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 Quashes 13 Chrome Bugs, Adds PDF Viewer

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the next-please-block-cw-popups dept.

Google 177

CWmike writes "Google on Thursday patched 13 vulnerabilities in Chrome 8 (stable), and debuted Google's built-in PDF viewer, an alternative to the bug-plagued Adobe Reader plug-in, and included support for the still-not-launched Chrome Web Store. The 13 flaws fixed in Chrome 8.0.552.215 are in a variety of components, including the browser's history, its video indexing and the display of SVG (scalable vector graphics) animations. Next up: Adobe and Google have collaborated to put the Flash Player plug-in inside a sandbox within the dev build of Chrome, an effort by the two companies to better protect users from attacks."

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

-13 +1 (0)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#34440402)

so they fixed 13 bugs and added 1 new one?

Re:-13 +1 (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34440500)

The problems with pdf security are either due to the latter standards that allow excusable to be imbedded or due to poor security in the adobe and apple readers. You never hear about evince or ocular being a security risk.

Re:-13 +1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34440614)

You never hear about evince or ocular being a security risk.

You never hear about it because no one uses either of those.

Re:-13 +1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34440728)

You never hear about evince or ocular being a security risk.

Security through obscurity at its finest!

Re:-13 +1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34440768)

WTF!

Adobe (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#34440442)

So Adobe didn't mind helping Google, even while Google was developing a replacement for Acrobat Reader?

Seems a little odd to me.

Re:Adobe (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34440474)

Adobe doesn't care about competition for reader.

Re:Adobe (4, Insightful)

Guillermito (187510) | more than 3 years ago | (#34440618)

Adobe makes money with PDF authoring tools, not with reader. Since PDF is marketed as a universal format, I guess it is in Adobe's best interest for end users to have a seamless experience accessing PDF content in every possible platform.

Re:Adobe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34441734)

The odd part, to me, is that Google makes their own PDF reader to replace Adobe's shitty, bloated, bug-ridden piece of shit (probably good for the security and privacy of Chrome users), yet not too long ago they decided to start bundling Flash with their browser (translation: poorer security by default).

Which pretty much confirms my suspicions that including Flash was a marketing stunt to begin with--even if they would argue that by including it upon install, its updates will be handled automatically by Google Update, making it "safer" than if the user manually installed it and had to keep it up to date themselves.

Because I like being on cutting edge... (4, Informative)

McNihil (612243) | more than 3 years ago | (#34440450)

Just tested it with chrome 9.x... the pdf rendering is ridiculously fast.

Re:Because I like being on cutting edge... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34440670)

Yeah, was just testing that myself. It seems fast but about the same speed as the GNOME viewer so nothing new per se. I'm not sure how that compares to Acrobat because I don't have it installed.

Personally I have never wanted to view a PDF inside the browser so I'm not sure why so many people think it's important. This does seem to work better than the embedded Acrobat in the browser though if you're so inclined.

Re:Because I like being on cutting edge... (3, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#34440720)

Acrobat is slow. Imagine if your computer was unusable for 30 seconds because you accidentally clicked on a pdf link. Acrobat is worse than that.

Re:Because I like being on cutting edge... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34441334)

Agreed. I deal with PDF a lot and the first thing I'd do with any machine where I needed to use them was install something like PDF XChange. That's what I'd be comparing the Chrome viewer to, not the god awful Acrobat Reader.

Re:Because I like being on cutting edge... (1)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 3 years ago | (#34440870)

Personally I have never wanted to view a PDF inside the browser so I'm not sure why so many people think it's important.

It's nice to have PDFs alongside my other tabs. It reduces the number of windows I have open by 1 per PDF, if I already have at least 1 other tab open. This is a small thing that wouldn't really bother me if it stopped existing one day. Also, some sites display PDFs mixed with HTML on the same page. It's probably not great style, but such is life.

