×

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!

2.0 Beta Chrome On Windows, Chromium On Linux

kdawson posted about 5 years ago | from the ooh-shiny dept.

Google 258

AlienRancher writes "Google launched this morning a new beta version of Chrome 2.0: 'The best thing about this new beta is speed — it's 25% faster on our V8 benchmark and 35% faster on the Sunspider benchmark than the current stable channel version and almost twice as fast when compared to our original beta version.' Other enhancements include user script support (greasemonkey-like) and form auto-fill." And reader Lee Mathews adds news of the open source version, Chromium, on Linux: "Not only has Chromium gotten easier to take for a test drive thanks to the personal package archive for Ubuntu Chrome daily build team, but development on the browser is also progressing nicely. Despite being a very early build, Chromium on Linux feels solid and boasts the same blazing speed the Windows users have been enjoying for months."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

258 comments

Still waiting for adblock :( (4, Interesting)

blahbooboo (839709) | about 5 years ago | (#27236123)

I love Chrome, so fast!! Shame Firefox is so slow nowadays. Just wish there were adblock for Chrome and I am switching!

Re:Still waiting for adblock :( (5, Informative)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 5 years ago | (#27236161)

Edit your hosts file (theres even one for Windows), and put in all adservers to redirect to localhost. There. No ads, similarly, no extra bloat from Adblock. Plus, it works on whatever, e-mail, browsers, etc.

Re:Still waiting for adblock :( (3, Informative)

blahbooboo (839709) | about 5 years ago | (#27236181)

Edit your hosts file (theres even one for Windows), and put in all adservers to redirect to localhost. There. No ads, similarly, no extra bloat from Adblock. Plus, it works on whatever, e-mail, browsers, etc.

Thanks for the tip. But this has been discussed before on slashdot the problems with the privoxy and host file mechanisms.

Re:Still waiting for adblock :( (3, Interesting)

keeboo (724305) | about 5 years ago | (#27236359)

Edit your hosts file (theres even one for Windows), and put in all adservers to redirect to localhost. There. No ads, similarly, no extra bloat from Adblock. Plus, it works on whatever, e-mail, browsers, etc.

Thanks for the tip. But this has been discussed before on slashdot the problems with the privoxy and host file mechanisms.

AFAIR Privoxy needs to load the whole page before delivering to the client (that's expected, since it needs the whole stuff in memory in order to analyse it properly).

Anyways, if your problem is restricted to not displaying advertisements, you may try Ziproxy [sourceforge.net].
It's a transcoding proxy (recompresses pictures and other stuff) and it has a number of weird features, one of those being an option which may be used to replace only pictures from a URL list for empty ones. Not really an ad-blocker proxy per se, but it may be used that way.

Re:Still waiting for adblock :( (4, Insightful)

Tom9729 (1134127) | about 5 years ago | (#27236249)

At least for me, Adblock is much more convenient (though I do use a hosts file to block some of the nastier stuff). It is updated automatically, it lets me whitelist sites, and it's pretty useful for blocking annoying avatars/signatures on forums.

Re:Still waiting for adblock :( (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27237061)

agreed. adblock seems to do the whitespace thing a lot better

Re:Still waiting for adblock :( (5, Informative)

Eil (82413) | about 5 years ago | (#27236815)

Edit your hosts file (theres even one for Windows), and put in all adservers to redirect to localhost. There. No ads, similarly, no extra bloat from Adblock. Plus, it works on whatever, e-mail, browsers, etc.

While somewhat effective, that's a very crude way of blocking ads. Adblock can block ads and other content based on regular expressions (for example, */ads/*) and can auto-subscribe to a regularly-updated blocklist. I especially like how you can pretty much click on a particular element and say, "here, block this" whether it's an ad or not. And it doesn't really add any noticeable bloat to the browser. My only gripe is that it doesn't support more browsers.

Re:Still waiting for adblock :( (2)

Abcd1234 (188840) | about 5 years ago | (#27236843)

IMHO, you're much better off with an ad-removing proxy like Privoxy [privoxy.org] if you really want to live without a built-in solution like AdBlock. It gives you much finer control over what is and isn't blocked.

Re:Still waiting for adblock :( (1)

Kingrames (858416) | about 5 years ago | (#27236859)

While you and blahbooboo probably won't agree, I, for one, consider noscript to be the "adblock" for firefox.

That, and I want a "firesomething" addon for Chrome. :)

When google supports extensions for its browser, I'll switch. It is nicer, but I have my demands.

Re:Still waiting for adblock :( (3, Informative)

Thaelon (250687) | about 5 years ago | (#27237185)

Doesn't work nearly so well as adblock.

And with a big enough hosts file windows can take an extra 30 seconds to boot while it loads all that into the DNS cache.

And you can't wildcard hosts, so it's a pretty kludgey workaround actually.

Chrome - Feels Like A Running A New Computer (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27236295)

Not sure how Google does it but running Chrome gives that feeling of when you get a new computer and all of your old apps seem lighting quick and responsive compared to before.

But it isn't just the incredible speed of Chrome it is the fact that no matter how long you run it still feels exactly as quick and responsive as when you started it up. When I use to run Firefox a few months ago before switching to Chrome I could feel Firefox getting slower and slower and slower as the hours of use ticked by until finally getting annoyed enough to have to quit the app and restart it. Doesn't seem like a big deal but I would end up restarting Firefox three to four times every day just to clear out whatever 'junk' it seems to accumulate.

