory with at least 8 GB of free space.

U_U

Sweet...

[ak_hepcat]

Maybe now they'll "officially" release Android 2.2 with chrome built-in...

Re:Sweet...

[Anonymous Coward]

They won't do that, for the same reason Microsoft shouldn't do that with IE.

yay?

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to be looking forward to this day; I used Chrome until the day my http:// disappeared. Due to that, I'm sticking with Firefox.

Re:yay?

[Anonymous Coward]

I consider myself a geek and fairly well versed in what's going on in the geek world and I honestly have no clue what you are talking about.

Re:yay?

[Yvan256]

Explanation please?

Re:yay?

[yelvington]

In 5.0.375.55 the protocol appears to be back in the location bar, at least on Linux.

Re:yay?

[ElKry]

I didn't realize it until he mentioned it, but I see it now: The url field does not show the "http://" anymore. It does show "https://", but I guess someone decided that it was more useful to show more of the actual URL and remove "http://", as it's not informative in any way anymore.

Re:yay?

[ElKry]

It's not there on 6.0.408.1 on Mac, so I wouldn't expect it to be around in the future.

Re:yay?

[metamatic]

Well, nor is https: information, since the padlock icon shows that you're using an HTTPS site.

They should be consistent and either always remove the protocol when it's superfluous, or not.

They also need to fix the horrible display on high-DPI screens.

Re:yay?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Parent is not a troll. It's a valid complaint. Displaying the entire URL, including the protocol, is absolutely the standard and should remain that way.

Re:yay?

[Arancaytar]

The downside of this is that (at least for me, on Ubuntu 9.10) the clipboard unreliably re-adds the http to copied URLs - it often does, but sometimes it just leaves it off, risking links like this when not paying attention.

Re:yay?

[Nimey]

Why? Should you need to copy-paste a URL or part of one from the address bar it'll Do The Right Thing and pre-pend http:/// to it.

I can't see much use for showing the protocol for most people otherwise.

Re:yay?

[Anonymous Coward]

Using Chrome 5 that was just released, I see "http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/05/25/1723248"

I resized the window smaller too and the "http://" remains.

Re:yay?

[Anonymous Coward]

It may be the standard, but perhaps someone should back up why it should stay that way with some actual user-driven reasons?

I have no real use for it. I use my web browser for HTTP and HTTPS, and the difference can be signified simply in the small padlock icon because usually I just don't care.

I do not think, at all, in terms of "http://www.google.com", I think of "google.com" or maybe "www.google.com". I shouldn't have to see all that extra gunk if it doesn't matter to me as a user.

Re:yay?

[PopeRatzo]

They also need to fix the horrible display on high-DPI screens.

If I were you, I'd demand a full refund.

Re:yay?

[MichaelJ]

So if I copy all but the first character, I get exactly what I copied, but if I copy the first character it prepends the protocol to the front on the clipboard? That's incredibly inconsistent. I should have control over whether or not I get the protocol when I copy, and that control should be the extent of my selection.

Re:yay?

[mdf356]

What OS is this for? My Chrome still shows http/https on Linux and Mac.

Re:yay?

[Narishma]

It's still there, at least in the version they just released that I'm using right now.

Re:yay?

[istartedi]

Heh. I didn't even realize that. The funny thing is, I have no idea how to upgrade anyway. They don't have the usual File/Edit/View menus. There's just a wrench icon, and it doesn't appear to have any updater under its menu hierarchy.

Googling around (heheh) I found out they left out the F/E/V on purpose. That might make sense for mobile, but I'm using a nice wide LCD with more screen real estate than you can shake a stick at. Without F/E/V I feel like I'm subject to somebody's vision of "clean minimalist design" where they thought they knew what was best for the user. For cryin' out loud, if I wanted to use a Mac I'd already be using one. Hey... maybe it'll automaticly upgrade to 6.0 if I throw it in the recycling bin... no, wait... AHA! The updater is in the "About Chrome" thingy.

Oh sure, bury the updater in the widget that usually just shows copyright info. That's, just... wonderful. To be fair though, interfaces to updaters aren't quite as standard as F/E/V.

Re:yay?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Because users who want to know what their browser is doing want to see it, that's why. No other justification is needed.

One of the commenters on the CNET story on the issue compared it to the Windows practice of hiding file extensions, which is a good analogy. We know how well that worked out (click here on mysterious_attachment.doc{.exe} and see what happens!) Sure, the protocol name may be gabble to most users, but at least the information's there, right out front. And occasionally it even leads them to educate themselves, asking a more technically knowledgeable friend, "What is that http thing, anyway?"

Re:yay?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, seriously. It's a web browser. It's already ridiculous enough that most handle other protocols internally, like ftp://. HTTP and HTTPS should be it.

Redundant information that serves no purpose whatsoever.

Although, perhaps it should auto-complete the URL when selecting it, to aid in copy+pasting. I don't know if it does this already, as my beta version (5.0.375.55) still shows the full URL.

Re:yay?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Should you need to copy-paste a URL or part of one from the address bar it'll Do The Right Thing and pre-pend http:/// to it.

I hope not with three slashes prepended and what about highlight, double-click to paste into a terminal? What is the visual indication for ftp and what about future protocols that may be handled by web browsers?

I can't see much use for showing the protocol for most people otherwise.

So make it a configuration option and have it hidden by default.

Re:yay?

[ickleberry]

If it was up to Google HTTP would be the only way of sending data over a network. Everything you did before with 10 times more protocol overhead and an easy pathway for integration with Google AdSense

Re:yay?

[poetmatt]

this is legit why, exactly?

you can enter any link with or without http and it will still open just fine, since we have that good ole dns thing.

Meanwhile, people don't even understand "slash slash" because they're computer retarded. this just makes it a little easier. You say "go to google", they type in google and hit enter.

Re:yay?

[arth1]

Even if you use X's built in auto-copy (and middle mouse button to paste)?

Re:yay?

[Anonymous Coward]

your looking a beta/dev versions. They are still trying things out there. They make it to beta or not based on feedback.

Re:yay?

[Nimey]

The triple slash was a Slashdcode fail. FTP:// is still shown, so for the moment it appears to be just http:/// that is hidden.

Dunno about using X idioms to copy/paste, and I'm not on a *nix machine right now.

Re:yay?

[Nimey]

I just don't see that it's a big deal, and I'm a rather technical user who's been known to copy-paste urls on a regular basis.

Your extension-hiding analogy is flawed. To be closer to the security-threat that is hidden extensions, you'd need a browser that hides .com and other TLDs in URLs. That would be seriously sub-optimal - "hey, does slashdot/user.pl go to the real site, or slashdot.ru?"

http is the only hidden protocol that I've noticed, which is fine because it's the most common, so you'll know things are unusual when you see the protocol in the address bar.

Re:yay?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because users who want to know what their browser is doing want to see it, that's why. No other justification is needed.

No, they don't. This is example of geek/programmer projecting a personal desire onto normal users.

One of the commenters on the CNET story on the issue compared it to the Windows practice of hiding file extensions, which is a good analogy.

No, that's a stupid analogy. Distinction between SSL and non-SSL is only purpose for (HTTP) protocol display. URL bar coloring is superior for this purpose. Other protocols should be visible/unsupported (preferably latter).

We know how well that worked out (click here on mysterious_attachment.doc{.exe} and see what happens!)

No, this incident stopped at Vista, and maybe post-SP XP. Downloaded files cannot be executed normally.

Sure, the protocol name may be gabble to most users, but at least the information's there, right out front.

Information for what?! That they're on the web? No duh, dummy!

And occasionally it even leads them to educate themselves, asking a more technically knowledgeable friend, "What is that http thing, anyway?"

Do you also want to in-your-face-know all the codecs responsible for delivering the programming content to your TV? Most people don't even *use* the URL bar.

It's a browser, http(s) is assumed. So now it's hidden. Big deal.

Re:yay?

[rfuilrez]

Me too

Re:yay?

[Anonymous Coward]

If Chrome does this, then this is a flaw. Transparent clipboard modification should never be done, by any program.

A (much) better method would be to insert the protocol string when the user clicks on the URL bar.

Re:yay?

[Speare]

I haven't updated yet, but I can see now that hiding the http:// is a pain in the ass for communicating URLs onto other channels. Cut and paste a properly formatted URL into a chat window, email, or instant message, and most clients will correctly discover, highlight and support the hyperlink. Now people will have to edit the mangled URL when copying from their browser to get the same functionality. Perhaps the new Chrome will "auto-insert" the protocol prefix when copying the URL to the operating system's clipboard, but I kind of doubt this.

Re:yay?

[Tetsujin]

They also need to fix the horrible display on high-DPI screens.

If I were you, I'd demand a full refund.

Ha, that'll learn ya! It is morally wrong to point out flaws in zero-cost software!

Re:yay?

[Anonymous Coward]

It does.

Re:yay?

[DragonWriter]

If it was up to Google HTTP would be the only way of sending data over a network.

Yeah, that's why Wave and other Google messaging services are based on XMPP instead of HTTP.

Heck, if it was up to Google, even the traffic on the internet that acts like HTTP wouldn't use vanilla HTTP, it would use SPDY.

Re:yay?

[Tetsujin]

If Chrome does this, then this is a flaw. Transparent clipboard modification should never be done, by any program.

A (much) better method would be to insert the protocol string when the user clicks on the URL bar.

I can't stand all this extra logic they've stuck into URL bars (and other text fields, for that matter) in the last ten years or so... It's a text entry field, it should act like one. It shouldn't select all when I click on it, it shouldn't try to guess where I want my selection to end, snap it to word boundaries or whatever... And the simplest, most straight-forward way of making the protocol selectable for copy/paste is just to have it in the URL bar in the first place.

Re:yay?

[Goaway]

If it doesn't add it properly, you should report that as a bug.

Re:yay?

[Goaway]

Perhaps the new Chrome will "auto-insert" the protocol prefix when copying the URL to the operating system's clipboard, but I kind of doubt this.

It has done so from the day they introduced this change.

Re:yay?

[Anonymous Coward]

So make it a configuration option and have it hidden by default.

Bajillions of useless configuration items is why most people automatically balk when asked to change an application option. It's going to take ten more years of dumbing down and more intelligent decision making to get over this reaction.

Re:yay?

[Goaway]

Those are not things anybody actually does, so that's hardly a problem.