Re:Because I like being on cutting edge... (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 3 years ago | (#34441086)

Because the alternative, at least in Chrome, is obnoxious -- it doesn't have the option to download something to a temp folder and open it. Instead, if it sees anything it can't handle itself, either internally or with plugins, it's going to download it, automatically and instantly, cluttering my download folder to hell. It's especially bad when people put PDFs in iframes...

Acrobat actually isn't that bad, it's mostly the startup time that's a killer, but this is an improvement all around.

Re:Because I like being on cutting edge... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34440936)

so I have chrome 9.0.576.0 and xpdf 3.02 and just scrolling through a few PDFs i have lying around i would say that chrome is 2~ to 3~ faster than xpdf.

I wouldn't describe either of them as 'ridiculously fast', my crappy macbook (not pro, core 2 duo era thing) is probably 3~ faster than chrome on my 2-way 3.3GHz xeon.

Not a joke (1)

AmigaHeretic (991368) | more than 3 years ago | (#34441014)

At first I thought you were joking when you said you were testing it with Chrome 9.x I didn't even know Chrome 8.x was out.

Am I just getting old or are these releases abnormally fast?

Re:Not a joke (2)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 3 years ago | (#34441454)

How else were they going to get a release of Chrome 9, before IE9 comes out?

Re:Because I like being on cutting edge... (0)

Godskitchen (1017786) | more than 3 years ago | (#34441634)

Man, this post reeks of Google fanboy-ism.

From "bug-plagued" in the summary to "ridiculously fast" here... sheesh... I use acrobat reader on multiple OS's with multiple browsers and never had a problem. Seriously if a PDF takes 800 ms vs 900 ms to load a document, does it really matter?

Re:Because I like being on cutting edge... (2)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 3 years ago | (#34441942)

Adobe Reader isn't just slow at loading a pdf, its slow and crappy searching and browsing the currently loaded pdf. Going from Adobe to Okular was insane. I suddenly went from dreading reading PDF docs, to loving it. Haven't tried it in Chromium yet, but I know how much better PDF viewing can be outside of Adobe. PS the bugs he was referring to are security vulnerabilities, in case you haven't figured that out by reading the 800 other posts talking about the vulnerabilities in Adobe. Now, is Google's auto-magically immune to them ... No idea. Some of the vulnerabilities are somewhat baked into the featureset. You can't support all of the crazy things you can do in PDFs without providing some possibility of some bad PDFs doing dangerous things.

Re:Because I like being on cutting edge... (1)

Bacon Bits (926911) | more than 3 years ago | (#34441800)

It does render very fast, but certain things were just awful when this was present in the Dev channel and convinced me to disable the thing. Last time I played with it, selecting text to copy and paste worked dreadfully. Letters would be dropped or the text would select in unpredictable ways. Additionally, printing the PDF resulted in something that looked exactly nothing like the PDF document I was using. I found the latter particularly silly given the design intent and implementation of the PDF document format (ostensibly a PostScript printer file with extra metadata). I was also particularly annoyed that there was no way in the Dev version to save the PDF to file rather than merely view it. (At least, none that I could discern.) This made it more irritating than not when you wanted to download a PDF to store for later or to distribute to others.

So while it's great for viewing, I found it limited and the inability to save meant that you couldn't easily fall back on a thicker PDF reader when the browser-based version failed.

Re:Because I like being on cutting edge... (1)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 3 years ago | (#34441912)

IT'S ABOUT F!~@#NG TIME!!!

My small company develops document management systems for education. PDF is the standard of choice because it's open and cross platform. The problem is that Adobe sucks so horribly bad that we've actually taken to recommending Foxit as a "better than" solution, even though it has its own set of warts. Sure, Adobe makes its money on Acrobat, and the Adobe reader is a gimme, but why couldn't they make the gimme actually work?!?!?

Rendering a PDF inline works less than 30% of the time among installed base users who have Adobe Reader installed by our own internal survey. Thus, for our needs, Adobe gets this wrong at lesat 70% of the time!

