Slashdot Mirror
Google Releases Chrome 12
An anonymous reader noted something that will be of interest to the 26% of Slashdot readers who have switched to Chrome: "Google has released Chrome 12, adding plenty of new features to its minimalist web browser and fixing a number of security vulnerabilities. Google software engineer Adrienne Walker said of the safe browsing mode, 'We've carefully designed this feature so that malicious content can be detected without Chrome or Google ever having to know about the URLs you visit or the files you download.'"
Sheesh, these browser version numbers are climbing quickly. Quick release cycles these days. Firefox 5 is allready in beta.
Are you sure you remembered to upgrade?
malicious content can be detected without Chrome...ever having to know about the URLs you visit or the files you download
Uhh.....how exactly does a web browser function without knowing what URLs you visit?
Using 10 here. Seems bigger isn't always better ;)
I don't understand how geeks could consider using the web without noscript. I shudder at the thought of letting Slashdot actually run all the shitty scripting stuff they want to run.
Isn't this what happened to Firefox?
That's 73.99%... I use Opera (and sometimes even IE9)
Their soul's what?
this space intentionally left blank
Wikipedia lists the differences between Chrome and Chromium.
This should be useful:
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/ChromiumBrowserVsGoogleChrome
Basically, tinhat types believe Google can track all of its Chrome users. In the beginning, there were a couple of things that were questionable - for example, giving each install a unique ID - but more than likely this was just for statistical records about Chrome uptake. People complained, Google responded... all user metrics can be turned on and off by the user.
So, Chrome is now Chromium, with some more features rolled in by Google, and vetted by the Google team. It's good to keep Chromium around, to keep Google honest and keep source for an alternative out in the open (and I guess to satisfy FOSS zealots), but if you're not concerned with such things, Chrome is IMO the better choice.
And since Chrome 10 or 11, they disabled GPU acceleration of flash video... so even if my ION laptop is highly capable of decoding 1080p, I can NOT watch youtube video in more than 360p. It has worked for years and they disabled it, shame...
Before someone ask, I have the latest nvidia driver, flash, I disabled the chrome black-list, etc.
"Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
does chrome have it's own local master password yet? until then i am never going to use it.
I have "heard tell" (no, I can't produce you a quote) that CHROMIUM doesn't store things "up in the GOOGLE CLOUD" like passwords - whereas by way of comparison, Google CHROME, does.
Not quite. I know that Chrome has the option to set up "sync", which allows you to synchronize everything (passwords, bookmarks, etc) between Chrome installations. However, I have that disabled, and unless you can produce a quote or a link to the contrary, it seems much more likely that Chrome simply stores my passwords locally. It even integrates with local secure password stores -- in my case, since I run KDE4, Chrome stores my passwords in KWallet.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
"...without Chrome or Google ever having to know about the URLs you visit or the files you download." He then grinned and winked knowingly.
s/[stupid comments]/[intelligent discourse]/gi
It's getting a bit old that any click within a comment, including within the textarea while I'm trying to reply, gets interpreted as clicking on the "Parent" link, thus requiring me to open the entire thread all the way to the root.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Are you sure you remembered to upgrade?
In Googleverse, Chrome updates you! It really does - it automatically updates the browser to the latest version. I just make copies of each major version for testing (much easier on the Mac than Win; not sure how Chrome updates Linux installs).
Even though Firefox is a completely different beast than Netscape, it is the successor to Netscape so I agree with you to some extent.
What is really sad is my traffic analytics still report the occasional Netscape 4.x visitor. Poor, poor bastards.
http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Chrome/thread?fid=29ea05faa34bade40004a21398e523be&hl=en
Mid-2011 and a web browser this 'Mature' still doesn't have Print Preview. Oh well, at least you can use '3D-Accelerated CSS'.
Which do you think I need more?
What's "printing"?
What do you use print preview for? Obviously, previewing before printing, but for what? Does the preview sometimes make you decide you don't really want to print the page? Are you tweaking HTML to get better print formatting on a particular browser?
I can see using preview on word processors, spreadsheets, etc., but printed web pages pretty much are what they are. I've never felt the need to preview, so I'm curious what your use case is.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Until you log in and play the big moderation game with the rest of us, thus proving that your messages are meant for others and not only to appease your own ego, there is no particular reason to heed your requests.
