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 Announces Chrome For Mac and Linux Dev Builds

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the for-greater-shininess dept.

Google 251

Dan Kegel (who admits to being a Chrome developer) writes to point out a post from Mike Smith and Karen Grunberg, Product Managers for Google Chrome, with some good news for non-Windows users who want to play with Chrome: "In order to get more feedback from developers, we have early developer channel versions of Google Chrome for Mac OS X and Linux (for a couple of different Linux distributions), but whatever you do, please DON'T DOWNLOAD THEM! Unless of course you are a developer or take great pleasure in incomplete, unpredictable, and potentially crashing software." (The announcement continues below.)"How incomplete? So incomplete that, among other things , you won't yet be able to view YouTube videos, change your privacy settings, set your default search provider, or even print.

Meanwhile, we'll get back to trying to get Google Chrome on these platforms stable enough for a beta release as soon as possible ..."
The downloads are available through the Chrome developer's channel.

cancel ×

251 comments

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

Already have Safari, kbyethnx (-1, Flamebait)

The Nipponese (875458) | more than 5 years ago | (#28219863)

Why would I need this? I already have a webkit browser with tabs on top.

Re:Already have Safari, kbyethnx (4, Informative)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 5 years ago | (#28219873)

But they aren't... SEPARATED INTO PROCESSES!

OK, seriously and drama aside, I do think that's a good idea, and it also seem to help as a way to help out with memory management. I always thought Safari sucked a lot of RAM, especially on Windows.

Re:Already have Safari, kbyethnx (5, Funny)

arodland (127775) | more than 5 years ago | (#28219885)

Why would I need this? I already have a webkit browser with tabs on top.

Because you want one that doesn't suck.

Re:Already have Safari, kbyethnx (3, Insightful)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220353)

Because you want one that doesn't suck.

And that would be the one that doesn't let you change the (marketing dept. approved I presume) privacy settings and search engine?

I smell a rat.

Re:Already have Safari, kbyethnx (3, Insightful)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220525)

Really, an alpha build is expected to be considered a finished product? They never said we won't let you change privacy settings/search engine, it's called "we haven't even bothered coding features because this isn't stable".

If your ass smells like rats, that explains where your head is.

Re:Already have Safari, kbyethnx (1)

isama (1537121) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220627)

I think parent means safari.. (captain obvious to the rescue!)

Re:Already have Safari, kbyethnx (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220715)

And how it doesn't suck then?

I'd say that Safari and Chrome are comparable. But setting speed aside, Chrome 2.0 really felt more like 0.2 when compared to FireFox. Long list of missing features, blatantly non-existent integration with Google own on-line applications...

I understand the enthusiasm about faster surfing (Chrome is about only browser which can render /. new layout in near real time), but otherwise they have quite long way before minimalist's feature parity.

Re:Already have Safari, kbyethnx (4, Insightful)

TitusC3v5 (608284) | more than 5 years ago | (#28219891)

Why would I need this? I already have a webkit browser with tabs on top.

Because multiple players means competition, and competition means innovation, which leads to a better browsing experience for all of us, regardless of which you're using.

Re:Already have Safari, kbyethnx (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220467)

Most of us have suffered quite enough from "innovation" in web browsers, thank you very much.

Re:Already have Safari, kbyethnx (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28219893)

Webkit + tabs on top. Those are the only important factors to you? No wonder you bought a Mac.

Wha...? (5, Funny)

pHus10n (1443071) | more than 5 years ago | (#28219867)

Quote: "How incomplete? So incomplete that, among other things , you won't yet be able to view YouTube videos, change your privacy settings, set your default search provider, or even print."

What the hell did they release? A box of crayons where you have to draw the Internet manually? :)

Re:Wha...? (-1, Flamebait)

noundi (1044080) | more than 5 years ago | (#28219907)

Before commenting on OSS development process you could, I don't know, do something as wild and crazy as perhaps READING how it's usually done. If you would have used your eyes before your itchy fingers you'd understand that OSS development is more often done behind open doors. Naturally the project has to start somewhere, right? Or did you think the stork delivered software as well?

