Chrome For Android Gets Its Own Canary Channel (betanews.com)

Google is bringing bleeding-edge Canary channel for Chrome to Android. Through Canary channel, the company introduces early versions of Chrome upgrades to the early adopter and developers, and seeks feedback. Prior to this, Canary channel was available for the desktop version of Chrome. Alex Mineer, APK Administrator & Bug Basher said, "Just like the Canary channel for other platforms, new versions are built from the most recent code available and often contain a variety of new features, enhancements, and bug fixes. These builds are shipped automatically with no manual testing, which means that the build can be unstable and may even stop working entirely for days at a time. However, the goal is for Canary to remain usable at all times, and the Chrome team prioritizes fixing major issues as quickly as possible."

Comments

Warrant canary

[quenda]

I was expecting a Warrant canary.
e.g. something to say they have not yet been been given secret orders by the NSA/CIA to install a backdoor for spying on users.

Like Apple used to have. Is there some reason Google cannot do that?

Re:Warrant canary

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, misleading name. I was expecting the same thing.

Oh, they can. In fact, the Google.com front page will be green when they haven't been given secret orders, and turns white when they have :-)

Re:Warrant canary

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there some reason Google cannot do that?

That bird died with the dinosaurs.

Re:Warrant canary

[Anonymous Coward]

"That bird died with the dinosaurs."

"From on high He sent fire into my bones..."
"...Alex Mineer, APK Administrator & Bug Basher said,..."

"And the sky will be rolled up like a scroll; All their Hosts will also wither away"

Re: Warrant canary

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe because Google sucks at implementing canaries? Like they suck at pretty much everything else related to security and reliability?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/10/19/google_cloud_load_balancer_outage/

Re:Warrant canary

[Anonymous Coward]

Has anyone ever proven that the government can't put a gag order preventing "warrant canary" removal?

Because the entire concept has always seemed idiotic to me if the government can do that

Edit: Captcha: discreet _

Re:Warrant canary

[Insightfill]

I was expecting a Warrant canary.
e.g. something to say they have not yet been been given secret orders by the NSA/CIA to install a backdoor for spying on users.

Like Apple used to have. Is there some reason Google cannot do that?

I think their absence of an existing Warrant Canary speaks volumes. (That is - they've already been issued such an order or warrant.)

Re:Warrant canary

[Anonymous Coward]

Hence that other school of thought concerning warrant canaries. That the "saying by not saying" ploy is a schoolyard trick that will evaporate upon contact with actual lawyers.

Re:Warrant canary

[swillden]

I was expecting a Warrant canary. e.g. something to say they have not yet been been given secret orders by the NSA/CIA to install a backdoor for spying on users.

Like Apple used to have. Is there some reason Google cannot do that?

I think their absence of an existing Warrant Canary speaks volumes. (That is - they've already been issued such an order or warrant.)

Google's head lawyer, David Drummond, has explicitly said that Google has done no such thing. Of course, if the government could order him to lie, then that doesn't mean anything. But if the government could order corporations to lie, then it could order them to publish a false warrant canary statement.

Re:Warrant canary

[Thelasko]

I was expecting a Warrant canary.

Yes, this is a poor choice of words. Canaries are used to detect outside influences. That is not what this is. Google is testing on these volunteers. Everyone knows a test subject is a guinea pig. Therefore, this is actually a "guinea pig channel".

All we really need is extension support

[Anonymous Coward]

All chrome for android needs is extension support.

Re:All we really need is extension support

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox for Android has extension support. Being able to use uBlock Origin or your preferred adblocker results in such a cleaner browsing experience.

Not all add-ons are available in Firefox's mobile browser, but many are. I managed to get NoScript working but it was a hassle. I either downloaded it from NoScript's website or in the "Development/old releases" section of the Firefox Add-ons website. And I think installing in this way (from non-primary sources) only works in Firefox Aurora (the equivalent to Chrome Canary, a bleeding-edge version for developers). Also, after installing NoScript the browser wouldn't load any pages properly until I cleared the browser's cache. Pretty annoying to set up but once working it's very easy to use and prevents some 3rd party JavaScript annoyances some sites have. The other add-on that isn't available for Firefox for Android that I really wish it was is Greasemonkey.

If you're after more common add-ons like an adblocker, Ghostery, Stylish, etc, check out Firefox for Android because those add-ons are available and work well.

Canary is the fix for stable Chrome

[Anonymous Coward]

I just find it interesting that if you go to the Chrome help forums. Many of the solutions for Stable Chrome problems is to install Canary a unstable beta Chrome.
That to me is not a good solution to offer users, that a nightly build is the solution for their stable release issues. To me Google is messed up releasing Canary as if its OK for average users to install. Other than for developers it has no real advantage for users who just want a stable browser. If Google cannot provide that in a stable release, it's got some real problems. Actually for me I wonder sometimes why Chrome is that popular? Is it because Firefox, Edge, and IE are even worse?

Yes!

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always wanted to administer my HOSTS file from within Chrome so I can get rid of my Adblock extensions!

Re:Yes!

[arth1]

I've always wanted to administer my HOSTS file from within Chrome so I can get rid of my Adblock extensions!

I don't think that was what was meant by "APK Administrator"...

Ah, the Canaries

[Anonymous Coward]

As in "Convict Army Nearly All Retarded Inbred Evil Sheepshaggers". I can see how Google would want a consignment of those.
For more information : https://youtu.be/1prrFe87VGc

Some massive existing probs w/ Chrome for Android

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Here are some massive problems with Chrome for Android:

1. Big Brother live feeds do not work. They work fine on Chrome for Windows, or Puffin browser for Android. Make it work exactly like Chrome for Windows, with time machine and other functionality. Do not wait for CBA clowns, who just try to dump you into the even worse CBS app, which makes you view disclaimers with each cam switch. They are incompetent.

2. Chrome keeps forcing me to download mobile versions of web pages, and I have to manually select desktop reload. I cannot even change this as default behavior.

Why is this a problem? Because many "mobile" web sites think, for some godforsaken reason, that the excruciatingly limited phone real estate means put up an immovable, unclosable banner and menu line taking 1/3 the already insufficient screen space. On Washington Post, this can be upwards of 3/4 the screen with this useless space. Yes, you read that right.

3. The tiny button/touch rectangle size of many widgets means the wrong things are often clicked, leading you to a new page. Click back (as here) and boom, a big data entry is wiped as clean and spotless as Ivanka's ass.

Remember the contents outside the obviously flawed form fw/bw crap. You do this, quit waiting for standards or incompetent sites like Slashdot.