(My ego is massive, too. I am attempting to turn this bug into a feature by using it for good.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
No other browser had this problem and I refused to upgrade to 12 before this was fixed: http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Chrome/thread?tid=5be14c3a63e9b37e&hl=en I'll give it a shot today :)
I am designing a website right now, and I need it to look a certain way when it prints. I am using a print stylesheet to optimize the format for printing.
In Firefox and IE, checking the format is as simple as print preview. I have yet to test it in Chrome, because I am going to have to actually print it to see what it looks like, and then every time I make an adjustment, which could be quite a bit of paper.
The irony is that I usually test in Chrome first for screen. But because no print preview, I have been using FF as my primary. It doesn't even need to be core - make it an extension.
The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.
click on the "comment subject" input type=text line, then hit tab to get into the textarea field without triggering the errant javascript
yes, i know, this sucks too, it's only a half-measure. it's just easier to manage until slashdot finally fixes their javascript
slashdot: i code for the web. my desktop always has 5 browsers open: firefox, safari, ie, chrome, and opera. i test to make sure my code works in all five
slashdot: please make sure you do the same before you release your code to the wild
thanks
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Install a PDF virtual printer. Still not quite as convenient, but much cheaper.
They removed Gears from this release. I have an app that has a full offline mode and relies on Gears; as a band-aid fix yesterday I had to downgrade a user to Chrome 11 that had automatically updated. I know, I need to get with the times and port my code to HTML 5. Even more so, as Gears only supports Firefox up to 3.6, and IE up to 8.
Just a note.. I figured out launching apps from the omnibox, one of Chrome 12's new features, only means an app installed via the chrome app store. You can't just type "cmd.exe" or "Command Prompt" and expect it to launch. But if you install the Angry Birds app via the Chrome Web Store, you can type "Angry Birds" and your game will load.
Coding error fatal to project...cease all development NOW!
Are you trying to be funny, or threaten me? Either way you fail. Your massive ambiguity is ironic in a programming-related joke.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Does the preview sometimes make you decide you don't really want to print the page?
Of course that print preview would often make me reconsider printing a page. A lot of (badly designed) pages format really poorly for printing: Text ends up taking only very little space, squeezed from both sides by formatting that may look pretty on the screen but it absolutely useless on paper. Pictures may not scale properly and may be truncated. Etc. Without print preview, you cannot really tell how a page will print because the page may or may not support print-specific formatting.
Are you tweaking HTML to get better print formatting on a particular browser?
Absolutely. In the past, I found myself copying only relevant parts of the page into Word before printing (on Windows) or editing HTML for the page (on Linux) when I wanted to get a good printout.
A workaround for absence of print preview is printing into PDF or PS before you go and spoil a lot of paper... but we really should not have to do such things in 2011.
I do not print nearly as often as I once did. But when I do, having a print preview - and ideally live preview where you can remove content that you do not want to print - would be a big help.
Or people will see where you had to admit the ac apk is right on hosts files
In other words, this is just more trolling from apk; who else would waste their time defending him? And this is why nobody will take you seriously unless you log in. Even if it isn't you, there's no way to tell the difference. I believe it that in this case, it is. Trollbag.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So Google had built-in tracking to Chrome and did not release the source code for it, hence Chrome was not an open source browser. The "FOSS zealots" and "tinhat types" had enough sway for Google to modify their behavior, at least somewhat. Considering that Google has a very long history of tracking user data, it would seem naive is the term for people who think Google wasn't tracking them.
If open source is not important, then Google never needed to tout the browser as open source. And yet a large number of people realize the benefits of open source, and the downsides of proprietary, closed-source binaries. Chromium is the open source browser. Chrome is not.
The "Incognito Window" option in Chrome 12 is private browsing done right. Nothing is shared with other windows / tabs. Not even session cookies.
It's not a single-site browser option, but it's as close as we may get for a while. Bravo, Google, you nailed it... EXCEPT WAIT. If you open multiple incognito windows, they all share the same set of cookies. Which is kinda fail.
Damn! They were so close! Oh well.
Disassembling & tracing a CLOSED SOURCE APP searching for security issues, or even FUZZING, is a LOT tougher than using sourcecode
And yet the security bugs still appear in closed source products at a steady rate, and you are at the mercy of the vendor to fix them. Not having the source code means you can't fork the product. Not having the source code makes it hard to verify there aren't backdoors or other nefarious behavior.
I thought BOTH were "Open SORES" (again, don't take the sores thing personally, it's just humor
It's not humor, it's a childish insult used as an intellectually dishonest debate/propaganda tactic.