Re:Wha...? (4, Funny)

pHus10n (1443071) | more than 5 years ago | (#28219963)

Wow.
Before commenting on Slashdot forum posts you could, I don't know, do something as wild and crazy as perhaps READING about how sarcasm is usually done. If you would have used your eyes before your itchy fingers you'd understand that a sarcastic post is more often done out in the open. Naturally the sarcasm has to start somewhere, right? Or did you think that the stork delivered your sense-of-humor as well?
My original post wasn't a radical post against OSS (though I question whether your's was).

Re:Wha...? (5, Funny)

SchizoStatic (1413201) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220015)

I was waiting for a car analogy.

Re:Wha...? (2, Funny)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220375)

I was waiting for a car analogy.

Here you go. [youtube.com]

sorry (1)

the_fat_kid (1094399) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220659)

well, I, for one, welcome our new sarcastic overlords

Re:Wha...? (2, Insightful)

noundi (1044080) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220653)

It seemed more like flamebait and I didn't realise it was a joke, I apologize for that. However in my defense idiots posting such comments seriously aren't rare to find on /.

Again, my apologies. :)

Re:Wha...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28220003)

Woosh

Re:Wha...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28220041)

A box of crayons where you have to draw the Internet manually?

Why, that is a fantastic idea!!
brb, making Internet Etch-a-Sketch.

Re:Wha...? (5, Informative)

mallumax (712655) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220321)

I have been following chrome for mac development closely on my blog [manu-j.com] with weekly updates. Here is a list of the functionality as of Build 17426
What Works

* Almost All Websites
* Bookmark pages
* Most visited sites
* Open link in new tab
* Open new tabs
* Omnibox
* Back, Forward, Reload
* Open link in new window
* Drag a tab to make a window
* Launch new tab
* Cut, Copy, Paste
* Keyboard shortcuts
* about:version, about:dns, about:crash, about:histograms
* Find in page
* History with search
* Form Fill
* Delete Thumbnail in New Tab Page
* Window Positions Remembered
* View Source with synatx highlighting and clickable links

What Doesn't Work

* Plugins (No flash -> No youtube)
* Bookmarks Bar
* Print
* about:network, about:memory
* Web Inspector
* Input methods such as Kotoeri (Japanese)
* Preferences (Partial implementation)
* Full Screen Browsing
* Favicon (thanks brin)

Re:Wha...? (3, Informative)

Eighty7 (1130057) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220417)

Also the linux version doesn't have sandboxing [google.com]

Unlike the Mac [chromium.org] version. I'm sure they'd appreciate hints on how to use SELinux/AppArmor.

Re:Wha...? (1)

Bluesman (104513) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220427)

I'm not current on development for the Mac, but I've heard that multiple processes can't share a single window in OS/X.

Do you happen to know how Chrome works around this, or is this not an actual limitation?

Re:Wha...? (4, Informative)

mallumax (712655) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220647)

I'm not current on development for the Mac, but I've heard that multiple processes can't share a single window in OS/X.

Do you happen to know how Chrome works around this, or is this not an actual limitation?

I'm not a mac dev and what i'm posting here is gleaned from several svn log entries. So it might be wrong and inaccurate :). The chrome architecture is that there is a main process which handles the UI and there is one process per site which is launched but do not handle the UI. In Mac, the one process per site works but if you open up Activity Monitor you will see that the additional processes are shown as "Not responding" though in reality they are.

What is happening here is that OS-X expects the additional processes to respond to UI events and since they don't mark them as "Not Responding". Two solutions have been proposed

1. have dummy code which responds to UI events to keep OS-X happy
2. Rip out the Cocoa code from the additional processes which will make OS-X not expect the process to respond to UI events.

Re:Wha...? (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220597)

What Doesn't Work

* Plugins (No flash -> No youtube)

Hurrah! They've implemented an even more effective Flash stopper than FlashBlock :) Now if only they had generic RPMs for it for us Fedora/openSuse/other users.

