×

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 Upgrades Chrome To Beta For OS X, Linux

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the browsing-is-what-cows-do dept.

Google 197

wkurzius writes with this nugget from Mac Rumors: "As anticipated, Google has finally released an official beta version of its Chrome browser for Mac. The initial beta version, termed Build 4.0.249.30, requires Mac OS X Leopard or Snow Leopard, and is only compatible with Intel-based Macs." And hierofalcon writes with word that Chrome has also been made available as an official Linux Beta.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

197 comments

Adblock (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30367380)

Let me know when it gets adblock

Re:Adblock (3, Informative)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 4 years ago | (#30367468)

Support for extensions is currently in development ...

Re:Adblock (5, Informative)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30367606)

... and per-tab processes for Firefox are also currently in development.

I don’t think I’ll be switching any time soon, since I see per-tab processes as a nicety and adblock as a necessity.

Re:Adblock (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30367724)

Answer me this, please. Why would anyone who likes this browser ever use the Google-released version, for any reason??

Why would they not use this [wikipedia.org] instead? No really, I want to understand this.

Re:Adblock (2, Informative)

mdm-adph (1030332) | more than 4 years ago | (#30367804)

Because SRWare only releases updates to Iron every now and then. I don't think there's even an auto-update.

Re:Adblock (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#30368076)

I hardly consider the annoying Google Updater to be a positive feature... especially since it insists on reinstalling/resetting itself when users attempt to remove it.

Re:Adblock (1)

Guspaz (556486) | more than 4 years ago | (#30368986)

Consider how many zombies out there exist because their users didn't keep their machines up to date (either because they were ignorant or because they weren't and second-guessed updates).

IMO, auto-update should be something that SHOULD be difficult to disable; disabling it makes you a hazard to the rest of the net.

Re:Adblock (1)

Z34107 (925136) | more than 4 years ago | (#30368910)

Like mister_playboy, I really don't consider "auto update" a feature. I uninstalled Chrome and installed SRWare Iron instead because I do not want some braindead Google Update service running constantly.

But, Iron also removes the browser's unique identifier and provides a proper installer (Chrome will only install per-user, in their profile).

If you're thinking about Chrome, get Iron [srware.net] instead. It supports AdBlock [adsweep.org] .

Come. We have cookies.

Re:Adblock (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30368074)

Not to mention Google's latest comments about people that don't do anything have nothing to hide.

Link:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/12/08/0127219/Google-CEO-Says-Privacy-Worries-Are-For-Wrongdoers

Re:Adblock (2, Informative)

nate_in_ME (1281156) | more than 4 years ago | (#30367662)

On my computer, Chrome just auto-updated today to 4.0.239.30(Windows Version) and in the "new tab" display, it advertises at the bottom that extensions are now available. No reliable ad-blocking solution yet(just a couple with dodgy reviews), but I imagine its only a matter of time. There was one specifically to remove the ads on Facebook profiles, which does seem to work quite well so far.

Re:Adblock (1)

EyelessFade (618151) | more than 4 years ago | (#30367778)

what about adsweep [adsweep.org] ?

Re:Adblock (1)

nate_in_ME (1281156) | more than 4 years ago | (#30368482)

I'd used AdSweep in its very early days, and I ran into some weird issues, like it would chop off the first few letters of every ad on a local classified ad site(http://www.unclehenrys.com). I just tested it, and it still appears to do this...thankfully, I don't use that particular site as often any more.

Re:Adblock (2, Insightful)

dave420 (699308) | more than 4 years ago | (#30367872)

Or just don't go to sites that have advertisements you don't want to see. That seems a bit more fair than using resources of a site you clearly want to visit while denying them income...

Re:Adblock (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30368098)

It's just not the simple. Too much deception is afoot.

Re:Adblock (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30368138)

Or just don't go to sites that have advertisements you don't want to see.

Using psychic powers to determine which ones are going to show you seizure-inducing flashing banners or really loud flash ads or using an ad network that actively attacks your browser to install malware?