We've actually found it much more useful to render "inline" PDFs as a PNG rendered via ImageMagick (even though it's blurry and adds .2 seconds of rendering time because it actually WORKS in most end user browsers) than to show it as a rendered inline PDF using Adobe among customers with Adobe Reader already installed!

How a multi-billion dollar company can get something so basic (show a vector format as a plugin) so horribly wrong is beyond me, but when they get their asses handed back to them, they will have earned it.

Adobe? Are you listening?!?!? Because I'm telling you: it's easier to find a very second-rate way to display a PDF than it is to use your product because it sucks so badly!

Re:Because I like being on cutting edge... (1)

tokul (682258) | more than 3 years ago | (#34441988)

the pdf rendering is ridiculously fast.

How accurate it is? Any pdf reader can be ridiculously fast, if it dumps half of specification or does not render complex objects.

PDF viewer (4, Insightful)

hether (101201) | more than 3 years ago | (#34440454)

"The viewer renders PDF documents as HTML-based pages"

I hope it does a better job than the PDF viewer built into Google search...

Re:PDF viewer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34441432)

"The viewer renders PDF documents as HTML-based pages"

I hope it does a better job than the PDF viewer built into Google search...

I know it's a Slashdot tradition to mod up contentless one liners, but I'm curious why you've been modded +5 insightful... What about the PDF viewer of Google search is bad? Do you have a particular example? I use it regularly and find it to do a fantastic job for the vast majority of documents I view...

Re:PDF viewer (3, Informative)

The_mad_linguist (1019680) | more than 3 years ago | (#34441558)

It's terrible for anything with diagrams or formulas.

Sandbox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34440464)

I'm sure it will be just fine, look how well it worked in IE8!

Re:Sandbox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34440646)

You mean the IE8 Protected Mode which still (AFAIK) hasn't been bypassed? Even that recent Windows elevation vuln was prevented.

Also, TFS mentioned plugin sandboxing, which is different from browser sandboxing. Opt-out plugin sandboxing was tried back in 2009 but taken out because most plugins don't work with it.

And Chromium's sandboxing architecture on Windows isn't only built around Mandatory Integrity Control (like IE8 is) but also on restricted access tokens, which has the benefit of working nearly as well on Windows XP.

Re:Sandbox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34440776)

I'm an idiot. I didn't hear about http://it.slashdot.org/story/10/12/03/2231205/Researchers-Bypass-IE-Protected-Mode [slashdot.org] .

Anyway, this isn't a flaw in MIC, or even IE8's implementation of it, but rather its stupid backwards-compatibility zone policy disabling MIC on intranet websites. Hurray, more IE security issues because of flawed business support. At least it can not affect Chromium.

Re:Sandbox (1)

metrix007 (200091) | more than 3 years ago | (#34441532)

Actually it probably does affect Chrome. For some stupid reason the Windows version of Chrome shares it's network settings with Internet Explorer, which makes it lose a great many points.

Re:Sandbox (1)

wampus (1932) | more than 3 years ago | (#34441722)

It's a massive pain in the ass to have to reconfigure proxy and PKI on a per application basis. I personally love that Chrome uses the OS settings that Firefox ignores.

Re:Sandbox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34440830)

You mean the IE8 Protected Mode which still (AFAIK) hasn't been bypassed?

Maybe you need to read the story two down from this one... The one with the headline "Researchers Bypass IE Protected Mode"...

Re:Sandbox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34440944)

Fair enough, but this doesn't demonstrate a flaw or weakness within the sandbox mechanism. IE8 chose to display certain webpages outside the sandbox. Chromium doesn't have that issue... not even for extension-spawned tabs.

Chrome PDF viewer is pretty good (2)

haruchai (17472) | more than 3 years ago | (#34440470)

It's been in the dev or beta channel for a while. Works fine and hasn't choked on any PDFs I've viewed with it yet.

If you don't want to wait, add --safe-plugins (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34440512)

Launch Chromium with --safe-plugins to sandbox all plugins, including Adobe Flash. This will break some plugins or functionality on Windows, e.g. Google's video chat plugin and Silverlight... but simply watching Flash video works great.