Works for posting to Slashdot :) (5, Informative)

timothy (36799) | more than 5 years ago | (#28219875)

I just installed the .deb on this laptop, running Ubuntu 9.10 alpha. So far, seems nice and pleasant :)

I seem some rendering problems, but Hey, I blame google!

timothy

Re:Works for posting to Slashdot :) (1)

timothy (36799) | more than 5 years ago | (#28219941)

That's "see," not "seem." It's late.

timothy

Re:Works for posting to Slashdot :) (4, Funny)

dword (735428) | more than 5 years ago | (#28219969)

Yes, you do seem to have some rendering problems yourself.

Re:Works for posting to Slashdot :) (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28220049)

I've installed the DEB also (on my Ubuntu 9.04). It's pretty stable (has not crashed on me once, though neither has Firefox) and fast. However, my Firefox has close to 80 tabs open (all filled with AJAX, Flash, etc. on my slow 1.4 GHz Celeron M with 512 MB RAM), so I'm not sure how they really compare in terms of noticeable speed while browsing regularly.

Also, just realized Chrome has spell-check!

(By the way, you can upgrade to regular Jaunty. There's no need to keep the Alpha.)

Re:Works for posting to Slashdot :) (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28220431)

GP's using 9.10. It's 6 more days till Alpha 2: Karmic release schedule [ubuntu.com] .

You're lucky (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220169)

If it's working at all for you, you're very lucky. I've been trying every .deb update for a (short) while now, and none of them can even load their own start page. Or google. Not sure if the startpage is google. All I see is an MacOS=9.x-style and/or AtariST-style crashed icon in the center of the page area.

Re:Works for posting to Slashdot :) (2, Funny)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220341)

You've found a browser that actually works with Slashdot? I'm amazed :)

Re:Works for posting to Slashdot :) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28220643)

Does Slashdot render correctly?

Chromium (not Google Chrome) already works nicely (3, Informative)

pieterh (196118) | more than 5 years ago | (#28219877)

I've been using Chromium for some time on my Eee 1000, since FireFox hangs intermittently (slow SSD, which does not like apps that write a lot of stuff).

Chromium is a pleasant experience, fast and snappy. It used to crash all the time (e.g. when doing a copy/paste) but has been improved daily, and is now stable and usable. I don't know what the Google branded version would add on top. "DON'T DOWNLOAD" sounds like reverse psychology. Definitely, download, and use if you have a machine that is a little slower than the average desktop.

Re:Chromium (not Google Chrome) already works nice (1)

reynaert (264437) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220165)

Most Eee PCs have two SSDs: a large, slow one and a small fast one. Firefox became a lot snappier once I moved my profile directory to the fast SSD. Obvious in retrospect, I know...

Re:Chromium (not Google Chrome) already works nice (3, Informative)

asdf7890 (1518587) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220389)

Most Eee PCs have two SSDs: a large, slow one and a small fast one. Firefox became a lot snappier once I moved my profile directory to the fast SSD. Obvious in retrospect, I know...

If you have >512Mb in your netbook you could do what I've done: I keep the entire profile in RAM (on a tmpfs filesystem). On bok the profile is copied in to the ram drive and on shutdown it is rsynced back to the SSD (using --inplace to reduce copy+write operations on the urlclassifier db).

OK so it lengthens boot time a little, but it isn't often the machine is properly shutdown anyway (it tends to be suspended when not in used instead) so doesn't do a full boot often.

The urlclassifier db appears to be the main culprit for the "unexpected" IO in firefox. and even with all the relevant features turned off it seems to keep updating the file. If you don't want to put your whole profile in RAM (there is the risk of losing important bookmarks and cookies and such if the machine unexpectidly loses all power including battery or if normal shutdown scripts otherwise fail to be callde) you could probably just copy this file in and replace it with a symlink.

It's okay (-1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#28219905)

I've used Chrome on Windows, but found it to be lacking features like advertisement blocking, pop-up blocking, and NoScript-like functionality.

Luckily, Firefox works great.

And that's what I don't understand about Chrome. It's definitely a great idea to make Javascript faster, and rendering should always be as fast as possible, and the concept of locking each browser instance to a process is not without merit. But why can't they help Firefox?

