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!

Google Releases Chrome 2.0 Pre-Beta

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the what-is-too-fast-if-it's-pre-beta dept.

Google 326

Nick Fletcher writes "Just a few short months after the initial release, Google has released a pre-beta version of Google Chrome 2.0. It sports a few new features including form auto-completion, full-page zoom, 'profiles,' and Greasemonkey support. It seems the only notable feature would be profiles, which allows users to separate out their homepage, history, and bookmarks on a per user or category basis. It seems Google is still playing catch-up but they're definitely moving at a pace unknown to some of their competition. The full list of new features is available in the release notes."

cancel ×

326 comments

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

Not a great 2.0 (5, Insightful)

alain94040 (785132) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392199)

Not too many exciting new features, I'm not sure why they call it 2.0.

Form autocomplete? It's about time. Not that I like the feature anyway, it's too dumb. 90% of the time it doesn't offer any suggestion (wild guess, if a web site asks for my name, maybe my browser might know the answer). The rest of the time (10%), it has a fifty-fifty chance of guessing right.

Full-page zoom and auto-scroll? Great. Now I can use Chrome like I use Safari on my iPhone. Of course scaling should scale the whole page, not just the text. It shouldn't be that hard. An old technology like PDF (10 years old) knows that.

Profiles? Ok, could be moderately useful. It sort of conflicts with the OS's notion of swapping between users. So I'd use it more as a workaround because bookmarks are hard to organize.

Greasemonkey scripts? That's my favorite. But it's for power users only. Just read the instructions and imagine your grandma giving it a try:

To enable this experimental feature you need to right-click on Chrome's shortcut from your desktop, select Properties and add --enable-user-scripts in the Target field. While you're in the Properties dialog, click on "Open File Location" and create a folder named User Scriptsin the user data directory, where you'll need to manually save scripts.

--
FairSoftware.net [fairsoftware.net]

Re:Not a great 2.0 (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26392225)

They call it 2.0 so it is clear that "they're definitely moving at a pace unknown to some of their competition."

If it was still in version 0.9, it would just be like every other stupid project.

ATTN: Windows Clickarounds (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26392527)

Yeah I'm talking to you. The wannabe computer programmer who thinks they are good at computers because they can click around the computer enough times and find the reboot button and 'fix' an inherently flawed windows system. You think you're cool because you can pirate photoshop but not know anything about it, get Microsoft Office for free but have the literacy of a 1st grader when writing a paper, and get a copy of Norton Anti-virus because your inherently flawed system is useless without Administrative privileges. Get a clue, you are not smart, you are just a corporate sheep for a company that will bury you if you ever tried to write any software that did anything remotely useful. You are a clickaround and all you know is your ugly gray existence that is Windows.

Want the source code to windows vista?

head -n 1000000 /dev/random > Windows.com

Re:Not a great 2.0 (5, Informative)

dominator (61418) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392417)

They updated the version of WebKit that they're using to one that passes the ACID3 test. That's something.

Chrome supports a company that sells ads. (5, Insightful)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392823)

But it is all somewhat meaningless, whether Chrome passes ACID3 or not, since Chrome is meant to support a company that sells advertising.

I'm guessing that Chrome will never have AdBlock Plus and NoScript.

It's all about control. Firefox allows you to control what you read. Many advertising companies try to change readers into time-wasting, ad-reading, money-wasting robots.

Those who don't like being the target of aggressive behavior and want control over their lives will need to continue to use Firefox, no matter how technically superior Chrome is.

Re:Chrome supports a company that sells ads. (1)

dingo8baby (1262090) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392935)

that is a very astute point. I love google, as a company, but i hate advertising. As much as i would love to use everything google offers, blocking annoying and intrusive advertising is a high priority to me. Le Sigh.

Re:Chrome supports a company that sells ads. (1)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392941)

Those who don't like being the target of aggressive behavior and want control over their lives will need to continue to use Firefox, no matter how technically superior Chrome is.

Alternatively, you could use a proxy outside of Chrome (I assume it has proxy support) to strip out all the ads.

Re:Chrome supports a company that sells ads. (3, Insightful)

backdoc (416006) | more than 5 years ago | (#26393121)

You make a good point. But, it's not ads per se that are so evil. If ads are done right, they aren't annoying. Look at Google's home page vs. Yahoo's. Google has a history of developing clean unobtrusive interfaces. I wouldn't be too surprised if Google let you install AdBlock or some other ways made browsing tolerable. I have hope.