Re:yay?

[Goaway]

Chrome does this, and more: It auto-encodes UTF-8 characters in the URL when you copy the clipboard contents, but shows them as the actual characters in the bar. This is very useful, and not at all a flaw.

Re:yay?

[Anonymous Coward]

I kind of agree with those points. I think full URL selection should only occur when clicking past the end of the URL. Phrase selection in Chrome never does what I want (like selecting the domain).

I do think the coloring is a step forward. And http/https omission probably is.

The inclusion of http in the URL is one more reason that 90% of Internet users use Google to locate websites, rather than manual entry. They see 'http' and think, "what the hell is that? Google is google.com, not this http://www.google.com nonsense."

Re:yay?

[kaizokuace]

zero-price. It does cost a lot to bring us the browser.

Re:yay?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't agree, clipboard copying should always be a WYSIWYG operation. Altering this buffer behind the scenes in a big no-no. Copying should behave as any regular text field would in this circumstance.

Re:yay?

[unix1]

It's inconsistent UI on 2 counts:

1. Copying to clipboard:
- selecting the whole URL prepends http:/// in front in the clipboard (expected behavior would be to only copy what is being selected)
- it is impossible to copy the full URL without the protocol
- selecting part of the URL only copies the selected part (which is expected), unless you select just the domain part, in which case it prepends http:/// again

2. Protocol display: Chrome will display https, file, ftp, and whatever protocols it does/will support in the future; just not http.

It would get really annoying really fast if all apps I use had their own quirks like that.

Re:yay?

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Yeah, and I can't stand those new-fangled radios that just say something like "99.5 FM" for the frequency. I mean, are we talking kilohertz here? megahertz? Who's to say?

Re:yay?

[agent_vee]

Just updated and http:/// still shows up for me on Windows 7 x64.

Re:yay?

[narcc]

this is legit why, exactly?

The protocol isn't always http.

you can enter any link with or without http and it will still open just fine, since we have that good ole dns thing.

DNS has nothing to do with the protocol.

Meanwhile, people don't even understand "slash slash" because they're computer retarded.

See above

Re:yay?

[Anonymous Coward]

Chrome shouldn't be supporting FTP anyway. It should pass it to the OS handler, which (in Windows' case) should default to Explorer. This is inconsistent behavior right here, negating point 2.

Re:yay?

[Sancho]

That's really the wrong thing to do, though. If I copy something, I expect what I've highlighted to be in the clipboard.

Re:yay?

[shish]

Because users who want to know what their browser is doing want to see it, that's why.

That's a pretty small minority -- I've actually seen more people at the other end of the scale, where they don't know what the URL display is at all. If they want to eg check their yahoo mail, they don't go to the URL box and type "mail.yahoo.com", they go to the search box, type "google", search (using google) to find google, click on the first result to get to the google home page, then type "yahoo mail" into that box, search, and click the first result there...

(This is what happens when we train people to follow patterns with no understanding of how it actually works :( )

Re:yay?

[agent_vee]

When you type in a URL directly to the address bar do you input "http://www.slashdot.org" or "www.slashdot.org"? Personally I think it's fine to leave out http and only display the protocol if it is different like https, ftp, etc... Of course I have updated to the latest version of Chrome and STILL see the http in the address bar so I don't even know what the fuss is all about.

Re:yay?

[narcc]

Explorer shouldn't be supporting FTP anyway. Explorer is for managing your local files, not the internet. This is inconsistent behavior right here, negating point 2.

Yes, I want my browser to support ftp. You know, so I can do things like download a file hosted on an ftp server without opening a new application.

I see no valid reason here why a web browser should only support http and https.

Re:yay?

[unix1]

It should be supporting whatever protocols its creators deemed it needs to support.

It could support SPDY for all I care.

The point is not what protocols are supported. The point is if it selectively displays some, but not other(s), it's inconsistent.

Re:yay?

[Bambi Dee]

Yes.

Re:yay?

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Why?

Re:yay?

[Kjella]

If you can't figure out that by default opening up a web browser you go to web servers using the protocol normally used for that, I don't think that's the browser's problem. It's almost as redundant as the wwws we used to have in front of every website.

Re:yay?

[R.Mo_Robert]

I just upgraded to the lastest version, and my URL field still shows "http://". Is this a platform-specific feature (I'm using a Mac), or is it some sort of preference that might have been carried over from an older version for me?

Re:yay?

[angus77]

I don't get this. I'm using version 5.0.342.9 on Ubuntu Lucid, and the http:/// is right up there (in light grey).

Re:yay?

[Anonymous Coward]

Chrome is a world-wide-web (read: HTTP) browser, not a (remote) file explorer, shell client, or telnet prompt. Adding protocol support besides HTTP(S) is bloat.

Windows Explorer is decidedly not a local file manager. It's the desktop shell, storage interface, filesystem browser, network share browser, FTP browser, URI forwarder, archive & picture & games viewer, control panel, fully extensible, and dozens of more things. Explorer is basically the entire user front-end of Windows, massively componentized.

FTP support in a web browser is a bad idea exactly because it's a file managing task, better handled by the native file browser. Compare ftp.mozilla.org in Chrome and Explorer. In Explorer, it seamlessly responds like any local file location, allowing right-click operations and drag-and-drop abilities. In Chrome, it's a proprietary and severely limited, read-only hardly-functional implementation.

Correct response for any URL-accepting application in this instance is to forward an unrecognized protocol (such as ftp://) to the OS for it to handle.

Re:yay?

[thegarbz]

Because slashdotters who want to know what their browser is doing want to see it, that's why. No other justification is needed.

There fixed that for ya. The average shmo couldn't care less what their browser is doing as long as the page loads up. Heck I'm willing to bet that that half of slashdot doesn't care either. I for one am interested in 2 things.
1. Is it SSH encrypted? Browsers make this plainly obvious without the protocol in the address bar.
2. Has the page finished loading? Because it kinda sucks when an button does nothing because the javascript hasn't loaded yet.

Mind you this is semantic drivel since the address bar actually does show in the latest Chrome. But sure let's argue about a supposedly crap feature which was removed from the latest version anyway :-)

Re:yay?

[shovas]

I'm confused. I see the entire URL. I just upgraded to 5. What are you guys talking about?

Re:yay?

[jensen404]

You have to copy at least apple.slashdot.org for the 'http://' to appear. Copying just the first character will not add the 'http://'

Re:yay?

[slugicide]

I'm using the stable Chrome on Linux and it shows. Are you maybe using, uh, Windows?

Re:yay?

[Luke has no name]

4.1.249.1064 on Vista has the protocol in the URL.

Re:yay?

[Anonymous Coward]

Key feature that BLOODY NOBODY gets right: URI paste.

Background for those unfamiliar with UNIX: See, in X11, we have multiple clipboard-like buffers. There is a clipboard, to which you copy and paste, adding extra work, but having significant persistence. There's also the quicker selection buffer, which contains whatever was last highlighted. Instead of going to a paste menu item or keyboard shortcut, one inserts the contents of the selection buffer by clicking button 2 (that's the middle one, or the wheel in many cases) on a text entry field. It's used a lot more, because 9 times out of 10, when you copy/paste, you want to select and immediately dump it elsewhere, with no need to save it during intervening selections (if so, you would use the clipboard), and since your hand is on the mouse already, it's faster.

Now, web browsers have one text field, the URI field, whose contents are semi-rarely edited in place, but quite often cleared and replace from scratch, frequently by some form of pasting -- this is different from most text fields, which are entered from scratch or edited in place, but rarely see a clear/paste operation. The idiom on other platforms (which have no selection buffer) is to select the source URI, copy, select the entire contents of the URI field, and paste, replacing the selection. Since these lame platforms require you to use the clipboard (the only buffer they have), it's no big deal, and browsers typically make selecting the entire contents easy: double- or triple-click, or sometimes even single-click, anywhere in the field. Worst case, you can almost always do a "select all" (Ctrl- or Alt- A) in that field, with the same hand on the keyboard you were about to use for paste (Ctrl- or Alt- V).

But in X11, it's a shame to give up that efficiency, so there should be some way of middle-clicking to paste the selection buffer. Some browsers try to allow this, by letting you middle-click anywhere (well, anywhere that middle-click doesn't have another defined action) in the web page to clear/paste/go. This is weak UI design to start with, since the web page isn't a text entry region, but that would be OK. After all, you only have to dodge any text-entry fields in the page (else you paste your URI there instead), right? WRONG!! We simultaneously have standardized on middle-clicking hyperlinks to open them in a new window/subwindow/tab -- that was safe, because hyperlinks aren't text entry fields. But now, miss a hyperlink by one pixel, and instead of opening that link target in a new window (presumably with the intention to PRESERVE the current page), you find yourself opening whatever was in the selection buffer in the current window, promptly LOSING the current page! It's hard to imagine a more user-hostile juxtaposition of two actions that each seem reasonable by themselves...

ONE browser that I've seen, Dillo, does it right. They have a button next to the URI field with a red X on it, and clicking this button clears the URI field. This means you can go: select, click "X", middle-click in URI field -- only one extra action, and the only departure from platform conventions is the _addition_ of a single button with easily discoverable functionality -- not the invisible-till-activated superposition of text-entry functionality in a region where you'd have no cause to expect it. And since the "X" hands focus to the URI field, it serves the purpose of clear/type as well as clear/paste.

It gets better, though. In addition to the convention-following/discoverable path, there's an additional feature: You can middle-click directly on the "X" button, which will clear the URI field, then paste the selection. Now we're down to select, middle-click -- just as efficient as it can be -- and practically no risk that the user intended something different. This also frees middle-click on the page for non-destructive actions (such as auto-scroll) if desired, and in any case avoids the middle-click booby-trap of so many popular browsers.

But nobody else does it, I guess because a "clear URI button" doesn't look like a reskinned Netscape 4.7.

Re:yay?

[Eil]

What day was that? I'm running 5.0.375.55 beta and the http:/// is right there in the address bar.

Re:yay?

[kabloom]

I've seen the clear URL button on Konqueror, Arora, in Epiphany's context menu for the URL bar, and in screenshots of Midori (but I don't actually run midori). I also have the Clear Fields extension installed in Firefox, to provide this functionality.

Re:yay?