Firefox is the standard non-Microsoft browser now. It is a serious contender to IE in ways that no other browser ever was. Only Netscape 3 was in anyway comparable, but we know how NS dropped the ball with Navigator 4.

Open Source software is about freedom, and freedom to do your own thing is definitely a big one. But the Open Source market is also unlike the standard free market. Instead of getting better products due to competition, you get worse products due to the split of resources. By taking interest away from Firefox, Google is possibly killing the only serious competitor to IE.

Killing IE's competition is not a good thing. We all saw the stagnant browser world from IE5 through IE6 where there was no Netscape to set Microsoft's feet on fire and Firebird was still a heap of crap trying to dig itself out of the ashes of Netscape. I'm worried that Google's Chrome effort will stick us all with IE8 as the web standard for years to come.

Re:It's okay (4, Insightful)

Plunky (929104) | more than 5 years ago | (#28219999)

Open Source software is about freedom, and freedom to do your own thing is definitely a big one. But the Open Source market is also unlike the standard free market. Instead of getting better products due to competition, you get worse products due to the split of resources. By taking interest away from Firefox, Google is possibly killing the only serious competitor to IE.

I don't think open source software is necessarily about what you want it to be. Just because Firefox is better than the competition today doesn't mean that Firefox will always be the best but if nobody tries to make anything better then stagnation will ensue. Monoculture is bad no matter who is director and I would rather see 20 options than 2.

Re:It's okay (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28220087)

The "monoculture" of firefox-icefox-ubuntufox-iceweasel.... ? :)

Re:It's okay (1)

LinuxAndLube (1526389) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220039)

They are not eliminating the competition. They are replacing it with their own baby, that's all. Bye bye, Mozilla...

Re:It's okay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28220055)

Apparently you haven't used it enough. Chrome does pop-up blocking, and as far as I know, it works better than Firefox. Notice how sometimes pop-ups come up with Firefox? There's a javascript workaround that is specifically disabled in the V8 engine.

You're clearly biased towards Firefox, irrationally so.

Re:It's okay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28220309)

There's an extension which allows you to block these javascript popups, i'm fairly sure it's called Tab Mix Plus! (might be wrong on this)

Re:It's okay (3, Insightful)

wootest (694923) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220081)

Even if the rest of that argument (let's not have competition now that the browser I think is good is winning) made sense and all that matters is killing IE, Chrome is an additive force. In a world with only IE and Firefox, if you disliked Firefox, there'd be no alternative. There are people who like Chrome better than Firefox; if your goal is killing IE, that's *more* switchers, even if a bunch also switch back and forth between Firefox and Chrome.

However, outside of that, there's nothing bad with having many browsers around. What is bad is having many contrary *concepts* around. Chrome didn't drag a new rendering engine in, they used WebKit, which is good. Actually, they used a fork of WebKit, which is bad, but WebKit has been able to handle this stuff by merging in the necessary abstractions in the past.

Re:It's okay (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28220193)

Firefox for Linux is actually quite shitty, they haven't fixed that scrolling bug in ages.

    - Posted from the x64 .deb version of Chrome, which is working suspiciously well.

Re:It's okay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28220091)

Mainly it is conflict of interest.

Mozilla have went too far at adding ever-more useless features to the Firefox code, instead of fixing the ACTUAL problems with it.
Google do not want that, they went to leave the features entirely to plugins. (more-or-less)

And considering the way that Chrome will handle plugins, i can say this as fact: Chrome >>>> Firefox
Chrome won't waste resources on plugins, you don't want one active? The sub-process is terminated, memory is released, simple. No restarts needed.
Firefox? "Oh, sorry bub, looks like you're going to have to shut 'er all down and wait while i get 'er back on her feet, should take a few minutes if you're lucky."

It is a shame what has happened to Firefox, it could have been so much more, but Mozilla ruined it all. (IMO)
Instead of adding a "billion more features", they could have spent time streamlining the code, actually making the browser more modular to save on resources.

