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!

RHEL 6 No Longer Supported By Google Chrome

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the too-old dept.

Chrome 231

sfcrazy writes "Google has declared Red Hat's RHEL 6 obsolete, showing a notification which says, 'Google Chrome us no longer updating because your operating system is obsolete.' Red Hat evangelist Jan Wilderboer says: 'We release new stable versions of RHEL every 2-3 years. The API/ABI stability is what sets it apart from community distros. Customers need long term stability. Google knows (and uses) that itself internally. By cutting the support of enterprise distributions they simply tell me to move elsewhere. That's not a very encouraging thing.'"

cancel ×

231 comments

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

RHEL 7 isn't even out yet! (4, Insightful)

ZorinLynx (31751) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859179)

What the heck are they thinking?

Also, RHEL versions are supported for a very long time. You can have systems running one version of RHEL, with security and bugfix updates for many years at a time. The whole point of the distro is stability; you don't have to worry about upgrading every six months.

What is Google thinking?

Re:RHEL 7 isn't even out yet! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42859245)

After re-iterating the summary, is there a point you are making?

Re:RHEL 7 isn't even out yet! (-1, Offtopic)

ZorinLynx (31751) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859655)

Did you come here JUST to complain? Because you're declaring my comment as useless, when yours is even more useless! ;)

Re:RHEL 7 isn't even out yet! (1)

halltk1983 (855209) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859853)

If you're browsing the web on your critical server, then you should be keeping it up to date. Well, you shouldn't be browsing the web on it... but that's another argument.

Re:RHEL 7 isn't even out yet! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42860077)

I don't browse the web on my critical servers. I do browse it on my RHEL 6 Workstation (full disclosure: I don't use Chrome), Why do I have a RHEL 6 Workstation? So that my management workstation uses the same OS as my servers and I don't have to think about the differences in OS versions, especially if I need to test something...

Re:RHEL 7 isn't even out yet! (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42859331)

I want a stable, Free server OS, but I want to load a frequently updated, proprietary, state-of-the-art browser on it with infinite backward compatibility! And I want it now!!! Frickin' whiner.

Re:RHEL 7 isn't even out yet! (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859541)

RHEL is FREE but not Free.
Updates cost money. Also Chrome is built from Chromium which is FREE and Free.

Re:RHEL 7 isn't even out yet! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42859969)

RHEL is FREE but not Free.

You mean: RHEL is Free, but not free.

Re:RHEL 7 isn't even out yet! (4, Informative)

Artraze (600366) | about a year and a half ago | (#42860159)

RHEL 6 came out in late 2010, while Windows 7 came out in mid 2009.
Their respective latest major patches were mid 2012 (6.3) and early 2011 (SP1).

Short version: RHEL 6 is newer than Windows 7 by more than a year by any metric.

There is no excuse for Chrome dropping support for RHEL 6 and keeping it for Windows 7 (let alone XP). Linux may be more of a moving target, but it's not so bad that something can't run on the latest release and one from a couple years ago. This is almost certainly the result of wanting some latest-and-greatest feature and not really caring that some people might want to have stable OSes.

Re:RHEL 7 isn't even out yet! (1)

Daft_dutch (1145421) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859659)

Not only Redhat has this issue. Firefox ESR 10 is also marked as out dated. it seams Google does not like enterprise support

Re:RHEL 7 isn't even out yet! (1)

caseih (160668) | about a year and a half ago | (#42860221)

Well there is no doubt that Google doesn't care about the enterprise or the needs of users who want long-term stability. Does Google mark IE 10, the latest internet explorer as outdated?

But in fairness, the javacsript engine in Firefox ESR 10 is frozen, featuers-wise, and Google has moved on to rely on the capabilities of newer javascript engines and HTML5 rendering systems.

Re:RHEL 7 isn't even out yet! (5, Interesting)

sunderland56 (621843) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859723)

What the heck are they thinking?

Maybe they meant to drop support for Red Hat Linux 6, not Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6?

  - Red Hat Linux 6.0 (Hedwig), April 26, 1999 (Linux 2.2.5-15)
  - Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 (Santiago), November 10, 2010 (Linux 2.6.32-71)

Yes, their naming scheme could use some work.....

Re:RHEL 7 isn't even out yet! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42859831)

It says something about Google's target audience. If you are the type of person who feels the need to run a stable, reliable operating system on your desktop, you are not who Google want's to support. I assume the enterprise environment is not Google's playing field. But if you want the latest in new and shiny toys at the expense of all else, Google has you covered.