[mcrbids]

True, a small percentage knows/cares about it. But it's that small percentage who tend to notice things going awry, and clang the alarms for the rest of the soddy folks who haven't a clue. This isn't a bad thing! It's a small minority who become doctors that look out for the rest of us. It's a small minority who become security experts (EG: police) who look out for the rest of us.

It's called "specialization" and it's the only way to effectively utilize domain expertise to the benefit of all.

Re:yay?

[juancnuno]

That antifeature is only in the dev channel. The stable channel displays "http://" fine.

Re:yay?

[Anonymous Coward]

there's more than one "99.5" frequency in the FM band?

Re:yay?

[LingNoi]

I'm using Chrome 5.0.375.55 beta and I still have http:/// in the address bar...

Re:yay?

[laddiebuck]

Rather agree with you except the bit about snapping to word boundaries. If you complain about that, you vastly underrate its importance. I get that with xterms, not text entry fields, but I tell you, double-clicking on the beginning word and right-clicking on an ending word (or blank at the end of the line) to select is so much damn easier than trying to drag the mouse so precisely from the beginning of the selection to the end. Just that way of selecting has probably saved me days of computer time, and that's with me very rarely using the mouse (in an xterm). It's one of the only things I think a mouse is useful for in an xterm.

Re:yay?

[JimWise]

Actually, seeing the http:/// can be informative. You can use ftp:// in web browsers instead of using a separate FTP program, and most (all?) browsers will display a .htm[l] file as a web page instead of just the actual text. For several years I used an FTP server as a pseudo web server by doing this. I had to tell friends to use ftp:// instead of just typing in my server's address, but it worked quite nicely, and by setting up usernames and passwords (just use ftp://:@ or leave out the ":" to have the web browser prompt you for the password so it isn't put in the address bar or history) allowed me to restrict "web pages" to specific groups of people. This was handy for allowing only family to see travel photos, only classmates working with me on a project to see the files related to the group project, etc.

Re:yay?

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh. I didn't even realize that. The funny thing is, I have no
idea how to upgrade anyway. They don't have the usual File/Edit/View
menus. There's just a wrench icon, and it doesn't appear to have any
updater under its menu hierarchy.

Googling around (heheh) I found out they left out the F/E/V on purpose.
That might make sense for mobile, but I'm using a nice wide LCD with
more screen real estate than you can shake a stick at. Without F/E/V
I feel like I'm subject to somebody's vision of "clean minimalist design"
where they thought they knew what was best for the user.

Get a Mac, where the menu bar is a mandatory part of the UI.

For cryin' out
loud, if I wanted to use a Mac I'd already be using one.

Hmmkay then.

Re:yay?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also I can't stand these new fangled mouse thingies!

Re:yay?

[ElKry]

I fail to see how that makes "http://" informative. "ftp://" is shown. Anything but "http://" seems to be shown, including "file://" etc.

If there isn't anything there, it's "http://". Considering that this is the vast majority of a browser's usage, it seems like a good compromise to me - and won't make any difference on your example.

On a side note, I am deeply disturbed by the fact browsers would render htm[l] files when using "ftp://". It just sounds horribly wrong to me.

Re:yay?

[penguinchris]

Funny thing is, on Macs, Chrome *does* have all the standard menus, because of the way the menus work. Still took me a while to find where the updater was, so apparently having the normal menus doesn't matter :)

Re:yay?

[Anonymous Coward]

I find the automatic things that dropdown from Chrome 5 to be incredible helpful, and the tab-to-search is my absolute favorite browser innovation since the invention of tabs.

Re:yay?

[u38cg]

Amen. I only have a Linux desktop and home, and not being a raving zealot, I don't mind using Windows elsewhere if need be, but Microsoft's thought processes regarding copy and paste turn me into a gibbering lunatic every single time. No, I highlighted the middle of a word because that's what I wanted to highlight, you incompetent silicon shit. If I want the whole word highlighted I'll highlight the whole goddamned word. Bastards.

Re:yay?

[xtracto]

I agree with you, I do not see any problem in skipping the protocol indicator for an application that is supposed to work under one protocol 99% of the times.

On the other hand, can you believe Google Chrome does not have Print Preview function?? that is hilariously less functionality that Intnernet Explorer [waaaaiiiit for it...] 6.

Re:yay?

[kwoff]

No understanding, hah! Maybe you just don't understand how people work? There's no training needed, because finding patterns is a very human thing indeed. They got to their mail, didn't they? Why is your way better?

Re:yay?

[Anonymous Coward]

For cryin' out loud, if I wanted to use a Mac I'd already be using one.
Um, didn't the Mac invent File/Edit/View? (Yeah, XEROX PARC invented WIMP, I know. The question is who decided which menus should go where and what they should be called.)

Re:yay?

[rovolo]

if I wanted to use a Mac I'd already be using one.

Funnily enough, the Mac version doesn't have the wrench or document icons, it has F/E/V, and more. Here's the full Menubar:

Chrome : File : Edit : View : History : Bookmarks : Window : Help

Re:yay?

[prockcore]

It's removed in the beta and dev channels.

It's gone for me, I'm on chrome 6.0.408.1

Re:yay?

[KlausBreuer]

Wrench icon -> Info about Google Chrome -> Ta-DAH.

Does make a bit of sense ;)

Re:yay?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't stand all this extra logic they've stuck into URL bars (and other text fields, for that matter) in the last ten years or so... It's a text entry field, it should act like one. It shouldn't select all when I click on it, it shouldn't try to guess where I want my selection to end, snap it to word boundaries or whatever... And the simplest, most straight-forward way of making the protocol selectable for copy/paste is just to have it in the URL bar in the first place.

More like 15 years. Opera had it first (as usual). They have come up with, tried and usually abandoned a lot of (true, not ms-style) innovations. All the other browsers are just copy-cats, but they (the others) should keep a better record of ideas that Opera allready abandoned and why.

Re:yay?

[kangsterizer]

on 384.59.283.23.666.1 i've support for 3D porn

you're lagging behind!

Re:yay?

[Goaway]

If it did, it would break a lot of functionality for me. Real-world usage always trumps consistency for consistency's sake.

Re:yay?

[Dog-Cow]

On a side note, I am deeply disturbed by the fact browsers would render htm[l] files when using "ftp://". It just sounds horribly wrong to me.

That's because you are thinking that a web browser should turn into an FTP client when someone uses an ftp:// URL. In reality, it's still a web browser that just happens to understand more than http(s):// URLs.

Re:yay?

[Dog-Cow]

Virtually every web browser in existence supports ftp:// URLs, but with the exception of IE (in my experience), none of them (try to) act like file managers. Files reached via ftp:// are treated as any document reached via http(s):// would be.

Re:yay?

[Dog-Cow]

Given that all the browsers I've seen that use coloring have chosen green and red, I'd have to say that coloring is not at all sufficient. Or rather, it has not been done correctly.

I don't use any version of Chrome, but I agree with the posters who complain that copying a URL from the address bar has annoying behavior.

Re:yay?

[Dog-Cow]

There was a time when the Internet was not synonymous with the WWW. I hope your comment about redundancy was sarcasm.

Re:yay?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not there on 6.0.408.1 on Mac, so I wouldn't expect it to be around in the future.

aren't you from the future?

Re:yay?

[poetmatt]

so? You still have to type in the protocol for anything other than http. again, so what?

Re:yay?

[jp10558]

Well... It's
a) faster
b) doesn't involve telling google about *every* site I go to (unless I use chrome I guess)
c) I also see one page less of ads
d) I'm less vulnerable to google gaming and ending up on some other website (there's still DNS poisoning I guess)

There's also the benefit of understanding what a web address is and where it goes...

Re:yay?

[jp10558]

There was a time when the Internet was not synonymous with the WWW

It still isn't, unless you're particularly clueless. I'm pretty sure just about everyone has heard, for instance, of P2P apps, e-mail and IM, which as far as I can tell *aren't* WWW. Although, that's horribly misunderstanding the entire domain name system anyway - I could certainly have a server at www.myserver.com that didn't run a web server and instead was an FTP server. It'd be kind of odd and against convention, but hey, I could be a "rebel".

Re:yay?

[jp10558]

Is it SSH encrypted?
Here I am being a pendant again, but I'm pretty sure most browsers (save some firefox extension probably) aren't using SSH for anything. You're probably thinking of TLS, the successor of SSL.

Re:yay?

[Webz]

It auto updates silently. You don't "need" to update unless you know a new version is out and you don't have it. You'll get it, eventually and seamlessly.

DYK Google Chrome has the highest adoption rate of latest versions than any other browser? Their ninja update model is so successful even the Mozilla team is considering changing their updates to be just as unobtrusive.

Re:yay?

[vitaflo]

"Without F/E/V I feel like I'm subject to somebody's vision of "clean minimalist design" where they thought they knew what was best for the user. For cryin' out loud, if I wanted to use a Mac I'd already be using one."

FWIW, the Mac version of Chrome *does* have File/Edit/View still in the menubar (working as expected), and does not hide http:/// or in any other way mangle your copying of urls.

Re:yay?

[Simetrical]

So if I copy all but the first character, I get exactly what I copied, but if I copy the first character it prepends the protocol to the front on the clipboard? That's incredibly inconsistent.

Most browsers are inconsistent about copying from the URL bar anyway. For instance, go to he.wikipedia.org in Firefox. Try copying the whole URL and you get http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A2%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%A9%D7%99, urlencoded. Try copying just the end and you get _, not urlencoded. (Chrome behaves the same.) Giving you the non-urlencoded version when copying the whole URL (which Opera does, at least the version I have lying around) is a bad idea, because not all places you might paste it will actually support IRIs, or even Unicode at all, so it might not work if not urlencoded.

Consistency is nice, but it's not everything. I haven't noticed any real-world problems that come up when using Chrome's URL bar, so I'm fine with it.

Re:yay?

[Simetrical]

Try copying the whole URL and you get http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A2%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%A9%D7%99, urlencoded. Try copying just the end and you get _, not urlencoded. (Chrome behaves the same.) Giving you the non-urlencoded version when copying the whole URL (which Opera does, at least the version I have lying around) is a bad idea, because not all places you might paste it will actually support IRIs, or even Unicode at all, so it might not work if not urlencoded.

Thank you for making my point for me, Slashdot. Trying to copy the main page's name (which is Hebrew) didn't work. But the encoded URL, which is not what I see in the URL bar, works fine.