Re:It's okay (2, Insightful)

owlnation (858981) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220125)

Luckily, Firefox works great.

Not on a Mac it doesn't. While Fx 3.0 is far better than previous versions on a Mac, it's still pretty poor. And you can't use Fx 3.0 on older Macs at all.

Adblock and flashblock etc are coming for Chrome. I use Firefox now, but unless Fx4.0 works significantly better on a Mac, and is multi-threaded, my continued use of it is time-limited. That's entirely Mozilla's own fault. They seem to be focusing on rebuilding Firefox as the Netscape suite, rather than actually making the core browser work efficiently.

Google has, unfortunately, been very slow about developing Chrome for Mac (as they usually are for all their software, Macs users appear to be an afterthought for them). This version appears to be intel only -- I sincerely hope that this is going to change. I have an old G3 running 10.3 that looks great and works well for surfing and playing music. I'd absolutely love to get Fx 2.0 off it, and use a browser that works effectively.

Re:It's okay (1)

McDutchie (151611) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220563)

I have an old G3 running 10.3 that looks great and works well for surfing and playing music. I'd absolutely love to get Fx 2.0 off it, and use a browser that works effectively.

The latestOpera [opera.com] still works fine on 10.3. It doesn't "look" very Mac-like but I'd call it effective.

You can also try iCab [www.icab.de] which has interesting features of its own. It uses the system WebKit engine, though, which in 10.3 is outdated.

Re:It's okay (2, Interesting)

McDutchie (151611) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220603)

Sorry for the extra reply. I forgot to recommend Camino [caminobrowser.org] which uses the Gecko rendering engine but is a real Mac application, and has built-in ad blocking.

Cue the "not using until it has adblock" posts (0, Redundant)

vivaoporto (1064484) | more than 5 years ago | (#28219909)

Cue the "not using until it has adblock" posts in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... Seriously, nobody cares if you are not using, no need to repeat it every time.

Re:Cue the "not using until it has adblock" posts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28219955)

http://www.adsweep.org/
Not the same, but it seems to be close enough for me

Re:Cue the "not using until it has adblock" posts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28220477)

privoxy is almost as good, although sometimes over-sensitive.

intel only (1, Offtopic)

pbjones (315127) | more than 5 years ago | (#28219915)

silly me for thinking that my G5 was good enough

Re:intel only (2, Insightful)

lisaparratt (752068) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220209)

Undoubtedly due to the Javascript JIT.

Re:intel only (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220559)

Doesn't support my 68060 either :(

Re:intel only (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28220669)

wow, you knowingly bought a EOL computer and now you're having a whinge it's not supported, nearly 4 years after the last one was sold? wtf mate?

How does this differ? (4, Interesting)

acb (2797) | more than 5 years ago | (#28219959)

How does this differ from the Chromium daily builds [launchpad.net] ? Is it identical only officially a Google product, or are there technical differences?

Re:How does this differ? (1)

zyrorl (1069964) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220245)

chromium builds in the launchpad ppa are newer.

Re:How does this differ? (1)

Haiyadragon (770036) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220441)

For one thing, there's a 64-bit build.

Chromium daily builds: "no native 64bit debs planed for now. The amd64 package is using ia32-libs.".

I guess they had to release a amd64 package to be compliant, so they just build a fake one.

mac version only intel (0, Redundant)

mzs (595629) | more than 5 years ago | (#28219973)

I guess it makes sense if you want exceptionally fast javascript, but still disappointing.

Re:mac version only intel (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220227)

What about Linux on PPC? It's not like this opensource OS is limited to x86.

Re:mac version only intel (0, Redundant)

value_added (719364) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220273)

What about Linux on PPC?

So ... open source is a Linux-only thing?

Re:mac version only intel (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220575)

So ... open source is a Linux-only thing?

No, but Linux is the only opensource OS where these releases are available. But that is somewhat beside the point, which is the assumed monopoly of x86. The same issue affects both OS X and Linux, so while Mac/PPC people are complaining about the situation, Linux/PPC should complain as well.