I thought there were going to be all sorts of extensions I would miss but with Privoxy for ad blocking there isn't anything else that care about. Extensions in Chrome will be nice but so far Chrome + Privoxy is browsing heaven.

Firefox is a stinking pile of garbage (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27236381)

Let's just sum up the state of the three major browsers:

Chrome
Multithreaded Javascript and code for each tab.
Memory protection for each tab so no single tab can take down the browser.
Quick and responsive native UI.

IE
Multithreaded Javascript and code for each tab.
Memory protection for each tab so no single tab can take down the browser.
Quick and responsive native UI.

Firefox
All tabs and Javascript run in one giant mess. One execution heavy tab drags down the performance of the entire browser
No memory protection. Everything is in one gigantic soup of data. One tab crashes, down goes the whole browser
Clunky and slow crossplatform UI implementation

The latest IE 8's absolutely smoke Firefox in performance and stability. What an absolute humiliation for the Firefox developers. They had years to get their shit together. But they sat on their asses and now they have been left in the technological dust by both Google and Microsoft.

High five Firefox devs!

Re:Firefox is a stinking pile of garbage (5, Interesting)

Daniel Phillips (238627) | about 5 years ago | (#27236765)

Let's just sum up the state of the three major browsers:

Chrome
Multithreaded Javascript and code for each tab.
Memory protection for each tab so no single tab can take down the browser.
Quick and responsive native UI.

IE
Multithreaded Javascript and code for each tab.
Memory protection for each tab so no single tab can take down the browser.
Quick and responsive native UI.

Firefox
All tabs and Javascript run in one giant mess. One execution heavy tab drags down the performance of the entire browser
No memory protection. Everything is in one gigantic soup of data. One tab crashes, down goes the whole browser
Clunky and slow crossplatform UI implementation

The latest IE 8's absolutely smoke Firefox in performance and stability. What an absolute humiliation for the Firefox developers. They had years to get their shit together. But they sat on their asses and now they have been left in the technological dust by both Google and Microsoft.

High five Firefox devs!

Well given that that AC's post is technically accurate I don't really think it's a troll. It's true, Firefox failed to advance in many respects, the way it should have giving its high level of funding. It leaks like a sieve, everybody knows that. I too have to restart it every couple of days or it ooms my machine. Keyboard navigation is still very dodgy. It has big problems with spinning on on web pages that konq just loads gracefully. Etc.

Yes, you can say it's better than IE 5/6/7. I don't know about IE 8, jury is out.

Re:Firefox is a stinking pile of garbage (4, Insightful)

anaesthetica (596507) | about 5 years ago | (#27237263)

Sadly, Firefox developers shifted from "fast and simplified feature set" to "include lots of features to make the web fun & easy." They're working on Firefox 3.5 and 3.6 right now, both of which are feature-driven releases. Astonishingly, the one feature for Firefox 3.5 that makes the release competitive with Chrome & Safari—the new javascript engine, TraceMonkey—was almost cut from the release because it is/was too buggy to fit into their release schedule.

The Mozilla 2.0 [mozillazine.org] project, which is supposed to refactor a good deal of the Gecko code in order to make it leaner and easier to deal with, is not getting much attention at all while the feature-driven point releases consume everyone's attention. Mozilla developers have lost any focus they once had on the fundamentals of browser innovation, and are now given over to the same level of feature bloat that killed the original Mozilla browser (now SeaMonkey). Extensions were supposed to be the solution for this: extra features could be implemented by users so that developers could focus on making the browser faster. Not anymore.

It will not surprise me if the hard core of geeks that abandoned Mozilla Suite for Firefox now abandon Firefox for Chrome and Safari. The first one of those browsers to get an extensions/plugin framework allowing for ad-blocking and development tools will start sucking a lot of folks over.

Re:Firefox is a stinking pile of garbage (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27236849)

the fact that this is modded down says more about firefox and firefox apologists than it does about you or your comments.

Firefox might as well be windows native. The vast majority of firefox users are on windows. the windows build is more optimized than the linux (or mac) build. The UI look and feel, while not win32 native, is based on win32 standards. Until Firefox 3, the linux and mac builds were butt ugly.

Re:Firefox is a stinking pile of garbage (3, Insightful)

Vexorian (959249) | about 5 years ago | (#27237135)

Firefox is cross platform?! Damn those evil firefox developers.

Re:Still waiting for adblock :( (4, Interesting)

MadMaverick9 (1470565) | about 5 years ago | (#27236383)

Use SRWare Iron ... it has what you're asking for.

It's based on Chromium, but without all the bad stuff plus AdBlock and more ...

http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_news.php [srware.net]
http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_chrome_vs_iron.php [srware.net]

11.10.2008: Adblocker integrated in Iron

The wish of many users comes true: We integrated an Adblocker in Iron!
With a filterlist so nearly all online-advertising can be blocked. A working list can be downloaded here and just has to be copied to the Iron folder (e.g: C:\Program Files\SRWare Iron\). Note: You must first get the latest version of Iron you can find under "Downloads".
So Iron is the first Chromium based webbrowser worldwide which has an adblocker included.

And ... SRWare Iron has a proper installer - per default it installs in "C:\Program Files", which is where applications belong.