Re:Chrome supports a company that sells ads. (2, Insightful)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 5 years ago | (#26393161)

I'm guessing that Chrome will never have AdBlock Plus and NoScript.

You can still use external things like a hosts file to make sure you don't get ads. Besides, there's a strong argument to be made that most people don't use adblock in the first place, and that its use is immoral.

It's all about control. Firefox allows you to control what you read.

And Chrome is open source, allowing anyone to use and control it that wants to as long as they play by the same rules that Google does. If they hadn't open sourced Chrome, I would agree with you. As it is, I believe Google when they say that they want to push the browser market in the direction of supporting better web apps. Google Docs, GMail, and Google Maps all have deficiencies arising from the shortcomings of browsers in general. Google's struggling to find revenue sources outside of advertising and they've chosen to stick to the web to do it (a good choice IMHO). Your diatribe against advertising is all well and good, but their behavior with Chrome just doesn't support it.

Re:Not a great 2.0 (2, Insightful)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392453)

Great. Now I can use Chrome like I use Safari on my iPhone. Of course scaling should scale the whole page, not just the text. It shouldn't be that hard. An old technology like PDF (10 years old) knows that.

I'm not sure MOST people want to scale the entire page. Most of the time I use zooms I just want the text smaller, not picture and all that. Usually it's either because I want to read more text or I can't see the text well enough for whatever reason.

One note on profiles ... if you install something for "all users," it doesn't change when you use it as a different user, does it? So manybe the profile thing is useful. Plus it may be that you want to have different profiles yourself, and not have to switch Windows users to change it.

I can see it being useful, for example, having a different profile at work than I do at school than I do at home.

Re:Not a great 2.0 (1)

randyest (589159) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392631)

I'mm not sure MOST people DON'T want to scale the entire page. Most of the time I use zooms I just want the text bigger, and the pictures and all that too. Usually it's either because I want to read from further away, or I can't see the text well enough for whatever reason.

Seriously, do you have any info on who zooms in or out how often and why? I sure don't, but my anecdote appears to be exactly in opposition to yours, so like matter and anti-matter, I'm afraid we collide and produce a net nothingness :(

Re:Not a great 2.0 (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392827)

I have no statistics if that is what you mean. However, if it doesn't matter, and if my anecdotal evidence means nothing, then how can we criticize Google for choosing what they did for the page zoom feature? After all, they probably asked all their developers, so they have more statistics than either of us do.

Anyway, I was simply offering the suggestion that when I, or people I've been around for the most part, want to zoom in a page, it's because we want to see the text better. Occasionally an image, but not as often. Images don't change as much across browsers and operating systems as text styles, especially depending on how the CSS sutff is set up (if at all).

Re:Not a great 2.0 (1)

Sancho (17056) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392833)

I'll throw in my two cents.

When I zoom in, it's because the page itself is too small. Usually it's some Flash widget. Occasionally it's text.

When I zoom out (from default), it's because I want to see more text. Rarely, if ever, is it because I think that an image is too large.

Zooming one or the other, though, can disrupt the layout of the page, so in general, I think that the best policy is to zoom everything. I guess that optional text-only zoom would be nice, though.

Re:Not a great 2.0 (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 5 years ago | (#26393165)

Seriously, do you have any info on who zooms in or out how often and why?

That's one of the features that made me an Opera zealot. Fairly regularly I'll scale up a page so ppl around my desk can easily read it. I also sometimes scale down a page because an image is too big to fit it. (Or I just plain want to use a smaller window.)

I sometimes wish I had a mouse for each hand so I can do the zooming and rearranging that the iPhone's multi-touch supports. I'm ready for resolution independence.

Re:Not a great 2.0 (3, Interesting)

lytles (24756) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392775)

i use multiple firefox profiles - make's it easier to access multiple yahoo and gmail accounts, and try to keep my real work from heavy flash and javascript pages that are more likely to crash the browser. haven't tried chrome, but being able to set profiles on a tab by tab basis would be great. hope that's what they mean

and if i have trouble with a web app, it's nice to pop into a fresh profile so that you know plugins or settings aren't causing the problem. i start firefox from bash, using:

firefox -P myUserName --no-remote &

Dumping Firefox for Chrome Felt Like Dumping IE (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26392503)

Downloaded the first public release of Chrome, installed Privoxy for adblocking and never turned back. Chrome utterly annihilates Firefox in realworld performance. No more have to constantly quit of the damn webbrowser because it is constantly accumulating stray memory and left over Javascript crap.

Chrome is as lighting quick a week after constant and heavy use as it is the first few minutes of starting the app. It has been an even better feeling than years ago dumping IE for Firefox.