Re:RHEL 7 isn't even out yet! (0)

poetmatt (793785) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859933)

usually on linux servers people try to use consoles; having a browser on a server is simply a security risk.

What the heck are YOU thinking?

Re:RHEL 7 isn't even out yet! (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42860127)

Maybe he's thinking about enterprise desktops you chucklefuck.

Uh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42859183)

If it was the other way round the headline would even make sense...

Re:Uh? (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859275)

No, it would be saying the opposite.

The headline, while someone oddly phrased, says that Google Chrome will no longer be built with concern running on RHEL 6.
The other way around would imply that RHEL 6 would have some change to it or it's update/patch cycle to remove concern for the continued operation of Google Chrome.

Go where? (2)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859193)

By cutting the support of enterprise distributions they simply tell me to move elsewhere

So Google wants us to go back to Firefox?
SCNR ;-)

Re:Go where? (5, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859319)

Why would you be running RHEL on something that you use to browse the web?

Either it is a server and does not have X installed or it is a desktop and RHEL would be a PITA since it has so little software in the repos.

Re:Go where? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42859463)

Why would you be running RHEL on something that you use to browse the web?

Either it is a server and does not have X installed or it is a desktop and RHEL would be a PITA since it has so little software in the repos.

XForwarding.

Re:Go where? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859599)

I use that a lot, but why would I ever want it for a web browser?

Re:Go where? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42859645)

why would you xforward a browser to a computer that already has a browser?

Re:Go where? (3, Funny)

0123456 (636235) | about a year and a half ago | (#42860331)

why would you xforward a browser to a computer that already has a browser?

Because, uh, you want to browse from the other computer?

That said, I'm pretty sure the last time I tried to start a remote copy of Firefox, it helpfully started one on the local machine instead. Because, after all, why would you xforward a browser to a computer that already has a browser?

Re:Go where? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42859549)

RHEL is used for hardened unix workstations, too. RHEL5 is the only enterprise linux distro I know of worth using with FIPS 140-2 and DoD APL certification, meaning that it's the only option for military workstations other than Windows.

So, take that arrogant "enterprise distro is only for servers" attitude elsewhere, please.

Re:Go where? (3, Insightful)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859773)

RHEL is used for hardened unix workstations, too. RHEL5 is the only enterprise linux distro I know of worth using with FIPS 140-2 and DoD APL certification, meaning that it's the only option for military workstations other than Windows.

And you're allowed to install third-party software in that situation?

Re:Go where? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42860465)

And you're allowed to install third-party software in that situation?

Yes, If you're a vendor, and you can get the third-party software certified.

Also, bear in mind that if you're a vendor, your developers - who aren't necessarily on a classified net, but who do want to be one the certified OS - are now shut out from using Chrome.

This is a butt-headed move by Google.

Re:Go where? (1)

sunderland56 (621843) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859595)

Because it's a server, but I need to google the web for help or a man page occasionally.

IT experts don't know all the answers, they just know where to find them.

Re:Go where? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859705)

If you are doing that from a server you should be fired or at the very least a written reprimand should be issued.

Use google from your workstation not the server.

Re:Go where? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42860345)

If your (assumed to be professionally managed) sever has such weak security and is so badly configured that running a web browser puts it at risk, then a written reprimand is probably the least of your worries.

Oh, and *if* running a web browser on a (assumed to be professionally managed) server is somehow unsafe, how the heck is Joe Sixpack supposed to safely do his taxes, banking, and purchasing on his (assumed to be unmanaged) regular desktop?

Re:Go where? (1)

bernywork (57298) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859661)

RHEL works fine on my media centre with EPEL and nux-desktop. It gives me everything I want and more, and I don't have to worry about the OS falling out of support after a couple of years...

Re:Go where? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42859733)

I used Red Hat Enterprise on desktops AND servers for 7 years at my last job. Our goal was to have something stable that would last for a few years. The machines came with Firefox and OpenOffice and all the other software we ran was commercial chip design stuff costing millions of dollars. I run Fedora at home but we never installed a single thing from an rpmfusion repo on any of the work machines. There was simply no need, the goal was to get work done. You could bring in your personal laptop and run it on wifi that went outside the firewall if you wanted to.

