Beta
×

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

Thank you!

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

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

Google Releases Chrome 5.0 For Win/Mac/Linux

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the ooh-shiny dept.

Desktops (Apple) 347

ddfall writes "Four months after the release of version 4.0 for Windows, Google has announced the availability of Chrome 5.0 for Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux — the first stable release to be available on all three major platforms. Chrome 5.0.375.55 is available to download from google.com/chrome. Users who currently have Chrome installed can use the built-in update function."

cancel ×

347 comments

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

Google is catching on fast (5, Funny)

microbee (682094) | more than 4 years ago | (#32340740)

Just look at the version numbers. It's already 5! On the contrary Firefox is still lagging behind with 3.6.

Re:Google is catching on fast (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32340762)

Well my "Hello world" program is on version 9001.

Re:Google is catching on fast (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32340768)

I think that's just a reflection of how Chrome is a sleek, fast, efficient browser, while Firefox has rapidly become a bloated, memory-wasting slug.

I'm not joking, either. It's far easier to develop for WebKit-based browsers, because they're designed intelligently, unlike Gecko-based browsers.

Yeah, obviously. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32341338)

That's why none of them can do proper ad-blocking (which actually prevents downloading the ads) nor proper NoScript (the per-domain needs to be the source domain of the script and not just the page URL).

Re:Google is catching on fast (0)

e2d2 (115622) | more than 4 years ago | (#32340784)

Yeah but it's not officially awesome until the version is 3000.. [Thunder from the sky]Guuuuuuidooooo!

Re:Google is catching on fast (0)

baka_toroi (1194359) | more than 4 years ago | (#32340872)

Versions over 9000 will be officially awesome.

Re:Google is catching on fast (5, Funny)

Kabloink (834009) | more than 4 years ago | (#32340812)

Microsoft has both of them beat with IE 6.

Re:Google is catching on fast (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32341306)

You can get the premium version, which is IE 8, if you go to the microsoft site. I'll try to find a link.

I actually prefer the the sites that are available on IE 8 to the ones that are available on Firefox. IE offers more options.

Re:Google is catching on fast (0, Troll)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341402)

please. IE8 isn't about options. That's why bing is set as the default search engine.

see? It makes your job easier!

Re:Google is catching on fast (4, Funny)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341466)

The web is only 3.0 !!?

This is confusing!

Re:Google is catching on fast (4, Funny)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#32340838)

Yeah, but remember, they are shooting for version 10^100. They have a long way to go.

Re:Google is catching on fast (0, Troll)

fermion (181285) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341096)

Kind of reminds me of IE. IE1-IE5 were released in a four year time period, mostly to play catchup to Netscape version 4. After that development all but stopped (relatively speaking) and 10 years later we only at IE 8.

One hope that in a year or so when Chrome is at 9.0, even with the new release of MS they will stop release a major version every time they fix a bug. I don't think any of us want to have to say Chrome version 10,257 every day. Of course at that point they will likely drop the other numbers and we will just cycle through version 0-9 every year.

An an up note, if they have flash and java and HTML 5 working, I will likely use it on Windows machines instead of IE. MS is so concerned with promoting their business structure that each update of IE becomes less useful.

Re:Google is catching on fast (5, Funny)

phil reed (626) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341444)

Nigel Tufnel: The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and...

Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten?

Nigel Tufnel: Exactly.

Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder?

Nigel Tufnel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?

Marty DiBergi: I don't know.

Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?

Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven.

Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.

Marty DiBergi: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?

Nigel Tufnel: [pause] These go to eleven.

Sweet... (2, Interesting)

ak_hepcat (468765) | more than 4 years ago | (#32340752)

Maybe now they'll "officially" release Android 2.2 with chrome built-in...

yay? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32340770)

I used to be looking forward to this day; I used Chrome until the day my http:// disappeared. Due to that, I'm sticking with Firefox.

Re:yay? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32340804)

I consider myself a geek and fairly well versed in what's going on in the geek world and I honestly have no clue what you are talking about.

Re:yay? (4, Informative)

ElKry (1544795) | more than 4 years ago | (#32340896)

I didn't realize it until he mentioned it, but I see it now: The url field does not show the "http://" anymore. It does show "https://", but I guess someone decided that it was more useful to show more of the actual URL and remove "http://", as it's not informative in any way anymore.