Unlike Chrome - which installs itself in "C:\Documents and Settings\<username>\...." - argh - duh.

Re:Still waiting for adblock :( (1, Informative)

blahbooboo (839709) | about 5 years ago | (#27237137)

Use SRWare Iron ... it has what you're asking for.

It's based on Chromium, but without all the bad stuff plus AdBlock and more ...

http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_news.php [srware.net]

http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_chrome_vs_iron.php [srware.net]

11.10.2008: Adblocker integrated in Iron

The wish of many users comes true: We integrated an Adblocker in Iron!

With a filterlist so nearly all online-advertising can be blocked. A working list can be downloaded here and just has to be copied to the Iron folder (e.g: C:\Program Files\SRWare Iron\). Note: You must first get the latest version of Iron you can find under "Downloads".

So Iron is the first Chromium based webbrowser worldwide which has an adblocker included.

And ... SRWare Iron has a proper installer - per default it installs in "C:\Program Files", which is where applications belong.

Unlike Chrome - which installs itself in "C:\Documents and Settings\<username>\...." - argh - duh.

Wow, this is very promising! Thanks for the tip! Trying it out now!

Re:Still waiting for adblock :( (5, Informative)

jeanph01 (700760) | about 5 years ago | (#27236611)

Well I found out how to do it. I do not have ads anymore in chrome... Go here and follow instructions : http://www.adsweep.org/ [adsweep.org] Basically, since Chrome now support Greasemonkey scripts, you just have to have a good ad blocking script and adsweep is one. I wonder what will be the future extension mecanism of Chrome but with Greasemonkey, there is something very usefull and integrated in the web pages we use. So this is definitely interesting.

Re:Still waiting for adblock :( (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27236893)

I remember when firefox was fast. Eventually, people wanted more and more features... more and more addons... more this and more that. Now it's about as bloated as IE.

Be careful what you wish for.. you may get a firefox clone.

Re:Still waiting for adblock :( (1)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | about 5 years ago | (#27236973)

IE isn't bloated; IE8 feels considerably faster than Firefox (and IE7 feels about the same!).

Firefox is the turd in the punchbowl these days. I still use it because I like AdBlock, but if ABP ever comes out for Chrome, I'm gone.

Re:Still waiting for adblock :( (1)

fractoid (1076465) | about 5 years ago | (#27237031)

Just wish there were adblock for Chrome and I am switching!

Would this adblock filter out google ads? That would seem... somewhat contrary to their corporate goals.

Re:Still waiting for adblock :( (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27237219)

I like jizz in my hot grits.

Wake me up when... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27236133)

Until Adblock+ and NoScript are available for the Linux version I'm not the least bit interested. And if there are Google-specific exceptions to ABP, forget it.

Re:Wake me up when... (1, Informative)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 5 years ago | (#27236179)

Edit your hosts file to block all ad servers. Its quick and painless. As for NoScript, I'm not a huge fan of it (its more of a pain then anything else, and as a Linux/obscure pre-alpha release user most generic attacks fail) so I haven't found a substitute.

Re:Wake me up when... (5, Insightful)

tpgp (48001) | about 5 years ago | (#27236275)

Edit your hosts file to block all ad servers. Its quick and painless.

Not as quick & painless as Adblock. Especially when it comes to maintenance.

Re:Wake me up when... (1)

owlnation (858981) | about 5 years ago | (#27236653)

adblock is definitely easier. While adblock is necessary, it's flashblock that is an absolute must have for me. I can almost live with ads, I cannot live with flash running without control.

I did read somewhere that flashblock and adblock were being worked on for Chrome -- does anyone know more?

As soon as there's a mac version of Chrome, and adblock and flashblock, Firefox is done for me.

It's a shame, Firefox's gone from being the most innovative, fast, must-have browser to being the least innovating, slow, bloated browser in the space of 4 years. What are the Mozilla developers thinking? They only have themselves to blame. The writing has been on the wall for them for about a year. It's a dead browser surfing. It's only a matter of time before it goes the way of Netscape at this point.

Re:Wake me up when... (5, Insightful)

cryptoluddite (658517) | about 5 years ago | (#27236445)

Edit your hosts file to block all ad servers. Its quick and painless.

www.example.com/index.html
www.example.com/ads/annoying.swf

When people say they want adblock and noscript and you say "just edit your hosts file" you sound like another fanboy making up excuses. When I was using adblock I had */ads/* and a bunch of others that are not even possible with a hosts file.

As for NoScript, I'm not a huge fan of it (its more of a pain then anything else

Wha? NoScript can occasionally be a mild hassle, but it basically automatically block all annoying ads automatically AND all that useless unrendered crap like google-analytics AND in practice it makes your browsing a hell of a lot more secure than separate processes.

Re:Wake me up when... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27236719)

And it's not just ABP and NoScript!

What about the awesome web developer toolbar? firebug? selenium? tamper data? foxyproxy? DOM inspector? down them all? ...

What it lacks in [literally countless] features (built-in or via extensions) and customizability (is that even a word?), it makes up for in spyware seemingly (RLZ identifier, clientID, logging everything you type in the address bar, etc)

Thanks, but no thanks.

Re:Wake me up when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27236863)

Hypocrite.