For something to be open source, it means the binary has to be released with source code to recreate that binary. Chrome does not release all the source code for their binaries. Chromium does.
Not from my Chromium 12, although the workaround of using the "--user-data-dir " did allow me to use it as root. But that may not be the case for v13 Dev, if this is to be believed:
http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Chrome/thread?tid=7b31817f547918b2&hl=en
Google wants to protect me? Fine. Make it a default to not allow root, but don't disable it completely. Jerks.
Well, since it seems you are, & you took offense to what I stated (when no offense was intended)?
You're a dumb fuck. Hee hee, no offense intended. Just a little bit of humor.
Here we go then, facts time (rather than mere zealous statements):
Nothing I stated wasn't a fact.
Seems that "steady stream" of vulnerabilities you stated are WORSE in a OPEN SORES software ecosystem, than in a closed source one... argue with the numbers above, NOT myself!
You're fixated on the number of security bugs while ignoring all the other arguments. First of all, I never claimed that Linux had fewer security bugs. Your links show that Microsoft still has a steady stream of security bugs associated with it, which fits with exactly what I said.
Second, your link also show unpatched security bugs for Microsoft Windows, and if that bug is important to a particular consumer, they are shit out of luck for getting a patch for it unless Microsoft decides they will write a patch for it.
There are unpatched security bugs for Linux too, but if it is important enough a patch can supplied by anybody. Also, the most sever unpatched bug in the Linux kernel was rated "Less critical", while the most severe for Windows 7 was rated "Highly critical".
Third, you ignored the argument that closed source makes it harder to inspect what the software is doing. China, in fact, used their sway to force Microsoft to show them the source for Windows. The average company or user does not have that sway.
And last, being able to fork a project is a very powerful and useful ability. If the main organization in charge of the software is not meeting some needs, the project can be forked. Microsoft Windows has enjoyed a near-monopoly on the desktop for quite some time now, whereas there are many distributions of Linux to choose from.
Again, you are fixating on the number of bugs, and ignoring the larger point that there is still a steady stream of bugs. So if you are using closed source because it is harder to find bugs, it's rather pointless. Both Microsoft and Linux are good about patching their most severe security bugs. However, if Microsoft doesn't patch a bug (and they haven't patched some), then you are at their mercy.
I never attacked YOU, yet you are me (resorting to "adhominem" illogic are we?)
I was making a point about your childish and intellectually dishonest use of "open sores", while claiming no offense and appealing to humor. I could have used Microsoft Window$ as an alternative. Either way it's childish name calling, which have you continued to engage in during this entire conversation.
Whereas I took your "steady stream of bugs" in closed source you stated & utterly DELUGED it with contrary data.
You actually showed my statement to be a fact. There is a steady stream of bugs in Windows 7, and even more crucially products like Internet Explorer. You linked to the 1 month old version 9, but version 8 had advisories nearly every month. You have also backed up my fact that if a closed source vendor doesn't supply a patch, you are out of luck by showing that there are indeed unpatched bugs.
And mind you, these are only security bugs that you have fixated on. Other bugs or missing features exist, and you have no recourse for somebody else to either supply a fix or fork the project.
It IS is the REASON WHY WE ARE NOT ALL RUNNING SOME *NIX (UNIX specifically) variant today... too many "cooks in the kitchen" between BSD variants, AT&T Bell Labs variants, & SCO, SOLARIS, etc.
Of that, I'm grateful. I'd much rather have an ecosystem of software to choose from than whatever Microsoft or Apple decide. I think it's awesome that I can run Debian, which provides the backbone for Ubuntu, and not be stuck with a would-be monolith like Red Hat.
Lets see if they fixed flash gaming.
Currently the only browser for Linux where flash gaming still works is Opera.
firefox broke it in the name of "integration" with the new flash API (firefox 4 + flash 10.3),
by putting every local state together in the same "cookie" setting, thereby
_destroying every flash saved game during my upgrade from firefox 3.x to firefox 4_.
The same insanity was in google chrome, so lets see if they did it right this time
(ie separating web cookies from flash local shared objects, and providing different settings for both
nope, it's still broken. Also, the "cookie exception" patterns do not help much since there is no way to remove all cookies at the end of the session for everything BUT a certain domain.
So flash gaming for Linux is on Opera only now. Lets hope the Opera guys don't copy this horrid "feature" from chrome/firefox.
