Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

CodeWeavers Package Google Chrome For Linux and Mac

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the not-to-be-forgotten dept.

Software 239

jfbilodeau writes "The fine folks at Codeweavers performed an 11 day experiment in getting Google Chrome working on Linux and Mac. Their efforts resulted in the Chromium proof of concept. 'Not only does this give Mac and Linux users a chance to see what all the hype is about, it also lets the world see just how far Wine has come and how powerful it truly can be. In just 11 days, we were able to bring a modern Windows application across to Mac and Linux.' Caveat: their implementation is free as in beer but not free as in speech."

cancel ×

239 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Predictable, Really. (5, Interesting)

mfh (56) | more than 5 years ago | (#25015491)

Google's vision isn't truly understood by everyone, IMHO. Google knew that the Open Source community would fork and port Chrome anyway and that freed up time for developers to work out the system bugs and get the thing live. Releasing the source code is a redeemable action from the many gripes that flooded about Google not offering Linux or Mac support in Chrome on launch, among other [arstechnica.com] things.

Now I personally would like to see a fork that would upgrade Chrome to remove any significant Windows reliance. I don't trust Microsoft to put my interests first and therefore I don't like the idea of a browser that relies so heavily on Microsoft for security.

Re:Predictable, Really. (1, Insightful)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 5 years ago | (#25015597)

free as in beer
but not free as in speech

What of free from fear
Of corporate over-reach?

Re:Predictable, Really. (5, Funny)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 5 years ago | (#25015663)

free as in beer
but not free as in speech

What of free from fear
Of corporate over-reach?

Yeah! Opera gives you corporate reach-around!

Re:Predictable, Really. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25016091)

*hugs* :D

Re:Predictable, Really. (0)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016149)

At least Opera never claimed they "forgot" things and accidentally copied and pasted very critical parts of EULAs in their life, even while they were (non evil) Adware.

Mac and Linux users should reject Windows applications and games. If they can't, they should question their OS of choice.

Re:Predictable, Really. (5, Insightful)

hentaidan (933903) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016559)

Mac and Linux users should reject Windows applications and games. If they can't, they should question their OS of choice.

Why should anyone restrict themselves to native applications when they don't have to?

Ever heard of the best of both worlds?

Re:Predictable, Really. (3, Funny)

Jamil Karim (931849) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016807)

Ever heard of the best of both worlds?

Of course! That's one of my favorite episodes... :-P

Re:Predictable, Really. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25016163)

Better than the corporate dirty sanchez

Re:Predictable, Really. (-1, Troll)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 5 years ago | (#25015969)

Yes, let nerds and technical users who wouldn't touch a byte of that privacy killer fork it and they stop bitching about it.

While on it, keep feeding data from the 98% percent, non technical users.

If it was Microsoft or even Apple (in recent mood), it was easy to put up a conspiracy theory like that but when it is Google, they will kill you. Not "them", people actually buying their "We are not evil" claim.

With their current policy, OS X and Linux users are lucky that they don't have a native Google browser on their systems. As you know, privacy defender/security apps aren't such advanced on both operating systems because of market.

OS X users should ask themselves, do they need another thing like that: http://daringfireball.net/2007/04/google_desktop_installer [daringfireball.net] ?

If people like Webkit way of things, there is Apple Safari and Apple doesn't do such EULA tricks yet, especially on Windows. About "each tab on new process" ? Well, time to choose a less crashing browser ;)

Re:Predictable, Really. (3, Insightful)

gerardolm (1137099) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016331)

I assume when you say Chrome is a "privacy killer" you have read the whole source or at least monitored network traffic while browsing. Or maybe you are pulling it all out of your Google-hating er... parts.

Re:Predictable, Really. (1)

D'Sphitz (699604) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016411)

So I assume you've found the privacy invasion code in the Chrome codebase? You know, because it is open source, so your claims that Chrome does something malicious or invasive can be proven (or disproven), i'm guessing you did the legwork before going off on your little rant, right?