Aside from the fact most ads are hosted by a company other than the one you are looking at, meaning ads can be blocked for multiple websites by one line in your host file, there are similar alternatives that would allow wildcards to be used at will.

Also, then you can do things like try other browsers and still not see ads. It doesn't restrict you, and especially for THIS crowd should be a trivial thing to do.

Oh and about NoScript, I'm sure its great once you have it setup but considering the number of sites I had to add exceptions and the like for in the first few days of use and having to fiddle with crap in order to see websites I've never been to before for no real reason just made it usless to me.

I also find it funny you are willing to twiddle with NoScript but editing a host file is too much work for you so you refuse to use anything but FireFox on the grounds they don't have a FireFox plugin...

Re:Wake me up when... (1)

Vexorian (959249) | about 5 years ago | (#27237231)

I also find it funny you are willing to twiddle with NoScript but editing a host file is too much work for you

It is ages away from being as complicated as a hosts file, but whatever editing hosts is not that difficult, however, it doesn't really work as well as a javascript black/white list. Noscript does wonders, and well if you can't get used to it/use it effectively, that's not my problem. I still enjoy it and I would seriously, miss it if I had to run chrome instead of firefox.

so you refuse to use anything but FireFox on the grounds they don't have a FireFox plugin...

Hell yeah, and you know what? Me, too! I am far, far , far away of ever caring at all about browser speed, and I have tried both firefox 3.1 and chrome in windows, I just cannot notice any difference in speed! Ok, maybe I am immune to placebos - maybe most of my browsing time is consumed by downloading the webpage rather than by rendering speed - maybe chrome focuses on high-end computers and fails absurdly on my beloved 5 years old computer - I have no idea, I just can't notice any difference !

I am sure you will post zillions of benchmarks about how chrome is faster than firefox... But, I don't care! I care the most about MY browsing experience,

So listen slowly, firefox is actually open source, and not "pretend source" which means it isn't like Chrome which has some open source off-spring from which it takes free code while the official thing completely removes all your freedom... firefox can actually run all the addons I like. Things that make MY browsing experience easier, so maybe you don't like them or something, that's the whole reason firefox has addons... a browser without addons is just a very stupid idea... Firefox actually runs in Linux, windows and OS/X, and guess what? It actually looks like it belongs to the host OS! No, they didn't have the brilliant idea to replace the whole interface so it looks 'cool' as defined by some google employee...

And yes, I prefer using noscript as a single "temporarily allow this page" every time in three days when I want to run a javascript is much easier than having to periodically add new hosts to ban to a hostfile and also having to temporarily remove them - My god that would be stupid, at least ubuntu allows you to edit hosts from an actual dialog - Besides of the little fact Hosts files don't work as they will disallow you from the whole site while noscript can just allow you to stop using javascript in one site while you STILL have access to it! Such an innovation!

So, yeah, as long as Chrome doesn't qualify as a good browser in MY definition, I won't use it, cause I decide what stuff to use and not some nerd posting benchmarks or getting too excited about google's little plan to make all web pages become apps... I don't care about speed cause it really makes no difference in my life , and I don't get any fuzzy warm feeling inside when yelling "TEH BROWSR I USE IS TEH FASTEST" to other people... I do care about memory and chrome was a little dissapointing there in comparison to latest firefox 3.1, I don't really care THAT much about memory anyway, so if chrome managed to become good ( open source, cross platform, addons, no horrid interface that goes against the host's theme) I would use it - but until then...

Re:Wake me up when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27237325)

Privoxy allows for wildcard filtering.

About the benchmarks (1)

Faryshta (1362521) | about 5 years ago | (#27236157)

Was those benchmarks taken on Linux, Windows or both? If the answer is both, can we see a comparation? If the answer is only Windows, well there you go some journal material folks

Still waiting... (3, Funny)

egcagrac0 (1410377) | about 5 years ago | (#27236187)

Chrome on Linux. Any decade now. (Chromium isn't quite the same.)

Re:Still waiting... (3, Insightful)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | about 5 years ago | (#27236783)

I agree. Chromium completely lacks Google Updater, Google Toolbar, Google Desktop Search....

Re:Still waiting... (4, Insightful)

AnalPerfume (1356177) | about 5 years ago | (#27237081)

Yep, you can't love without all the Google data mining tools tracking everything your browser does.....well, some can't. Personally it's the main reason I won't be touching the official Google Chrome on ANY platform. At least an Open Source port can be built without all that shit in it.

Oh yeah, I echo the calls for an AdBlock and NoScript type functionality in Chrome.

direct download link (server already slow) (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27236197)

Try this with a multi-connection download

http://cache.pack.google.com/edgedl/chrome/install/169.1/chrome_installer.exe

but does it (4, Interesting)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | about 5 years ago | (#27236201)

...still have the stupid installer that won't go away?

Re:but does it (4, Informative)

Blue Stone (582566) | about 5 years ago | (#27236515)

Do you mean the stupid and annoying Googleupdate, that sits there. All the time. Running even when you aren't using any Google software? And that even when it runs on a schedule, will sit there all the time anyway, doing nothing?

Definitely a negative side to using any of Google's apps.

Re:but does it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27236575)

You can turn it off.

Out of habit I turn off trying-to-be-resident apps via msconfig, I'm not sure if it can be configured to do so directly. But you're on slashdot so it shouldn't be that big of a deal to circumvent it.