Re:yay?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's wrong with select all on click? That's normal behavior.

Linux geeks thought it was a smart idea to set that behavior in Firefox only to find the majority of users googling how to change it back, yet they never get the point.

Correction

[CBung]

Users who currently have Chrome ... on linux can use their package manager or do it manually.

Re:Correction

[jaavaaguru]

That's not how it works. If you download the .deb file for Chrome 5 from Google's site, it does not get updated by the package manager. It also doesn't get updated the way the Windows version does. It really looks like you'd have to update it yourself. According to help, there should be a button on the about box to check for updates. The Linux version doesn't have this.

Re:Correction

[Urban Garlic]

On Debian and Ubuntu, the .deb-packaged Chrome adds the Google deb archive in /etc/apt/sources.list.d/google-chrome.list, which is automatically searched by apt and aptitude, so your regular "aptitude update; aptitude upgrade" will pull in new versions of Chrome. Presumably the Synaptic package gizmo does the same things, but I am far too cool for GUIs, so I don't know.

If you want to turn this off, and leave it off, you can change the settings in /etc/default/google-chrome.

Re:Correction

[moogsynth]

No, you're wrong. Chrome's deb installer automatically adds the Google repositories, so Linux users get updates for it like they for any other package.

But there really isn't any point in running Chrome instead of Chromium on Linux any way. They're the exact same thing except for the logo and Googe's stalky tracking system, and Chromium usually has better package management.

Re:Correction

[Anonymous Coward]

One caveat: if you have it installed in ubuntu, it's the beta, so you'll have to remove it "apt-get remove google-chrome-beta" before installing "apt-get install google-chrome-stable".

Re:Correction

[mldi]

Users who currently have Chrome ... on linux can use their package manager or do it manually.

As a more specific note, I had to remove "google-chrome-beta" and install "google-chrome-stable" in order for mine to update.

Re:Correction

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest, instead of actually installing the .deb, you simply extract the files from the archive to a local directory using dpkg -x chrome.deb.
This way, you're not giving Google any special permissions on your machine, which effectively amount to root access.
Chrome runs perfectly from a local user's home directory when extracted like this.

Re:Correction

[awshidahak]

Presumably the Synaptic package gizmo does the same things, but I am far too cool for GUIs, so I don't know.

So... if you're too cool for GUIs, tell me, why are you using Google Chrome and not lynx or w3m?

Re:Correction

[dotancohen]

Wow, I thought that you were joking, but you're right:

dcl:~$ aptitude search google
p akonadi-kde-resource-googledata - Google calendar and contacts resource for Akonadi
p calendar-google-provider - Google Calendar support for iceowl, sunbird, lighting- and iceowl-extens
v google-chrome -
i google-chrome-beta - The web browser from Google
p google-chrome-stable - The web browser from Google
p google-chrome-unstable - The web browser from Google

Re:Correction

[CBung]

Interesting, the beta upgrade worked fine for me on ubuntu in synaptic. Maybe I will check out -stable

Re:Correction

[CBung]

@jaavaaguru Mine (a beta) was upgraded to the package manager, just as Garlic explains.

Re:Correction

[CBung]

Are you guys sure there is a difference? I see: google-chrome-beta 5.0.375.55-r47796 google-chrome-stable 5.0.375.55-r47796 Another one of those times when they point to the same thing?

Re:Correction

[LordLimecat]

Chrome integrates flash, and not as a plugin. Chromium requires a seperate plugin.

I think there are other differences as well, perhaps sandbox related.

Re:Correction

[somenickname]

Actually, you don't. You just need to "sudo apt-get install google-chrome-stable". They setup their packages in a sane way so that it removes the beta for you (and presumably would do the same if you downloaded it from the website and did a "sudo dpkg -i").

Re:Correction

[evJeremy]

You don't even have to do this if using apt-get, since the google-chrome-stable package says that it conflicts and replaces google-chrome-beta and google-chrome-unstable. aptitude will tell you there's a conflict and recommend you remove the older packages, but apt-get will remove it for you.

Re:Correction

[KillerLoop]

I have Ubuntu 9.10 and installed it via the .deb package obtainable on Googles site.

There is no entry in /etc/apt/sources.list.d added, and consequently apt doesn't know about any updates.
Also, the "Update" button in "About" is not present.

Re:Correction

[KillerLoop]

plz ignore. the terminal was on the wrong machine.

Re:Correction

[Simetrical]

I suggest, instead of actually installing the .deb, you simply extract the files from the archive to a local directory using dpkg -x chrome.deb. This way, you're not giving Google any special permissions on your machine, which effectively amount to root access. Chrome runs perfectly from a local user's home directory when extracted like this.

Yes, you're only giving them enough access to read all of your files and send them back to Google. That sounds like a great improvement. At least they won't be able to take over your computer! Except that they will, since taking over the sole user account on a single-user system is equivalent to getting root for most practical purposes. And if they were actually malicious, they could use any of a million privilege escalation exploits to get root. (Create ~/bin/sudo, add ~/bin to $PATH, wait . . . or replace the GUI shortcuts that you expect to prompt for elevation, if you use a GUI.)

Seriously, if you're that paranoid, use your distro's Chromium package. The application code is still being pulled from Google without review, of course, but at least the installation parts aren't, if you're so worried about giving Google root access.

Re:Correction

[Tubal-Cain]

Debian unstable users can install the open-source build with aptitude install chromium-browser

Re:Correction

[leiz]

When the next Google Chrome beta comes out, the two tracks will differ. Until then, they are on the same version.

Re:Correction

[leiz]

Google Chrome will run if you just extract the .deb file, but the SUID sandbox won't work because it expects the chrome-sandbox binary to be SUID and at the right location.

Chome 6

[jbeaupre]

I'm waiting for Chrome 6 ... only because I like the sound of hexavalent chromium.

Re:Chome 6

[Anonymous Coward]

Then wait no longer as I'm running chrome 6.0.408.1 dev.

-- gid

Re:Chome 6

[ElKry]

You don't have to wait, I'm posting this from Chrome 6.0.408.1

Of course, you're going to have to use the dev channel, and get ready for a hell of a bumpy ride...

Re:Chome 6

[qortra]

I like the sound of hexavalent chromium

Yeah, you and PG&E.

Re:Chome 6

[jd]

But Chrome is a soft metal. You want Tungsten, if you're going in that direction. Since it's now fashionable to design web browsers in a layered fashion, Graphene might actually be the better bet.

Re:Chome 6

[drspliff]

I only noticed a while ago that the dev channel was silently updating, I had a week of weird crashes, but otherwise it's been quite good.

Re:Chome 6

[Late Adopter]

If you have the Google deb repository installed you can get 6.0.408.1 by installing "google-chrome-unstable".

Re:Chome 6

[Anonymous Coward]

Meh, me personally I'll just wait for Manganese... pffft Chromium, so inferior to Manganese...

Re:Chome 6

[Mudd Guy]

But they won't be allowed to ship that to Europe! RoHS and all that...

Chrome vs Chromium on Ubuntu?

[jaavaaguru]

Why would I download Chrome when I already have Chromium which gets updated automatically by Update Manager, remaining consistent with everything else on my laptop?

Re:Chrome vs Chromium on Ubuntu?

[jimicus]

That's very nice for you, but neither Windows nor OS X allow third-party applications to be updated via the built-in updater.

(Actually, that's not strictly true, I believe there was talk of Microsoft allowing it in Windows but I don't know of many applications taking advantage of that).

Re:Chrome vs Chromium on Ubuntu?

[Anonymous Coward]

It updates driver packages, which are (mostly) third party, and a handful of other Office and Vstudio addons, which have been submitted to MS and signed, and all those hoops.

Its just too easy to roll your own updater (or use clickonce, etc), to make it worth the hassle.

Re:Chrome vs Chromium on Ubuntu?

[Anonymous Coward]

Installing Chrome .deb will neatly add "http://dl.google.com/linux/deb/ stable main" to the list of software sources. This will give you automatic updates.

Re:Chrome vs Chromium on Ubuntu?

[fishexe]

Why would I download Chrome when I already have Chromium which gets updated automatically by Update Manager, remaining consistent with everything else on my laptop?

Because it's unstable? I don't know about you but my chromium-browser gets the quirk of the week.

Re:Chrome vs Chromium on Ubuntu?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would I download Chrome when I already have Chromium which gets updated automatically by Update Manager, remaining consistent with everything else on my laptop?

I run Chrome in Ububtu 10.04. It updates via the Update Manager. How is Chromium different? I ran Chromium before Chrome officially released for Linux. I don't recall a difference in updating procedures.

Re:Chrome vs Chromium on Ubuntu?

[Eil]

When you install Chrome on Ubuntu/Debian, it adds a line to your software sources so it gets updated along with everything else via Update Manager.

Re:Chrome vs Chromium on Ubuntu?

[Anonymous Coward]

Drivers (from the likes of nVidia and Intel and on windows 7 at least), and Office (after you tell it to) already can use windows update.

Re:Chrome vs Chromium on Ubuntu?

[penguinchris]

Chrome auto-updated itself on my Mac. Not sure exactly when it happened because I only use chrome occasionally and I didn't notice it updating, and it didn't use the system updater.

Re:Chrome vs Chromium on Ubuntu?

[Foresto]

Installing Chrome will set up a repository for automatic updates, too. I'd probably still pick Chromium due to privacy issues, but the Chrome beta channel seems to get more frequent updates. Maybe that will change if Chromium makes its way out of the "universe" repo.

Re:Chrome vs Chromium on Ubuntu?

[jimicus]

Lots of applications - Windows and Mac - have their own inbuilt update mechanism. The upshot is you find that you're never quite sure which applications are updating, which ones aren't and how you go about checking because it varies on a per-application basis.

What is needed is a mechanism for applications to register with the system updater a URL where updated packages may be found, a frequency to check and a public key against which signatures may be checked. Frankly, Linux could do with this as well - it'd go some way to reducing the reliance on applications being packaged specifically for the distribution. Existing system updaters are simply GUI wrappers around apt-get update; apt-get upgrade (on dpkg based systems) and usually yum-update on RPM based systems.

Re:Chrome vs Chromium on Ubuntu?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the Update Manager only installs bugfixes and the like, not new versions. You'll have to wait for a dist-upgrade for that.