Re:Predictable, Really. (0)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016493)

It breaks privacy with default install options. No need to review code for such action. Even German Government warned their citizens about it.

Re:Predictable, Really. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25016831)

It breaks privacy with default install options. No need to review code for such action. Even German Government warned their citizens about it.

I looked it up and that's not what the German's Federal Office for Information Security warned about.

The Federal Office for Information Security warned internet users of the new browser Chrome. The application by the company Google should not be used for surfing the internet, as a spokesperson for the office told the Berliner Zeitung. It was said to be problematic that Chrome was distributed as an unfinished advance version. Furthermore it was said to be risky that user data is hoarded with a single vendor. With its search engine, email program and the new browser, Google now covers all important areas on the internet.

Re:Predictable, Really. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25016445)

Nice troll. You had me until "Apple doesn't do such EULA tricks yet, especially on Windows".

Won't you take me.... to crappytown? (3, Insightful)

Arkham (10779) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016103)

Duly impressed in their success in porting in less than two weeks, I downloaded the Mac port. Alas, the joy is short-lived. It's terribly slow, locked up for short periods a couple of times, and had a generally poor user experience. It was not dock-aware, had odd-looking widgets that looked poor compared to Firefox or Safari, and didn't integrate with the OS at all. I suspect that's par for the course for a Wine-ported app, but the end experience is worse than running Chrome in Parallels desktop in Coherence mode.

Re:Won't you take me.... to crappytown? (1)

misleb (129952) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016277)

Doesn't Wine on the Mac use X? Or does it translate to Cocoa? X apps on a Mac are aweful. Though sometimes handy... such as in the case of managing VMware Server from a Mac workstation by running the Linux admin tool and displaying locally.

Re:Won't you take me.... to crappytown? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25016965)

funny....Chrome did that to me on Windows too. well,

It's a hack! (4, Interesting)

feranick (858651) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016125)

Although predictable (they did the same with Picasa...), it's just really a hack. I mean, as good as Wine is, it will never compete with a browser which is designed to run natively on a platform. I am curious to see benchmarks on JavaScript performance and stability, for example. If Chrome wants to be a real competitor in the browser war for Macs and Linux, it can only be it with real, officially supported versions. Otherwise it's just a pointless showcase.

I would pay (1)

G00F (241765) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016661)

Since I can't code my way out of a wet paper sack I would pay to have some changes made to Google's browser.

1. Use OS widgets/themes/colors. Apps should ALWAYS follow the OS UI!
2. Have a title bar that acts like a title bar.(goes with above)
3. Status bar. I want to see every URL before I click on it.
4. More options for javascript (like turn off 3rd party scripts)
5. Ability to turn off plugins and crap. (I hate flash!)
6. Remove Google crap (google updater, etc)
7. Add the ability to start chrome with last sessions tabs/windows

I'd pay say $50 (US Check) to the group. Now if we can get others on this band wagon, that can be some good cash!

Re:I would pay (2, Informative)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016759)

Is there anything that you would want to use chrome for? I think firefox ( or iceweasel if you are so inclined) does, or has plugins that do everything you listed. So someone who wants those features could pay some company to modify Chrome, or they could just download a working version for free. Anyone want to take any guesses as to which is more likely to happen?

Free as in... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25016797)

From Teh OP:

Caveat: their implementation is free as in beer but not free as in speech.

Translation: it's free as in nobody in their right mind would pay for it.

For those of you using Firefox on linux.... (0, Offtopic)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 5 years ago | (#25015593)

Here's a link to their download location: http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html?hl=en [google.com] . I tried getting there using Firefox---excuse me: Iceweasel---on a debian installation, and it wouldn't direct the browser to a place to download. Konqueror kept crashing on their "save as" button. So I copied the link location from Konqueror to Iceweasel, and was able to get it that way. Now I'll try it in the latest Wine...