Whatever features continue to get added are nothing but gravy now.

Re:Dumping Firefox for Chrome Felt Like Dumping IE (1)

MadnessASAP (1052274) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392929)

Whatever features continue to get added are nothing but bloat now.

There, fixed that for ya.

Re:Dumping Firefox for Chrome Felt Like Dumping IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26393153)

Whatever features continue to get added are nothing but gravy now.

You're the guy that rides a motorcycle because it it's "an even better feeling" and "utterly annihilates in realworld performance". You don't mind the lack of windshield and protection from weather, heater, cooler, safety, ability to hit a pothole without dying.

The rest of use 'drive' firefox because when you compare them feature by feature chrome is like tinkertoys. We want the safety of noscript, real-world web pages to render properly, the layers of goo that make it run on linux, mac, and windows, the support for favorite-plugin.

Re:Not a great 2.0 (3, Insightful)

Goaway (82658) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392741)

Just read the instructions and imagine your grandma giving it a try:

Your grandma isn't going to be using pre-beta software. It's like that because the features is far from complete yet and is thus not enabled by default. It's not going to be like that in the final version.

Re:Not a great 2.0 (0)

lagfest (959022) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392847)

Firefox is soon at 3.1 and IE soonish at 8, they've got some catching up to do.

Autocomplete isn't dumb (4, Informative)

an.echte.trilingue (1063180) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392875)

Form autocomplete? It's about time. Not that I like the feature anyway, it's too dumb. 90% of the time it doesn't offer any suggestion (wild guess, if a web site asks for my name, maybe my browser might know the answer). The rest of the time (10%), it has a fifty-fifty chance of guessing right.

The auto complete isn't guessing. The reason that it doesn't always know your name is because different web sites give the fields with more or less the same meaning different names (name as in html attribute, not as in the label). They do this because the web front end reflects whatever backend that the site runs on.

As a web developer, you might want somebody's first name and last name separately, (for example, if you have to check a cc number against it) in which case you would use a two fields like this:
Name:<input type="text" name="firstname" /><input type="text" name="lastname" />

Or, it might just be to display your name to other users, in which case you don't care and to keep your database simple you just do:
Name:<input type="text" name="name" />

Or, you might be asking for login credentials, so you'll ask for: Name:<input type="text" name="firstname" />
Or, you might want to be preventing bots from trying to use usernames/passwords harvested from another, insecure sight, so you'll obfuscate like this:
Name: <input type="text" name="wxys" />

As you can see, form auto complete has no way of knowing which entries it should use. However, auto-complete is far from useless. We have a web-based client management database where I work, and there the browser does know what to put in the fields because, obviously, the fields are consistently named. In this case, it is a huge time saver. It just seems dumb to you because you have not really needed to use it for what it was intended for.

Re:Not a great 2.0 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26392901)

wow, you are a cock.

Re:Not a great 2.0 (1)

TwistedSymmetry (1354405) | more than 5 years ago | (#26393003)

With greasemonkey support, AdBlock should be fairly easy to implement.

Re:Not a great 2.0 (1)

nategoose (1004564) | more than 5 years ago | (#26393129)

They are calling it 2.0 because they are trying to catch up to the version numbers of the other browsers.

profiles vs fast user switching (3, Insightful)

ecklesweb (713901) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392209)

What's the point of profiles in a web browser when you have fast user switching (and/or whatever MS calls their equivalent function)? Seems like that's the point of a multiuser operating system...

Re:profiles vs fast user switching (4, Insightful)

c.r.o.c.o (123083) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392389)

The vast majority of people I've seen using windows never log out to switch users. They are automatically logged in as Administrator or whatever admin account was created when windows was installed. Switching user profiles makes perfect sense in a browser.

Re:profiles vs fast user switching (1)

El Cabri (13930) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392495)

I think that it's from Vista on that users are steered away, maybe even prevented, from doing that in a client OS. Vista's not so bad, believe me.

Re:profiles vs fast user switching (5, Interesting)

evanbd (210358) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392693)

Hey, I know! We can have the email program have profiles too! And the photo editor, and the instant messaging client! Perhaps one day someone will come up with a unified way to have them synchronize, so that I don't have to create and manage a set of profiles on every application. It could also unify password management, and give each profile its own common place to put files.

Or, I don't know, we could actually use the user system that exists. Poorly reimplementing users in every single program is a horrible idea.

