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 Chrome 29 Is Out: Omnibox Suggestions, Profile Resetting

Soulskill posted 1 year,12 days | from the ramping-up-for-number-thirty dept.

Chrome 120

An anonymous reader writes "Google today released Chrome version 29 for Windows, Mac, Linux, and Android. The new version features improved Omnibox suggestions, profile resetting, as well as new apps and extensions APIs. The biggest change is undoubtedly around how Omnibox suggestions work on the desktop. When the feature arrived in the beta channel, Google said that the improvements were 'based on the recency of websites visited, so you’ll get more contextually relevant suggestions at the right time. ... Chrome 29 for Android meanwhile has received WebRTC support, which enables real-time communication (such as videoconferencing) in the browser without installing any plugins."

cancel ×

120 comments

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

Google Service (4, Informative)

Frankie70 (803801) | 1 year,12 days | (#44623799)

Does Chrome still install and run background services on Windows? That's the reason I uninstalled Chrome. A Browser is a client side application. It should start when I start it and stop when I stop it. I see no reason for Chrome to run Windows Services. I uninstalled GTalk also for the same reason.

Re:Google Service (2)

jones_supa (887896) | 1 year,12 days | (#44623857)

If I'm not mistaken, in Windows Task Scheduler it can also be seen that the Google update service runs once per hour. Isn't that a bit too often methinks..?

Re:Google Service (4, Interesting)

DarkOx (621550) | 1 year,12 days | (#44623959)

I think you could make the argument its not to often, provided its sufficiently light weight. If the thing is able to start up do a quick http request to fetch the latest version number and die, if its unchanged what is the big deal. On the flip side browsers often hold lots of personal information and spend all of their time rendering untrusted documents; making them huge malware targets.

You can take the value proposition away from the malware writes somewhat if you can at least make it also true the vast vast majority of the installed base will patched in a short time window, hours not days.

Re:Google Service (0)

hairyfeet (841228) | 1 year,12 days | (#44624761)

Uhhh isn't that the argument that EVERYBODY uses to stick their shit in startup and slow Windows to a crawl, that THEIR shit is important and lightweight so the others shouldn't do that but THEY shouldn't be called for it?

And lightweight as compared to what? You slap Chrome on a netbook and all that phoning home WILL slow down the system, especially those Atom based netbooks. Kinda sad that everyone bitches about "what Intel giveth MSFT takes away" while ignoring all the shit like Chrome running 24/7 slowing shit down.

For me the final straw which got Chrome put on my "Must always uninstall" list was the spamming, when you start using the same dirty tricks the toolbar makers use like tying yourself to a completely unrelated installer like Java or CCleaner? You ARE a spammer in my book and deserve to be banned from any system I touch. Thankfully there is a huge pile of FOSS browsers to choose from that do NOT spam and run a ton of shit in the background but until Google stops using dirty toolbar tricks to get Chrome installed its on my ban list, its treated no different than CoolWebSearch or any other spammer.

Re:Google Service (0)

icebike (68054) | 1 year,12 days | (#44625477)

Why don't you look at what they run in the background and what controls they give you rather than having
a tantrum and start throwing toys out of your crib?

Re:Google Service (3, Interesting)

DarkOx (621550) | 1 year,12 days | (#44625695)

The updaters are stupid and wasteful, but if you are using the system schedualr, which is running anyway, I don't see a problem.

Re:Google Service (0)

ozmanjusri (601766) | 1 year,12 days | (#44625745)

Uhhh isn't that the argument that EVERYBODY uses to stick their shit in startup and slow Windows to a crawl, that THEIR shit is important and lightweight

And they're all absolutely right.

Now more than ever, it IS important to keep BOTH applications and OS updated. You Windows promoters are all very quick to leap to their defence and claim it's Flash, Acrobat, Java, Browser XY or Z, and/or any one of dozens of other applications that allow malware attacks. Why are you now beating them up for trying to solve the problem?

This is another example of Windows being designed to be defective. Other OSs have recognised this problem and solved it long ago. Microsoft is just too big, slow and arrogant to fix obvious and important problems instead of wasting immense time, effort and money of a dreadful cosmetic makeover of their UI.