Re:For those of you using Firefox on linux.... (0, Redundant)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 5 years ago | (#25015631)

Doesn't work for me. "wine ChromeSetup.exe" gives

fixme:advapi:CheckTokenMembership ((nil) 0x12a078 0x33f930) stub!
fixme:process:SetProcessShutdownParameters (00000280, 00000001): partial stub.
fixme:ole:CoInitializeSecurity ((nil),-1,(nil),(nil),6,2,(nil),64,(nil)) - stub!
fixme:winhttp:WinHttpOpen ((null), 1, (null), (null), 0x0): stub

Good for Crossover!

Re:For those of you using Firefox on linux.... (5, Insightful)

nawcom (941663) | more than 5 years ago | (#25015825)

Doesn't work for me. "wine ChromeSetup.exe" gives

fixme:advapi:CheckTokenMembership ((nil) 0x12a078 0x33f930) stub! fixme:process:SetProcessShutdownParameters (00000280, 00000001): partial stub. fixme:ole:CoInitializeSecurity ((nil),-1,(nil),(nil),6,2,(nil),64,(nil)) - stub! fixme:winhttp:WinHttpOpen ((null), 1, (null), (null), 0x0): stub

Good for Crossover!

How 'bout you actually try the Crossover packages then like you were supposed to? http://www.codeweavers.com/services/ports/chromium/ [codeweavers.com]

Re:For those of you using Firefox on linux.... (1)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 5 years ago | (#25015965)

Because I'm curious.

Re:For those of you using Firefox on linux.... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25016109)

The other day, the news was Chrome did not install properly under Wine.
Today news is that Crossover have hacked a bit wine so they are able to run Chrome.
Posting from Chrome@ubuntu Hardy AMD64.
I'll stick with Firefox, thought :P

Re:For those of you using Firefox on linux.... (2, Informative)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016579)

Wine 1.1.3, it sorta worked in a crashy sorta way. Wine 1.1.4, it installed and mostly worked except SSL. I expect a fully working Chrome in Wine 1.1.5 or 1.1.6. Here's to fortnightly releases!

Really, I'm amazed just how good Wine is these days - and when it isn't yet, how easy it is to add support for a new whizbang app when you really need to.

Re:For those of you using Firefox on linux.... (1)

david@ecsd.com (45841) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016121)

It's interesting what sort of secret sauce CodeWeavers is using to make it work, and more interesting to see how long it'll make it back into the main Wine code base.

Re:For those of you using Firefox on linux.... (5, Informative)

jeremy_white (598942) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016247)

I just posted the tips to get all of the relevant sauce [slashdot.org] . And, as another poster reports, it's been running fairly well with Wine for at least 9 days; it just took us a bit longer to get https working properly.
Cheers,
Jeremy

Re:For those of you using Firefox on linux.... (1)

david@ecsd.com (45841) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016367)

Didn't mean to come off sounding like a douchebag, just curious about "the process," is all.

Is it just a big game of whack a bug? Fix whatever shows up in stderr until it Just Works? Either way thank you for not making it so that I didn't have to install it on my wife's laptop--she's...sensitive about me installing stuff and changing around the icons on her desktop...

Re:For those of you using Firefox on linux.... (2, Informative)

Naughty Bob (1004174) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016107)

"Yup, works for me, I'm using it right now. And fast enough, sure. But I'll need all the functionality of my Firefox Add-Ons before I'd consider switching..."

Is the gist of what I'd written, before I hit 'Submit', and it crashed (Taking my internet connection, requiring a restart!).

Re:For those of you using Firefox on linux.... (1)

distr0 (1161389) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016775)

Chrome seemed to install and run fine in linux/wine, what is the need for this crossover package?

Yeah! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25015595)

Giving Google all your data is not just for Windows users anymore!

TANSFAAFB! (2, Funny)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#25015615)

There ain't no such thing as a free beer!

Re:TANSFAAFB! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25015839)

Your acronym is wrong. 'Thing' does not start with F.

Re:TANSFAAFB! (5, Funny)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016101)

Your acronym is wrong. 'Thing' does not start with F.