That said, there are uses for profiles that aren't just crippled reimplementations of the user concept. But they have more to do with wanting a different, well, profile of settings for different tasks -- things like the private browsing mode. Or, for example, I use a different Firefox profile for browsing Freenet (there are both performance and security reasons for that).

Re:profiles vs fast user switching (3, Funny)

chrispugh (1301243) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392747)

We can have the email program have profiles too!

Pretty sure they already exist. They're called 'email addresses'.

Re:profiles vs fast user switching (1)

evanbd (210358) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392807)

And when I "log in" as my "user" the email program magically knows which "email address" I want to use! I don't even have to tell it! How cool is that?

Re:profiles vs fast user switching (1)

Aris Katsaris (939578) | more than 5 years ago | (#26393157)

Hmm... let's test the coolness of this with the hypothetical scenario of my brother saying "hey, can I check something on the web for a sec"?

Different logins:
- I save the files I'm working on, even ones that are clearly not meant to be saved yet.
- I log out
- He logs in.
- He opens up the browser and does his work.
- He logs back out
- I log back in.
- I reopen all my programs, reloading all the files I had saved.

Different browser profiles
- I tell him "don't close up anything I have open".
- He opens up the browser and does his work, after switching browser profiles.
- I switch browser profiles back and continue my own work.

Somehow "different browser profiles" seems to me to be much simpler and work much faster (and thus be all around "cooler") than your own preferred hammer-beats-nail-into-submission solution.

Re:profiles vs fast user switching (1)

Twinbee (767046) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392803)

Maybe that's because it's so painful to do (using XP anyway). I have to wait sometimes 30 seconds before the switch. Plus it takes a total of 4 clicks, each of those clicks with yet MORE long pauses sometimes.

Re:profiles vs fast user switching (3, Interesting)

vux984 (928602) | more than 5 years ago | (#26393049)

The vast majority of people I've seen using windows never log out to switch users.

1) It used to be a ROYAL hassle to switch users in OSX and Windows. To force my wife or kids to log everything out just so I could check or send a quick email was absurd.

Fast user switching technologies have made this less of a hassle, but a lot of people are conditioned against multiple accounts from the hassle it was in Windows 2000 and before or OSX 10.2 and before. I honeslty don't know when exactly Linux added the feature to let you swap desktops easily.

2) Many "family computers" really have no need of the separation between accounts.

My wife has a laptop that's sort of a family unit. She has her email accounts, and IM etc on it. My email goes to another PC, but since hers is usually in the living room if I want to do something I'll usually just use it... whether its just look something up on the web, or check my email (via webmail), or IM my brother or something, there's really no point in having a whole separate account for me on it. Our kids use it too, mostly for games and tux paint. They are young enough they don't really need a separate account (the oldest is in grade 1). Having separate accounts would actually just be a hassle.

(And as you may have guessed from "tux paint" that its a linux laptop, not a windows one... so a single account is really a convenience thing, not a 'because its windows' thing.)

Re:profiles vs fast user switching (4, Interesting)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392405)

I totally agree in the context of family members sharing a computer, but I find profiles useful because I'm a web developer and I don't want lots of toolbars taking up screen space and development extensions running when I'm just surfing the web normally as opposed to working on a site.

Re:profiles vs fast user switching (1)

Runefox (905204) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392685)

Honestly, this very reason, along with a smoking fast startup speed, is why I use Chrome for general browsing and Firefox for web development.

Off-topic and interestingly, the ad on top of this page is for Google Chrome. ... Even more interestingly (or maybe just bizarrely), it's a static image, but it's being conveyed using SWF. Seems like Google is starting to step forward a little more boldly on Chrome as a serious product.

Re:profiles vs fast user switching (1)

Spudtrooper (1073512) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392923)

There's an ad on this page? Where?

Re:profiles vs fast user switching (2, Informative)

athakur999 (44340) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392549)

Profiles are useful when you use your computer for both personal and work purposes, since you're probably going to access a completely different set of bookmarks for each. My "work" profile has toolbar bookmarks for various Intranet pages and my "personal" profile has the toolbar bookmarks pointing to other things (e.g. Slashdot, Digg).

It's just a convenience thing for me since it says me a little bit of time versus trying to keep both things organized in a single profile.

Re:profiles vs fast user switching (2, Insightful)

drew (2081) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392665)

I can think of one reason, especially if (Hello? Google guys? You listening?) you can have both profiles open in separate windows at the same time. The first example that comes to mind is that I have two Google accounts, one for personal stuff and one for work stuff. Each has it's own email, calendar, documents, etc. Every now and then I'll be logged into one account and need something that is in the other account, so I have to log out, log into other account, get what I need, log out again... You can sort of short cut the process using incognito windows, or using two separate browsers, but neither of those feels like a real solution to me. There are enough times that I've thought that it would be nice to be running two (or more) browser windows each with it's own independent "cookie space" that I'd really like to see somebody add this as a feature.