Quashes? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34440516)

So the bugs subpoenaed Google, and Google asked the judge that the motion of discovery be nullified?

Or did they mean squashed?

Re:Quashes? (2, Informative)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#34440952)

No, they meant quashed and got it right. The legal definition flows from the standard english one.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quashed?show=0&t=1291432910 [merriam-webster.com]

Re:Quashes? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34440964)

Put an end to; suppress. [lmgtfy.com] Maybe you should know the definition of a word before you make fun of other people for "not" using it right.

PDF Viewer, Finally (1)

htafolla (1952534) | more than 3 years ago | (#34440526)

The PDF Viewer will be nice. Have had issues on both Windows and Linux.

So did the fix the http:// display bug? (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 3 years ago | (#34440566)

I'm guessing not.

Re:So did the fix the http:// display bug? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34441200)

I know to many this is not a big deal, but it still annoys me that there is not even an option to "fix" this behavior. Why hasn't anyone released an easy-to-apply patch or specific Chromium fork/patch that us non-programmers can easily use?

Re:So did the fix the http:// display bug? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34441732)

I know to many this is not a big deal, but it still annoys me that there is not even an option to "fix" this behavior. Why hasn't anyone released an easy-to-apply patch or specific Chromium fork/patch that us non-programmers can easily use?

If you want to customize your browser, use Firefox. Firefox is implemented in a way that allows an add-on to customize every aspect of the browser*. This flexibility comes at a price: It is noticeably slower then other browsers. It is harder to maintain, because any change might break an add-on.

Chrome made a decision to make a browser with a feature set that makes most users happy, while being as fast and responsive as possible. Take a look at their bug database: Every feature request ends with "I will use chrome once you fix this one thing, until then I will use firefox." Unfortunately, every user wants a different feature, implemented in a different way. If they ever re-add http:// in the omnibox, expect an army of users to descend on http://crbug.com/ with angry rants about how 'http://' shouldn't be there. If we add an option for everyone, no one will be happy with the slow, buggy, hard-to-change result.

*: Search for "XUL" to see how this is done.

Re:So did the fix the http:// display bug? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34441848)

Its a "feature", apparently.

If you notice that if you copy the URL, it automatically prepends your copied string with http://.

Flash in PDFs, head-to-head vs Acrobat Reader (2)

Khopesh (112447) | more than 3 years ago | (#34440584)

One of the biggest problems with Adobe Acrobat Reader is that attackers can run exploits via embedded flash ... since Chrome supports flash, does that mean it will support flash in the PDFs it converts to HTML? I hope not, or at least not by default.

I'd like to see Chrome come with a dummy app that pretends to be a PDF reader which merely runs a specialized window holding the document content in a manner akin to your typical PDF viewer. This would help people stop wean themselves off of Acrobat Reader. Maybe it will be better than FoxIt and Evince et al. (though I suspect not; the whole point of PDF is in a perfectly consistent rendering so as to always print the same, while HTML is almost impossible to do that. Google likely has no interest in molding Chrome into something that ideal for paged media, but I can hope...)

(Disclaimer: I word processes in HTML using vim; I know a good amount of page-media CSS, including all those CSS1 and CSS2 bits that still lack implementation in FF and Chrome...)

Re:Flash in PDFs, head-to-head vs Acrobat Reader (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34440708)

I doubt it. It isn't and won't be a fully featured plugin. Chrome's PDF viewer was sandboxed in the dev builds even, so there isn't much risk there. If Adobe fixes the Flash sandbox issues (for one, Mic does not work) then maybe we'd see SWF-in-PDF support.

Re:Flash in PDFs, head-to-head vs Acrobat Reader (2)

Khopesh (112447) | more than 3 years ago | (#34440764)

I doubt it. It isn't and won't be a fully featured plugin. Chrome's PDF viewer was sandboxed in the dev builds even, so there isn't much risk there. If Adobe fixes the Flash sandbox issues (for one, Mic does not work) then maybe we'd see SWF-in-PDF support.