Re:Google Service (1)

smash (1351) | 1 year,12 days | (#44626787)

Uh... Windows update was automatically updating systems back in 1995.

Re:Google Service (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44627005)

Windows update was automatically updating systems back in 1995.

Yes, but this is about applications, not just the OS.

As in "sudo apt-get update && apt-get upgrade".

Re:Google Service (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,11 days | (#44627889)

Other OSs have recognised this problem and solved it (horribly) long ago.

FTFY.

First of all from a repositorys perspective.. bandwidth consumed updating linux software is TINY. From microsofts perspective.. who is going to pay the bills when 500+ million users suddenly are updating several hundreds of megabytes. microsoft gets like 20-30 bucks or something from the PC maker to support a single user for the lifetime of the OS.

Secondly what makes you think that application developers are going to be OK with microsoft handling their updates? What .. suddenly oracle and adobe are going to let a third party be in charge of delivering their products? I smell a new anti-trust lawsuit... you ms trolls are in some dreamland.

But forgetting all that its funny how shitty the repository model is. Because of how broken linux dependency management is ... the freaking repository has to maintain a dependency chain and make sure that all application dependencies inside the repository are consistent (which they often fail to do). Furthermore.. simply unknowingly adding an extra repository can dump you in dependency hell on linux "Ohh... how do i get this shiny gnome theme... just add this repository" oops.. you dumped all the dependency management work on the repository maintainer rather than baking the tech in the OS.

Windows ofcource has solved this LONG LONG ago with Windows component store (winsxs). If you follow microsoft's best practices while developing & distributing software it is currently impossible to encounter dependency hell on windows.

This is another example of Windows being designed to be defective

hahaha okay buddy... continue living in your fantasy land

Re:Google Service (1)

smash (1351) | 1 year,12 days | (#44626775)

Have they changed the brain damaged behaviour whereby it re-attempts to connect once every 5 seconds if unsuccessful yet?

Re:Google Service (5, Funny)

MightyYar (622222) | 1 year,12 days | (#44623871)

Without the background task, you'll have no hope of keeping up-to-date. By the time I finished downloading 28, 29 was released.

And now it's 30. Crap.

Re:Google Service (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44624261)

The versioning is so ridiculous... but hey, it's Google after all... :D

Re:Google Service (2)

MightyYar (622222) | 1 year,12 days | (#44624471)

31.

Re:Google Service (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | 1 year,12 days | (#44623931)

Is turning off the updater such an arduous task?

Re:Google Service (2)

jones_supa (887896) | 1 year,12 days | (#44624831)

Are we sure he's talking about the updater? There's also the option "Continue running background apps when Google Chrome is closed" at the bottom of the Settings page. I'm not sure what those apps are, but I've always unticked the checkbox to not leave any junk running.

Re:Google Service (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | 1 year,12 days | (#44625099)

Are we sure he's talking about the updater? There's also the option "Continue running background apps when Google Chrome is closed" at the bottom of the Settings page. I'm not sure what those apps are, but I've always unticked the checkbox to not leave any junk running.

Well hell, that's even easier to change the setting of than the updater. Either way, it seems a massive overreaction to the problem.

Re:Google Service (2)

icebike (68054) | 1 year,12 days | (#44625511)

I'm not sure what those apps are, but I've always unticked the checkbox to not leave any junk running.

Its not hard to find out what those are. Google is pretty up front about it.
Cloud print, Google Voice, Google drive, etc. All of these are under your control.
Most people are in and out of a browser 100 times a day. Having one idling makes a lot of sense.

Unless you machine is paging furiously, why not use the memory you paid for?

Re:Google Service (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,11 days | (#44627631)

Unless you machine is paging furiously, why not use the memory you paid for?

Err, because that's how to make it start paging furiously?

Sure, take your memory usage to 98% with idling apps to 'make use' of your memory. And then open a TIFF in Gimp. Oops

Re:Google Service (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44623969)

I uninstalled windows for the same reason.

Re:Google Service (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44624091)

I had to get rid of Linux because of those pesky cron jobs.

Re:Google Service (0)

MightyYar (622222) | 1 year,12 days | (#44624543)

CRONNNNNNNNNNNNNN! CRONNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!

Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

Re:Google Service (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | 1 year,12 days | (#44624891)

The reason why I uninstalled chrome/chromium was because I finally got sick of the way it insisted on nagging me: specifically, and most importantly the "this file may harm your computer" message in the big box at the bottom of the screen that appears whenever you download a PDF file to read in an alternative client. I have to do read PDFs frequently, and I prefer to take my own steps to minimise risks, so I don't want to be nagged about it.

Since Google obviously has no intention of changing the behaviour, and I couldn't find a useful workaround, I gave up and went back to Firefox. It's a shame, because Chrome *is* much faster at loading webpages, but there are enough things in my life that piss me off without my choice of browser being one of them.

Re:Google Service (3, Informative)

icebike (68054) | 1 year,12 days | (#44625955)

Seriously, I don't get this warning.

I click the pdf, it opens in chrome, and I tell it to save a copy.

Have you ever considered that maybe it actually found malware in the pdf's java script?

Re:Google Service (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | 1 year,12 days | (#44626159)

No, I did say that I don't really want to use Chrome's pdf viewer. If anything, doing so would have to be less secure, to an extent depending on how much you trust Google. As soon as you try to do anything else with a PDF other than open it with Chrome, you get that message. And it happens with *all* PDF files, regardless of whether or not there is any embedded javascript.

Re:Google Service (1)

icebike (68054) | 1 year,12 days | (#44626175)

As posted, it never happens for me.

Re:Google Service (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44623977)

Disable the damn service then. It is trivial to do. What does client-sidedness have to do with anything?
It doesn't run any Windows Services, it runs its own service.

I'd rather have a background updater than sit waiting for updates to download while I NEED something.
I straight up permanently removed Opera for doing that crap because I was in a hurry and I needed access to something literally within 10 seconds, NOPE, LOL FORCED UPDATE. And they wonder why nobody uses the damn thing? Obtuse interface + obtuse updating. (and that retarded scrolling system makes me want to punch a hole in every wall in the room, who the hell designed that mess?)

I am saddened that the level of intelligence on this site has dropped to such whining by casual computer users.
This site is literally The Big Bang Theory these days.

Re:Google Service (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44624897)

I'm saddened that you don't understand how a fucking service isn't needed to check for an update. Firefox handles updates just fine without a background service running all the time, doesn't it. Apparently Google weren't able to figure that out, or that service is doing more than just checking for updates.

Re:Google Service (1)

icebike (68054) | 1 year,12 days | (#44625965)

It saddens me that you can't read what he wrote. Hint: its in the second sentence.

Re:Google Service (2)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | 1 year,12 days | (#44624039)

There is/was a Google Update Service on old versions of Windows to, I think, work around bugs in the Windows task scheduler. The latest Windows versions have those bugs fixed and on those versions it uses the task scheduler to do update checks.

Re:Google Service (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | 1 year,12 days | (#44624945)

But how easy is it for Joe and Jane Normal to even FIND that, much less disable it? To steal a line from Tron "I stand for the users" and I fricking HATE when a program uses shit like Task Scheduler without giving an easy UI element in the program to disable it. Last I checked there was NO checkbox or button to disable that from within Chrome, with Dragon there is a checkbox so it CAN be done in a Chromium based browser and in Pale Moon, the Gecko based I hand to customers, it doesn't run any service at all, just doing the IMHO more sane thing of checking upon launch for any updates.

Just remember what is trivial for YOU to do does NOT mean its trivial for THEM to do and fixing Windows boxes 6 days a week I can tell you that all that shit loading itself as services and Task Scheduler tasks DOES weigh down a system pretty badly, especially those AMD Bobcat duals that Worst Buy has been pushing for home boxes and laptops of late. I personally like the Bobcat chips because of how insanely low powered they are but you really have to watch not getting too much shit loading in the background or they just crawl, which is why shit loading in Task Scheduler without a UI in program irks me as most users don't even know where Task Scheduler is, much less how to tell what is an important Windows service and what is just bullshit. There is NO REASON why Google couldn't take the more sane approach of just checking on startup for a new version, this running constantly in the background is just bullshit IMHO.