Beyond that, why assume that multiple browser profiles must automatically belong to different users? If they are simple enough to manage and use (something nobody has really done so far) there's no reason that a web developer couldn't have one profile for testing and one for email/ calendar/ other browsing. Or even a separate profile for each client. Maybe you need to use a proxy server on your laptop when you connect from certain locations. Again, this is something that I have always accomplished in the past by using separate browsers - e.g. Opera goes through the proxy, while Firefox connects to the internet directly.

Re:profiles vs fast user switching (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26392917)

Both links in the article indicate this is possible. Wrench menu -> New window in profile . I definitely agree with you that this is useful :).

Re:profiles vs fast user switching (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26392811)

On my Vista machine (6 month old laptop with 4GB RAM), it's extremely slow user switching, so I appreciate it.

Re:profiles vs fast user switching (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26393125)

The OS provides the functionality for multiple users. The browser provides functionality for users with multiple personalities.

Forget Greasemonkey... (3, Insightful)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392217)

Gimme Firebug....or perhaps that should be ChromeBug.

Re:Forget Greasemonkey... (2, Informative)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392809)

They have that functionality built into the core. They have a javascript console and element inspector that's as good as firebug, possibly better. I don't know if they have a straight up debugger, but I'd be surprised if they don't.

Pre- Beta (1)

Fezzick (913356) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392229)

Pre-Beta is what Beta used to mean before Google came along... Will GMail ever get out of Beta?

Re:Pre- Beta (1)

AntiRush (1175479) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392327)

Google seems to be moving in the opposite direction of the rest of the software industry. "Beta" releases these days (particularly in online games) are rough, buggy, pieces of work that would have been called alpha 15 years ago. Google, on the other hand, loves perpetual betas. I think I like their approach better.

Re:Pre- Beta (3, Informative)

Chabo (880571) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392661)

The way I learned it:

Pre-Alpha: No working code
Alpha: Compiles and runs, but not feature-complete
Beta: Feature-complete, but potentially buggy

By that scale, Google probably isn't convinced that GMail isn't buggy.

Re:Pre- Beta (1)

buddyglass (925859) | more than 5 years ago | (#26393075)

I attended a talk by Alan Eustace [google.com] , Google's Senior VP of Engineering and Research. Someone asked that exact question: what are your criteria for moving Gmail out of beta?

His answer was that google has certain "availability targets" that, until they're met, will result in Gmail staying in beta. I'm guessing it's on the order of a year's time in which no single user loses any data or is unable to get to his email. Every time someone loses data or they have down time, that resets the timer.

Re:Pre- Beta (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392789)

First off, that's not Google calling it "pre-beta", it's some random guy with a blog. Google calls it "2.0.156.1". Furthermore, "pre-beta" implies "alpha", which is exactly what this is.

Finally, a Mac version! (3, Funny)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392231)

Oh, wait - nevermind.

Nothing to see there, move along...

Re:Finally, a Mac version! (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392303)

They did mention that they changed the HTTP code for cross-platform compatibility, so maybe that's evidence that they're working on delivering a Mac version? I dunno.

Re:Finally, a Mac version! (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392799)

They have stated from day one that they are working on delivering a Mac version, so it's not like you need to read any tea leaves to find that out.

Re:Finally, a Mac version! (4, Insightful)

slamb (119285) | more than 5 years ago | (#26393033)

If you want to see evidence they're working on delivering a Mac version, you might start at the Mac build instructions [google.com] or the revision history [chromium.org] .

Re:Finally, a Mac version! (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 5 years ago | (#26393103)

Nah, I don't care for myself, as I avoid Macs like the plague. I was just trying to convey that the OP shouldn't think the platform has been abandoned.

Re:Finally, a Mac version! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26392795)

Good. The less software there is for the Apple computer crap the better.

Re:Finally, a Mac version! (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#26393041)

Since Chrome is based on WebKit, we're just as good with Safari as far as page rendering goes.

We also have Opera and Firefox as browser alternatives.

So, will this be an... (1)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392271)

Alpha Beta? Or, an Omega Beta (sorry...)

Sorta like "pre/proto-pregnant"...