Re:yay? (1)

metamatic (202216) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341040)

Well, nor is https: information, since the padlock icon shows that you're using an HTTPS site.

They should be consistent and either always remove the protocol when it's superfluous, or not.

They also need to fix the horrible display on high-DPI screens.

Re:yay? (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341200)

They also need to fix the horrible display on high-DPI screens.

If I were you, I'd demand a full refund.

Re:yay? (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341140)

The downside of this is that (at least for me, on Ubuntu 9.10) the clipboard unreliably re-adds the http to copied URLs - it often does, but sometimes it just leaves it off, risking links like this [slashdot.org] when not paying attention.

Re:yay? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32341182)

Using Chrome 5 that was just released, I see "http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/05/25/1723248"

I resized the window smaller too and the "http://" remains.

Re:yay? (1)

mdf356 (774923) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341226)

What OS is this for? My Chrome still shows http/https on Linux and Mac.

Re:yay? (1)

Narishma (822073) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341230)

It's still there, at least in the version they just released that I'm using right now.

Re:yay? (1)

ickleberry (864871) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341412)

If it was up to Google HTTP would be the only way of sending data over a network. Everything you did before with 10 times more protocol overhead and an easy pathway for integration with Google AdSense

Re:yay? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32340846)

Explanation please?

Re:yay? (3, Informative)

yelvington (8169) | more than 4 years ago | (#32340874)

In 5.0.375.55 the protocol appears to be back in the location bar, at least on Linux.

Re:yay? (1)

ElKry (1544795) | more than 4 years ago | (#32340920)

It's not there on 6.0.408.1 on Mac, so I wouldn't expect it to be around in the future.

Re:yay? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32341464)

your looking a beta/dev versions. They are still trying things out there. They make it to beta or not based on feedback.

Re:yay? (5, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341064)

Parent is not a troll. It's a valid complaint. Displaying the entire URL, including the protocol, is absolutely the standard and should remain that way.

Re:yay? (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341154)

Why? Should you need to copy-paste a URL or part of one from the address bar it'll Do The Right Thing and pre-pend http:/// [http] to it.

I can't see much use for showing the protocol for most people otherwise.

Re:yay? (4, Insightful)

MichaelJ (140077) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341212)

So if I copy all but the first character, I get exactly what I copied, but if I copy the first character it prepends the protocol to the front on the clipboard? That's incredibly inconsistent. I should have control over whether or not I get the protocol when I copy, and that control should be the extent of my selection.

Re:yay? (5, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341262)

Because users who want to know what their browser is doing want to see it, that's why. No other justification is needed.

One of the commenters on the CNET story on the issue compared it to the Windows practice of hiding file extensions, which is a good analogy. We know how well that worked out (click here on mysterious_attachment.doc{.exe} and see what happens!) Sure, the protocol name may be gabble to most users, but at least the information's there, right out front. And occasionally it even leads them to educate themselves, asking a more technically knowledgeable friend, "What is that http thing, anyway?"

Re:yay? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32341310)

Yeah, seriously. It's a web browser. It's already ridiculous enough that most handle other protocols internally, like ftp://. HTTP and HTTPS should be it.

Redundant information that serves no purpose whatsoever.

Although, perhaps it should auto-complete the URL when selecting it, to aid in copy+pasting. I don't know if it does this already, as my beta version (5.0.375.55) still shows the full URL.

Re:yay? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32341384)

Why? Should you need to copy-paste a URL or part of one from the address bar it'll Do The Right Thing and pre-pend http:/// [http] to it.

I hope not with three slashes prepended and what about highlight, double-click to paste into a terminal? What is the visual indication for ftp and what about future protocols that may be handled by web browsers?

I can't see much use for showing the protocol for most people otherwise.

So make it a configuration option and have it hidden by default.

Re:yay? (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341460)

Even if you use X's built in auto-copy (and middle mouse button to paste)?

Re:yay? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32341194)

It may be the standard, but perhaps someone should back up why it should stay that way with some actual user-driven reasons?

I have no real use for it. I use my web browser for HTTP and HTTPS, and the difference can be signified simply in the small padlock icon because usually I just don't care.

I do not think, at all, in terms of "http://www.google.com", I think of "google.com" or maybe "www.google.com". I shouldn't have to see all that extra gunk if it doesn't matter to me as a user.