No thanks, I'll stick to using noscript and whitelisting ad agencies that don't try to assault my eyes, ears and computer. If these companies want to profit from me, they'll do the same, or choose a business model that doesn't require me to play along.

Re:Adblock (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30368672)

Sure.. As soon they stop boggle down my browser experience with 100 million flash ads on a single page and stop collecting info from my browser and just show their ad without it makes me harder to read what I came to the web site for in the first place...

Re:Adblock (1)

myrdos2 (989497) | more than 4 years ago | (#30368856)

If there were some way to get a version of google news that only links to sites without obnoxious flashing ads, I would be very interested. Right now, it's simply too much work to find which of the 50+ articles on some subject don't have animated ads, so I just read the first one. With adblock enabled.

It would be nice to specify the level of advertising you are willing to endure in google's search options: none, text only, still pictures, animated pictures, crap that covers the text until you click on it, animation + sound + popups + smartlinks. I would be able to avoid huge areas of the web, which I consider to be a waste of space anyways. The ad-infested pages often seem deliberately designed to get in the way of valid search results, and don't offer anything extra.

At any rate, I suggest that you go to Edit->Options and disable 'block popup windows' to avoid hypocrisy. You may wish to consider leaving your speakers turned on and installing plugins and toolbars when requested to do so.

Re:Adblock (1)

dr00g911 (531736) | more than 4 years ago | (#30368362)

I prefer not to use adblock extensions, personally. When a site crosses the line and starts getting in my face with talking / content-covering ads... say with close button trick-throughs... I pull up my activity menu in Safari (there are analogs for other browsers, or you can just comb the source code), and I just nuke the offending ad servers in my hosts file.

I've found that only a small percentage of the ad servers out there carry the nasty stuff (I define nasty as making noise without my consent or covering content and forcing a clickthrough) -- so generally just two or three hosts entries can clear you right up.

Re:Adblock (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30368674)

Or if you're lazy like me and quite a lot of other people - just use an ad-blocker.

Use a proxy that blocks advertisements (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30368728)

Use a proxy that blocks advertisements, like privoxy.

Re:Adblock (1)

vitaflo (20507) | more than 4 years ago | (#30368738)

If you're running on OS X, you don't need adblock for any browser. GlimmerBlocker [glimmerblocker.org] will do the same thing and is usable by any browser you want since it's just a proxy.

Re:Adblock (0, Redundant)

Z34107 (925136) | more than 4 years ago | (#30368762)

Try AdSweep. [adsweep.org] Don't know if it works on the Mac/Linux versions, but it works on version 4 of the Windows build.

Re:Adblock (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30368816)

Chrome's Task Manager -> kill the Adobe Flash plugin.

Gets rid of the worst ones. Anything else is ignorable. YMMV.

Re:Adblock (1)

ukiah (125689) | more than 4 years ago | (#30368860)

Let me know when it gets adblock

I couldn't agree more. It's not possible for me to go back to using a browser without some sort of ad blocking capability.

Been using it for a while (0, Redundant)

aztektum (170569) | more than 4 years ago | (#30367394)

Set up the PPA on my Ubuntu box in sources.list back in Sept/Oct

https://launchpad.net/~chromium-daily/+archive/ppa [launchpad.net]

Current version shows 4.0.266.0 (Ubuntu build 33943)

Re:Been using it for a while (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 4 years ago | (#30367494)

It's been quite stable and very fast for me as well (limited use, but abusing it under Google Wave).

Re:Been using it for a while (1)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 4 years ago | (#30367884)

Yeah, I've been using Chromium for a few months... unfortunately, only to play MafiaWars on Facebook.

It's much, much faster than Firefox at that task, though... I can click on a button 10 times in succession, and it'll register maybe 8 of them and come back with the results. Under Firefox, it would just sit there and register 1 click and wait until it got a response from the server before registering the next.