Honestly, I hope we don't. PDF shouldn't have flash support. That 'feature' was merely added by Acrobat because it was trivial for them to do. Anybody seeking that kind of thing should use HTML, Flash itself (which is fully capable of this sort of thing!), or perhaps PPT.

flash on amd64 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34440590)

When can I watch porn in 64 bit linux? I can't sleep at night.

whoop dee doo (1)

glebovitz (202712) | more than 3 years ago | (#34440638)

All this enhancement sounds great, but I wish they would concentrate on compatibility with web sites first. There are too many sites that don't work well with Chrome and I am tired of getting warnings from popular sites that warn me about running an unsupported browser.

Re:whoop dee doo (4, Informative)

onefriedrice (1171917) | more than 3 years ago | (#34440790)

All this enhancement sounds great, but I wish they would concentrate on compatibility with web sites first. There are too many sites that don't work well with Chrome and I am tired of getting warnings from popular sites that warn me about running an unsupported browser.

Any examples you can come up with, because I have no idea what you're talking about. WebKit is extremely compatible (it's one of the most popular HTML engines out there), and I don't know of any incompatibilities with Chrome's Javascript VM either, so... I guess I'll just have to call BS.

Re:whoop dee doo (1)

creativeHavoc (1052138) | more than 3 years ago | (#34440902)

I don't think he knows the difference between a browser being compatible and a website sniffing browsers and sending an unwarranted warning.

Re:whoop dee doo (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34442086)

maps.google.com is unfortunately one of the sites that works better in IE than in Chrome. Try to plan a road trip with 6+ waypoints and see for yourself.

Websites don't support browsers (3, Insightful)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 3 years ago | (#34441018)

Any website that warns about unsupported browsers is by definition designed by someone who doesn't know how to design websites. Properly designed websites follow standards, and web browsers comply with those standards. When a web developer speaks in terms of which browsers they do and don't support that is a direct indication that they don't understand even the most basic and fundamental concepts of website design.

Re:Websites don't support browsers (1)

catbutt (469582) | more than 3 years ago | (#34441278)

When a web developer speaks in terms of which browsers they do and don't support that is a direct indication that they don't understand even the most basic and fundamental concepts of website design.

Well, with the exception of IE6. I wouldn't fault a site for not caring anymore if their site looks crappy on IE6.

Re:Websites don't support browsers (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34441358)

I wouldn't fault a site for not caring anymore if their site looks crappy on IE6.

But I would fault such a site for not including a (tasteful) ad for Google Chrome Frame at the top of pages served to IE <= 7. Chrome Frame is a browser helper object that uses the Chrome engine for pages that opt in to Chrome rendering using a <meta> element.

Re:Websites don't support browsers (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 3 years ago | (#34441482)

I'd love to push chome frame for browsers = ie10... how about supporting linear gradients for backrounds, or any number of other features far more widely useful ocer canvas... css3pie breaks in ie9, and the dx based gradient filter doesn't support stop points, or work with their border radius implementation.

Using lack of compliance to sell Windows 7 (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34441546)

web browsers comply with those standards.

Unless, of course, the maker of the web browser is using the lack of compliance with standards in older versions of the browser as a tool to sell another product that the web browser requires. I routinely get banner ads for IE 9 when browsing with Chrome under Ubuntu 10.10 or Firefox under Windows XP; I click them and they end up being ads for Windows 7.

Re:whoop dee doo (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34441324)

All this enhancement sounds great, but I wish they would concentrate on compatibility with web sites first. There are too many sites that don't work well with Chrome and I am tired of getting warnings from popular sites that warn me about running an unsupported browser.

Do you want the chrome team to rewrite third party sites to not check the user agent? Or should they lie in their user agent and make being bug-compatible with IE6 a priority?

Poorly written sites are not a problem a browser should fix.

Quashes bugs, adds pdf support... (2)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 3 years ago | (#34440644)

Talk about undoing your own work, huh?