Re:yay? (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341440)

this is legit why, exactly?

you can enter any link with or without http and it will still open just fine, since we have that good ole dns thing.

Meanwhile, people don't even understand "slash slash" because they're computer retarded. this just makes it a little easier. You say "go to google", they type in google and hit enter.

Re:yay? (3, Insightful)

istartedi (132515) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341254)

Heh. I didn't even realize that. The funny thing is, I have no idea how to upgrade anyway. They don't have the usual File/Edit/View menus. There's just a wrench icon, and it doesn't appear to have any updater under its menu hierarchy.

Googling around (heheh) I found out they left out the F/E/V on purpose. That might make sense for mobile, but I'm using a nice wide LCD with more screen real estate than you can shake a stick at. Without F/E/V I feel like I'm subject to somebody's vision of "clean minimalist design" where they thought they knew what was best for the user. For cryin' out loud, if I wanted to use a Mac I'd already be using one. Hey... maybe it'll automaticly upgrade to 6.0 if I throw it in the recycling bin... no, wait... AHA! The updater is in the "About Chrome" thingy.

Oh sure, bury the updater in the widget that usually just shows copyright info. That's, just... wonderful. To be fair though, interfaces to updaters aren't quite as standard as F/E/V.

Correction (1)

CBung (1572609) | more than 4 years ago | (#32340800)

Users who currently have Chrome ... on linux can use their package manager or do it manually.

Re:Correction (1, Interesting)

jaavaaguru (261551) | more than 4 years ago | (#32340950)

That's not how it works. If you download the .deb file for Chrome 5 from Google's site, it does not get updated by the package manager. It also doesn't get updated the way the Windows version does. It really looks like you'd have to update it yourself. According to help, there should be a button on the about box to check for updates. The Linux version doesn't have this.

Re:Correction (4, Informative)

Urban Garlic (447282) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341056)

On Debian and Ubuntu, the .deb-packaged Chrome adds the Google deb archive in /etc/apt/sources.list.d/google-chrome.list, which is automatically searched by apt and aptitude, so your regular "aptitude update; aptitude upgrade" will pull in new versions of Chrome. Presumably the Synaptic package gizmo does the same things, but I am far too cool for GUIs, so I don't know.

If you want to turn this off, and leave it off, you can change the settings in /etc/default/google-chrome.

Re:Correction (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32341158)

One caveat: if you have it installed in ubuntu, it's the beta, so you'll have to remove it "apt-get remove google-chrome-beta" before installing "apt-get install google-chrome-stable".

Re:Correction (1, Redundant)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341390)

Wow, I thought that you were joking, but you're right:

dcl:~$ aptitude search google
p akonadi-kde-resource-googledata - Google calendar and contacts resource for Akonadi
p calendar-google-provider - Google Calendar support for iceowl, sunbird, lighting- and iceowl-extens
v google-chrome -
i google-chrome-beta - The web browser from Google
p google-chrome-stable - The web browser from Google
p google-chrome-unstable - The web browser from Google

Re:Correction (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32341266)

I suggest, instead of actually installing the .deb, you simply extract the files from the archive to a local directory using dpkg -x chrome.deb.
This way, you're not giving Google any special permissions on your machine, which effectively amount to root access.
Chrome runs perfectly from a local user's home directory when extracted like this.

Re:Correction (2, Insightful)

awshidahak (1282256) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341308)

Presumably the Synaptic package gizmo does the same things, but I am far too cool for GUIs, so I don't know.

So... if you're too cool for GUIs, tell me, why are you using Google Chrome and not lynx or w3m?

Re:Correction (1)

moogsynth (1264404) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341146)

No, you're wrong. Chrome's deb installer automatically adds the Google repositories, so Linux users get updates for it like they for any other package.

But there really isn't any point in running Chrome instead of Chromium on Linux any way. They're the exact same thing except for the logo and Googe's stalky tracking system, and Chromium usually has better package management.

Re:Correction (1)

mldi (1598123) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341216)

Users who currently have Chrome ... on linux can use their package manager or do it manually.

As a more specific note, I had to remove "google-chrome-beta" and install "google-chrome-stable" in order for mine to update.

Chome 6 (5, Funny)

jbeaupre (752124) | more than 4 years ago | (#32340806)

I'm waiting for Chrome 6 ... only because I like the sound of hexavalent chromium.