More legitimately, I've found it runs pretty well on my eeebuntu netbook, and I pretty much use it as the primary browser there.

Re:Been using it for a while (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30368378)

It's mostly been ok, but I'm glad to see something officially from Google as "Chrome" rather than Chromium, if only to get off of the daily binaries and to something a bit more long term. Chromium has been the fastest browser out there for Linux in my testing, but at least twice when I updated my system (which included Chromium updates since they're daily) it had serious issues. Once it was crashing and another time anything with moving graphics were corrupting when the screen was scrolled. I ended up going back to Firefox on those days (which sucks - not sure what's up with Firefox for Linux but it drags compared to the same program on Windows or Mac). Both these issues were fixed in the dailies from the next day, but still, I'd like to get off of the daily builds and to something with specific releases.

Re:Been using it for a while (1)

loudmax (243935) | more than 4 years ago | (#30368542)

I've been using Chromium on Gentoo for about a week. It's generally stable and definitely feels faster and more responsive than Firefox. The proof-of-concept toys over at Chrome Experiments [chromeexperiments.com] are worth checking out. A lot of them work in Firefox too, but Chrome's speed advantage is more obvious. It's a shame Chrome can't do for Flash what it does for javascript. I do miss extensions like NoScript, NukeAnything, and VideoDownloader. Chrome is extendable though and I expect to see their equivalents in Chrome pretty soon.

I don't care too much about my own browsing stats being reported to Google, but I am glad that SRWare's Iron browser is available. In fact, as long as the browsers are standards-compliant, the more the better. I'm generally supportive of Google's agenda to make the browser the primary interface for the PC. Of course there are some applications that really should run on a desktop... but the other 99% of what people do with their PCs would be much better served by a standards-compliant web framework.

Re:Been using it for a while (1)

endx7 (706884) | more than 4 years ago | (#30367516)

I used the PPA for a while, but it tracks HEAD a bit too closely for my liking. The last couple of builds have had some graphical corruption that make going back to a previous version necessary for me. The official unstable version doesn't track HEAD nearly as closely, and contains the google branding (which, I don't really care about). I expect the beta version will be even more stable.

Re:Been using it for a while (1)

TheModelEskimo (968202) | more than 4 years ago | (#30368604)

People who don't want to hand-edit anything can also use Ubuntu Tweak [ubuntu-tweak.com] , which has a nice little checkbox you can click for Chrome, in addition to many other nice applications like the OpenShot [openshotvideo.com] video editor.

The delay is caused by Open Source (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30367406)

On Windows & OS X, it was fairly easy to find the API calls that turn on your system's cameras and microphones, but on Linux, those devices are all over the place so it took Google longer to figure out how to turn them on when you're running their browser. Don't worry, all video and audio is stored securely on Google's private servers and accessible only via the website called "YouTube"

Re:The delay is caused by Open Source (1)

supersloshy (1273442) | more than 4 years ago | (#30367584)

On Windows & OS X, it was fairly easy to find the API calls that turn on your system's cameras and microphones, but on Linux, those devices are all over the place so it took Google longer to figure out how to turn them on when you're running their browser.

You mean Adobe Flash?

Works Great on Leopard (3, Informative)

organgtool (966989) | more than 4 years ago | (#30367496)

I have been running one of the Chrome nightly builds on Leopard for several weeks and I am extremely impressed with its speed and stability. I have never had a single tab crash on me. I'm sure that people will complain about the lack of support for extensions compared to Firefox, and rightly so. But if you don't need many extensions, I highly recommend trying out Chrome.

Re:Works Great on Leopard (2, Informative)

Trev311 (1161835) | more than 4 years ago | (#30367620)

I have been running one of the Chrome nightly builds on Leopard for several weeks and I am extremely impressed with its speed and stability. I have never had a single tab crash on me. I'm sure that people will complain about the lack of support for extensions compared to Firefox, and rightly so. But if you don't need many extensions, I highly recommend trying out Chrome.