Re:Quashes bugs, adds pdf support... (1)

Burz (138833) | more than 3 years ago | (#34441346)

Talk about undoing your own work, huh?

Indeed. I wonder if the PDF viewer has a sandbox too. If not, then they could be opening up an even bigger can of worms!

Re:Quashes bugs, adds pdf support... (2)

cbhacking (979169) | more than 3 years ago | (#34441832)

As a security tester by profession, I *really* want to run some fuzzing tools over that PDF reader. In fact, I might just do that. Coming up with a proper minset without using the resources at work would take time, though.

Re:Quashes bugs, adds pdf support... (1)

sl149q (1537343) | more than 3 years ago | (#34442016)

Who cares ... if there is a problem it will result in some anonymous server in the cloud getting infected :-)

Paste bug fix? (2)

PRMan (959735) | more than 3 years ago | (#34440810)

Does it fix the "I can't paste into a textarea" bug?

I was using it instead of Firefox, but that one's a dealkiller for me.

Re:Paste bug fix? (1)

PRMan (959735) | more than 3 years ago | (#34440820)

Can't paste my quote...

Nope.

Re:Paste bug fix? (1)

tyrione (134248) | more than 3 years ago | (#34440858)

Does it fix the "I can't paste into a textarea" bug?

I was using it instead of Firefox, but that one's a dealkiller for me.

Nope. It's a joke that even 9.0.597.0 dev still can't manage this simple behavior.

Re:Paste bug fix? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34440988)

Try to paste at the beginning of the textarea without writing anything in it before, or moving the cursor. This works for comment quotes in /. textareas. Of course, one can't paste again after a single edit so a multi paste can be made using an external text editor.. The room of /.-postings has often had the familiar fuck-fuck-fuckityfuck, echoing in despair, as if the moneyshot was approaching with no results.

Where's the bug? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 3 years ago | (#34441106)

This has been annoying me for awhile now. Where's a bug we can all vote for and Slashdot?

Re:Where's the bug? (2)

Tynin (634655) | more than 3 years ago | (#34441182)

This has been annoying me for awhile now. Where's a bug we can all vote for and Slashdot?

If I were to guess, it would be due to the two buffers X Windows uses [davidsimmons.com] (and since it is X Windows, most Linux OS's suffer the same issue), the clipboard buffer, and the primary buffer, have been an ongoing train wreck for years. It is like a few developers don't want to change the way they do things, and don't share best practices for which buffer to use and when.

Even the current Ubuntu LTS 10.4 suffers from it (not tried it again in the current release, but it has been a problem for a long time on several distros), generally it's the same work around each time, which is to paste into a text program that when you do a copy, it copies it into both buffers (I think I'm using gedit, but I'm not at my workstation). Then when you paste, it should display since regardless of which buffer gets called, it will have your copy.

Re:Where's the bug? (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 3 years ago | (#34441230)

Fun fact: there's actually a second X selection buffer. It's not used very much at all, but it does mean that there are three separate clipboard-type entities that are available on most X systems.

If you know what's going on, the separate X selection and X clipboard can be occasionally useful (it essentially gives you two clipboards if you can manage to use them with accidentally overwriting stuff), but is mostly just annoying. Way better (both more useful and more predictable) would be to have just one clipboard entity, but have a global kill ring. I'm not sure exactly the best method here that makes both modern-style copy/paste and Unix-style select/middle-click interactions kind, but I feel almost certain you could come up with one that is better than the small mess that is present now.

Re:Where's the bug? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 3 years ago | (#34441368)

That doesn't seem to work in this case -- I've tried Kate.

What I don't get is when one of the buffers is clearly empty -- it's not pasting garbage, it's pasting nothing -- why wouldn't it check another? And why is this even an issue? On my system, I use Firefox or Chrome, depending on the situation. Both use GTK+. Why would this bug only affect Chrome, and only on certain websites, under certain conditions? Why do I never see this issue anywhere else? Why will it paste into other locations in Chrome, like the address bar or even other textboxes, just not a Slashdot comment box?