Re:Chome 6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32340856)

Then wait no longer as I'm running chrome 6.0.408.1 dev.

-- gid

Re:Chome 6 (5, Informative)

ElKry (1544795) | more than 4 years ago | (#32340858)

You don't have to wait, I'm posting this from Chrome 6.0.408.1

Of course, you're going to have to use the dev channel, and get ready for a hell of a bumpy ride...

6.0.414.0 (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341028)

You don't have to wait, I'm posting this from Chrome 6.0.408.1

You're falling behind... I'm using 6.0.414.0 obtained using Ubuntu's package manager.

Re:Chome 6 (1)

drspliff (652992) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341110)

I only noticed a while ago that the dev channel was silently updating, I had a week of weird crashes, but otherwise it's been quite good.

Re:Chome 6 (1)

qortra (591818) | more than 4 years ago | (#32340946)

I like the sound of hexavalent chromium

Yeah, you and PG&E [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Chome 6 (1)

jd (1658) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341044)

But Chrome is a soft metal. You want Tungsten, if you're going in that direction. Since it's now fashionable to design web browsers in a layered fashion, Graphene might actually be the better bet.

Chrome vs Chromium on Ubuntu? (4, Interesting)

jaavaaguru (261551) | more than 4 years ago | (#32340848)

Why would I download Chrome when I already have Chromium which gets updated automatically by Update Manager, remaining consistent with everything else on my laptop?

Re:Chrome vs Chromium on Ubuntu? (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 4 years ago | (#32340904)

That's very nice for you, but neither Windows nor OS X allow third-party applications to be updated via the built-in updater.

(Actually, that's not strictly true, I believe there was talk of Microsoft allowing it in Windows but I don't know of many applications taking advantage of that).

Re:Chrome vs Chromium on Ubuntu? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32340958)

It updates driver packages, which are (mostly) third party, and a handful of other Office and Vstudio addons, which have been submitted to MS and signed, and all those hoops.

Its just too easy to roll your own updater (or use clickonce, etc), to make it worth the hassle.

Re:Chrome vs Chromium on Ubuntu? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32340992)

Why wouldn't you kill yourself, fanboy?

Vertical tabs? (1, Interesting)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 4 years ago | (#32340880)

Have they added vertical tabs yet? As someone who generally has at least 15 tabs open, I can't use the current incarnation of Chrome due to the horizontal tabs.

Anyone know if this is fixed yet?

Re:Vertical tabs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32341132)

Have they added vertical tabs yet? ...

Anyone know if this is fixed yet?

Fixed? That's like remarking that browsing still sucks, and has it been fixed by adding 3-dimensional rendering yet?

Or... my car still only goes 100mph, has Ford fixed this in newer models by adding rocket engines?

Re:Vertical tabs? (1, Flamebait)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341380)

Placing the tabs horizontally was a serious blunder. A browser where the UI is designed for a maximum of ~5 tabs is horribly broken, as far as I'm concerned. Both for work purposes, and more importantly, for porn browsing.

stable? (2, Informative)

nnet (20306) | more than 4 years ago | (#32340910)

Stable? Still says beta.

Re:stable? (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341010)

Och aye? The Win32 version I just installed a couple hours ago didn't say that.

Be helpful to know what platform you're on.

Re:stable? (1)

jaavaaguru (261551) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341020)

I don't see any 'beta' on mine...

http://twitpic.com/1r0t5g [twitpic.com]

Re:stable? (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341178)

Photoshopped! Wait, uhm, GIMPed!

GOATSE ALERT! GOATSE ALERT! GOATSE ALERT! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32341354)

Please, DO NOT CLICK THAT LINK! It is a picture of goatse and it actually made me vomit. Please do not let that happen to you.

BETA Chrome vs 5 - 64-bit linux Ubuntu 10.04 (1)

Bananatree3 (872975) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341072)

http://imgur.com/OiEXQ.jpg [imgur.com]

Still says beta for me - in true Google style! :)

Re:stable? (0, Troll)

MiniMike (234881) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341084)

It's available for Windows. It can't legally say "stable".

Re:stable? (1)

Spatial (1235392) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341186)

Pft. System uptime: 57 days, 23 hours.

Re:stable? (3, Informative)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341126)

The "beta" indicator is an indication of your update channel... it's not part of the version number. I'm guessing you're on the beta channel and noticed the stable channel got the same version, but yours still says "beta". Am I right?