It does if you've been drinking.

Re:TANSFAAFB! (1)

ianare (1132971) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016403)

You've been going to the wrong parties, apparently.

Slashdot Sucks (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25015649)

Taco,
      Logout out of slashdot and surf it as an AC. See how bad it is? The sophomoric needling of the +3 Karma whores by the AC/s was the charming thing about slashdot. Now they can't be seen.

      The AJAX "hidden" bullshit slows things downs to the point of uselessness.

        Letting people fill in a post but then saying "no you can't" is NOT A FEATURE. It's deceptive evil badness.

bottom line : get rid of the AJAX and let AC's speak without the "you have grovel (login)" bull. If a user can't post, then don't let them fill it out. You should consider firing your "usability" gurus.

Re:Slashdot Sucks (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25015787)

I'm rich and powerful now. I don't give a fuck about what you think, peon.

This is my baby and it's purpose is to use positive reinforcement to allow morons to feel smart. This keeps the n00bs and the underlings on my short leash so that, when my secret projects(SlashBrowser, SlashSearch) are complete, the brand loyalty will make me bigger than those pussies Larry Page, Sergei Brin, and Steve Ballmy.

You'd best step off from sowing discord before I sic Scientology on your ass, punk.

--Signed,
Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda

Re:Slashdot Sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25016281)

Dear dumbass,

You're a fucking idiot. Just login, set your preferences and when you want to post AC, just click the "Post Anonymously" check box.

Sincerely your lover, Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda

Re:Slashdot Sucks (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016503)

The problem with that is that the moderation of those posts are still taken into account. If you log on and post too many anonymous trolls within a certain period, then you may get the "You've posted too many times/posted too many low-scoring comments" warning and your account will be banned from posting for the day.

That's why I stopped compulsively posting Frist P$0t trolls(Unless the article has to do with Macs! ^_^ ).

Re:Slashdot Sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25017063)

Offtopic, but at least one parent point deserved a response, imo.

If you make your browser more secure by turning off the highly exploitable javascript support that is required for the abrasively annoying AJAX to run ( turn off Flash support too for good measure ) then you will be presented with a link to view the page with the "classic discussion system". Click that and you will see the page in a way almost but not completely the way it was before the AJAX junk got added. It is still an infinitely better way to view the discussion then the AJAX is. That link should be an option though without either having to login or improving your security settings for the browser.

AC posts can be read in the AJAX format, even when not logged in, just have to expand the view annoyingly to do so with the floating nuisance on the side. At least it works for me when browsing from a hard driveless computer using a live cd, usually Mandrive Spring 2008 Live, to watch some video from elsewhere on the web, used it to catch some of the convention junk since no tv here. Safest way I could think of, with my limited knowledge, to allow javascript and Flash to run.

CmdrTaco, please add the link for "the classic discussion system" to the AJAX rendered pages to help avoid running off people with the abrasive AJAX.

I wouldn't be surprised... (1)

Darundal (891860) | more than 5 years ago | (#25015657)

...if Codeweavers stuff was licensed for google to put Chrome out for Linux/Mac before the native versions are done, considering he Linux versions of Google Earth and Picasa are actually just the windows versions wrapped in with compatability code (either from wine or Codeweavers).

Google Earth is native! (5, Informative)

dkegel (904729) | more than 5 years ago | (#25015725)

Dangit, I wish people would stop spreading the false meme that Google Earth has anything to do with Wine! It's native!

Re:Google Earth is native! (3, Insightful)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 5 years ago | (#25015793)

What I'd like to know is why .kml/.kmz files created by Google Earth are incompatible with Google Maps.

Re:Google Earth is native! (4, Informative)

david@ecsd.com (45841) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016173)

It may be native, but it still looks like wine. I can't understand why, since it's compiled against QT, that it can't pick up my widget styles.

At least then it'd feel native.

Re:Google Earth is native! (1)

Darundal (891860) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016243)

I stand corrected insofar as Google Earth is concerned. I still wouldn't be surprised if they reached an agreement with Codeweavers and distributed Chrome for Linux/Mac using either what Codeweavers has now, or a future version of it.