However, the opensource bit is important, because the assumed x86 monopoly means that many vendors view Linux as just another x86 binary platform. Which really misses the point of using Linux (as an alternative to the closed OSs) altogether.

Re:mac version only intel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28220675)

They're already assuming that Linux is the dominant OSS platform. Assuming x86 is the dominant architecture is hardly a leap.

Re:mac version only intel (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28220869)

IAEATMTWPOA (I always expand abbreviations, thereby mooting the whole point of abbreviations)

PPC: Power Personal Computer
x86: 8086, 80186, 80286, 386, 486, 586, 686 etc. (et cetera)
OS X: Operating System Ten
Mac: MacIntosh

Beta? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28220013)

I'll just wait for the final release.. can't take to long.

repo (1)

sveard (1076275) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220037)

from http://dev.chromium.org/getting-involved/dev-channel [chromium.org] :

Installing Google Chrome will add the Google repository so your system will automatically keep Chrome up to date. (If you don't want Google's repository, do "sudo touch /etc/defaults/google-chrome" before installing the package.)

But it didn't (and I didn't touch /etc/defaults/google-chrome)

Re:repo (1)

SchizoStatic (1413201) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220061)

Did you actually check for updates or hope the magic update fairy would do it for you? I have had no issue with updates on ubuntu with chromium.

Re:repo (1)

sveard (1076275) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220077)

I'm glad you didn't and I'm sure I won't have any issues either, check my other post /etc/cron.daily/google-chrome creates /etc/apt/sources.list.d/google-chrome.list

There's no need to act superior :)

Re:repo (1)

sveard (1076275) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220063)

Okay, never mind my previous post

Knowing Google, they did things differently and added /etc/chron.daily/google-chrome which has the deb line and the signing key

Re:repo (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220145)

added /etc/chron.daily/google-chrome

Hey that is different!

Re:repo (2, Funny)

sveard (1076275) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220191)

I'm posting using Google Crone, it's probably a bug

Distro support is abysmal (0, Redundant)

Aequo (923926) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220059)

It's thoroughly disappointing to see a team of programmers only able to produce releases for Debian-based systems – the "couple of distros" referred to in the story are Ubuntu and Debian. It's also a huge hassle getting it to compile because it's such an enormous download from SVN (gigabytes, I believe; I gave up when it got to 480 megs). Make it a little easier to test please, guys.

Re:Distro support is abysmal (1)

SchizoStatic (1413201) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220073)

Which is why linux is not supported by most software companies. Heh queue the linux distro fight and base system.

Re:Distro support is abysmal (1)

Adam Jorgensen (1302989) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220079)

I agree. This is a joke. I'm running OpenSuse right now and in the past I've mostly used Mandriva. Some RPMs would go a long way... The world does not begin and end at .deb

I humbly disagree. (1)

VulpesFoxnik (1493687) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220247)

Your joking, right? The Debian package distribution method is older and more sturdy than the RPM method of packaging. I remember trying to update to KDE 3.5 (when it was new) Suse ( 7 I believe ) and the system did not come back up due to dependencies. Debian's APT System is more intuitive, and contains checking inter-dependencies that RPM just does not have. The only method of distribution that is equal to it is the tar.bz2 / tar.gz methods.

Re:I humbly disagree. (1)

Aequo (923926) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220453)

Stop comparing apples and oranges; automated dependency management is separate to the package manager. openSUSE has Zypper, for example, which does fantastic dep checking and resolution. Lots of recent innovation has been happening in RPM anyway -- the move to LZMA compression in some places for smaller packages and faster decompression is a good example.

Re:Distro support is abysmal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28220279)

For testing purposes you can just extract the files from deb. I just did this Arch using dpkg installed from AUR. Sure, it doesn't integrate with the rest of installed packages, but I'm not committed to using it full time anyway.

Re:Distro support is abysmal (1)

jocknerd (29758) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220705)

5 years ago I was arguing the same thing except I was questioning why everything was only packaged up as RPM.