Re:stable? (1)

Bananatree3 (872975) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341290)

correct - I uninstalled the "beta" version and installed the stable - same version number but got rid of the beta.

Stable channel vs beta channel in Ubuntu (1)

Bananatree3 (872975) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341268)

I uninstalled the "beta" chrome version from Synaptic Package manager and selected "stable". No more "beta" - http://imgur.com/EWran.png [imgur.com]

this is going to be (5, Insightful)

nimbius (983462) | more than 4 years ago | (#32340912)

a hard sell for me. The entire point of linux and me switching to it was the privacy and security. What is my incentive to switch from a floss browser on a floss OS to a nonfree browser (or not as free as id like to see it) which saps my bandwidth on the backend to report my surfing habits back to google.

and no, i cant trust that it isnt communicating with google or wont decide to at some point in the future. The whole german wifi debacle is making this company just as hot to handle as facebook.

Re:this is going to be (3, Insightful)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 4 years ago | (#32340960)

Why not go with Chromium?

Re:this is going to be (0)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 4 years ago | (#32340972)

The whole german wifi debacle is making this company just as hot to handle as facebook.

I don't think so.

Re:this is going to be (3, Interesting)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341088)

The whole german wifi debacle is making this company just as hot to handle as facebook.

I don't think so.

I do. The common mantra seems to be, "Enough privacy to get people to stop complaining." Google, Facebook, Myspace, Microsoft, Apple, Adobe are all guilty of this thinking, and they're showing no sign of letting up.

Some may argue that "people" should be replaced with "governments," but that's a pointless swap. Governments are made of people, and people will complain about privacy abuses to governments, knowing full well that it won't do any good to complain to the abusers.

Re:this is going to be (1)

psbrogna (611644) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341172)

I can appreciate this concern and would suggest that there's a middle ground: It is possible to monitor your network traffic and setup firewall rules to stop this sort of thing if you're that concerned. I do this myself from time to time and am always surprised at what I see going back to the mother ship at <INSERT VENDOR X HERE>. It's not just Google you should worry about.

Google product out of beta... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32340930)

So when a Google product is out of beta...does that meant Google considers it obsolete or something?

Lame, I'm already on version 6 (1)

nikomo (1338131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32340956)

6.0.408.1 dev is for real men.

Re:Lame, I'm already on version 6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32341122)

Real men use Sleipnir [wikipedia.org]

RHEL 5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32340968)

Those of us still stuck on RHEL 5 until 6 is out still have no chrome due to it requiring a higher LSB.
I successfully installed chrome on me RHEL 6 beta VM though... looking forward to that coming out.

Cool, a Linux version... Oh never mind. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32340970)

So, it's RPM only release and only for Fedora (CentOS 5.3 apparently is not good enough).

Google, get a clue, some of us have evolved and never ever install third party RPMs. A self-contained tar.gz please!

But, like I said, it would not have worked anyway on my CentOS box.

So, Google try again, I'll stick with Firefox in the meantime.

Sidebars? (5, Interesting)

simp (25997) | more than 4 years ago | (#32340982)

Does Chrome now support a bookmark sidebar? With the wide-screen TFTs everywhere these days a bookmark sidebar has become a must-have for me. I cannot stand bookmark pull-down menus. And to make things worse Chrome has put the default Bookmark menu in the upper- right hand corner of the screen, which for some reason is a place of the screen where my cursor never is.

Can it accept add-ons yet? (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#32340988)

If I can't load NoScript, AdBlock, etc (or at least disable scripts on a per-site level) then no thanks.

Re:Can it accept add-ons yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32341134)

If I can't load NoScript, AdBlock, etc (or at least disable scripts on a per-site level) then no thanks.

Chrome has been using extensions since version 4, so yes you can use adblock. Not sure about NoScript.

Re:Can it accept add-ons yet? (1)

Jello B. (950817) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341136)

Oh for fuck's sake, where have you been? https://chrome.google.com/extensions/?hl=en [google.com]

Re:Can it accept add-ons yet? (2, Informative)

moogsynth (1264404) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341270)

Yes we all know it has extensions. But Chrome doesn't have Noscript. It does have Javascript-blocking and whitelists but it's an all or nothing choice for each website, which is less than ideal. Chrome also has an adblocker, but it isn't a proper adblocker; it just hides the ads. So clearly, the you are wrong, and Chrome is still not a good choice of browser for the GP.