Even if it's X-related, the fact that other browsers get it right suggests that it's Chrome's bug, so again, where's the bug we can all vote up till someone actually fixes it?

Re:Where's the bug? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34441424)

This issue is OS independent. The same behavior occurs with Windows.

Re:Where's the bug? (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 3 years ago | (#34441498)

Happens in the beta channel builds on some of my win 7 machines too, not just linux... really annoying. I use it as my main browser now, but tempted to go back to firefox... chrome works better ovia my employer's proxy than FF, annoying..

Re:Where's the bug? (3, Informative)

pclminion (145572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34441604)

If I were to guess, it would be due to the two buffers X windows uses

How does that explain the fact that I had to manually type in the above quote, and I'm running Windows 7?

It's fucking ridiculous, it happens with no other site but this one, and the fact that Slashdot has done nothing to fix it in the past MONTH that it's been going on, is absolutely incomprehensible to me. What. The. Fuck. Find the problem and fix it.

Even if it's somehow a bug in Chrome, I laugh out loud at the prospect of switching away from my preferred browser because one site on the Internet can't be assed to worked around the problem. I'd rather abandon Slashdot than abandon Chrome, and that's saying something.

PDF viewer has been in unstable for Months (1)

tyrione (134248) | more than 3 years ago | (#34440848)

Just download the unstable branch. It's as close to WebKit Nightly as you get for Chrome.

Damn. It's all downhill for now. (2, Interesting)

CFD339 (795926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34440856)

You start with something small and fast.

Soon you're all about embedding this and that and everything else. Now you're all about bloat.

See, I use foxit. I like foxit. I don't install the embedded reader because I don't like it to be embedded. That's my choice. You may not agree, but that's cool because that's what choice means.

Now, Chrome embeds its own viewer. There goes my choice. There goes the lightweight browser. Hello monoculture software. Hello exploits.

bah.

Re:Damn. It's all downhill for now. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34441048)

about:plugins -> Chrome PDF Viewer -> Disable.

or

Options -> Under the Hood -> Content settings -> Plug-ins -> Block all.

Also it's weird to say a plugin is causing bloat, when the plugin resides in a shared library, it only registers one embed handler, and is entered only when a PDF is viewed. It has zero runtime overhead and its .text section is shared between processes (iirc... loadlibrary on win32 does copy-on-write).

Re:Damn. It's all downhill for now. (1)

CFD339 (795926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34441130)

Ok, good information. Not sure you'll know I said that, because its an AC post, but what the hell. Thanks.

Re:Damn. It's all downhill for now. (2)

Guspaz (556486) | more than 3 years ago | (#34441952)

FYI, Google's using Foxit for the built-in PDF viewer. So, you know, this is kind of like you using Foxit, but with less bloat, since you don't need a completely separate application and UI to get the Foxit PDF rendering engine.

Do no evil? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34441332)

Adobe and Google have collaborated

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [youtube.com]

Re:Damn. It's all downhill for now. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34441352)

Don't be ridiculous. Of course you have a choice. Since the PDF viewer is implemented in a nice, modular way, it is also a plug-in. You can go to about:plugins and disable it using the nice UI just like any other plugin. If the (small by modern standards) disk space taken up offends you, go and delete the pdf.dll or libpdf.so or whatever it's called on your system.

Re:Damn. It's all downhill for now. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34441452)

Hello monoculture software. Hello exploits.

We embedded a viewer so that we could sandbox it. This makes exploits much harder to pull off. If you do manage to get a user to open a PDF that exploits a bug, the sandbox ensures that the process you now control is unable to access the filesystem or open network connections, and will be killed if it tries.

99% of users don't know what a plugin is, and won't keep them up to date unless the process is totally automatic. Chrome got this right: Updates are silently downloaded and applied unless you go out of your way to disabling them. Making the PDF plugin a part of Chrome allows chrome updates to update the plugin. Chrome's track record fixing security bugs fast is far better than the record of the PDF plugin that virtually all Windows users most user have.