Re:Google Earth is native! (1)

pato101 (851725) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016275)

Hmm, latest google-earth seems wineish to me (4.3.7204.0836 (beta)).
The first one was wine.
Then I tried for long a Qt one.
This one looks like it is wine again! but your comment has made me check the things, and seems you're right after all:
ldd googleearth-bin
linux-gate.so.1 => (0xffffe000) libgcc_s.so.1 => /usr/lib32/libgcc_s.so.1 (0xf7f61000)
libstdc++.so.6 => /usr/lib32/libstdc++.so.6 (0xf7e6e000)
libQtCore.so.4 => /usr/lib32/libQtCore.so.4 (0xf7cf9000)
libQtGui.so.4 => /usr/lib32/libQtGui.so.4 (0xf75f7000)
libQt3Support.so.4 => not found
libQtNetwork.so.4 => /usr/lib32/libQtNetwork.so.4 (0xf7566000)
libQtXml.so.4 => /usr/lib32/libQtXml.so.4 (0xf750e000)
libQtSql.so.4 => [...]

is qt but I guess it is set up so has the windows2000 look and does not obey your KDE style settings...

Re:Google Earth is native! (2, Insightful)

XHIIHIIHX (918333) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016767)

Yeah, it's kind of like Word 6.0 for dos, which actually had all of windows 3.1 embedded in it.

Re:I wouldn't be surprised... (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016209)

No, they are Trolltech Qt Applications and they run using native OS X functionality.

If people keep partying over non native Applications having same security risks and horrible programming model running on their OS, what you say will become reality.

OS X is under way bigger threat than Linux because of the market, community profile and the CPU. PowerPC was stopping the Windows junk making their way to OS X, not anymore.

Native port? (4, Insightful)

carrett (671802) | more than 5 years ago | (#25015667)

Good job getting it to work with wine, and verily I say that wine has come a *long* way since I started using it six years ago, but we all know what we'd really like to see: a native port of the application.

Please help with the port (5, Informative)

dkegel (904729) | more than 5 years ago | (#25015763)

If anyone has some free cycles, please come help get the Linux port going. There's lots to do. See http://dev.chromium.org/ [chromium.org]

Re:Please help with the port (3, Insightful)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016013)

Does Linux users, especially the newbies who just comes from Windows land need such a potential privacy killer?

They moved to Linux because their Windows became impossible to use since they kept not reading EULAs and leaving "default options" checked.

Re:Please help with the port (5, Insightful)

MacJedi (173) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016997)

This is a non-issue. It's open-source, after all. Just remove or disable the parts that you find objectionable.

Re:Please help with the port (1)

collinstocks (1295204) | more than 5 years ago | (#25017095)

Chrome has a EULA, not Chromium. Chromium is free/libre. A port of Chromium would hopefully not include privacy problems.

Re:Native port? (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016069)

Chicken and egg thing, even hurting OS X users who has more support from commercial companies.

If WINE and their commercial stuff like Cider has reached a point which allows an advanced windows application to be packed and ready to run in 6 days, companies won't spend too much time coding "real" stuff. They will keep shipping exe files masked as .bin or .app .

Believe or not, Apple gaming became worse after Intel CPU and Cider introduced. It is a matter of time and politics to get Internet Explorer to OS X land. Yes, the Microsoft windows one.

Re:Native port? (1)

Moebius Loop (135536) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016677)

Companies may try to do this, but I question how likely they would be to succeed.

Mac users will generally not accept (consciously or unconsciously) a repackaged Windows app, as it won't adhere to any of the standard UI guidelines that many have come to take for granted.

A good comparison is Java apps. How many major Java apps do you really see in use on the average Mac?

I can come up with two, NeoOffice, and Azureus. Maybe a handful or rarely used utilities, but nothing so important and frequently used as a browser.