Or if you want to not give google more information you can wait until SRWare* or someone else releases it without all the tracking (and google updater) crap in it for Liunx/OSX. SRWare releases Chrome without the google-bits in it as Iron

Re:Works Great on Leopard (4, Insightful)

FictionPimp (712802) | more than 4 years ago | (#30368790)

Well, I use google calendar, google search, google mail, google voice, google maps... If google doesn't know what I'm doing by now, they are doing something wrong.

Re:Works Great on Leopard (1)

Xerfas (1625945) | more than 4 years ago | (#30368394)

I have also tried it for a while and it works great in Leopard. Has never crashed for me, but firefox on the other hand has crashed a lot. Pages updates are a bit faster, sites like Facebook works better for some odd reason. They load a bit faster for me. I also recomment trying out Chrome if you use a Mac or Linux.

where's zip/tar package for Linux??? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30367544)

Well, no version for MY Linux. I am on CentOS, but I need a zip/tar file that I can install into $HOME. Not ever installing random shit as RPMs, duh.

Won't Switch From Safari Yet (2, Insightful)

friedmud (512466) | more than 4 years ago | (#30367580)

In my limited testing with it this morning... I think it is very promising... but I won't quite be switching from Safari on Snow Leopard just yet.

My main gripe? Scrolling smoothness. It's a small thing... but the jarring scrolling of Chrome is enough to keep me on Safari.

Other than that I really like the tab tear off system (much better than Safari since you can _reattach_ tabs back into the main window) and the integrated search / location bar (which seems to be able to read my mind...).

Other than that they are very similar... can anyone spot big differences somewhere? I mean, these days, most browsers are the same. I used to use Firefox for the plugins... but now Firefox, Safari and Chrome all pretty much include the stuff I was using plugins for... so I go with Safari for how well integrated it is with OS X.

I am glad Google is building a good browser... it will keep everyone on their toes (especially since Microsoft has pretty much bowed out of the next-gen browser market with their unwillingness to implement standards in a timely fashion).

Re:Won't Switch From Safari Yet (1)

mdf356 (774923) | more than 4 years ago | (#30367678)

Whereas I will switch from FF unless I find something wrong that hasn't shown yet. The only thing I see wrong at the moment is that the "change fonts" preference is greyed out on Mac, and I want a bigger default font size. command+'+' will work for now, though.

Hmm /. shows another annoyance: the "I'm waiting" cursor is kinda ugly.

Re:Won't Switch From Safari Yet (1)

Trev311 (1161835) | more than 4 years ago | (#30367690)

While Microsoft may not be developing at a very fast pace or even keeping up with standards, they are still the de facto choice for a vast majority of people. Especially those who are still tied to IE6 for certain things. I hate to think of that, but the quicker IE6 can die the better off the rest of us are. I'm also glad we have some healthy competition based on features and speed with Firefox, Chrome, Safari, and Opera all being reasonably good choices.

Re:Won't Switch From Safari Yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30367866)

To be fair, IE isn't so much "the de facto choice" but rather "the default choice". Judging by my 12 years of IT experience, it's a pretty safe bet that 25% of the people you're talking about don't even know what a web browser is (even though they use it every day), and another 25% have some grasp on the concept but still don't realize they're using "internet explorer".

As pointed out so many times here on slashdot, IE's market share is a product of default availibility, not superiority.

Re:Won't Switch From Safari Yet (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30367736)

Other than that I really like the tab tear off system (much better than Safari since you can _reattach_ tabs back into the main window) and the integrated search / location bar (which seems to be able to read my mind...).

Firefox does both of those quite nicely, does it not?

I use Firefox for the extensions, no doubt. But I also like its speed and stability (version 3 was the one that made the biggest difference, IIRC).