Of course I do! (3, Funny)

metacell (523607) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220105)

"[...]but whatever you do, please DON'T DOWNLOAD THEM! Unless of course you are a developer or take great pleasure in incomplete, unpredictable, and potentially crashing software."

Of course I do. I used Windows 95 for years!

Re:Of course I do! (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220127)

I am posting from Chrome now. It seems quite zippy. I didn't expect it to be (or seem) faster than Firefox. I wonder if the XUL middleware in FF slows things down.

Yuck, a Chrome developer (2, Funny)

cerberusss (660701) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220121)

Dan Kegel (who admits to being a Chrome developer)

They say it like it's something dirty!

Girl: "Mom, I've got a new boyfriend."
Mum: "Really, pumpkin?"
Girl: "Yes. He's a Chrome developer!"
Mum: "Oh!" *faints*
Dad: *finally looks over his newspaper* "Straight to your room YOUNG LADY! You're grounded for a week with no telephone!"

Still mad at Google (3, Insightful)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220129)

Trust me, I admire Google. But I am mad at them for using the "wrong" toolkit in developing Chrome for Linux. Slashdotters, this is *my* opinion having used both toolkits and deployed software though not as complex as a browser on all operating systems.

And I have at least one supporter [purinchu.net] on this front.

What they should have done is to fund development of Chrome using the "right" tool for the job. What would be wrong with that?

Re:Still mad at Google (4, Informative)

jcupitt65 (68879) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220259)

Two issues are being confused there. First, do you use a cross-platform toolkit, or do you write a true native GUI for every platform and just keep the backend in common? Google have decided to write a new GUI for every platform, and I think they are probably correct to do this. Qt (and GTK+) are cross-platform, but they are not quite native (though arguably Qt is better at this).

Once that choice is made, all you are doing is picking a toolkit for Linux. GTK+ has the advantages of being familiar to the chrome devs, matching the existing ff dependency, being the most widely-used toolkit (and therefore appearing native for the largest number of users), and being "good enough".

I Know...... (1)

segedunum (883035) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220157)

Let's give Dan Kegel even more spam by posting his e-mail address.

In related news: chromium! (1)

Tei (520358) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220159)

I just did..

$ apt-get install chromiunm

I am writting this from version 3.0.182.0 from the ubuntu repositories. I kind of like Chromium/Chrome over Firefox. And this is from a guy that develop XUL applications (lol!).

Reason to install chromium?

The ability to expand a textarea. Is usefull to edit some SQL in phpMyAdmin... I can probably add a plugin to firefox to do that, but with chromium/chrome is a standard feature.

Re:In related news: chromium! (3, Funny)

BiggerIsBetter (682164) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220409)

$ apt-get install chromiunm

I tried that but all I got was a stupid scrolling arcade game. :(

adblock... (1)

zoso (105166) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220211)

Well there is already Chromium for Linux and it contains adblock preinstalled which obviously original Chrome won't have.

CPU Usage... (5, Insightful)

PhotoGuy (189467) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220229)

Here's why I'm excited about/anxious for Chrome on OS/X:

I used Firefox for awhile, a couple of years back. It bogged down the CPU, especially after running for awhile.

So I switched to Opera (and shortly thereafter went from Windows to OS X). It was a peppier experience. But with newer releases, and the increasing use of Flash (I think) on the Net, it started getting slower and slower. I don't like having my fan run while I'm simply sitting and reading a static page. Turning off all plugins seems to avoid that, so I point the finger at Flash. But not having Flash, or only having it on demand, is fairly annoying. Also, there's some sites Opera just won't render properly. Not many, but some.

So I switched back to Firefox, with the advent of 3.0. Even doing nothing, sitting with a few static pages open (and Adblock, Flashblock) it seems to still hover at 10% CPU usage. Bleh. Enough to keep my fan humming all the time.

When I tried Chrome on Windows, I was quite excited, with the process-per-page approach. I can see *what* page is slowing things down, and kill it if I chose. That's my biggest beef with Opera/Firefox (I won't even let IE into the discussion :P): you can't tell *what* page is slowing down your browser. I've tried JavaScript debuggers, other dev tools to try and found out, but have had no success.