Re:Native port? (2, Interesting)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 5 years ago | (#25017169)

You're missing a few points though.

1. I can see a number of people purchasing the Windows version of MSOffice because it has VB macro support.

2. A number of web developers would use IE on and off. I'm sure there are a few bank sites that still only support IE with active X.

3. Games use their own guis for immersion. Done correctly, no Mac user would ever notice. Especially for games I could see Mac users bending backwards so they wouldn't have to boot up Windows.

4. If Wine becomes more streamlined, I can see a real problem emerging. Say, for example, web browsers start pointing exe files to wine automagically. Noobs everywhere will rejoice being able to install their smiley programs and pr0n-playing active-x apps. (sarcasm)

I personally don't think this will be another OS/2 for the reasons you said, Moebius Loop. Well, at least until Apple loses it's grove.

It is always important to compare and contrast from history. The more complete Wine gets, the more I wonder if it's becoming a the equivalent of opening a can of worms.

Works pretty well for me (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25015675)

I've been playing with it (and am using it to post this response). On the plus side: it actually runs gmail and youtube usably. On the minus side: it has a number of cosmetic and speed issues. It will be interesting to see how long it takes the Wine community to fix the remaining bugs. Disclaimer: I'm a Wine developer, so I'm biased.

it is a remarkable achievement (1, Redundant)

Presto Vivace (882157) | more than 5 years ago | (#25015745)

to have done that in 11 days.

Re:it is a remarkable achievement (3, Funny)

Rie Beam (632299) | more than 5 years ago | (#25015961)

Now, 12, that's just pushing it. And 10 would have been unrealistic.

In Just 11 Days (5, Funny)

Rie Beam (632299) | more than 5 years ago | (#25015755)

'In just 11 days, we were able to bring a modern Windows application across to Mac and Linux.'

How long would it take to send it back?

Re:In Just 11 Days (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25016067)

One of the best comments ever Rie Beam. touche

Re:In Just 11 Days (3, Funny)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016077)

'In just 11 days, we were able to bring a modern Windows application across to Mac and Linux.'

How long would it take to send it back?

It's like the trash in your collage apartment; let it start stinking first and then someone will take it out.

I give it about three days.

Obviously (2, Funny)

DougF (1117261) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016723)

It's like the trash in your collage apartment; let it start stinking first and then someone will take it out. I give it about three days.

It's like the trash in your college apartment. Let it start stinking first and then everyone will continue to ignore it until the neighbors complain of the flies.
I give it about 3 weeks.


There, fixed it for you.

Re:In Just 11 Days (1)

Eponymous Bastard (1143615) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016799)

It's like the trash in your collage apartment; let it start stinking first and then someone will take it out.

Kind of hard when it's pasted to the wall.

All the vendors wave your hands in the air and say (3, Funny)

TheModelEskimo (968202) | more than 5 years ago | (#25015797)

Hello, non-Windows world! We greet you with our awkwardly modified code that NONETHELESS runs on your systems!

BTW, we don't care about your hippy licensing schemes yet. Try back in 10 years.

First impressions (5, Informative)

wigaloo (897600) | more than 5 years ago | (#25015841)

I just downloaded the Mac OS X version from the link in TFA, and am using it to submit this post. It works, although the response seems a little slow, particularly with scrolling and window resizing. The amazing thing is that I never would have known this was done under Wine -- there was nothing else to install beyond the browser package itself. Very impressive.

Re:First impressions (1)

rho (6063) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016687)

It's pretty easy to tell it's something other than a native Mac application. It has that raw look of an X app, which is appropriate I guess.

It's interesting. I'm happy they did it as a proof of concept. Good for them. I'd rather drink paint than use it, though.

Re:First impressions (1)

wigaloo (897600) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016869)

Yeah, I agree. It does look different than a standard OS X app. Maybe even different from a typical Windows app. The pleasant surprise was that there were no hoops to jump through; i.e., no Wine install/configuration or anything like that. This was all completely transparent. As an OS X and linux user it's nice to finally be able to try out Chromium and see what all the chatter is about.