Some of the Firefox extensions I use are really handy to have. As I’m sure you’d expect, I use AdBlock Plus and couldn’t live without it. However, Download Statusbar, Video DownloadHelper, FireFTP, RefControl, Screengrab, Tab Mix Plus, and User Agent Switcher are some more extensions that I have installed and find very useful.

Re:Won't Switch From Safari Yet (1)

samkass (174571) | more than 4 years ago | (#30367820)

Other than that I really like the tab tear off system (much better than Safari since you can _reattach_ tabs back into the main window)

You can do this in Safari, too. Just have the tabs always visible and drag the tab (not the title bar) back into the main window.

Re:Won't Switch From Safari Yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30367828)

I'll switch to Chrome once it get vimperator and adblock.

Re:Won't Switch From Safari Yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30368192)

much better than Safari since you can _reattach_ tabs back into the main window

that is actually possible in safari
your welcome [macosxhints.com]

Re:Won't Switch From Safari Yet (1)

g0at (135364) | more than 4 years ago | (#30368224)

much better than Safari since you can _reattach_ tabs back into the main window

Unless I am misunderstanding you, this is possible in Safari (though potentially inelegant). Tabs can be dragged to, from and between any two tabbed windows. If you have only a single document window, though (i.e. one or no tabs showing, depending on your prefs setting), you must first induce the display of a new tab before being able to drag the principal document.

-b

Re:Won't Switch From Safari Yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30368818)

Scrolling smoothness

Scrolling down through this thread, using Chrome on OSX for my first time, I was JUST thinking the same thing.

Re:Won't Switch From Safari Yet (1)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#30368998)

My main gripe? Scrolling smoothness. It's a small thing... but the jarring scrolling of Chrome is enough to keep me on Safari.

I'm trying out Chrome OS X right now and I've noticed the same problem. In Safari, I tend to read as I scroll but I can't do that with Chrome--it would give me a headache. Otherwise, it seems okay.

I am the originator of Ninnle! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30367642)

Users 'Ninnle Linux (1460113)' and 'Ninnle Labs, LLC (1486095)' are nothing but poseurs, and no nothing about the true nature of Ninnle!

It's all about BATMAN!

Beware Google's penchant for auto-updates... (5, Informative)

courcoul (801052) | more than 4 years ago | (#30367660)

Beware that the first time you run Chrome, it will install their Keystone auto-update facility, with which Google feels free to update whatever they want, whenever they want and however they want. Even when you're not running the browser, as the Keystone agent will launch itself automatically at system boot.

You have been warned.

Re:Beware Google's penchant for auto-updates... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30367864)

Beware that the first time you run Chrome, it will install their Keystone auto-update facility, with which Google feels free to update whatever they want, whenever they want and however they want. Even when you're not running the browser, as the Keystone agent will launch itself automatically at system boot.

You have been warned.

$ google-chrome
(execution proceeds)
$ ps auxw | grep -i keystone
user 4473 0.0 0.1 3036 852 pts/2 R+ 13:02 0:00 grep -i keystone
$

Thank you for your raving and your fearmongering. It was greatly appreciated by our department. Rest assured, we will be sure to apply the appropriate levels of paranoia, zomgs, ph33r, and ohnoes as warranted.

Re:Beware Google's penchant for auto-updates... (2, Informative)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 4 years ago | (#30368102)

He didn't say it ran constantly, just that it did not depend on the browser running. Check your cron tables*.

* I'm not running Chrome so I can neither confirm or deny the GPP but AC's post above is certainly not enough
to convince me that GPP is definitely wrong.

Re:Beware Google's penchant for auto-updates... (3, Informative)

the_crowbar (149535) | more than 4 years ago | (#30368298)

I just installed the beta from google.com and it installed an entry in /etc/crond.daily. The comments say it only reactivates the repository after dist-upgrades disable it. I.E. intrepid->jaunty From a quick read of the script that is what it does.