Re:Go where? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42860087)

My Workstation is a RHEL 6 desktop on a HP elitebook laptop and we all use RHEL or Centos as workstation on my apartment.
If you work as a Unix administrator or are in the academics there are a lot of people who use RHEL as a main desktop.

The lack of software in the main repo is well countered with EPEL repos and also the long compatibility that is promised so RHEL is one of the few distros where you can rely on using third party software without worrying about special handling.
if you look at 3rd party software for Linux Distros you will usually find RHEL as one of the supported systems.

Re:Go where? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year and a half ago | (#42860155)

Me!

Centos is my distro of choice atm. It is relaible, mature, and well tested and supported. I do not have to worry about an update hosing a system because of a new abi or radical change somewhere. Only federa and centos kernels work with my laptop and wrkstation.

Re:Go where? (1)

caseih (160668) | about a year and a half ago | (#42860161)

Actually there is a ton of software available in repos for RHEL. Almost as much as Fedora, actually. The main recommended third-party repo is EPEL, and if you can't find something in there you can dip into a widely-trusted third-party repo called rpmforge. Between those two I've not found very much lacking except the latest bleeding edge stuff like Gnome 3.

Re:Go where? (1)

0123456 (636235) | about a year and a half ago | (#42860495)

Why would you be running RHEL on something that you use to browse the web?

Web browsers are not just used to browse the web.

Most of the ancillary hardware in our racks these days has a web management interface which is not accessible through the firewall; some still has ssh or telnet, but that's becoming increasingly rare. So to manage it, I can either log into one of the servers and run a web browser from there, or port forward it through SSH and run one locally.

da faq (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42859211)

Really?

No probs, I'll just use an alternative (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42859233)

Like Epiphany!

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I crack myself up

spell check (1)

jupiterssj4 (801031) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859241)

come on

Why would you need a web browser on a server? (0)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859267)

You don't need a web browser on something that won't even have X installed.

RHEL is for servers, you could use it on a workstation , but fedora is better suited to that task.

Re:Why would you need a web browser on a server? (5, Interesting)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859323)

Fedora is not better suited for all workstation tasks. I simply do not have time to deal with things breaking every few weeks, nor do I have time to upgrade my entire OS every year and go through the process of dealing with things breaking as a result. I switched from Fedora to ScientificLinux (a RHEL clone, more or less) for that reason: I have better things to do than to deal with a distro that thinks I should reformat my hard drive every 6 or 12 months. I am not alone in this either; I know a lot of other people who need a reliable workstation more than the latest features of every package.

Re:Why would you need a web browser on a server? (4, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859445)

Then use Debian. Solves both problems.

Re:Why would you need a web browser on a server? (4, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859633)

Does Debian stable promise a 7 year support cycle? When last I checked, Debian stable releases will only be supported for three years, but I am not really a Debian user some perhaps someone can correct me.

What I have trouble understanding is why you are so dismissive of the idea that someone would run RHEL on a workstation. I see a lot of researchers do it, and they all say essentially the same thing I said: they lack the time needed to upgrade frequently and new features are less important than stability. Debian stable may deliver that, but so does RHEL; what exactly do you think makes Debian better for workstations than RHEL?

Re:Why would you need a web browser on a server? (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859725)

That the repos have more than a couple packages in it. I use RHEL for servers, getting lots of common linux packages on them is a huge PITA. I get that Redhat wants to limit what they have to support, but it still sucks.

Re:Why would you need a web browser on a server? (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859995)

I guess I just do not see that problem on my own systems. I have a few EPEL and RPMFusion packages, and otherwise everything I need is already in the repositories.

Re:Why would you need a web browser on a server? (1)

Urkki (668283) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859991)

Above you talked about 6-12 months, now it suddenly changed to 7 years... Do you seriously use that old disk images carried over to new HW, or do you perhaps re-install the OS from scratch to new HW a bit more often than that, after all?

I'm fairly happy with Ubuntu LTS (with a sane DE of your choice), and doing OS upgrade every two years (and I mean upgrade, not re-install), about half a year after each LTS has come out and most bugs have been weeded out.

Re:Why would you need a web browser on a server? (1)

bloodhawk (813939) | about a year and a half ago | (#42860163)

He talked about not being willing to upgrade every 6-12 months. many workstations don't need hardware upgrades or to be replaced regularly at all depending on the task they are doing, It is not unusual for a workstation to have a 5-10 year life if its intended use is not processor or IO intensive. however they do need support and stability.