Re:First impressions (1)

stevied (169) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016711)

The size of the package might be a clue. I hope the original isn't 34Mb ..

Seriously .... (1, Flamebait)

nbvb (32836) | more than 5 years ago | (#25015863)

You expect me to pollute my Mac with Chromium [wikipedia.org] ?

Living in New Jersey, there's more than enough of it around, thankyouverymuch.

11 days? (2, Informative)

eternalelegy (1279022) | more than 5 years ago | (#25015925)

It may have taken 11 days for code weavers to package it (that really isn't supposed to be flaming code weavers, i have nothing against them.) but it didn't take near that long to have a working Chrome in wine. It was drastically less than 48 hours after release in actuality. I was one of the early ones working towards a solution with bug reports, and i remember waking up to an AppDB report of a functional browser albeit with a few tweaks, but working nonetheless. Just saying, Thanks to the awesome community of Wine users, this application was usable (not for the feint of heart) in 2 days, and i thought they should get credit for that :)

Oh, yes, it did! (2, Informative)

dkegel (904729) | more than 5 years ago | (#25015983)

Codeweavers was behind a lot of the patches that got it to the point you describe. And, importantly, they went further and managed to get gmail working. If they hadn't insisted on getting that working, they could have packaged it in two days. You might not have noticed their contributions because most of the improvements went straight into the public winehq tree.

That said, the wine community in general did contribute a lot to this, too.

Re:Oh, yes, it did! (1)

eternalelegy (1279022) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016073)

Ahh, well my comment was less about who did what, and more about the fact that *something* was working in 2 days, i know we could browse many pages and whatnot. But no, without all of the help they gave we never would have gotten it to where it is. Codeweavers really is a great company that stands behind the software it sells.

Linux: no video! (1)

Rick Richardson (87058) | more than 5 years ago | (#25015975)

Linux: no video!

Re:Linux: no video! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25016239)

you can install flash (windows version) and it will work.. sort of.

"just" 11 days? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25015987)

Why does it take 11 days to get Chromium to work under Wine? Why doesn't it just run?

Re:"just" 11 days? (5, Interesting)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016917)

Well, like a lot of
Windows apps Chrome does some, uh, interesting things that you might not expect a them to do :) For instance it does all the multi-process and security stuff. But then it also does what a lot of Windows programs do these days and replace the standard window management stuff as well. It relies on parts of Internet Explorer as well (like the HTTP library).

If you want an example of the sort of fun they had making things work, the bug this patch fixes [winehq.org] was "Chrome URL bar has a black background" yet the fix is to the low level assembly generated by Wines build process. That's because Chrome shims BeginPaint/EndPaint by patching the in-memory system DLL headers, so it can muck about with the Windows richedit control internals and the Chrome IAT patcher didn't support Borland style imports.

For a program that has such complicated interactions with the OS, and is so heavily reliant on it for functionality, 11 days is remarkably good actually. A good sign of Wines increasing maturity.

overhyped (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25015993)

Google's Chrome is overhyped. Yes I know it's just beta (what from Google isn't?), but I would describe Chrome's development stage as pre-alpha.

Google Sketchup on Wine? (2, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 5 years ago | (#25015999)

I wish CodeWeavers would go and get Google SketchUp, their "easy 3D drawing" program, to work on Wine for Linux. Because that's the only way to make models to export into Google Earth (Earth does have a Linux version, SketchUp does not).

There's all kinds of crashing problems with SketchUp on Wine in simple things like opening/saving/exporting files, corrupted cursors and icons, which a team like CodeWeavers could probably straighten out pretty quick. Since Google hasn't shown any progress towards releasing a Linux version of SketchUp, someone else has to do the work.

....only way to export into Google Earth. (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016185)

My 3D editor will have Google Earth export in the next couple of weeks.

I'm told it works on Wine but a native Linux version could happen anyway.

Re:....only way to export into Google Earth. (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016229)

Even just a commandline util that converts .SKP to .KML/.KMZ files would be a breakthru, if it were FOSS.