Cheers,
the_crowbar

Re:Beware Google's penchant for auto-updates... (5, Informative)

psocccer (105399) | more than 4 years ago | (#30368168)

The OP might not be completely wrong, according to a dpkg-query -L google-chrome-beta it installs some stuff to /etc/cron.daily/google-chrome which apparently adds an extra source to your apt sources then updates google chrome based on some settings in your /etc/default/google-chrome. It also adds the source to /etc/apt/sources.list.d. Seems a bit invasive to me.

Re:Beware Google's penchant for auto-updates... (2, Insightful)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 4 years ago | (#30368580)

Adding its favored repository to your package sources is still several stops short of auto-updating. A bit invasive, perhaps, but hardly what the fear-mongering suggested. I wonder what happens if you run dpkg-reconfigure on the package? If the cron job is only installed automatically when you use default priority (and running dpkg-reconfigure manually automatically switches to low), then I might even have to concede that they did it right.

If I happen to get bored enough to actually try it rather than just reading about it, I might test this, but don't hold your breath. I'm not really in the market for a new closed-source browser. :)

Re:Beware Google's penchant for auto-updates... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30368618)

So how else is a third-party app supposed to update itself under Linux? I thought this was the intended purpose of the all-knowing Package Manager(tm).

Re:Beware Google's penchant for auto-updates... (1)

VValdo (10446) | more than 4 years ago | (#30368668)

The OP might not be completely wrong,

If you have a mac, it may install a launchd agent at /Library/LaunchAgents/com.google.keystone.root.agent, which runs "/Library/Google/GoogleSoftwareUpdate/GoogleSoftwareUpdate.bundle/Contents/Resources/GoogleSoftwareUpdateAgent.app/Contents/MacOS/GoogleSoftwareUpdateAgent -runMode ifneeded" on every start up and hourly.

I believe you can shut this behavior off by deleting the file or adding this after "<dict>":

<key>Disabled</key>
<true/>

W

Re:Beware Google's penchant for auto-updates... (1)

VValdo (10446) | more than 4 years ago | (#30368766)

Oh, and I also discovered a file at /Library/LaunchDaemons/com.google.keystone.daemon.plist, which runs "/Library/Google/GoogleSoftwareUpdate/GoogleSoftwareUpdate.bundle/Contents/MacOS/GoogleSoftwareUpdateDaemon" and can be disabled in the same manner described above.

(BTW-- I have a few google apps including Google Earth installed, so I'm not sure which installed what. But this is what I've found so far...)

W

Re:Beware Google's penchant for auto-updates... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30368882)

More update nonsense? Can't they at least make automatic updates an option you can set or turn off during the install? (So I can always turn it off) Google is becoming as bad as Adobe, and that's quite an accomplishment.

Re:Beware Google's penchant for auto-updates... (1)

kai_hiwatari (1642285) | more than 4 years ago | (#30368760)

you can choose not to update if you want. or you can just remove it from the source list if you don't want it.

Re:Beware Google's penchant for auto-updates... (1)

crunch_ca (972937) | more than 4 years ago | (#30368354)

$ ls -l /etc/cron.daily/google-chrome
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 6562 YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM google-chrome

But you are right, I can't find any app called keystone.

Re:Beware Google's penchant for auto-updates... (4, Insightful)

Temporal (96070) | more than 4 years ago | (#30368912)

You make it sound evil. Most people don't want to be nagged with constant update reminders. In fact, most people will ignore those reminders, leaving them vulnerable to security exploits. Hence, Google has built an updater which can automatically install updates in the background. Remarkably, it manages to do this without ever asking you to reboot or even to restart the program being updated, which cannot be said of any other software updater I've ever seen.

Re:Beware Google's penchant for auto-updates... (1)

mr_lizard13 (882373) | more than 4 years ago | (#30368976)

Is this on every OS?

I couldn't see anything running under Activity Monitor. Might be using a different name though.

Cheers for the advice btw, probably my own fault for not reading that 'eula' thing carefully enough.