Re:Chrome vs Chromium on Ubuntu?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what your talking about, Chrome on windows has been silently updating since it was released. It doesn't tell you it's updated because you don't really need to know.

Re:Chrome vs Chromium on Ubuntu?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://dl.google.com/linux/deb/

Google
Error

Not Found

The requested URL /linux/deb/ was not found on this server.

Vertical tabs?

[MrEricSir]

Have they added vertical tabs yet? As someone who generally has at least 15 tabs open, I can't use the current incarnation of Chrome due to the horizontal tabs.

Anyone know if this is fixed yet?

Re:Vertical tabs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have they added vertical tabs yet? ...

Anyone know if this is fixed yet?

Fixed? That's like remarking that browsing still sucks, and has it been fixed by adding 3-dimensional rendering yet?

Or... my car still only goes 100mph, has Ford fixed this in newer models by adding rocket engines?

Re:Vertical tabs?

[MrEricSir]

Placing the tabs horizontally was a serious blunder. A browser where the UI is designed for a maximum of ~5 tabs is horribly broken, as far as I'm concerned. Both for work purposes, and more importantly, for porn browsing.

Re:Vertical tabs?

[mugurel]

It's not that absurd. Having a widescreen monitor (as is common nowadays), my experience is that there is very little vertical space for web content after subtracting space for tool/status/menu bars. At the same time, there's lots of empty horizontal space. Because of that, I switched to vertical tabs in Firefox recently and am pleased with it.

Re:Vertical tabs?

[Anonymous Coward]

My point wasn't really that it's absurd (but my bad examples probably made it seem that way) but that calling this a fix is going overboard. It's a feature.

My personal opinion is that both (current) horizontal and vertical tab approaches are hopelessly flawed. What's needed is a similar approach as Microsoft used in the Windows 7 taskbar: stacked tabs (with previewing), in both directions. In other words, better tab searching, not necessarily better tab displaying.

I tend to keep at most 12 tabs per window, one window per relation however, so I'm fairly immune to this problem. Regardless of what Google chooses to do, it probably won't affect me.

Re:Vertical tabs?

[DMUTPeregrine]

I agree. Horizontal tabs are a bit silly, especially with tree-style tabs. The ability to keep a tree of parent->child tab relations, fold up subtrees, etc is great for organizing lots of tabs. Any time I'm doing research it helps.

Re:Vertical tabs?

[xtracto]

Firefox TreeStyle tabs is one of the things I love most about firefox. That, in addition to anothe extension that lets you put the menu bar as a single drop-down menu button at the left of the back-forward nav. buttons.

Such config make it really nice for widescreen monitors.

Now I am only waiting for Gnome or KDE to have bars that do not suck when positioned vertically. Sor far the standard WindowsXP bar is the only one that seems to get it right.

Re:Vertical tabs?

[Anonymous Coward]

In windows you can actually start Chrome with the --enable-vertical-tabs parameter. It's an experimental feature.

Re:Vertical tabs?

[dep01]

Here's a power tip if you're in Windows, start Chrome with the --enable-vertical-tabs parameter. It's experimental so remove any custom skins before you do it.

stable?

[nnet]

Stable? Still says beta.

Re:stable?

[Nimey]

Och aye? The Win32 version I just installed a couple hours ago didn't say that.

Be helpful to know what platform you're on.

Re:stable?

[jaavaaguru]

I don't see any 'beta' on mine...

http://twitpic.com/1r0t5g

Re:stable?

[MiniMike]

It's available for Windows. It can't legally say "stable".

Re:stable?

[The MAZZTer]

The "beta" indicator is an indication of your update channel... it's not part of the version number. I'm guessing you're on the beta channel and noticed the stable channel got the same version, but yours still says "beta". Am I right?

Re:stable?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Photoshopped! Wait, uhm, GIMPed!

Re:stable?

[Spatial]

Pft. System uptime: 57 days, 23 hours.

Re:stable?

[Bananatree3]

correct - I uninstalled the "beta" version and installed the stable - same version number but got rid of the beta.

Re:stable?

[alex-tokar]

Obviously parent means that now that they integrated Flash it'll be marked as "beta, unstable" forever.

Re:stable?

[jaavaaguru]

Maybe it's related to me already having Chromium installed but there is no 'beta' labelling and no 'google' on the title bar like the Windows version has.

Re:stable?

[slugicide]

I had to uninstall, go over to the Google site and re-download. Took about two minutes but I'm not using the stable version. I still keep seeing that goddam Oh, Snap! picture, though, so I don't know what they mean about stable.

Re:stable?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stable? Still says beta.

So does Gmail.

this is going to be

[nimbius]

a hard sell for me. The entire point of linux and me switching to it was the privacy and security. What is my incentive to switch from a floss browser on a floss OS to a nonfree browser (or not as free as id like to see it) which saps my bandwidth on the backend to report my surfing habits back to google.

and no, i cant trust that it isnt communicating with google or wont decide to at some point in the future. The whole german wifi debacle is making this company just as hot to handle as facebook.

Re:this is going to be

[MrEricSir]

Why not go with Chromium?

Re:this is going to be

[yuhong]

The whole german wifi debacle is making this company just as hot to handle as facebook.

I don't think so.

Re:this is going to be

[ChipMonk]

The whole german wifi debacle is making this company just as hot to handle as facebook.

I don't think so.

I do. The common mantra seems to be, "Enough privacy to get people to stop complaining." Google, Facebook, Myspace, Microsoft, Apple, Adobe are all guilty of this thinking, and they're showing no sign of letting up.

Some may argue that "people" should be replaced with "governments," but that's a pointless swap. Governments are made of people, and people will complain about privacy abuses to governments, knowing full well that it won't do any good to complain to the abusers.

Re:this is going to be

[psbrogna]

I can appreciate this concern and would suggest that there's a middle ground: It is possible to monitor your network traffic and setup firewall rules to stop this sort of thing if you're that concerned. I do this myself from time to time and am always surprised at what I see going back to the mother ship at . It's not just Google you should worry about.

Re:this is going to be

[MrEricSir]

Facebook went from being a closed network to an open one with several changes to the privacy controls, that awful Beacon feature, etc. They never back down until there's immense pressure. Usually even then they don't back down entirely. And it's all so they can monetize their site.

Google made a mistake with their wifi collection software and quickly admitted to it when asked about it, then came up with a plan to destroy the data.

How are these two things even remotely similar?

Re:this is going to be

[LordLimecat]

which saps my bandwidth on the backend to report my surfing habits back to google.

The whole german wifi debacle is making this company just as hot to handle as facebook.

Several points...
1) If you want to eliminate the "phone home", you can do so very easily under options-->under the hood. Uncheck the top 5 boxes; now your data is secure. This is what I did on a live-boot cd where CPU and bandwidth are at a premium.

2) If you do not feel you can trust that it isnt communicating, you can actually VERIFY that, either through about:net-internals, or wireshark, or netstat, or router logs. Not to mention most of the source is actually AVAILABLE....

3) Google as a whole tends to be in line with foss philosophy. They make it clear what they are after-- your data-- but otherwise they use open protocols, with open access, unlike just about anyone else. Ever try and move your data off of AOL, or Yahoo? Ever try to access hotmail over imap? Ever try and do a contacts export from AOL?

4) If it is really that big of a deal, use Chromium; you really cant complain that that requires blind trust (as it is open source). Of course, note that with any browser, when you use google, you have 90% of the same privacy issues-- most of the Chrome issues stem from auto-suggest.

5) The "wifi debacle" amounted to Google coming out with no prompting or coercion and saying, "We may have goofed and gathered some data, bear with us while we investigate." Thats a lot different than having a leak or getting caught doing something, and I think it is unfair to try to equate them with Facebook. If you're a techie, and have used google products, you KNOW what theyre after anyways, and they generally give you tools to opt out anyways.

Re:this is going to be

[LordLimecat]

But at least google takes pains to ensure you can leave them at ANY time by using open protocols and standards. Can you say the same for any of those other companies?

Re:this is going to be

[jaavaaguru]

The only differences I've found between Chromium and Chrome are cosmetic. Chromium is pretty free - it's distributed under a BSD license

Re:this is going to be

[ChipMonk]

Facebook went from being a closed network to an open one with several changes to the privacy controls, that awful Beacon feature, etc. They never back down until there's immense pressure. Usually even then they don't back down entirely. And it's all so they can monetize their site.

Change "Facebook" to "Google", drop "that awful Beacon feature", and the above is still true. So what if Google is going to destroy the data they got caught snooping? How much more privacy-violating information did they abuse via Chrome? Via AdSense? Via browser cookies?

"One ice patch doth not a winter make," and one case of Google doing the right thing does not change their overall pattern of behavior. They aren't interested in their users' privacy; they're only interested in getting their users to shut up about it.

Re:this is going to be

[arth1]

Not to mention most of the source is actually AVAILABLE....

It's the pieces for which source isn't available that worries me.
I mean, would you eat at a place that said "90% of our food is bought from trusted sources"?

Re:this is going to be

[zuperduperman]

Change "Facebook" to "Google", drop "that awful Beacon feature", and the above is still true

OK -

Google went from being a closed network to an open one with several changes to the privacy controls, etc. They never back down until there's immense pressure. Usually even then they don't back down entirely. And it's all so they can monetize their site.

This is not even remotely true. In what way has Google has gone from closed to open by relaxing privacy? They revealed the Wifi data problem *themselves* - that's about as far from only backing down under immense pressure as you can get.

How much more privacy-violating information did they abuse via Chrome? Via AdSense? Via browser cookies?

Umm, how about none? Do you have any evidence of this "abuse" or are you just making FUD here?

I think there are plenty of reasons to be wary of Google, but as far as I can tell they have acted so far as a force for good and have genuinely and swiftly apologized and corrected their mistakes. For a company that depends on people using their services they have about the least amount of lockin of any company on the planet. The day they start actually being evil then certainly let's condemn them, but what lesson are we as consumers teaching them by condemning them while they are being good?

Re:this is going to be

[Kjella]

I mean, would you eat at a place that said "90% of our food is bought from trusted sources"?

Wrong analogy. You've never eaten anything, or drunk anything that has any form of secret recipe? Everyone from family restaurants to Coca Cola have secrets, millions eat and drink each day regardless. Oh, we've not gone over the source just like we haven't had a food taster check it for poison, but we feel safe enough. If I can switch browser without any great loss once there's actual proof of misdoing, I'm fine with that. It's the lock-ins and networks effect that hurt, if you have to either forgive them or really lose something. But web browsers don't have either with IE below 60%.