Re:Why would you need a web browser on a server? (3, Interesting)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about a year and a half ago | (#42860181)

Above you talked about 6-12 months, now it suddenly changed to 7 years...

Read a little more closely. Fedora releases stop being supported after 12 months, and new releases come out every 6 months. RHEL releases lose support after 7 years, with new releases every 3 years or so.

Do you seriously use that old disk images carried over to new HW, or do you perhaps re-install the OS from scratch to new HW a bit more often than that, after all?

This is exactly the point: the support cycle is long enough that I will generally have to reinstall at some point before the 7 years are up, and I can do so at my discretion, when I have time available. I do not buy a new machine every 6-12 months; were I to stick with Fedora, I would be reinstalling (or praying that the upgrade option will work) on the same hardware year after year, and then having to take a few days away from work to rewrite configuration files, find workarounds for deleted features (or worse yet, added "features"), get my machine to connect to the network, etc.

I'm glad to here Ubuntu LTS works for you and lets you get your work done. I'll be over in here RHEL land getting my work done, and I'll be ignoring Google and their efforts to get me to do something else.

Re:Why would you need a web browser on a server? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42859459)

That's a choice, and a valid choice probably in your case. Just, given that i have like 6 different browsers installed and running nicely on my system, why should google be expected to put resources in something almost no-one uses.

I'm sure you have access to a working browser. I totally agree with others here that RHEL does not target desktop usage primary.

So, to me it's a non-issue. You, and everyone, is free to choose their favorite distro. Google is free to be pragmatic - there's obviously a reason it's not easy for them to support RHEL 6. But that should not stop them from developing and delivering the 'best' solution to all other users.

Re:Why would you need a web browser on a server? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42859607)

Fedora is called "bleeding-edge" for a reason. Fedora 18 is out, but I'm still with 16, and beause of the crappy installer that now forces me to reinstall instead of upgrade the OS, I'll just switch to another that does the same, but with better perks.

Google is looking to create dependence with it's Chrome browser and Chrome OS, this move makes no sense whatsoever. The Article ends with "We have reached out to Google and awaiting their response.", which is highly unusual on Slashdot, where news are usually very old, by days, and sometimes years, or even decades.

Re:Why would you need a web browser on a server? (1)

Sectoid_Dev (232963) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859609)

I use CentOS for the exact same reasons as the parent above.
I'm a developer on a single user system. Futzing around with the OS is not even in the top five things I want to spend my time doing.

Re:Why would you need a web browser on a server? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42860391)

I switched from Fedora to ScientificLinux (a RHEL clone, more or less)
 
Ok. I started reading the thread to get a bit of insight into the problems with Redhat. I'm not a big Linux user but I'd like to know that if SL is more or less a Redhat clone why did you go with SL over Redhat?

Re:Why would you need a web browser on a server? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42859341)

You don't need a web browser on something that won't even have X installed.

RHEL is for servers, you could use it on a workstation , but fedora is better suited to that task.

Disagree.

Developers and Linux desktop users often need the stability of a commercially supported desktop/workstation distribution. RHEL, although not as bleeding edge as Fedora, is great on a PC.

Re:Why would you need a web browser on a server? (-1, Flamebait)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859495)

the stability of a commercially supported desktop/workstation distribution.

WTF? Go back to use Windows, it's "commercially supported", so it must be more stable...

Re:Why would you need a web browser on a server? (1)

forzanapoli (2838465) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859351)

That's exactly what I thought when I first read this post. Why do we even care. You shouldn't need anything GUI based on a server. RHEL shines in server environments and although you could use it as a workstation why even bother, definitely go the Fedora route for workstations and desktops.

Re:Why would you need a web browser on a server? (1)

postbigbang (761081) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859455)

I agree with you in principle, but there are a ghastly number of users of RHEL that are developers, or who'd like to use a GUI instead of CLI when they do admin on a server-- for whatever reasons.

A GUI takes less CPU cycles than you might think. If you've got a quad-socket, 4/core/socket machine, you have strokes to burn because even the vaunted, hallowed Linux kernel can't use them THAT efficiently. So, you want to open gnome or kde or x-something and do your surfs? Gotta use a different browser now. Seems strange that the support life would be that short, but I can also see valid reasons. And also see valid reasons not to use Chrome.

Best practices would say: servers need every stroke they can get. Real world: we never use this stuff as intended except when the auditor is hovering around our cubes.