The evil empire can kiss my *ss. (-1, Troll)

macbeth66 (204889) | more than 4 years ago | (#30367668)

I no longer trust Google with anything. So no, I will not use any version of Chrome on any of my machines.

Re:The evil empire can kiss my *ss. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30367972)

Go nuts with Bing then and have yourself labeled as a queef stain.

Iron. (2, Informative)

nawitus (1621237) | more than 4 years ago | (#30367720)

If you don't want to be spied by google every second, download the Iron browser. It's based on Chrome code base, but has spying disabled.

Re:Iron. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30368450)

At least that's what SRWare claims - I haven't heard about anyone reviewing their code.
They only provide an archive on rapidshare, no source repository, no changelog.

Google rocks, but their apps suck (2, Insightful)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 4 years ago | (#30367730)

The main big issue, is how the company doesn't have an official policy towards local app development.

When it comes to Google's web apps, you can expect AJAX, DHTML, clean and simple look, etc. OTOH, they local apps all look developed by different companies. They are developing apps in .net (which doesn't make any sense considering where google is standing right now, specially towards microsoft). Their so called "ports" are pathetic. All they do is recompile their apps with the WINE libs. Picasa is an example. And they didn't even test it before releasing, or at least disable the functions that don't work in wine. For example, on Picasa for GNU/Linux, when you click on "make movie" it throws the error "function not available on Windows 2000". They didn't even bother to disable it. If I wanted to run Picasa on Wine, I would just do so. If you provide a port, provide an actual port.

What really doesn't make sense to me is ... why write applications in non-portable languages/frameworks, and then port them? Why not just go GTK or QT and port it everywhere?

Re:Google rocks, but their apps suck (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#30368010)

I don't know what made them do Chrome as they did, since that was in house; but the answer in many cases is "because they just bought the product from somebody else".

Re:Google rocks, but their apps suck (1)

caseih (160668) | more than 4 years ago | (#30368042)

I agree that Google's non-web app development record is spotty. But in fairness Google didn't write most of the apps that you're complaining about. They came from other companies as the result of purchases. Some apps, like Google Earth, were already written in Qt and thus ported easily. Other apps not so easy to port. Google only offered Picasa on Wine because there was some demand for a linux version (not enough to warrant a native port by the original company, obviously) and that was the best way to get it to linux users without having to spend a lot of money, which would have been a complete waste for Google to do. Had google written Picasa themselves, they likely would have used Qt.

Google Chrome is the one exception to all this. Google wrote it, and they really did screw up by not writing it in Qt to begin with.

Re:Google rocks, but their apps suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30368496)

Google Chrome is the one exception to all this. Google wrote it, and they really did screw up by not writing it in Qt to begin with.

Not just that, the fact that instead of making their own code, they depended on some Windows components.
That is both a very serious security concern as well as a very stupid thing to do, especially since it has remained like that up until this very date.

And while i am generally a decent person, the amount of EGO in the Google Groups with the devs all claiming godlike status in knowing what everyone wants seriously pisses me off.
"oh people don't like options", "horizontal tabs are best, vertical is a bad idea", "we aren't going to let you modify the interface", blah blah and so on.
Hmm, funny considering Firefox is gaining popularity every month BECAUSE of the options available! You'd think they would have know this...

While i use the browser and like it, until they stop being so stuck up their own asses, Chrome will forever remain a joke to a large majority.
If it wasn't for Google having the huge marketshare on the web that it has, and them using it to advertise the browser, Chrome would never have taken off.

Re:Google rocks, but their apps suck (1)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 4 years ago | (#30368678)

Ok, GP here. Funny story:

I've been sick of Firefox for a while. I used to love it. I moved from Mozilla Suite to Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox. The first time I installed one of Phoenix's early beta's, I felt in love with that browser. But since 2.0, it started to suck ... slower and more unstable with each version. I've been looking for a new browser for a while. I am not an Opera guy, and there are not many more choices for GNU/Linux (I am a GNOME person, so Konqueror is not an option, Opera is not bad, and anything else is Gecko-based).