2.0 but still no non-windows (3, Informative)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392307)

Would be nice if these guys would focus some on satisfying the other OS markets. There's absolutely no need for them to take such tremendous advantage of Open Source and then neglect them in such a long term way as they have with Chrome.

Re:2.0 but still no non-windows (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392387)

Google have stated that add-ons(plugins, whatever you call 'em) and cross-platform browsing are in the works.

Re:2.0 but still no non-windows (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26392619)

As if that was enough. They better release a truly Open Source version that can be compiled on any system. I won't be using any binary of dubious content running over a wrapper when I can have Firefox running natively from source on any system.
That they haven't been yet able of releasing a Mac and Linux port is a hint that they did something really wrong and objectionable with the original Windows version.

Re:2.0 but still no non-windows (2, Insightful)

HAKdragon (193605) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392697)

They better release a truly Open Source version that can be compiled on any system.
 
Just because it's open source, doesn't mean it has to be platform agnostic.

Re:2.0 but still no non-windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26392769)

True enough (packages like Folder Size [sourceforge.net] are excellent), but there's no compelling reason to tie a web browser to a given platform. Free software should be able to run on a free OS.

Re:2.0 but still no non-windows (4, Insightful)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392737)

Boo hoo..

OSS doesn't have to mean using an OSOS. One of the tenets of the GPL is that you're free to use the code for *whatever* purpose you see fit, not solely (or at all) the purpose envisaged by the author. You can't have it both ways.

Re:2.0 but still no non-windows (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392817)

Four months is "long term" to you? Talk about living on internet time.

Copy Firefox source code? (1)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392311)

What would keep Google from taking Firefox's source code and copying it or using it as a reference for upcoming features? Could google decide to "borrow" the code/technology for Firefox's awesome bar?

Because FF codebase is complete shit (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26392403)

The fact that Firefox is stinking pile of shit that only compares favorably to ancient versions of IE should calm the incompetent little brains working on FF that anyone would ever want to steal their shitty technology.

Google was forced to create Chrome exactly because FF was such a stinking pile of outdated tech with its horrendous single threaded/single address space Javascript implementation. Hell, even fucking Microsoft now has multi-threaded/protected memory for its Javascript.

That's got to be the ultimate humiliation for the idiots working on FF after all the shit talk about FF >>>>> IE.

No sympathy though, the FF devs spent years flaming everyone over their massive memory leaks due to the single address space for every single thing inside of the browser instead of getting their shit together and doing the ground up rewrite Google and Microsoft have already done.

Re:Because FF codebase is complete shit (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26392575)

All that vitriol, and Firefox is still the best browser on the market. That must really burn your ass.

Re:Copy Firefox source code? (1)

Fezzick (913356) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392429)

Nothing really. Firefox is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPL), an open source license. Don't see any barriers related to copying code here - that's one of the main advantages of open source software.

Re:Copy Firefox source code? (5, Interesting)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392505)

Gecko is large and unwieldy compared to Webkit. When Apple decided to build a browser, they hired ex-Mozilla developers, who promptly turned around and used KHTML because it was so much leaner and better designed, despite their extensive experience with Gecko.

It's far from obvious that Firefox is ahead in the technology stakes. It trails in many ways and seems like a far less agile project compared with Webkit and Opera. It does have a few areas where it is ahead, but the downsides seem like an albatross to me.

Firefox Devs Are The Problem (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26392633)

I remember trying to get into coding with Firefox and it ended up being a nightmare and just not worth the effort mess. And the times I've come across Firefox devs in forums they really came across as outright pricks.

Everyone remembers of course having to listen to Firefox devs sitting around in Slashdot stories about the horrible Firefox memory leaks ripping into people with the 'it's not a memory leak, it's a feature' bullshit.

Google's code is of incredible quality from what I've seen so far. And it is incredibly easy to get in and start working on the project. And the Google engineers have shown themselves to be both brilliant and friendly. So far nothing but positive impressions.

Re:Copy Firefox source code? (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392765)

What would keep Google from taking Firefox's source code and copying it or using it as a reference for upcoming features? Could google decide to "borrow" the code/technology for Firefox's awesome bar?

Firefox as an "awesome bar"? Is that like a spacebar, but it makes things awesome?

I'm no expert, but I don't see why they couldn't use Firefox code. They're both open source, so it's just an issue of whether the licenses are compatible, and they probably are.

On the other hand, if Google really wanted to be like Firefox, they could have started with Firefox code to begin with. It seems like maybe they just don't want to do that?