Re:Why would you need a web browser on a server? (1)

forzanapoli (2838465) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859605)

It's one thing having minimum X libraries to be able to do X11 Forwarding and another having them boot into init 5. I am sure there are use cases where X is required but worrying about chrome on RHEL doesn't bother me one bit.

Re:Why would you need a web browser on a server? (2)

kernelpanicked (882802) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859527)

Uh, no. You're half right, in that there is no need for X on a server. However, as a Linux Admin maintaining a few thousand of those servers, my workstation also runs RHEL, and for damn good reason.

Firstly, I have work to do, that doesn't involve updating my kernel every twenty seconds as Fedora is wont to do. I also have no need for the latest greatest version of GIMP or mediaplayeroftheday, or want to be forced to format and start all over again every 13 months, while still trying to get work done.

RHEL and RHEL clones have a very real place on many peoples' workstations. That said, I'm a Firefox user and have zero interest or need in Chrome. Many of my co-workers do though.

Re:Why would you need a web browser on a server? (1)

forzanapoli (2838465) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859715)

That said, I'm a Firefox user and have zero interest or need in Chrome. Many of my co-workers do though.

I guess this is where I was trying to go with. If you use it for a workstation there is no reason why firefox couldn't do the necessary to get you through. At work we use RHEL for workstations and thats because it's on the "approved" list. At home I run Fedora and only apply security updates when needed. Even then it's still a billion times better than having to deal with Winblowz.

Re:Why would you need a web browser on a server? (1)

simpz (978228) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859699)

Fedora is a great test bed or home system. But upgrading hundred's of workstations every 6 months (like we have here) would be no fun at all. Plus the ABI/API isn't stable in Fedora between revs.

Many real world application use RHEL as a workstation because it doesn't change ABI/API, is supported, there are no major changes through the life-cycle. This is why RH specifically sell a Workstation version of RHEL. See also the existence of Scientific Linux (RHEL clone) and why that is used on workstations at every major particle accelerator.

Too many people view Linux through the prism of their home machine needs. Professional users need things like support, stability, regression tested updates, directory services, NFS (probably secure even if it's just to satisfy an auditor), speaking to (sadly) MS systems (AD, Exchange and even (the horror) Sharepoint). Bleeding edge functionality is worth nothing against stability.

When someone (many) people say use Fedora, is the reason this isn't the year of the Linux desktop. No company wants to reinstall it's desktop estate every 6 months, retest all their apps every 6 months and retrain their users every 6 months. No software vendor wants to retest it's software on a new release every 6 months.

The RHEL approach (7 year life cycle) is correct for most users. Google is wrong to not support this but probably more to do with Google not really having to care corporate Linux desktop users (pretty small base really).

Re:Why would you need a web browser on a server? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42859583)

http://www.redhat.com/products/enterprise-linux/desktop/

Re:Why would you need a web browser on a server? (1)

bws111 (1216812) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859781)

Really? Go to redhat.com and click on 'products'. First thing displayed is 'Red Hat Enterprise Linux - DESKTOP'.

My company has deployed thousands of laptops with RHEL desktop on them.

Re:Why would you need a web browser on a server? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859875)

So do you have your own repos or use DAG or what?

How do you solve the Redhat repos are depressingly small problem?

Re:Why would you need a web browser on a server? (2)

bws111 (1216812) | about a year and a half ago | (#42860061)

Aside from our own applications, and the stuff provided on EPEL (which is permitted), what is missing from the Red Hat repos that would be required in a corporate environment?

Re:Why would you need a web browser on a server? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#42860225)

Google earth and stuff like that. It does not seem very corporate, but we have a couple hundred folks using it.

Re:Why would you need a web browser on a server? (2)

bws111 (1216812) | about a year and a half ago | (#42860305)

I can't imagine how I have been getting my work done for all these years without using Google Earth. I guess if you are in a job where Google Earth is required then you would not be running the same desktop I am.

Re:Why would you need a web browser on a server? (1)

kernelpanicked (882802) | about a year and a half ago | (#42860151)

I know this wasn't directed at me, but since I do in fact use RHEL (actually Scientific) on several workstations...

Rpmfusion supports RHEL and RHEL clones. Then there is EPEL. Between these you can have ~98% of what's available on any Fedora install. This problem isn't nearly as big a deal as what you seem to be making of it.

We very much like stable development workstations. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42860095)

Not ones that force us to upgrade to um- experimental user interfaces every 2 years. So CentOS 6.3 is our currently recommended choice.