After writing my post, I downloaded Chrome for GNU/Linux, and I'm writing this post from Chrome.

I have to admit it, wine or not, I am starting to like it.

Re:Google rocks, but their apps suck (1)

Temporal (96070) | more than 4 years ago | (#30368552)

Chrome on Linux does not use WINE. Have you tried it? None of the things you complain about are true of it.

Won't work on RHEL5/CENTOS5 (1)

t35t0r (751958) | more than 4 years ago | (#30367816)

./chrome: /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6: version `GLIBCXX_3.4.9' not found (required by ./chrome)

                libnss3.so.1d => not found
                libnssutil3.so.1d => not found
                libsmime3.so.1d => not found
                libssl3.so.1d => not found
                libplds4.so.0d => not found
                libplc4.so.0d => not found
                libnspr4.so.0d => not found

even if I symlink the existing libraries to the names it wants above it'll still bomb on the GLIBCXX_3.4.9 error. http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=13425 [google.com] . No big deal though. Without support for firefox plugins Chrome is pretty much worthless for me.

Re:Won't work on RHEL5/CENTOS5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30368750)

Turn off dependency checking. Once I did that, it worked with openSuSE.

Funny of Google... (1)

tengeta (1594989) | more than 4 years ago | (#30368078)

Its almost like they don't care, I mean I get OSX to a degree, but whats up with no Linux support? Is that going to "surprisingly" happen once ChromeOS comes out?

Features missing (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 4 years ago | (#30368084)

No bookmark manager (!), many other features missing. What reason is there to compel a Mac user to use this over Safari, which uses the same rendering engine and its own slightly faster JavaScript engine?

SRware Iron for Linux has been in beta since Nov (1)

Khopesh (112447) | more than 4 years ago | (#30368124)

(Remember [slashdot.org] , Iron is the no-phone-home, no-spyware, privacy-assured derivative of Chrome.)

Despite that, I hope to see a version of Iron based on the upstream's beta soon. When it comes out, it would be announced on the SRware forums [srware.net] .

Also interesting: The Google Chrome download page [google.com] requires javascript!

You need a JavaScript-capable browser to download this software. Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your browser.

What happened to me? (1)

Ratscallion (1534667) | more than 4 years ago | (#30368222)

Excuse me, but I think I reported this story first, yet it's not on the home page.. Very said indeed... :'( See http://slashdot.org/~Ratscallion [slashdot.org]

Re:What happened to me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30368558)

"Excuse me, but I think I reported this story first, yet it's not on the home page.."

Someone is on your case and modding your posts out of existance :)

LSB = 3.2 dependency (1)

jDeepbeep (913892) | more than 4 years ago | (#30368424)

Linux RPMs were built targeting LSB 3.2
lsb >= 3.2 is needed by google-chrome-beta-4.0.249.30-33928.i386
I'll just add this to the list of reasons to upgrade this FC8 install. :p

news at 10 (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30368514)

who needs an "official" release? would you mess around with apt's keyring? i use this for about three months. it's fast and mostly stable on Debian lenny and squeeze. the v8 java script engine is a magnitude more powerful and faster than iceweasel's. put it in ~/bin or something. it's worth trying:

http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/snapshots/chromium-rel-linux/LATEST [chromium.org]

I've been using it for months (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#30368592)

Chrome for Linux (no idea about OSX, I don't use it) has been release quality for a long, long time now. I'm quite surprised that only now it's in Beta.

Re:I've been using it for months (1)

jDeepbeep (913892) | more than 4 years ago | (#30368708)

no idea about OSX, I don't use it

I've been using the dev channel release for months now on Snow Leopard and had zero problems with it. It's been noticeably faster than FF but oc YMMV

FINALLY! (1)

valRoadie (1533813) | more than 4 years ago | (#30368800)

Maybe they will have some time to focus on the windows version now....im still waiting google...still waiting.
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...