Adblock? (3, Insightful)

randyest (589159) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392331)

I tried the first Chrome release and was duly impressed, especially for script speeds on "web 2.0" apps. But no adblock (and less importantlly, TabMix plus tab options) is a deal breaker. When Chrome does adblock I'm there.

Note that Adblock really doesn't impact google's ads -- it primarily blocks graphical/flash crap ads, at least using the filtersets I subscribe to, so it wouldn't hurt google to allow it, and might even help them (absent other flashing "punch the monkey" and "abort the fetus" ads google's often-relevant text ads tend to stand out more.)

Do it google! Let us bock ads and mix tabs!

Re:Adblock? (3, Insightful)

Roger W Moore (538166) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392461)

That may be true but it might be a bit of a PR disaster if they release a browser which only blocks non-Google ads.

Re:Adblock? (1)

randyest (589159) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392543)

What if it only blocks graphical and flash ads? Is it google's fault if they're the only one providing relevant, non-intrusive text ads?

Re:Adblock? (2, Interesting)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392721)

It depends which filters the users decide to subscribe to. Google would only be allowing a plugin which provides a framework to use filters to block specific content.

Re:Adblock? (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392845)

They've stated that they are working on a plugin architecture, specifically mentioning ad blocking as one use.

Pre-beta? (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392337)

Really??? Pre-beta? Why didn't they just stick with the perfectly good terms and call this type of thing a beta and the other stuff they call a Beta a Release?

Re:Pre-beta? (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392401)

Pre-beta isn't particularly new. There's been alphas and pre-betas and betas for a while.

Re:Pre-beta? (1)

Dan93 (222999) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392491)

Because, in theory, a x.0 release is bug free.

Re:Pre-beta? (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392865)

Google is not calling this "pre-beta", they are calling it "2.0.156.1". Some random guy with a blog is calling it "pre-beta".

Google Chrome for Linux! NOT! (5, Funny)

Rick Richardson (87058) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392369)

Blogger Belzecue said on January 8, 2009 10:55 PM PDT:
Johnny Effyew here, lead strategist at Google.

Now, I hear a lot of complaints -- a helluva lot of complaints, actually -- about Google not supporting Linux, like how Google Chrome runs on Windows only. Sure, we're already up to version 2 of the Windows client with no Linux version in sight. That may be technically true, but I'm here to tell you, we built our entire company and fortune on the back of Linux and free, open-source software. So of course we support Linux just as much as we support Windows.

That's why it's my pleasure today to announce we've committed to delivering a native Linux Chrome client by 2015 or by the time the Windows client reaches version 10 or when Linux gains greater than 50% of the desktop market. That's our promise to every Linux user out there. You can take that to the bank. We know we have a moral debt to give back to the Linux community what we took from them and turned into a billion-dollar business. We know that.

But, as it turns out, writing software for Linux is kinda tough. We're still figuring it out. I mean, we all use Windows around the Google office, so it's not like we've got a bunch of internal people clamoring to use Chrome under Ubuntu or whatever.

And yes, we know there are much smaller companies out there like Dropbox who easily manage to code and release their Windows and Linux clients simultaneously, which is kinda like having your cake and eating it too. We think that's really cool, and we especially like cake. So that's doubly cool.

So hang in there, Linux community. Google Chrome for Linux is coming. In the meantime, just keep screwing around trying to run the Windows client under Wine. Good luck with that, hahahaha. Yeah, that should keep you nice and busy while we eat more cake and polish off version 3 of the Chrome Windows client. (Whoah, did I just say that out loud or think it? Pfffft, like those Linux fanboys will notice anyway.)

Folks, in closing let me say again: Google is committed to Linux the same way a tapeworm's committed to your lower intestine. From now on, when you think of Google and Linux I want you to think of me, Johnny. Think "Effyew, Linux! Effyew, Google!"

Re:Google Chrome for Linux! NOT! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26392709)

or when Linux gains greater than 50% of the desktop market.

Fortunately, 2009 is the year of Linux on the desktop.

Thank You! A Lesson For Everyone. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26392727)

This should be yet another reminder that both the GPL and Linux licenses require companies to create Linux versions of all of their products or face the dreaded +5 Funny Post of Mockery on Slashdot.

No wait, it's not required. It's the 'spirit' of the license that Google has gravely transgressed.

No wait, IT'S STAY THE FUCK AWAY FROM GPL BASED PRODUCTS IN YOUR COMPANY.

Stick to free and non viral licences like the BSD and other and you'll be safe.

Thanks for full-page zoom (1)

El Cabri (13930) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392459)

That's one of the main reason I didn't switch. The zoom implementation was useless, and I always use zoom to fill my widescreen monitor.