Re:this is going to be

[Anonymous Coward]

dude... just download chromium, it's open source. and disable search suggestion if you're that paranoid about it.

Re:this is going to be

[Anonymous Coward]

What I'd like to know is where to find the source code for the stable version. Up to this point there has only been the chromium.org source code repositories and snapshots, but the kicker is that just the bootstrap tarball is a whopping 744MB in size! It's absurd! I probably have most of the dependencies already so what I would really want is a release tarball that includes the Chrome specific bits, and nothing more.

Re:this is going to be

[Abcd1234]

Because they're both Evil! EEEEvil!

Now do you get it?

Re:this is going to be

[surveyork]

You might be interested in SRWare Iron, a Chrome mod that doesn't track you: > Version 5.0380 beta http://www.srware.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=1482 Stable version: http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_chrome_vs_iron.php Or you may like ChromePlus: http://www.chromeplus.org/ ChromePlus is built on Chrome Dev builds, so v 1.3.4 will be based on Crhome 6.0.x

Re:this is going to be

[Anonymous Coward]

HOMEPAGE FAIL!

Re:this is going to be

[CopaceticOpus]

I do. The common mantra seems to be, "Enough privacy to get people to stop complaining." Google, Facebook, Myspace, Microsoft, Apple, Adobe are all guilty of this thinking, and they're showing no sign of letting up.

You're free to find a paid service for your email and web searching needs. When you go to Google's page, you're choosing to trade a little privacy for free services. Most people find this trade worthwhile.

To me the most important factor is whether an ad-supported service makes the effort to respect their users and to be careful with how they use the information they obtain. Places like Google and Yahoo seem to take the approach of respecting the users, although Google has made mistakes recently. Facebook, on the other hands, seems determined to strategically take every advantage possible from their users.

Re:this is going to be

[Anonymous Coward]

In chromium, 100% of source is available. In Chrome there are some bits which source is not available, such as patent encumbered h264, etc. Use chromium for paranoia.

Re:this is going to be

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever asked the guys behind the counter who their sources are? I bet if you did this anywhere you eat, the folks working there wouldn't actually know. So yeah, I would - if they can come out and say that, then they're at least being honest instead of hoping you don't ask.

Besides, it's not hard to guess what the missing 10% would be. Google are a search and advertising company, and naturally they're going to treat their search algorithms as trade secrets. Opening those would mean Yahoo and Bing stealing the rug out from under them.

Re:this is going to be

[Anonymous Coward]

What is, pray tell, "not as free as id [sic] like to see it"?

Google product out of beta...

[Anonymous Coward]

So when a Google product is out of beta...does that meant Google considers it obsolete or something?

Lame, I'm already on version 6

[nikomo]

6.0.408.1 dev is for real men.

Re:Lame, I'm already on version 6

[Anonymous Coward]

Real men use Sleipnir

Re:Lame, I'm already on version 6

[Anonymous Coward]

Real men can't use that because they use real operating systems. Anyway, it fails Acid3 miserably.

RHEL 5

[Anonymous Coward]

Those of us still stuck on RHEL 5 until 6 is out still have no chrome due to it requiring a higher LSB.
I successfully installed chrome on me RHEL 6 beta VM though... looking forward to that coming out.

Cool, a Linux version... Oh never mind.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, it's RPM only release and only for Fedora (CentOS 5.3 apparently is not good enough).

Google, get a clue, some of us have evolved and never ever install third party RPMs. A self-contained tar.gz please!

But, like I said, it would not have worked anyway on my CentOS box.

So, Google try again, I'll stick with Firefox in the meantime.

Re:Cool, a Linux version... Oh never mind.

[jaavaaguru]

How is installing from a tar.gz considered to be evolved?

Sidebars?

[simp]

Does Chrome now support a bookmark sidebar? With the wide-screen TFTs everywhere these days a bookmark sidebar has become a must-have for me. I cannot stand bookmark pull-down menus. And to make things worse Chrome has put the default Bookmark menu in the upper- right hand corner of the screen, which for some reason is a place of the screen where my cursor never is.

Re:Sidebars?

[s122604]

I've been trying to get the family to switch from IE to chrome. And no bookmark sidebar is precisely why they refuse.

Re:Sidebars?

[thoughtsatthemoment]

Still not there. I am sure Google knows this but I am afraid the issue has become an ideological fight and you won't see it in Chrome any time soon.

Re:Sidebars?

[Anonymous Coward]

Try bookmark manager. It has become a tab.

Re:Sidebars?

[chord.wav]

Not only that, I need tree tabs like I have in Firefox with the Treetab extension. What drugs are they on, that they keep doing the tabs horizontally?

Re:Sidebars?

[swillden]

With the wide-screen TFTs everywhere these days a bookmark sidebar has become a must-have for me. I cannot stand bookmark pull-down menus.

You must be one of those... <shudder>... full-screen people. Dude... windowing environments were invented for a reason!

Re:Sidebars?

[TekJannsen]

Also related, the only thing keeping me from switching to Chrome is the inability for plugins to arrange tree-style tabs in a vertical manner. I can't go back to browsing with top-horizontal tabs, even on a non-widescreen monitor.

Re:Sidebars?

[s1lverl0rd]

If you really honestly want a bookmark sidebar (shudder), you could consider making one. Open source, you know.

Re:Sidebars?

[JonJ]

You mean there are actually people out there using the fullscreen mode for browser? I thought that was just a fairytale told to scare me..

Can it accept add-ons yet?

[Itninja]

If I can't load NoScript, AdBlock, etc (or at least disable scripts on a per-site level) then no thanks.

Re:Can it accept add-ons yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I can't load NoScript, AdBlock, etc (or at least disable scripts on a per-site level) then no thanks.

Chrome has been using extensions since version 4, so yes you can use adblock. Not sure about NoScript.

Re:Can it accept add-ons yet?

[Jello B.]

Oh for fuck's sake, where have you been? https://chrome.google.com/extensions/?hl=en

Re:Can it accept add-ons yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I can't load NoScript, AdBlock, etc (or at least disable scripts on a per-site level) then no thanks.

Yes.

Re:Can it accept add-ons yet?

[baka_toroi]

Let me tell you how this will go: you made a comment about Chrome's lack of add-ons. You will get a reply stating that Chrome already supports add-ons, including an advert-blocker. Then ANOTHER guy will tell both of you that Chrome's ad-blocker is sub-par to that of Firefox, since the adverts are downloaded and they run in the background; they're just hidden in Chrome. Then the typical shit-fest of the new Web 2.0 browsers war will ensue.

You saved valuable time with my post.

Re:Can it accept add-ons yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can disable scripts on a per site basis in Chrome. ('wrench' / options / content settings) You can either allow all with a blacklist or allow none with a whilelist. It's clunky, but there. You can do the same with addons.

Re:Can it accept add-ons yet?

[moogsynth]

Yes we all know it has extensions. But Chrome doesn't have Noscript. It does have Javascript-blocking and whitelists but it's an all or nothing choice for each website, which is less than ideal. Chrome also has an adblocker, but it isn't a proper adblocker; it just hides the ads. So clearly, the you are wrong, and Chrome is still not a good choice of browser for the GP.

Re:Can it accept add-ons yet?

[The MAZZTer]

Extensions have been in place since 4.0 or 4.1 or something. Unfortunately there are no APIs for PROPER blocking of resources (ie stopping Chrome from fetching them) but there are already extensions that can at least remove them from the DOM while the page is loading. My favorite is AdBlock.

As for NoScript, Chrome has "lite" functionality built in. You can use Options > Under the Hood > Content Settings to turn off JavaScript and Plugins and then whitelist individual sites when the icons pop up on the omnibar, kinda like NoScript. Only problems/differences:

1. Whitelists apply to PAGES, not to RESOURCES. So an offsite resource is still allowed if the host page is whitelisted. This also applies to frames. So this can't be used to block ad scripts like NoScript.
2. Plugin whitelist button doesn't always show up, most notably for swfobject.js (IIRC). The problem is that the whitelist icon shows if there is an embed in the page, but some JS will check for the presense of a plugin before placing the embed. With plugins blocked, the browser reports no plugins available, and so the JS never inserts the embed, so the whitelist icon never appears. I've opened a bug on this; JS access of the plugins array show cause the icon to appear.
3. It's hard to block the whole domain instead of a subdomain (you have to go into the dialogs and do it by hand) and sometimes it doesn't seem to work. Better than earlier versions where it wasn't possible (ytmnd, deviantart, etc were a pain).
4. Page doesn't automatically refresh when you whitelist a site, plus you have to do JS and plugins separately.
5. Some things in Chrome break; the JS features of the Developer Tools (Console, script tab) do not work right when the inspected page has JS blocked. Chrome has JS in its FTP directory listings for some reason; this is treated with the whitelist rules, for another unknown reason.

So it could use improvement, but it's not too bad a start. Especially since it's built-in functionality which Firefox doesn't even have. I am looking forward to hopefully APIs that will allow for an extension that can work more like NoScript.

Re:Can it accept add-ons yet?

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Chrome has many extensions and yes Adblock. However Adblock only removes the display of ads. It does not prevent downloading of the ad. So you may not see the ad, but it is still downloading, eating bandwidth and making money for whoever has ads on their site.

Firefox adblock is far better.

But I do like Chrome. Its fast, and the ui is nice.

I make good use of the sync bookmark feature. I like it.

Just wish it wasnt so nosey, and spywareish.

Re:Can it accept add-ons yet?

[gazbo]

Well let's see: OP asked if it can "accept add-ons yet" - which it can, and that's what the reply said. He also asked if it had an ad-blocker, which it does. The fact that you choose to declare it to be not a "proper" adblocker is entirely your preference; if OP is like me he couldn't give a fuck whether the ads get downloaded but not displayed (or maybe he could; he didn't say either way).

You also dismiss the Javascript blocking because it's all-or-nothing for each site, when OP said: "or at least disable scripts on a per-site level". So you've discounted another feature even though it meets his (minimum) requirement.

If you don't want to use Chrome then fine, but why are you answering on behalf of someone else??

Re:Can it accept add-ons yet?

[Scaba]

You can always use GlimmerBlocker, which has the advantage of working with any browser.