It certainly doesn't require googleupdate.exe to be running.

how to remove (its not that simple) (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27236767)

its not in msconfig as its installed a service (they thought of that) even hijackthis wont kill it due to permissions (it runs as system) if its running it puts itself right back

to remove it you need to
start>run>services.msc
find google service in list, double click it and take note of the service name
it should be something like googleupdatesvc(randomcharacters)
stop the service (if its running)
then open a command prompt (in admin mode if you are on vista) and type
sc delete "nameofgoogleservice"
then go into controlpanel>scheduled tasks
and delete the google job

and voila its not running anymore, then for full piece of mind delete the googleupdate exe in its folder.

As you can see, its just as malicious to remove as most spyware, so we (our company) treats it as such, the fact that its google[donoevil] means nothing to us as we can only judge by an applications behaviour

there's a fork (2, Informative)

nephridium (928664) | about 5 years ago | (#27237191)

I've posted it before and I'll post it again (seems most people still don't know about it): there is a fork from the Chromium project that not only does away with all the "phoning home features" including the annoying background-lurking installer, it also allows for an ad-blocker (looking at the forums, several different ones are available apparently, though I'm using the hosts file myself): Get it here [srware.net]

They also got a "portable" version that requires no installation and stores all settings in the Iron folder (which I'm using).

The source code is also available.

Namespace collision (3, Informative)

Valacosa (863657) | about 5 years ago | (#27236229)

Chromium? A year from now, when I do an apt-get expecting to download a Raptor-style shooter, I'll be downloading a browser instead. Why didn't they pick a name which wasn't already taken?

Re:Namespace collision (3, Informative)

natrixgli (1451261) | about 5 years ago | (#27236299)

To apt-get the browser, you'll need to use "chromium-browser" so I don't think it'll be an issue.

Re:Namespace collision (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27236351)

$ aptitude show epiphany{,-browser}
Package: epiphany
State: not installed
Version: 0.7.0-2
Priority: optional
Section: games
Maintainer: Joerg Jaspert
Uncompressed Size: 250k
Depends: epiphany-data (>= 0.7.0), libc6 (>= 2.7-1), libgcc1 (>=
                  1:4.1.1-21), libsdl-mixer1.2 (>= 1.2.6),
                  libsdl1.2debian (>= 1.2.10-1), libstdc++6 (>= 4.2.1-4)
Description: clone of Boulder Dash game
  Epiphany is a multi-platform clone of Boulder Dash. In this
  game, the player must collect all the valuable minerals
  scattered in each level, while avoiding being hit by a falling
  boulder or, worse, by a bomb.

  Boulder Dash was one of the best games ever made for the
  Commodore 64.

Tags: game::arcade, implemented-in::c++, interface::x11,
            role::program, use::gameplaying, x11::application

Package: epiphany-browser
State: installed
Automatically installed: no
Version: 2.24.3-2
Priority: optional
Section: gnome
Maintainer: Josselin Mouette
Uncompressed Size: 32.8k
Depends: epiphany-gecko
Description: Intuitive web browser - dummy package
  Epiphany is a simple yet powerful GNOME web browser targeted at
  non-technical users. Its principles are simplicity and
  standards compliance.

  This dummy package installs Epiphany with the Gecko backend by
  default.
Homepage: http://www.gnome.org/projects/epiphany/

Tags: implemented-in::c, interface::x11, network::client,
            protocol::http, protocol::ssl, role::program,
            scope::application, suite::gnome, uitoolkit::gtk,
            use::browsing, web::browser, works-with::text,
            works-with-format::html

Re:Namespace collision (5, Informative)

danhm (762237) | about 5 years ago | (#27236363)

It's only called "Chromium" because it's an unofficial build; once Google finally releases a GNU/Linux version it is expected that it will also be called Google Chrome. At least that's what the article implies.

Re:Namespace collision (2, Interesting)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | about 5 years ago | (#27236845)

It's only called "Chromium" because it's an unofficial build

You seem to think Chromium is to Chrome what Minefield is to Firefox (Can't that be represented as Chromium:Chrome::Minefield:Firefox?)
I am pretty sure that Chrome is more of a branded fork, like IceCat (Iceweasel?) is to Firefox.

Linux Repositories == FAIL (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27236465)

Way to go Linux! Gotta love those idiotic distribution BandAids that are repositories!

Listening to the Linux fanboys trying to convince the 99 percent of the computing world they are missing out the 'amazing' Linux application distribution method.

Windows: Click on a link in the story about the new software app. Installer takes care of everything.

OS X: Click on a link in the story about the new software app. Simply drag it to anywhere you want.

Linux:

Post link crying about how it isn't in the repository of your distro. Possibly go grab the source and try to compile it yourself. Spend hours tracking down library and build dependencies. Give up. Finally find a link to someone who has managed to build for your distro version. Try to manually place the right files that are scattered throughout the Linux files system because the is no standard App bundle format like on OS X. Meanwhile the bearded-GNU freak with the chiliburger stained Star Trek uniform teeshirt who is in charge of packaging software for your distro has woken up from his night of World of Warcraft raiding and bong hits and decides to get around to getting your software into the repository servers sometime next week. Maybe.

emerge -s chromium (1)

corychristison (951993) | about 5 years ago | (#27236291)

Searching...
[ Results for search key : chromium ]
[ Applications found : 1 ]

* games-action/chromium
            Latest version available: 0.9.12-r6
            Latest version installed: [ Not Installed ]
            Size of files: 1,710 kB
            Homepage: http://www.reptilelabour.com/software/chromium/ [reptilelabour.com]
            Description: Chromium B.S.U. - an arcade game
            License: Artistic

Doesn't look like it's available on Gentoo.

