Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Good people go to bed earlier.
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.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
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.
Michael J.
Root, God, what is difference?
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.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
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?"
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
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?
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.
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??
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.
Bow-ties are cool.
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 :( )
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
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
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.)
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.