Re:Can it accept add-ons yet?

[Itninja]

I've been using FireFox. Let me know when Chrome can handle that.

Re:Can it accept add-ons yet?

[Zoinky]

(Any browser, as long as it's running on a Mac.)

Re:Can it accept add-ons yet?

[jabbathewocket]

It does not have an ad-blocker, it has an ad-hider which is VERY different given that the bulk of the ads that need blocking are bandwidth sucking or privacy infringing evil.. hiding them does NOTHING in either case..

6.0.414.0

[AliasMarlowe]

You don't have to wait, I'm posting this from Chrome 6.0.408.1

You're falling behind... I'm using 6.0.414.0 obtained using Ubuntu's package manager.

Re:6.0.414.0

[The MAZZTer]

Bleeding edge! :) http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/snapshots/

BETA Chrome vs 5 - 64-bit linux Ubuntu 10.04

[Bananatree3]

http://imgur.com/OiEXQ.jpg

Still says beta for me - in true Google style! :)

No Flash?

[AriesGeek]

Adobe's Flash Player is not yet integrated into the stable branch of Chrome; however, the Google Product Manager Brian Rakowski says that it will be enabled when the final version of Flash Player 10.1 is released.

*sigh*

Re:No Flash?

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Flash works just fine in chrome.

Apple topic?

[DarkOx]

Why is this under the Apple topic? There is a Google topic!

Re:Apple topic?

[Yvan256]

That's what I was wondering myself.

Re:Apple topic?

[phantomcircuit]

To be fair chrome is based on WebKit which is apples fork of KHTML.

Re:Apple topic?

[characterZer0]

I did not notice until reading your comment, but I correctly guessed the answer immediately. kdawson posted it.

Re:Apple topic?

[kaputtfurleben]

Mod parent up. Putting this under 'Apple' messes with filters. I have Apple stories filtered out, and were it not for my iGoogle RSS feed I would have missed this story because some guy thought he was being funny (maybe it is funny, to some people).

Re:Apple topic?

[BlackCreek]

Because Apple stories always have so many posts --> views --> add clicks?

Re:Apple topic?

[Aranwe Haldaloke]

Linux section
Games section
Hardware section
Politics section
YRO section
Idle section

Pick one.

Re:Apple topic?

[dwarfsoft]

I pick Linux. Do I win something?

Stable channel vs beta channel in Ubuntu

[Bananatree3]

I uninstalled the "beta" chrome version from Synaptic Package manager and selected "stable". No more "beta" - http://imgur.com/EWran.png

Obligatory Adblock Reply

[Mode Frozen]

Hopefully this version will allow development of a potent ad blocker like the famous Firefox addon. Apparently the only thing limiting it from happening is the implementation of content policies in Chrome.

Re:Obligatory Adblock Reply

[correnos]

What are you talking about? I have the adblock extension running now. Just get it at Chrome Extensions-Adblock

Unless Chrome doesn't have the same addon structure as Chromium, in which case you're on your own.

Re:Obligatory Adblock Reply

[Nysul]

Adblock for Chrome downloads the ads, then blocks them. I don't know how you could not notice this, the Chrome ad-block solution is half-assed at best.

Re:Obligatory Adblock Reply

[sootman]

/etc/hosts FTW

A custom /etc/hosts file is not the ultimate solution for all of your ad-blocking needs, but it's DAMN handy and, contrary to what some people will tell you, it does NOT hurt the system in any way. I had a large custom /etc/hosts file on an old machine--a single-core 800 MHz G3 iBook--and the only performance difference I noticed was the gigantic INCREASE in speed when browsing. I had Apache running with a custom 404 that said "Another blocked ad!" and even though you only see it for iframe ads, I still saw it a LOT. Bonus: /etc/hosts works on all installed browsers with no configuration needed, so even a naked install of Chrome, Opera, IE, whatever, is pretty nice even before you configure all the browser-specific adblockers.

Security in layers, man. But even all by itself, /etc/hosts kicks all kinds of ass. Even when I use Safari with no other ad blocking software, the Web is a pretty pleasant place. (Especially if you also add ClickToFlash.)

Re:Obligatory Adblock Reply

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the AdBlock in Iron (a Chromium derivative, if you don't know) do the same, or does the right thing?

Re:Obligatory Adblock Reply

[Tim C]

I can't cite a source, but I have read that the reason why Chrome's AdBlock does that is because there is no other way for it to function - Chrome does not provide a mechanism to prevent the ad from being downloaded, so all it can do is strip it from the page.

If you think about it, that makes perfect sense for a browser produced by a company that is rapidly becoming absolutely huge in the world of online advertising...

Re:Obligatory Adblock Reply

[correnos]

My issue with online advertising in the first place is not the bandwidth use, it's the stupid flashing *LOOK AT ME* things at the side of the screen. Depending on how the ads are structured for how they count views, chrome's model might actually be better in that webpages don't have to pursue any anti-adblock strategies. At least until ad companies catch on that their ads aren't actually being viewed, that is...

No PPC?

[lemur3]

Yaah, I know, it is old.... But I would have really liked a PPC release. Is there something in the code that prohibits such a thing?

Re:No PPC?

[correnos]

I assume you can build chromium for PPC yourself. It's understandable that Google doesn't want to say their actual product works with PPC when they can't test it extensively, but I see no reason why it wouldn't work. Just ass-covering.

Re:No PPC?

[Cochonou]

It seems that V8 doesn't support PPC.

Re:No PPC?

[lemur3]

Well, at least it works on my Celeron 600mhz!

Yeah, obviously.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why none of them can do proper ad-blocking (which actually prevents downloading the ads) nor proper NoScript (the per-domain needs to be the source domain of the script and not just the page URL).

Haven't noticed much of a difference

[correnos]

According to chrom(ium), I've been using v5 already. It seems pretty much the same, but hey, if they want to update then by all means, have at it. Still prefer Konqueror+webkitpart.

Re:Haven't noticed much of a difference

[thoughtsatthemoment]

Most changes are not front end. The version number for javascript has gone from 1.3 to 2.0, and more HTML 5.0 stuff. Maybe they should say a release for web developers.

"Slashdot Apple Story"??

[Dahamma]

Did you just do that to taunt Google? Or slashdot turning into Gizmodo? ;)

can't install behind proxy

[FunkyELF]

I'll keep using Firefox as it is actually possible to download and install it.
Since the day Google released Chrome you haven't been able to install their crappy 550k installer if you're behind a proxy.

Re:can't install behind proxy

[ap7]

Standalone installers for all channels are generally available on some download sites soon after they are released.

Re:can't install behind proxy

[nexnexnex]

The offline installer is here but it claims it won't auto-update: http://www.google.com/support/installer/bin/answer.py?answer=126299&&hl=en

Re:can't install behind proxy

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a full installer somewhere but I've never found it twice. Googles pages are pretty crap to navigate I've found.

Re:can't install behind proxy

[Anonymous Coward]

That's funny, I use a proxy here (ISA as much as it pains me), and I can download and install Chrome no problem. Both on Linux (Ubuntu 10.04) and Windows (XP and 7). Must be an issue with your proxy server.

Re:can't install behind proxy

[Anonymous Coward]

Works for me, at least with the portable version.

Re:can't install behind proxy

[Espectr0]

Theu have an offline installer but it is (was?) old and cannot update. This sucks, i have emailed them about it. Even IE can be downloaded.

Re:can't install behind proxy

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume from this comment that you're using Linux? On windows the proxy setting is global, and the installer respects it. On mac I'm not so sure, but I expect so.

I know that on Linux no such global setting exists, and has to be set for each application - usually via some obscure environment variable.

Or I could be wrong.

Anyway I agree with a more general point, which is that downloadable installers that then download the main app don't make much sense.

Google and silent upgrades. I am on 6.0.408

[guidryp]

I installed a dev channel version a while back and didn't even realize it has been silently upgrading.

I only found out when I read this story and checked my version and found out it was 6.0.408.

Now I have to figure out how to stop that...

Re:Google and silent upgrades. I am on 6.0.408

[thoughtsatthemoment]

6.0 is the current dev release, according to wiki.

Re:Google and silent upgrades. I am on 6.0.408

[guidryp]

Yes but it was 5.x.x when I jumped on board.

Google must be jocking...

[bogaboga]

...where is Print Preview?

Re:Google must be jocking...

[bunratty]

It's coming in Chrome 6.0. I'm waiting for the version where files opened with helper applications are not permanently downloaded to my downloads folder.

Still no way to remove printing header/footers

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the simplest things to fix and its still not done after almost 2 years.

Chrome by default puts a page header and footer with the date, page number and URL of the page being printed on every printed page. There is no way to change this or remove it.

This makes Chrome useless for printing out anything where the header/footer isnt wanted. Photos, receipts, order sheets, etc.

For such a major blunder, how hard is it really to put in a little option to allow you to at least fully disable this?

Dumb. Dumb dumb dumb.

Can I install somewhere else?

[nickyj]

Currently there was no way to install Chrome on Windows anywhere else except the %USERPROFILE% location. Have they changed this for 6?

Re:Can I install somewhere else?

[jaavaaguru]

I think that's something to do with it using Clickonce. I've never seen a Clickonce app giving the option of going anywhere else, so it may be a limitation of Clickonce. I think the idea being that unprivileged users can install applications easily, so they have to be installed within a directory you have write permission to.

Re:Can I install somewhere else?

[shutdown -p now]

Yes, it's a ClickOnce thing. It's by design for ClickOnce (for the scenarios where you'd want to use it, it's the only reasonable thing - after all, if you have to elevate, then it's not "click once" anymore...), but why Chrome uses that in the first place is a good question. I just want a good old fashioned .msi.

Version number build number

[scottwilkins]

How many times has Chrome been built? How many times has Firefox? Seems that would be a better telling number than the version number. Version is just too arbitrary.

What about password encryption?

[horacerumpole]

I don't see any news about master password and encrypted password vault (for Linux) anywhere.
Have I missed something or is it still really missing?
That's so far the only blocker for me from trying Chrome out. I can't survive without a proper password vault in my browser.

Has Flash, not yet INTEGRATED Falsh

[DragonWriter]

Chrome works fine with Flash.