The Internet... (5, Funny)

david@ecsd.com (45841) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016085)

My God...

... It's full of ads!

More technical details (5, Informative)

jeremy_white (598942) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016167)

In case anyone is interested, the important parts of this work are available in a Free form, one way or the other. We're using a build of Wine equivalent to WineHQ of about mid week last week, along with a few patches that haven't been committed yet. I've sent along a few more details to the Wine devel mailing list [winehq.org] .
Cheers,
Jeremy

Re:More technical details (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016611)

So it should be this weekend's version? Cool :-)

Yeech (0, Flamebait)

Jethro (14165) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016219)

Wine has been at, what, "90% complete" for over a decade, or something? And it's still clunky and doesn't work most of the time.

I tried posting this from Chromium, but it wouldn't let me login. Guess they haven't implemented cookies yet. But what I wanted to post was that a nice feature request for a Wine application would be the ability to, I dunno, resize the window without my WM crashing.

I have some great hopes for Wine back in 1998, ut I all but gave up on it way back in 2005.

Wine SSL support mission (1)

caseih (160668) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016347)

Of course this is all a useless exercise for the purposes for which Chrome would really be useful: running google apps. Without SSL support working in Wine, I can't even log in. Until SSL works, chrome under wine is a mere curiosity, and a wine technology demo as Codeweavers says.

Has anyone actually tried running it? (1)

joe_cot (1011355) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016481)

It's slow, slow to redraw, the fonts run off the buttons, etc. Try using gmail, or using Slashdot's javascript commenting system, and you'll hate yourself. I'm glad I saw coworkers running it, and I've run it in virtualization -- otherwise I'd think Google Chrome sucks. I'm glad to see that CodeWeavers made some strides with it -- when I tried, I finally got it to run, but it wouldn't load any sites -- but it really is just a proof of concept. I hope that the native port picks up some steam.

I feel so free! (1, Funny)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016501)

Now I, a poor Linux user, can give Google [today.com] my confidential business data, bank account details, medical information, personal preferences in pornography and DNA code! And it'll all be entirely confidential between me and their marketing department!

But they're still not evil. If they were evil, I'd have to search using Windows Live.

The Fonts on Linux Suck (4, Interesting)

Ian Alexander (997430) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016521)

At least on the URL bar. I just downloaded and tried out their Linux port and the font in the URL bar looks like ass.

Case in point: http://img140.imageshack.us/my.php?image=chromeox9.jpg [imageshack.us]

Ah well. I guess it'll give me something to play with until Google puts out an official Linux build.

Chrome installation with Wine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25016575)

And I just installed Chrome using Wine out of the box in half an hour, without any modifications. This seems rather underwhelming. OK, they did it from source.

Did they port the security holes? (-1, Troll)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016583)

Did they port the security holes like Google Update as well?

Or maybe... can they document the Google Update security model?

or you could just follow the docs.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25016695)

http://dev.chromium.org/developers/how-tos/build-instructions-os-x

Great OMGF! (0)

Vexorian (959249) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016923)

As a Chrome port, it fails, according to CodeWeaver's fact itself.

As a proof of concept, it fails, since it is not FOSS.

As a proof of concept, it is scary because the last thing we need is google thinking they would get away with "porting" chrome picasa-like ...

As a WINE advert it is ok, well, almost mediocre.

No Flash in Linux. (1)

Peet42 (904274) | more than 5 years ago | (#25016985)

No good in Linux.

In just 11 days (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 5 years ago | (#25017021)

In just 1 day I had an Adventure: Colossal Caves port for Win16 running on Wine, by telling Wine to run it. Wine has come far when you don't need to make a whole dev team spend a week and a half fucking with it to make a single app work.

Googleweavers Chromium (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25017203)

Astounding how anyone would want to emulate Windows. Again, Codeweavers deliver another step backwards. As for Gooogle releasing a win version initially.... You've lost all respect.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>