I'm praying that Chrome on OS/X will be my salvation (although I've become dependent upon some Firefox extensions, particularly vimperator :P). Upon first glance, it looks pretty good (and I'm using it to post this article). It seems to suck up 30% CPU for 20 seconds or so *after* finishing loading a page, but then does settle down.

Right now I have about 5 tabs open, and each is using 2-3%, which is slightly concerning. That could add up to be just as bad as Firefox/Opera. But for now, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt of being an early release, and keep my fingers crossed that the "Browser That Finally Doesn't Suck [CPU]" is on the horizon...

Re:CPU Usage... (1)

skelterjohn (1389343) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220303)

If you're on os x, you should try out Stainless [stainlessapp.com] . It's quite good, and based on some of the same ideas as chrome, only more mature. I've been using it as my primary browser (above safari, firefox, or the new safari beta) for some time.

It's missing a few things, but honestly, I don't care. It's sleek, simple and multi-processed.

Actually one of my favorite features is the unified address/search bar. Only problem is I have to go to google first to search for queries that have periods and no white space.

Re:CPU Usage... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28220455)

But.. Why don't you just use Safari or Webkit?

Re:CPU Usage... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28220625)

Sounds like you have other problems. Several million other tech users don't get this CPU issue. You might want to investigate what settings are causing problems, or disabling / removing all plug-ins until you find a guilty party.

FpN homo? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28220233)

problem stems number of FreeBSD GNAA (GAY NIGGEr World will have

So what is this in KDE speak? (1, Flamebait)

QCompson (675963) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220287)

Final release 2.3?

But seriously, this is how it's done KDE. Note that people still want to download it and test it despite the fact that it is not labeled a .0 release.

Nice html engine. Pitty about the UI (1, Insightful)

vandan (151516) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220293)

I find the Chrome interface quite revolting. But what's even worse is the psychotic bitchings of Ben Goodger [google.com] , former Mozilla developer. My response to Ben [homelinux.org] discusses the issues he raised.

Does the job? (3, Insightful)

rxmd (205533) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220397)

I would bet that while you can't print, view YouTube videos or change your privacy settings yet, the core functionality of aggregating data about the user's browsing behaviour and sending it to Google with a uniquely identifiable ID is firmly in place.

Nice.. i guess, but not for me. (1)

msh104 (620136) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220405)

Great..., another package that wants me to install half of gnome.
( it's linked against gconf. )

As a kde user i'll have to say no this round.
I'll stick to firefox/konqueror for the time being.

Pretty happy with Firefox at the moment (3, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220483)

Using the Fedora Linux here and have been for a rather long time. I am very much "anti-advertiser" simply because they have a huge propensity to "go too far" with their advertising and data collection. (I have nothing against advertising when it comes to respectful means that the customer seeks out for himself.) Google, for everything else they do in terms of evolving the internet technologies, is still an advertiser. I don't trust them. I can't imagine why anyone else would either.

My prediction (1)

Starlon (1492461) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220545)

My computer's all black. I don't want any Chrome. I wonder how they're going to do automatic updates in Linux.

Obli Anti-MS (1)

Barumpus (145412) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220811)

...but whatever you do, please DON'T DOWNLOAD THEM! Unless of course you are a developer or take great pleasure in incomplete, unpredictable, and potentially crashing software.

Nothing new here. I get the same thing on Windows. Browser of choice does not matter.

By no means nothing against Windows. But it was the absolute first thing that came to mind when I read it.

BETA A.S.A.P.? (2, Funny)

jDeepbeep (913892) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220839)

we'll get back to trying to get Google Chrome on these platforms stable enough for a beta release as soon as possible ..

Yes, hurry up with that.... so you can keep them in BETA for 5+ years afterwards. :p

Irony (4, Funny)

Alsee (515537) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220907)

DON'T DOWNLOAD THEM! Unless of course you are a developer or take great pleasure in incomplete, unpredictable, and potentially crashing software.

How ironic, they announce new Mac and Linux versions and tell you not to download them unless you use Windows.

-

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?