Unfortunately I also don't like very much the "single address and search box" concept, but maybe I can get used to that after all so I guess I'm going to give it another try.

Chrome is developing fast (1)

viljun (1267170) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392465)

It's so easy to be pessimistic. The first version was quite good and innovative to be the first version. And it has been developing very well since then.

Speed, screen estate saving etc are very important things. If chrome also manages to keep memory footprint relatively small as it grows & adds features more people will be converted. ... and of course we first need the native linux version.

Greasemonkey (1)

c.r.o.c.o (123083) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392493)

This was the one reason I never tried Chrome. I play a lot of Travian http://travian.com/ [travian.com] and there are a few Greasemonkey scripts (Travian Mod Kit and Beyond Travian) without which the game would be unbearable for serious players. On large accounts with 20+ villages, those scripts save hundreds of page loads.

I'll still wait until Chrome 2 reaches at least Beta status though. Regardless of who releases the software, I'm not in the mood to try Alpha software.

Re:Greasemonkey (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26392551)

Congratulations, you're a bizarre edge-case, and Google doesn't give a shit about your browser-game poopsocking.

Google Chrome? I will not bite...yet (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392607)

Reasons being: -

1: I miss my extensions especially the weather extension.

2: My school and bank do not allow anything other than Firefox and IE. Firefox has just been supported for a year.

3: I do not want to learn another [Google] paradigm of doing things on the browser.

4: I am contented with the two choices available to me as of now.

Re:Google Chrome? I will not bite...yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26392683)

I'd swap now if there was 3 additions.

1. Adblock!
2. Adblock!
3. Adblock!

Just can't get used to all those flash ads, but I still want flash for google maps street view etc.

Re:Google Chrome? I will not bite...yet (2, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392691)

With a User Agent switcher, your school and bank's website would likely work just fine.

BSD ? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392651)

Are they supporting the BSDs yet?

Still No Adblock (2, Informative)

rshol (746340) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392667)

I don't run browsers that can't run adblock or similar. Thanks though.

Google, Finish Gtalk first you fucking assholes! (-1, Troll)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392735)

What the fuck google. Finish GTALK, you know the one you run on your computer? The fucking Gtalk in Gmail through web browser gets all of the attention while the shitty desktop version that has the nice simple clean ui, gets NO DEVELOPEMENT.

Ok... so google did put out a Gtalk desktop version that is called something like "secret super duper google version only for you desperate users version"...

But it blows!

Gtalk should own the IM world. AIM sucks (ad ridden fagware), trillian is bloated moose shit, miranda is a stripped down mess of plugins that does nothing right, and pidgin... pidgin is the fucking saddest peice of shit i've ever used next to itunes.

The world is in need of a good im client and google might have had it, if they kept going but google doesnt really care about finishing software do they?

Re:Google, Finish Gtalk first you fucking assholes (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26392957)

You, sir, have some serious problems that no amount of development of Gtalk could ever begin to address.

Re:Google, Finish Gtalk first you fucking assholes (1)

KTheorem (999253) | more than 5 years ago | (#26393021)

Why not try Psi http://psi-im.org/ [psi-im.org] ? It's a great Jabber client with a simple interface that doesn't get in the way but still provides all of the features you would expect. It's the best IM client I know of on Windows (at least until Kopete finishes getting ported).

tabs still on window... (1)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#26392761)

Let me attach the tabs to the top of the pane (the part that actually changes when you select a different tab) instead of the window (no, the location bar doesn't change, its content does... but so does the title bar's and that's still above the tabs).

Does it actually work yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26392903)

Does it render embedded IFRAMES correctly yet? Can it correctly stream multiple flash movies in various tabs all at once without completely crashing to the ground in a pile of slag worthy of Windoze 3.0?

It is useful at all? Currently it takes all of 3 minutes for Chrome to run into a basic surfing task that it cannot do, on my own sites, on public sites, on the intranet, wherever. I just can't seem to use it for any real task for any real length of time. It just fails.

I realize it's Beta, but I would call it more like pre-alpha.

Still not solved early beta issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26392955)

I use chrome almost all the time now because it's lots faster than FF or IE. However there are some complaints back from the 0.4 versions that they still have not solved, and which really spoil the experience: 1) still problems with hotmail.
2) frequent hangups that cause the entire program to fail, independent of the sandboxed tabs.
3) too limited crash recovery.

Here we go (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26392959)

in the footsteps of Firefox on the road to bloatville :(

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>