Thats funny because... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42859295)

I think RHEL 6 will be supported until 2020.

WTF.

Re:Thats funny because... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42859555)

I think RHEL 6 will be supported until 2020.

Impossible : the world ended december 21th last year.

So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42859299)

Grab the code and build your own browser, It's open source.

Re:So what? (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859561)

Chromium is open source, Chrome is not.
The two are similar but not identical.

XP is way EOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42859317)

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/products/lifecycle

And they support that? RHEL6 is at least being updated and maintained!

Um, question: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42859337)

Why does Linux not have its own web browser?

Oh wait, it does. Firefox.

Why would anybody use Chrome when there's Firefox?

Seriously though. Google has Chrome OS and Chrome the browser. Apple has OS-X and Safari. Microsoft has Windows... and what's that piece of shit called that's supposed to be Microsoft's web browser? Yeah, that thing. Why isn't there a Linux specific Browser? Oh yeah, because that would be unnecessary because there's Firefox. I seem to be going around in circles...

Desktop Tool (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42859479)

Chrome is a desktop tool. Who needs Chrome when there are so many other tools available - wget, elinks (with js-support), curl, etc.

Happened with SUSE Linux Enterprise a while back (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42859505)

A while back people with Google Chrome installed on SUSE Linux Enterprise 11 found it no longer worked. A new version of Chrome had been installed along with other updates (the Chrome package adds a repo) and it had dependencies on newer versions of libraries than are in the current version of SUSE Linux Enterprise 11.

Ah, Red Hat, devs' mortal enemy. We meet again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42859569)

Devs hate it when they have to support code and APIs they obsoleted years ago. This reminds me of the years-long refusal of Red Hat to move their Python installation past 1.5.6 (because they couldn't be bothered to move their stuff to 2.x) and how sick the Python devs were of answering "why can't I" questions that they solved versions ago. And how Red Hat pissed off the gcc devs by creating a phony "gcc 2.96" on orders from enterprise customers, forcing the gcc devs to release further revs as gcc 2.95.2, 2.95.3, etc. to avoid confusing folks.

So devs, go ahead and piss off Red Hat. It's not like they want your input anyway. If Red Hat wants to freeze code at two years ago, let them maintain it. All of it. That's what people pay them the big bucks for.

Okay, I'll say it... fragmentation (1)

Rob Y. (110975) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859587)

There's an obvious reason why Google's doing this. They target the most popular desktop distros and can't be maintaining releases for old distros without a lot of desktop users. Now, if there were a 'standard' Linux API (lumping all the various API's together as something Google could target and all distros could support), this wouldn't be an issue. The same Chrome release for Windows can be used on XP->Win8 (desktop mode). That's why 3rd party dev's target WIN32. That's also why 3rd parties won't (for the most part) target Win8 'metro' - which differs way more from WIN32 than RHEL does from, say, Ubuntu.

As other posts have pointed out, though, Red Hat - or anybody else, for that matter - is free to take the pure open source Chromium and port it to RHEL. That is, until Google decides to target some library that RHEL doesn't provide. Then it's not such a simple matter to Compile and release the latest Chromium source.

Re:Okay, I'll say it... fragmentation (5, Informative)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859787)

Red Hat - or anybody else, for that matter - is free to take the pure open source Chromium and port it to RHEL

There is a reason Chromium has not made it into Fedora's repositories (and by extension, RHEL):

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Chromium [fedoraproject.org]

Basically, the problem is this: Chromium depends on extensions to libraries that have not been merged with the main releases of those libraries, and so having Chromium on Fedora would require either static linking (giant packages) or maintain separate sets of libraries just for Chromium. Neither of those options is something that Fedora will do, and if Fedora is unwilling to include a package in its repositories the package as almost no chance of being included in RHEL. Years have passed since the problem was first discussed with Google (see the link), and there has not really been much progress, mostly for the same reasons that RHEL6 is not supported by Chrome: Google does things their way and is not going to change that for someone else (regardless of that other person's reasoning).