Re:Can it accept add-ons yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32341152)

If I can't load NoScript, AdBlock, etc (or at least disable scripts on a per-site level) then no thanks.

Yes.

Re:Can it accept add-ons yet? (1)

baka_toroi (1194359) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341164)

Let me tell you how this will go: you made a comment about Chrome's lack of add-ons. You will get a reply stating that Chrome already supports add-ons, including an advert-blocker. Then ANOTHER guy will tell both of you that Chrome's ad-blocker is sub-par to that of Firefox, since the adverts are downloaded and they run in the background; they're just hidden in Chrome. Then the typical shit-fest of the new Web 2.0 browsers war will ensue.

You saved valuable time with my post.

Re:Can it accept add-ons yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32341206)

You can disable scripts on a per site basis in Chrome. ('wrench' / options / content settings) You can either allow all with a blacklist or allow none with a whilelist. It's clunky, but there. You can do the same with addons.

Re:Can it accept add-ons yet? (2, Informative)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341276)

Extensions have been in place since 4.0 or 4.1 or something. Unfortunately there are no APIs for PROPER blocking of resources (ie stopping Chrome from fetching them) but there are already extensions that can at least remove them from the DOM while the page is loading. My favorite is AdBlock [google.com] .

As for NoScript, Chrome has "lite" functionality built in. You can use Options > Under the Hood > Content Settings to turn off JavaScript and Plugins and then whitelist individual sites when the icons pop up on the omnibar, kinda like NoScript. Only problems/differences:

  1. Whitelists apply to PAGES, not to RESOURCES. So an offsite resource is still allowed if the host page is whitelisted. This also applies to frames. So this can't be used to block ad scripts like NoScript.
  2. Plugin whitelist button doesn't always show up, most notably for swfobject.js (IIRC). The problem is that the whitelist icon shows if there is an embed in the page, but some JS will check for the presense of a plugin before placing the embed. With plugins blocked, the browser reports no plugins available, and so the JS never inserts the embed, so the whitelist icon never appears. I've opened a bug on this; JS access of the plugins array show cause the icon to appear.
  3. It's hard to block the whole domain instead of a subdomain (you have to go into the dialogs and do it by hand) and sometimes it doesn't seem to work. Better than earlier versions where it wasn't possible (ytmnd, deviantart, etc were a pain).
  4. Page doesn't automatically refresh when you whitelist a site, plus you have to do JS and plugins separately.
  5. Some things in Chrome break; the JS features of the Developer Tools (Console, script tab) do not work right when the inspected page has JS blocked. Chrome has JS in its FTP directory listings for some reason; this is treated with the whitelist rules, for another unknown reason.

So it could use improvement, but it's not too bad a start. Especially since it's built-in functionality which Firefox doesn't even have. I am looking forward to hopefully APIs that will allow for an extension that can work more like NoScript.

No Flash? (1)

AriesGeek (593959) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341138)

Adobe's Flash Player is not yet integrated into the stable branch of Chrome; however, the Google Product Manager Brian Rakowski says that it will be enabled when the final version of Flash Player 10.1 is released.

*sigh*

Apple topic? (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341236)

Why is this under the Apple topic? There is a Google topic!

Re:Apple topic? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341406)

That's what I was wondering myself.

Re:Apple topic? (1)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341442)

To be fair chrome is based on WebKit which is apples fork of KHTML.

Obligatory Adblock Reply (2, Insightful)

Mode Frozen (559419) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341332)

Hopefully this version will allow development of a potent ad blocker like the famous Firefox addon. Apparently the only thing limiting it from happening is the implementation of content policies in Chrome.

No PPC? (1)

lemur3 (997863) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341334)

Yaah, I know, it is old.... But I would have really liked a PPC release. Is there something in the code that prohibits such a thing?

Haven't noticed much of a difference (1)

correnos (1727834) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341408)

According to chrom(ium), I've been using v5 already. It seems pretty much the same, but hey, if they want to update then by all means, have at it. Still prefer Konqueror+webkitpart.

"Slashdot Apple Story"?? (1)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341432)

Did you just do that to taunt Google? Or slashdot turning into Gizmodo? ;)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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