Linux version. (1)

Ragingguppy (464321) | about 5 years ago | (#27236309)

Sure would be nice to be able to download the Linux version of chrome some time soon. Been waiting for it for months.

Is this a WINE wrapper? (2, Interesting)

bootup (1220024) | about 5 years ago | (#27236327)

I didn't read the article- but is this the WINE supported version or an actual x86 compiled native build for GNU/Linux they refer? Or is this something completely different altogether? Based on the few comments I actually read it sounds like this isn't Google's browser even.

Re:Is this a WINE wrapper? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27236361)

Idiot.

Did they say it was to be based on GTK? (3, Interesting)

bogaboga (793279) | about 5 years ago | (#27236397)

I think I heard that somewhere. Here is my hope: -

As Google releases these betas, those capable keep up and push out a native QT (and therefore KDE) based "Google Chrome" browser. I hope this is not too much to ask for.

On a side note, I wonder why they have to call it "Google Chrome" on Windows and "Chromium" on Linux.

Re:Did they say it was to be based on GTK? (4, Informative)

Plug (14127) | about 5 years ago | (#27236449)

See the "this browser is not ready" [chromium.org] start page:

Chromium is an open source browser project. Google Chrome is a browser from Google, based on the Chromium project. This is a build of Chromium. No versions of Google Chrome for Linux will exist until Google makes an official release.

Obnoxious (-1, Flamebait)

awitod (453754) | about 5 years ago | (#27236473)

Installed it to have a look and it made itself my default browser without asking. Unforgivable. Banished.

Re:Obnoxious (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27236573)

Actually, there is a dialog box when the browser is first run. You likely clicked through it

Re:Obnoxious (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27236883)

File a bug report?

Chrome still misses the point (4, Insightful)

billcopc (196330) | about 5 years ago | (#27236479)

I want to like Chrome, really I do, and I applaud them for speeding up JavaScript, but they are completely ignoring the one feature developers love about Firefox: add-ons!

I actually switched to FF roughly two years ago, when I found out about Firebug and a few other creature comforts. Nowadays, the first thing I do on a new machine is install the 15-20 add-ons that make my job easier and my surfing more comfortable. I tweak the shit out of that browser, and yes it does bog it down a bit with all the excess code, but that's peanuts next to the time I save with all these finely-tuned add-ons. Even if I had just Firebug, WebDeveloper and GreaseMonkey, I could still do just about everything I want with the browser.

I don't know how Chrome works out for regular users, but as a web developer, Firefox is still the supreme hotness. I'd be more supportive if the Chrome devs just ditched their browser and offered the same functionality via Firefox mods (or code contributions). They could even replicate the Chrome UI in FF, for the many folks who like the de-cluttered style.

Re:Chrome still misses the point (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27236563)

and you are still missing the point ...

the idea behind chrome is a rearchitecting of the browser - and thus, it isn't just something that they could do to firefox via some mods .. its a bit deeper than that

perhaps introduce mods into chromium might be a better method methinks ..

Re:Chrome still misses the point (4, Insightful)

cryptoluddite (658517) | about 5 years ago | (#27236839)

and you are still missing the point ...

And you're missing the point.

No user cares about the architecture unless if gives them actual benefits. Firefox addons undeniably give huge benefits to many users.

The only architectural feature of Chrome of note is separate processes per tab. But is that a benefit?

First of all, any crash is unacceptable, and I've been running beta firefox on a daily basis at work and the last time it crashed for me was several months ago. So this is basically no benefit. The only real benefit for stability is running flash in a separate process, which firefox already does with nspluginwrapper.

Now performance. Chrome can make better use of multiple processors, which is great, but it means if you have two tabs open with flash on your dual-core then all your other programs have to compete for resources instead of having an idle CPU to use. Or if you are single-core then you have twice as many procs competing for resources with everything else, making everything else more sluggish. Granted, those are bullshit reasons technically BUT what matter is only what users actually prefer and not what is technically 'best'. Users might prefer all their other apps to be snappy more than their tabs to multitask well.

Memory usage. Chrome can recover memory better when a tab closes, but it wastes more memory for a tab to be open (duplicated images, etc). And once there are ad-ons that need to coordinate among multiple processes, is memory going to explode with each tab? Uncertain. Remember that Java also uses the same concept of a separate process per 'thing' and look how well that works out when you have lots of them running at once.

Frankly, if you give people a 'taste test' between firefox with chromifox theme (makes it look like Chrome) and Chrome, I think you'll find the browser architecture, except to geek fanboys, is pretty low on the totem pole.

Re:Chrome still misses the point (1)

spaceturtle (687994) | about 5 years ago | (#27236873)

Yes chrome GUI is OK, but the real advantage is that Chrome has an decent architecture so that a crash usually doesn't crash the entire browser (this may also have security benefits, as I understand Google sandboxes the tabs). See: http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/features.html# [google.com]

You can't do that as a mod to firefox (You'd have to do it as a mod to Emacs instead ;)

Re:Chrome still misses the point (1)

Joe Tie. (567096) | about 5 years ago | (#27236913)

It might be fair to say they're being a bit slow on getting extensions, but they're hardly ignoring it. It's on the development timeline, people are working on preliminary code for it right now.