Google don't care about stability. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42859615)

Given that the Flash plugin is faster and more stable from the EXTERNAL version than the INTERNAL version.
I was forced to disable the internal one because it was seriously so bad. Youtube videos were unbearable as well, this high-pitch screechy noise at random every 0.5-1 seconds. (could be an Adobe problem, but there is no problem with external or on Firefox either, so I blame them)

Or making logical decisions.
Killing huge projects without replacements or partial replacements using current projects.
Not integrating Orkut, Google+ and Google.. whatever the hell the name was of that Twitter-like thing. That could have gained much more traction if they had done so.
The twitter-like thing for just the main messaging component of the service, Google+ component for the communication-heavy parts and Orkut for all the back-heavy standard social networking stuff. (Google+ is still not as social networky as previous ones have been, it feels too cold. Even more so than Facebook, which I hate immensely after they removed personalization pages in favor of mindless drone pages, and then that horrible timeline crap!)

Or making decisions in general.
Killing projects that they "can't monetize" when they clearly can.
iGoogle has a HUGE sidebar on the left where ads could be. Gmail has an ad strip, do that as well, ad strips are incredibly simply little things and even very nice if styled right. Nope, better kill it instead. Thinking about things is too hard at Google. How STUPID can you be, Google?

Oh and Unity just broke on me again. Nope, Chrome problem, not mines or Unity.
Not to mention the horrible times I have had with Chrome corrupting itself through the years, not letting me install extensions, crashing on updates (STABLE BRANCH), flooding a folder between my home directory and its directory with MILLIONS of temporary files.
You know how annoyingly slow it is when Explorer is opening large folders? You don't know the half of it. You don't know the integer percentage of it. God DAMN. I had to delete the files in cmd after I figured out what the hell happened.

Google are a headless chicken today. It is a joke how bad that company is these days. What the actual fuck happened to Google?
Did they fire anyone of any worth and replace them with college kiddies or something?
I used to love Google. I even wanted to work for them. Now that I see what it turned in to, I am glad I never even bothered outside of talking to the tiny number of developers that aren't total asses who actually have the balls to even want to stick with it. (even after having huge changes to their work done)
Don't get me started on Chromium devs, biggest asses there is. Chromium Development is a metaphor for how terrible Google has become recently. Removing and breaking features all over the place without replacement when it caused no harm to leave it there. Apparently they were too autistic to not look at one single file in a list that had 0 dependencies and Just Worked.

I sit here wondering how long it will be before Google crashes. With the horrible decisions they have been making recently, likely not too long.
I cannot fathom the stupidity that this once great company has unleashed.
No Super Saiyins here. Just Super Stupids.

Does this apply to Windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42859697)

I find it a bit strange Google would drop support for RHEL 6, the OS is only a few years old at this point and RHEL 7 isn't even out yet. Despite the fact RHEL is mostly aimed at servers, they do have a desktop edition and some places do use RHEL on the desktop. This move means Google is dropping any people using a long-term desktop, probably in a business environment.

I tried to check if Chrome runs on XP, but I'm on a Linux box and the only download links Google will show me are for Linux distributions. They don't seem to allow over-riding the OS type on their download page. So my questions is: does Chrome still run on Windows XP? WinXP is something like nine years older than RHEL 6, but still supported by Microsoft. Is this lack of support from Google OS specific?

Re:Does this apply to Windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42859911)

Yes, of course Chrome supports XP. Though XP, which is a consumer desktop OS, has a mammoth user base compared to a few geeks running an enterprise server OS as their desktop.

Re:Does this apply to Windows (4, Insightful)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year and a half ago | (#42860191)

Yes, I dare say it's simple mathematics. If the number of users of an OS, multiplied by the Chrome browser share of that OS, multiplied by the revenue per Chrome user on that OS, is less than the cost of continued support, then it's a simple decision to discontinue support.

Well, at least I'm using ... (2, Funny)

Skapare (16644) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859759)

... CentOS 6.3. Google will support CentOS, right?

They're just pushing costs onto their customers (4, Insightful)

guanxi (216397) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859761)

Vendors don't want to the cost of supporting your platform, so they drop you. To avoid any responsibility, they simply add an error message blaming the user: "Your platform is obsolete." (I guess it's my problem now!) Many users are uniformed or credulous enough to believe it.

Many 'cloud' vendors are going this way; they've simply ignored their commitment to support their users and make the users do the work of supporting vendors (via upgrades and installations). I suspect it's because many users are consumers, aren't aware the vendors have this obligation, and take the 'error' messages at face value.

Worse, I see it in business situations. For example, cloud vendors we pay say that the current Firefox ESR is obsolete, or that we need to deploy browser upgrades office-wide every 5 weeks -- it does nothing for our bottom line, we'd just be doing it to please them.