AND, more of them UNPATCHED on Linux in its KERNEL ALONE
Again, you are fixating only on the number, and ignoring the steady stream of bugs, and the fact that you can't fix a patch if the vendor won't. You are arguing a strawman -- I never said open source had fewer bugs, only that closed source still has a steady stream of bugs. You have not refuted that; quite the opposite, you have demonstrated it.
Internet Explorer 9 stats I put up from a reputable source for unpatched security bugs data... hint: ZERO bugs unpatched & ZERO BUGS
Yeah, that's great, except I addressed that but you ignored it. To repeat myself: "You linked to the 1 month old version 9, but version 8 had advisories nearly every month."
ou seem to forget that I use Linux myself, & probably LONGER THAN YOU HAVE... for starters. AND, I never called YOU a name
Name calling is name calling. The objects of debate are closed source and open source, and you chose to use childish name calling in your arguments. Whether it was personal or not is besides the point.
Hooking the OS, or building a "filtering driver" (only ways I KNOW OF to 'circumvent' CLOSED SOURCE in essence)??
Get real. Companies don't do this because it is too expensive and time consuming. You also can't fork the project and distribute your changes to others, because it is closed source and copyright law forbids it.
HISTORY SHOWN US ALL ALREADY WHY UNIX DIDN'T "WIN" & WHY WE ALL DON'T RUN SOME VARIANT OF IT
No need to shout and act so emotional, bolding and capitalizing every other sentence. It's really a drag to read your posts.
To your point, Unix did win, just not the monopoly version from AT&T. We ended up with a thriving ecosystem of variants, from the wide use on the server end, to free alternatives on the desktop, to usage in devices like routers, to an Apple derivative of BSD that forms the basis of OS X (even if Apple is closed source, it benefited from open source).
I'm happy to have lots of great, free, open source software to choose from on Linux, even if it's not the "year of the Linux desktop". If there are people who don't find value in open source, then that's their choice and opinion, but their is value.
So if you want to know why there are "zealots" that make a distinction between Chrome and Chromium, I have done my best to answer it. I'm not claiming that closed source is without value, or absolutely better or worse than open source.
Good debate... I am enjoying this one, immensely!
I'm not, and this is my last reply. I'm repeating myself way too much.
Strange. With postscript, monitor profiles, and Microsoft equivalent of postscript (forgot name) I would assume this should be a none issue. A huge part of desktop composition deals with making sure what you see on the screen is identical to what you print out. Apple solved this 25 years ago. Are web browsers different than typical gui applications in this regard? Using a printing style sheet sounds very archaic and backwards. I would like to know since I want to develop a website where printing receipts will be a core function.
http://saveie6.com/
If I go to print a page and just print it, it's pretty common to get 3 pages of print out, with my content on the first page and ads on the other two.
Preview lets me see that and decide to print only the first page, or some other range of pages.
Which OS?
In Ubuntu, Chrome adds a PPA to your sources so your package manager can keep it updated automatically.
I use Chrome everywhere, but Chrome has terrible printing in comparison to Firefox. Compare the output when printing (e.g. Wikipedia) - Chrome doesn't layout nearly as well and uses twice as much paper.
And for the sibling post who asked what printing is, not everyone has a tablet. It's also the easiest way to convert to PDF.
Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
Ghostscript.
How is Opera nowadays? I'm using it on my phone due to the speed, and I used to use it like ten years ago, but I haven't heard much about it for a while. What would you say made you choose it?
"We live as though the world were as it should be, to show it what it can be." - Joss Whedon via Angel
I switched to Opera shortly after Firefox stopped being called Firebird. I found Firefox getting too bloated and clumsy... it felt more like IE than IE did. Haven't looked back at Firefox since. Opera 11 onward has pretty much solved all of the problems with some websites being incompatible, it also supports extensions now and the mail client built in is one of the best free clients out there (especially since Thunderbird's bloat has begun to increase exponentially). There's a few sites out there that refuse to run on Opera... but you can change Site Preferences in about 2 clicks to identify as Firefox or IE. Handy for idiot-run sites like Netflix that claim Opera isn't supported when it actually runs better on Opera. Give it a try... I wouldn't recommend it for your average user who does zero customization/options changing, but for anyone with a little geek in them, it's great
Thanks for your response, that's pretty helpful. Extensions are pretty much a must-have for me...I need something like Firebug for work.
"We live as though the world were as it should be, to show it what it can be." - Joss Whedon via Angel
perhaps you only need one or two pages out of a 10 or 50 page html document. Perhaps a preview would help you pick the pages you need.