Re:Chrome still misses the point (4, Insightful)

AnalPerfume (1356177) | about 5 years ago | (#27237127)

Google must be split on the idea of addons for Chrome. Without addons Firefox users wouldn't be blocking Google adverts, blocking Google's Analaytics etc at every turn. I don't doubt that this was a major factor in deciding to build their own browser, which won't allow Google's data mining / advertising machine to be blocked. Unfortunately for them, the cat is out of the bag for a lot of users who now know it's possible, and insist that the browser they use be able to do it. Firefox can with addons, Opera can by editing a text file but Google really must be in a quandry over letting Chrome users do it. If they don't adapt to the addon system they will only ever be a minority to Firefox and Opera, if they do then AdBlock and NoScript will appear very quickly. If they then try the Apple approach and ban anything which competes with (or in this case, blocks) their own stuff, they will not only get bad PR which affects the "do no evil" image they've carefully promoted but will push people who converted early to Chrome under the assumption that addons will appear sometime down the line and that these features will appear when they're ready. How many of those will then switch back to their previous browser of choice if they know advert and script blocking ain't gonna be allowed.

Re:Chrome still misses the point (2, Insightful)

RoFLKOPTr (1294290) | about 5 years ago | (#27237323)

I'd be more supportive if the Chrome devs just ditched their browser and offered the same functionality via Firefox mods (or code contributions). They could even replicate the Chrome UI in FF, for the many folks who like the de-cluttered style.

You obviously haven't the slightest clue about what makes Chrome such a revolutionary browser. Here, let me sum it up for you. Chrome has sandboxing features at every level of the application. Each tab runs in its own process in its own memory space, so if a tab crashes, the program as a whole remains stable. Each app within each tab also runs in its own process, so if Flash Player or Java crash, the tab as a whole remains stable. This memory handling nearly eliminates the possibility of memory leaks, because a tab's process is terminated (rendering its memory allocation empty) when you close a tab. Chrome uses WebKit, which is a very fast rendering engine on its own... but pair that with the javascript engine that Google wrote from scratch to be as fast and efficient as possible, and you get THE fastest graphical browser on the market at release date. I believe the betas of a couple browsers are faster than the current stable Chrome... but I'd like to see how this new beta Chrome holds up.

It is THAT, along with its open-sourcedness, and Google's announcements that their plan isn't to dominate the browser market, but to compete in it to promote more advanced browser technologies (remember that their services are AJAX, whose speed is more dependent upon engine efficiency than coding at this point) that make Chrome so great.

(Let it be known for the record that I used Chrome for about 4 months since it was released before I switched back to Firefox because of add-ons)

All I can say to this is... (5, Interesting)

david.given (6740) | about 5 years ago | (#27236525)

...my god it's fast.

Start up in under half a second. From cold.

When you resize it, the text moves smoothly, the way old-fashioned Xlib apps used to do. My Firefox installation gets about two redraws a second.

Render speed seems to be decent, and it generally feels snappy in a way that Firefox doesn't.

However: this is in no way ready to be used as a browser, even if you're masochistic. No dialogue boxes, so no setting of options. No tab control; you always see the most recent tab, and there's no way of selecting another one. Rendering glitches; Slashdot won't render, for example (although this might be considered a feature). And it's unstable. Five minutes playing made it crash three times.

But I'm going to continue watching with great interest. I'd love to ditch Firefox.

Re:All I can say to this is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27236777)

I'm posting this from Chrome 2, so Slashdot does render, at least on my XP machine. Hasn't crashed in my first 5 minutes either. What are you talking about no dialog boxes/setting options? I was able to get into the options dialog box on the second try (the first time it opened the about box and I swear I clicked on options).

Sounds like your system just doesn't like Chrome 2.

Re:All I can say to this is... (1)

slyn (1111419) | about 5 years ago | (#27237283)

I can't wait until its available for OS X. I switched from Safari 3 to Firefox 3 when FF3 first came out, but in the past few months I've been looking forward to either Chrome for OS X or Safari 4 coming out.

Firefox takes FOREVER to start up. Like 6-8 seconds. CS4 programs start faster than it. I'm sure this is mostly attributable to the 33,000+ site history I've built up since I installed it, in conjunction with the awesome bar (which I am apparently one of the few fans of). If its getting slow because of my large history (which I'm sure pales in comparison to some /.-ers), then they should have picked a method of storing the history info that scales better. Nonetheless, performance degrades over time open too, and it hasn't yet given up its memory hog ways. It crashes maybe twice a week, and JavaScript performance has gotten slow to the point that even just on heavily commented /. articles I can scroll down faster than the page is loading the comments (and download speed is plenty fast).

Firefox is still better than IE, but the truth is that despite market share, IE is no longer its direct competition. IE is already slowly dying, and Chrome, Safari, and to a lesser extent, Opera are its new measuring sticks. Beating IE at "the internet" is like taking candy from a baby, now Firefox needs to realize its competing against some bigger kids, and adjust accordingly.

I hope it does, if only for the sake of competition.