There needs to be some push-back. We have no reason to absorb these costs.

There's still Chromium (1)

JC61990 (2653877) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859769)

This seems dumb imho. I run a CentOS server, I like to install a desktop interface onto it because there are a few things i use the server for that do require a GUI. and its also nice to be able to just open a web browser quickly if i need to test my internet connection after making changes since the server and my switches and modem are all in the same room. First thing i always do is install chrome, i was so happy to see it available for CentOS.. But now its gone. I guess ill just switch back to Chromium.

Re:There's still Chromium (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42860267)

Geez, you ever heard w3m, lynx, elinks, or links? Loading X and a gui browser that supports proprietary plugins that only decrease the security of your system seems ridiculous if all you are wanting to do is check internet connectivity. Hell, if you must have a GUI then load a light browser like Dillo.

RHEL 6 obsolete? Go back to the drawing board Goog (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42859833)

Some RHEL 6 businesses might want to contract with Google for their products like the cloud, online word processing, etc. What in the world is google thinking? What does this mean for small business that contract with companies to migrate to RHEL 6.x?
The threat to Google is Microsoft not Red Hat. Microsoft tried to beat google at it's own game.

RHEL is for servers not desktops (2)

KidSock (150684) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859867)

I don't think I've ever installed RHEL or CentOS with X Windows. Frankly it annoys me that there are no desktop distros that are maintained for longer than a year or two. Are we really expected to reinstall Linux on a workstation ever year? That scares me because it makes me think the people who are using Linux are just screwing around and not doing real work. Anyone doing real work doesn't have time to reinstall Linux every year.

Re:RHEL is for servers not desktops (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year and a half ago | (#42860031)

Ubuntu LTE.

Re:RHEL is for servers not desktops (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42860411)

Minor correction: Ubuntu LTS.

Re:RHEL is for servers not desktops (3, Informative)

bws111 (1216812) | about a year and a half ago | (#42860143)

Red Hat has a desktop version of RHEL, with the same support cycle.

Re:RHEL is for servers not desktops (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42860153)

Ubuntu 12.04 LTS is supported for 5 years.

By cutting support for enterprise edition.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42859923)

Customers will move somewhere else because they have want Google Chrome

Re:By cutting support for enterprise edition.... (1)

kernelpanicked (882802) | about a year and a half ago | (#42860323)

The type of user who uses RHEL on a workstation is not the same as the distro hoppers who jump from one flavor of Ubuntu to another just because a package isn't included in the default of an icon got moved. They will simply use Firefox or do a custom build of Chromium or something, but jumping distros is likely not a consideration.

is this an issue ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42860015)

i think you have other issues to solve if you are installing software made by the worlds largest advertising and data mining company on your frickin redhat servers !

much as i like google products, i wouldnt install give them binary rights on anything, they are bad enough with Javascript and at least i have Mozilla/Opera acting as a buffer to what tricks they can exploit.

Lots of complaining (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42860115)

The Linux community brags about how there are so many options, which are in constant flux, then complain when someone is offering something for free and doesn't want to support something that is 2 years old and no longer works in a modern environment.

I haven't seen a feeling of entitlement so bad outside of the MPAA/RIAA.

What's the phrase.. "Don't like it, fork it", just don't whine like a 3 year old.

Update Terrorism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42860147)

Whenever you work with a computer system and have gotten used to all its bugs and misconceptions, there comes along an update with old bugs and new bugs. Lately, most updates were only for stupid consumers, and have made work worse for creative people. And all this sluggishness and CPU-time burning for brain-dead graphics. All this absence of reason for all this "innovation" on the user interface. All these crazy maniacs can keep their "features" for themselves, I don't want them any more.

They haven't even fixed all the bugs in RHEL6, and they introduced many new ones in the later version. A stable, bug-free system from ten years ago is way better than this greenhorn-crap that is being sold to brain-dead consumers these days.

RHEL is not server only (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42860303)

Just have a look at which platforms are supported for commercial software, almost always RHEL and Suse and nothing else. You can't expect the vendors to adapt to platforms that are changing continously.

Is this really an issue anybody cares about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42860425)

One has to suspect that the intersection between "people who are so desperate for stability that they'll stay on a rarely-updated OS" and "people who want their web browser to upgrade itself silently whenever it wants" is pretty goddamn small.

Not that that'll keep /. from getting their collective panties in a bunch, but still...

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>