If you don't want to use the fast, small, sandboxed PDF viewer that gets security updates, go to about:plugins and click disable. Nothing stops you from using other plugin if you want to.

indeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34440912)

a pdf viewer is sweet

Re:indeed (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34441020)

not as sweet as a tight wet pussy.

Re:indeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34441134)

The difference is, you'll actually see a PDF viewer in your life.

Re:indeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34441336)

I saw a PDF of a pussy once.

Crome still disappoints me... (4, Insightful)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 3 years ago | (#34441108)

...and here's why:

The fact that after all these releases, Google still does not see it prudent to had 'print preview' added to Chrome as one of its features.

Folks, this feature is a killer for me...and I am not alone. Trust me on this.

Re:Crome still disappoints me... (1)

Alzheimers (467217) | more than 3 years ago | (#34441162)

Agreed. Lack of the ability to change even the most basic page layout options strictly keeps Chrome in the "Nice Toy" category.

Re:Crome still disappoints me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34441310)

Seriously? You must print a lot of web pages.

Re:Crome still disappoints me... (0)

martas (1439879) | more than 3 years ago | (#34441348)

meh, just print it to a pdf, then preview all you want...

Re:Crome still disappoints me... (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34442098)

Use an operating system that provides a decent underlying platform for printing. I have print preview and all sorts of print options here, all provided for free by the printing framework of the system. (OS X)

Finally! (3, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 3 years ago | (#34441150)

I'm not a fan of PDF at all - but if you want to use a browser for work, decent PDF handling is a necessary evil. The old "solution" - pulling the PDF into Google Apps - couldn't handle PDF files accessed through https. That made it a non-starter in my work environment.

All you young'uns are free to bitch and moan about PDF itself; but in the real world you usually have to be pragmatic.

Re:Finally! (1)

devent (1627873) | more than 3 years ago | (#34442130)

So your work environment don't have a PDF viewer installed? Furthermore, there is a Firefox and a IE plugin/addon to see PDF files inside a browser, no need for Google Apps.

Working with or against Adobe? (1)

Quick Reply (688867) | more than 3 years ago | (#34441192)

So they are working with Adobe to get Flash Player in, but against Adobe to get Adobe Reader out?

More important features still missing (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34441388)

3 years after the request was made they still can't offer a universal zoom level. I'll not read a single PDF on Chrome so long as I have to zoom in to every single bloody one of them separately. I hate IE, but I still have to use it on a daily basis as it's the only browser that offers a default zoom level for websites.

failZo8s (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34441588)

Is copy/paste fixed? (1)

stimpleton (732392) | more than 3 years ago | (#34441856)

For months, the basic ability to copy and paste text in chrome has been broken. Its not just me, others have noted it, even bloggers noting it.

To read and comment on slashdot I *have to * use firefox. to do the basic task of quoting someone. ctrl-c gets it to the clipboard and I can paste to notepad, but cant to the reply form field.

To quote from the film 300: This is madness.

page breaks (1)

mestar (121800) | more than 3 years ago | (#34442004)

Oh finally those annoying page breaks in pdf are gone. I mean, time after time i switch to "continuous" mode, but, always, they were coming back. You click the scrolling arrows, but pdf shows the page it wants to show, not the one I want, so annoying it was.

But it is gone now!

Still doesn't honor --geometry directive (1)

Psicopatico (1005433) | more than 3 years ago | (#34442024)

As per subject. It threats that like an URL to be opened.
To be honest, it's not mentioned in the help either.

Speed of Development (1)

vanOorschot (603941) | more than 3 years ago | (#34442108)

Looking at the speed of new developments by Google and Apple, i can not help but wonder how far we would have come since the Alto/Lisa had it not been for the stifling influence of first IBM and then Microsoft. OK, maybe the newbies stand on the shoulders of giants, but damn aren't they a couple of feisty dwarfs.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?