FANTASTIC! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27236543)

This is great! A crazy fast browser I cant use because it only supports windows is now even faster! that surely soothes the suffering that it's still fucking windows only.

how about you get it running multi-platform first, before you work on optimization; that way you wont have to re-do the optimization again every time you find that the way you did it only works on windows

Re:FANTASTIC! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27236771)

u need to apt-get waaaaambulance

Sorry, but Chrome is Google controlled... (-1, Troll)

Hurricane78 (562437) | about 5 years ago | (#27236623)

... which puts it in the same league with Microsoft, Eli Lilly, Shell, Deutsche Bank, etc.
Huge company, with no moral values whatsoever. The only difference is that Google told us it would "do no harm".
An advertising company that does no harm... Yeah. Right. Next you tell me that there is a lawyer company for politicians, that does no harm. ;)

It is Google controlled. So it never was, isn't and never will be getting even close to me.

Re:Sorry, but Chrome is Google controlled... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27236659)

Still, it's open source. Wait until they finish the Linux port, then we'll fork it.

Re:Sorry, but Chrome is Google controlled... (1)

DrDitto (962751) | about 5 years ago | (#27236689)

Its open source. You can create your own fork if you want. Also the Mozilla Foundation gets most of their money these days from Google. Its nice to have companies, that make real money by providing real value, pay people to develop software.

Perhaps, but it wants me to accept other license (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27237203)

Maybe, but when I try to download it, it wants me to accept 'Google Chrome - Service conditions' which, on a cursory glance, appear to give Google the right to fuck my box until it breaks. No thanks. I'll wait until a proper free as in freedom build arrives.

Re:Sorry, but Chrome is Google controlled... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27236827)

sorry but have to lol this!

Re:Sorry, but Chrome is Google controlled... (1)

Ant P. (974313) | about 5 years ago | (#27236837)

Next you'll be telling us that castrating MNG support in Firefox was "for the good of the web".

Someone's copying Windows' UI now! (1)

baxissimo (135512) | about 5 years ago | (#27236709)

This could be the first this is happened in a long while.
The little video on the download site touts "a cool new way to drag tabs out to get a side-by-side view". Look like they ripped that off directly from Windows 7.

I've got no complaints. It's a good idea that the Win7 folks had there, I think. Then again I wouldn't be surprised if TVVWM had it back in 1990. Actually what I'd really like to see borrowed from ancient X win window managers is the "maximize vertically" command. That was really useful.

Re:Someone's copying Windows' UI now! (1)

irockash (1265506) | about 5 years ago | (#27236947)

That got me excited for a second. I was hoping for cascading or tiled tabs, like in Opera.

Then I dragged it out and its a new window, even though the new icon on the task bar says "New Tab."

Still wickedly fast though... Just wondering why they haven't built in any kind of "Google Sync" to keep your bookmarks or notes (again, like Opera). Kind of a no-brainer for Google...

Re:Someone's copying Windows' UI now! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27237011)

Windows 7 has that vertical maximize feature (if it is as the description implies); just drag the upper or lower border to the edge of the screen.

Last post! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27236867)

Ahem! Chaps, very sorry but this is the last post in this thread. Under orders from Her Majesty The Queen, I am bidden to say: 'Last post!'

Nuclear submarines are patrolling the Atlantic. If anyone posts past this point, one of these subs will put to shore and despatch an elite team of Redcoats to come and steal your washing.

You have been warned. Last post, ladies and gentlemen. Last post!

Re:Last post! (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | about 5 years ago | (#27236917)

Nuclear submarines are patrolling the Atlantic.

Better hope no French subs are in the area.

Re:Last post! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27237141)

Better hope no French subs are in the area.

That was no accident, it happened because one of the Frenchmen on board posted to Slashdot.fr after 'dernier poteau' was called.

You know what happened to the French, respect the last post call!

who gives a fuck (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27236933)

obama has his dick firmly in your ass and you're worried about this? if you're a tax payer you're currently getting fucked by the obama administration. he's drilling deep in your ass and you're begging for more as a bunch of low life moochers live off your dime. dumb motherfuckers.

Speed is not an issue (2, Insightful)

microbee (682094) | about 5 years ago | (#27237055)

It's already fast enough. Or, put another way, killing all the ads IS the best way to boost performance.

Give me Adblock and TabMix-level control of interface, and I'm ready to switch!

fiRst Hpost?! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27237199)

progrees. Any halt. Even Emacs with the laundry you are a screaming cycle; take a ofone single 4uny volume of NetBSD are having trouble Would be a bad

full screen (1)

mortram (761154) | about 5 years ago | (#27237343)

not listed among the new features but I hit F11, habitually, and found that there is now a full screen mode

Don't trust browsers from companies that sell ads (3, Insightful)

Logic Worshiper (1480539) | about 5 years ago | (#27237345)

Google makes it's money by selling online adds. Why would they make a browser giving you the tools to block those adds? They won't. They'll make a browser which gives them more control over your browsing experience, and you less. Hell, Chrome doesn't even let you block 3rd party cookies, because they don't want the 3rd party cookies they put on your computer to be blocked. Any browser google makes will always be limited by google's business model of selling online adds.

Chrome will never give me the control I want of my browsing experience, because that's not in google's interest. Other community developed versions like SRware might do it for me, if they give me the control I want, and block adds.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...