So for my users I disable all that phone home checkers and services and crap and just have Filehippo Update Checker [filehippo.com] set to run once a day. Not only does this cut down a HELL of a lot in used resources as Filehippo only uses around half a Mb of RAM and less than 2% of CPU even on a Bobcat or Atom but it also gives the user a "one stop shop" that lets them update ALL the major third party stuff from one simple to use location. Between that and Ninite [ninite.com] for initial installs its better for me, better for them, and you don't have every dang program running in the background constantly checking for updates which is just a better way to do it IMHO.

Re:Google Service (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44624111)

"Does Chrome still install and run background services on Windows?"

That's factually incorrect. The NSA has absolutely no involvement in that.

Re:Google Service (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44624157)

It's a mistake to think of Chrome as just a browser. That's like calling emacs a text editor.

Chrome background services on Windows (1)

dgharmon (2564621) | 1 year,12 days | (#44624221)

"Does Chrome still install and run background services on Windows? .."

Have you tried deselecting the box titled " Continue running background apps when Chromium is closed "

Re:Google Service (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44624381)

all Google programs do this as far as I know, which is one reason why I don't use them...

Re:Google Service (3, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | 1 year,12 days | (#44624697)

It did last I checked which was like 2 versions ago. I too don't like a bunch of background crap running which is why I give my customers Comodo Dragon [comodo.com] instead, it has a grand total of one service (dragon update) which is as easy to turn off as unchecking the "automatically check for updates" box whereas i couldn't find a way to kill all the background crap with Chrome.

For those that haven't tried it there is NO phone home, just the option of using their secure DNS in the browser to block phishing but that is totally optional, and all your Chrome extensions WILL work in Dragon as its based on Chromium. It'll take 2 to 3 weeks for this latest change to filter through as they remove any phone home crap but what I like is the fact it never changes UI wise, they moved the option button from the right to the left at version 4 and that was it, its kept the same UI ever since.

As for Chrome what REALLY pisses me off about how Google is handling it is that they have become as bad as the toolbar spammers, you don't know how many times I get called a week because Chrome has hijacked the default browser slot because this or that program is getting paid by Google to spam Chrome. I mean c'mon Google, you have the biggest search engine on the planet hawking your wares, do you REALLY need to spam Chrome with updates to Java and CCleaner?

Re:Google Service (1)

niftymitch (1625721) | 1 year,12 days | (#44624981)

Does Chrome still install and run background ....snip....

Yes. If I understand your question the answer is yes.

This quiet update is both good and bad. With many many users using Chrome the number of users unable to keep it up to date or make informed decisions is large.

In a community like /. the number of individuals that have a clue is vastly larger yet the idiot factor has not vanished to zero. Myself -- I have three different browsers installed on all my systems. I select each based on what I am doing. I also have command line invocations that modify where cache/ cookies/ profiles and other cruft might live often giving each an isolated and sometimes chrooted home to play.

Banking... never on line. I can walk to the bank. I have built and tested live CD boot disks as a safety net.

Re:Google Service (1)

icebike (68054) | 1 year,12 days | (#44625461)

Does Chrome still install and run background services on Windows? That's the reason I uninstalled Chrome. A Browser is a client side application. It should start when I start it and stop when I stop it. I see no reason for Chrome to run Windows Services. I uninstalled GTalk also for the same reason.

They do, but they also explain what all of them are. (It used to be called view background tabs, now they call it task manager.
Each and Every One of them is under your control.

There is one for each tab (each tab is sandboxed),
plus one hot running spare tab for the next tab you might launch,
one for each of most extensions you have installed.

You can decide that NONE of these run in the background when google chrome exits if you want.
You can also kill any one of them if you find a reason.

They are pretty up front about these things, and offer you more control than most browsers.
Sometimes its nice to have the computer working for you.

Re:Google Service (1)

KingMotley (944240) | 1 year,12 days | (#44626957)

Yes, but it's set to automatic, delayed start at least. That way it doesn't really slow down your boot. Although I wish Microsoft would finally create an update repository that applications could subscribe to. Doesn't have to be anything beyond just having a 3rd party register the current version and where to grab the update from. Every application vendor could create an application profile there, and just update the version number and windows would periodically ask if any of your applications had updates instead of every vendor creating their own updater, update service, and polling mechanism.

Of course, you would either have to send the update service which app id's you are interested in (good), or you'd have to get a complete list of all known app id's and versions (bad), but then you'd have privacy nuts crying that Microsoft was spying even if they did nothing with the information. You can't win, I suppose.