When Flash Player 10.1 is generally available, it (or a special version of it) will be integrated (i.e., bundled with) Chrome and the integrated version will (either always or by default, I forget which) take precedence over any separate system-installed Flash Player when Chrome accesses Flash content. IIRC, Flash Player 10.1 is already integrated with Chrome on the Beta channel, but because Flash Player 10.1 isn't generally released yet, its not integrated on the non-beta channel.

#1 reason I use Chrome? Translation.

[Plekto]

I love the translate this page option. Nothing else out there has this and while Google's version generally is so-so, it still works well enough to navigate through, say, a foreign auto maker's site or a university in Germany or wherever you need to go to. European languages are especially well done and almost read like English.

Firefox and IE - no option. And, given the way that the world is becoming more and more interconnected, it's really no longer adequate to have an English-only browser.

Just a Relabel in Linux

[pgn674]

I'm on Ubuntu 10.04. I had google-chrome-beta 5.0.375.55-r47796 installed from Google's stable/main (dl.google.com) repository. In the browser's About Google Chrome window, it said 5.0.375.55 beta. Last update was 3 days ago on 2010-05-22.

I downloaded google-chrome-stable_current_i386.deb, but that said there was a conflict. So I refreshed my package list, and found that there is now a google-chrome-stable 5.0.375.55-r47796 available. I installed that, which uninstalled the beta package, and now the about window says 5.0.375.55.

Now the downloaded file says the same version is already installed. BTW, there has been and still is a google-chrome-unstable 6.0.408.1-r47574 package available that I have not been using.

In short, nothing really changed on Linux. Just a label, saying they consider what was automatically released and updated 3 days ago to be stable. I expect the two packages will advance differently in the future, though, in the normal beta/stable relationship, which is why I'm keeping the google-chrome-stable package installed.

Built in update

[h4rr4r]

Built in update sounds fine for those OS that lack a unified update method, but for us linux users we expect a little better. Please tell me they at least have apt and yum repositories.

Re:Built in update

[bunratty]

Yes, at least for Fedora. There's a repository and I get Chrome updates whenever I use Software Update or yum update.

Re:Version number build number

[GigaplexNZ]

Building the same version of source code multiple times is sufficient to raise the version number?

still no / search

[elliott666]

5 major versions deep and still no forward slash search. Until they hook up / to cmd+f I'm going to have to stick with Firefox. It seems so simple and so many people have asked for that feature that I'm really surprised to not see it added.

Re:Version number build number

[scottwilkins]

NO, not at all. But, more builds to me means more effort into code generation. I know, not much but it might show more concern over innovation too.

It's there

[thetoadwarrior]

It is there for me and even if I type in a URL and exclude it chrome will add it. This is on my windows machine. I don't have chrome on Linux yet but will seeing how Firefox is worse on Linux.

Hidden, but there

[Macka]

You may not see it, but it's there. Try grabbing a URL by its icon and dropping it into an editor or spreadsheet and the http:/// prefix reappears. So the change is just cosmetic.

Re:Hidden, but there

[ElKry]

Indeed. That's why I said it doesn't show the "http://". If you use copy/paste it reappears as well.

Re:#1 reason I use Chrome? Translation.

[Spy Hunter]

There are tons of translation add-ons for Firefox. The reason it's not built-in is because it's not actually a feature of the browser; it's a web service. Chrome's translation feature works by sending your entire page to Google's translation servers. Mozilla doesn't run a translation server farm; it would be prohibitively expensive for them.

url bar

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw this debate in their issue tracker a few weeks ago. Not only is it a terrible idea (for so many reasons) but the developers refuse to listen to the people using their software. They're actually pretty rude about it too, insisting anyone who doesn't like the hidden http "feature" is an idiot. Completely turned me off using Chrome.

No, Web is only at 2.0!

[billstewart]

Web 3.0 is still vaporware.

Tried it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Tried chrome, firefox is faster. Don' t know how chrome gets to flaunt being fast, certianly isn't faster for me.

Apple Chrome?

[hawleyg]

Why is this Google Chrome story filed under apple? Just asking.

Re:#1 reason I use Chrome? Translation.

[Plekto]

Of course you can use a translation add-on, but it's not as easy and seamless. Nor are the other tools as good.

Dear Google....

[johnny cashed]

Please stop asking me to try Google Chrome. You know good and well that I'm using a PPC machine. It even says so when I click the "try Google Chrome" link. Assholes.

wanted feature #1 for me

[Eil]

I'll switch to Chrome the day it can support a plugin which can block the downloading of ads and other unwanted content, not just hide them with a bit of CSS and Javascript.

(An adblocking proxy isn't a viable solution for me.)

Re:wanted feature #1 for me

[CAIMLAS]

I use Chromium: that "ads are just hidden" lack-of-feature is somewhat agitating, but then I think of the alternative: I'd have to go back to the slow and unresponsive Firefox, otherwise.

Re:wanted feature #1 for me

[Arker]

I use firefox+noscript and it's hardly slow or unresponsive.

Congratulations to the Chrome Team

[grudgnor]

I can't believe nobody is realizing what an accomplishment Chrome has been. We should be congratulating them on reaching an important milestone. I mean, sure they're building off of webkit and all, but they've done a damn good job with Chrome. Enough to finally pull me away from Safari.

gone in 6.0.414.0 (47994) Ubuntu

[Anonymous Coward]

6.0.414.0 (47994) Ubuntu doesnt have it either. all i see is this round planet icon, and then... in the case of this story, apple.slashdot.org, apple, wtf... hey there it is on the title bar too, this story has been incorrectly listed under apple. but the message here is that chrome has replace the unambiguous proto:// with an icon, and colouring.

Chrome and external helper apps

[Bambi Dee]

I'm trying it now. I've also been trying the 6.whatever-it-was unstable release and Chromium. None of them work well with external applications. Chrome seems to rely on xdg-open there, which doesn't always work out.

When I click a .deb file, it's downloaded to my configured downloads folder -- no chance to feed it to gdebi-kde or kpackagekit or some such installer GUI instead. (I'm on Kubuntu 10.04 here.)

If I then opt to "Open" the downloaded file (from within Chrome), it'll end up running "debian-view": a shell script that you'd never even notice if you haven't launched Chrome from the command line.

If I pick "Show in Folder" instead, I get this (again, at the console):
unknown mime-type for "/path/to/my/downloads" -- using "application/octet-stream"
Error: no "view" mailcap rules found for type "application/octet-stream" Ah.

As for getdeb.net's fancy "Install this now" buttons, Chrome will run xdg-open on the apt-URLs; again, I have no choice but to accept this or else pick "Do nothing". xdg-open will then launch x-www-browser, which (currently) points to ...Chrome. So Chrome brings up a new empty window and does nothing. I've got apturl installed but it doesn't help. Works in Firefox, though.

I've looked through all the preferences there are and couldn't find anything related. Too bad, I've already gotten used to the Anna Sui butterflies theme :p

Meh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Opera is still a WAY better browser, that beats Chrome in performance, features, standards compliance and privacy.

So why should I care?
Why should I use an inferior American browser just because I am American?

Acid3 fail??

[srix]

The Linux (Ubuntu) version seems pretty flaky on the Acid3 test. Every time I reload the page it gives me different results/scores - sometimes 98/100, sometimes 100/100, and almost every reload results in a bad rendering. FF 3.6.3 on the other hand gives exactly the same score (94/100) and the same rendering on each reload.

Re:yay? - for silent update?

[mesch.t]

Disclaimer: I don't use Chrome.
But I do develop web-sites and as the number of people using chrome is increasing I do check compatibility from times to times. So, I (should) always have the least supported version of a browser installed, but here Chrome is already on Version 5.0.375.55 (on Windows) - without my permission for an update! And a quick search reveals that this "feature" cannot turned off easily.
Maybe this is odd, but I do like to decide when to update software on my computer..

Damn.

[tenco]

Just yesterday I installed Beta 'cause i had issues with stable. Maybe i should stop my extensive use of Googles services...

uh

[revxul]

4 months? What exactly warrants/constitutes a full version number increase for Google?

Wake me up when it supports internal proxies

[UBfusion]

Title says all - I hate starting the fastest browser on the planet using 5 different command line shortcuts.

Huh?

[Joce640k]

You're saying there's a Yahoo user out there who hasn't had their home page hijacked...?

Google Chrome doesn't work on RHEL 5/CentOS 5

[rklrkl]

Whilst in beta for Linux, you'd have thought Google would have reconsidered their frankly daft decision to build Chrome on a bleeding edge Fedora distro (F11 or F12) and not providing any sort of static build either. This limits running Chrome only on recent distros and, rather astonishingly, *excludes* the world's most popular commercial Linux (RHEL 5). This looks even worse when you realise that Mozilla build their products on CentOS 5 as their base and therefore can run on a lot more distros (e.g. anything from Fedora 6 upwards, as well as CentOS 5/RHEL 5 of course). If Mozilla can build Firefox on CentOS 5, I see little excuse why Google can't do the same with Chrome.

Sadly, the open source Chromium has the same issues - you can't build it on, say, CentOS 5 because of its use of later libraries. Basically, Google have shot themselves in the foot with the Linux Chrome releases...

built in update on linux

[beattie]

Built in update on linux? Nope, doesn't exist.

Not happy -- they silently updated my Mac

[wwphx]

I installed Chrome two months ago on my Mac based on a friend's recommendation. It had a couple of quirks that I didn't like so I went back to Firefox. I saw this thread today and decided to re-open Chrome, update it, and see what was up with the changes.

It was already updated to 5.0.375.55.

I did not tell it to update. I do not see any option to tell it to automatically update anywhere in my system. I do not let anything update by itself, a hangover from my Windows days. And unless I find such an option and a way to turn it off, I'm ripping Chrome out by the roots.

Googles bans us

[mebrahim]

Google bans download of Google Chrome in Iran (and probably a few other countries.) It redirects me to http://dl.google.com/service/prod_unavailable.html

Not yet

[SphericalCrusher]

I'm still an avid Firefox user and I will remain an avid Firefox user. I know that I can use both browsers if I choose, but there's really no point. It's like when Mac OS X first came out. I LOVED Safari (and still do) but when they had Firefox for that OS, I chose to use it. As far as Chrome... it's crazy they already have version 5.0.... stupid crazy, because they are making up for the fact that it's a BRAND NEW browser by throwing a large number beside it. It's nice that it uses HTML5, it really is... but it's not worth using it over Firefox at this time for me.