"When the feature arrived in the beta channel" (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44623831)

The company is still in beta, right?

Re:"When the feature arrived in the beta channel" (1)

jones_supa (887896) | 1 year,12 days | (#44624887)

I wonder when their HTML5 trial [youtube.com] gets out of the "trial" phase. Before we know, we have gone through a full decade of that experiment.

Spyware (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44623907)

Sorry, but it's only TorBrowser for me, with adblock, cookies disabled, noscript to avoid outproxy attacks, etc.

There are too many bad netizens out there. Nobody's getting anything from me anymore.

Re:Spyware (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44624035)

It's ok. Google are tracking your every move from their built in spyware that forwards to the NSA.

Re:Spyware (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | 1 year,12 days | (#44624277)

I guess Chrome isn't much different from any other closed source browser in that regard. Use Chromium if you care about this.

Re:Spyware (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44624933)

I stay safely way and use Firefox. The plugin functionality is far more complete.

Re:Spyware (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | 1 year,12 days | (#44625031)

Use Chromium if you care about this.

While I agree, it should be possible to get the same net result with Chrome by blocking Google's ad and analytics servers in your hosts file, and by not accepting their cookies. That doesn't stop Google from logging your IP with every search and referral, but if you care about that, you will have to wear the overhead of using Tor, a VPN or other proxy.

DOES IT COME WITH NSA? (1)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | 1 year,12 days | (#44623919)

As a patriotic and loyal AMERICANE, I always like to inform my leaders of my activities on the internets at all times. I want a browser with automatic internet reporting to reposnible anti-terror freedom centers. Does KROME offer this feature? If not, I will boycott all Goggles products until Gogle does its part for our freedom, oufr children, and our nation by protecting America's internet and America's women and America's fetuses and America's GOD. God bless you Slashdort and have a great day!

Re:DOES IT COME WITH NSA? (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | 1 year,12 days | (#44624287)

We don't know since Google keeps the source code secret.

Get the Source Code here .. (2)

dgharmon (2564621) | 1 year,12 days | (#44624427)

"We don't know since Google keeps the source code secret."

"The Chromium codebase [chromium.org] consists of hundreds of thousands of files"

Re:Get the Source Code here .. (2)

kthreadd (1558445) | 1 year,12 days | (#44624645)

It is true that Google bases Chrome on Chromium, but the source code for Chrome itself is not available and as a user you don't know exactly what they have added, removed or changed.

Re:Get the Source Code here .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44624909)

"We don't know since Google keeps the source code secret."

"The Chromium codebase [chromium.org] consists of hundreds of thousands of files"

If Google added NSA code to Chrome I'm sure they wouldn't be stupid enough to commit it upstream to Chromium for everyone to see.

Re:DOES IT COME WITH NSA? (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | 1 year,12 days | (#44624667)

Google Krome.

A reference to the KGB, Kremlin, etc. I like it.

Trust (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44623943)

I will only install chrome in a VM.... I do not trust google not to load it with spyware or some "legitimate" excuse to constantly call home/checkin/spy on me.

These "omnibox" combos in chrome and IE are intentionally designed to leak as much information as possible and send every "URL" you want to go to to google unless you are very careful.

And finally fuck google and firefox with their childish versioning conventions.

Re:Trust (1)

Ultra64 (318705) | 1 year,12 days | (#44624251)

>childish versioning conventions.

Numbers are childish?

Re:Trust (1)

Arker (91948) | 1 year,12 days | (#44624523)

Numbers are supposed to convey information.

A version number, specifically, needs to convey both major and minor revision levels, and distinguish them.

The numbers being used here do not convey that information. Thus they are not suited for their purpose.

The 'logic' seems to be that many people dont understand the version numbers, and therefore they should be eliminated and replaced by something no one will have trouble understanding. This would make sense, if you didnt understand that the replacement fails at its basic function and is thus inadequate at best. If I dont already know exactly how many versions of Chrome have already been released, and the relationship of this one to previous ones, the version number they are using certainly isnt going to give me the slightest help with that queston.

This sort of dumbing down seems to happen in every field, not just technology, but it's evil no matter where you see it.

Re:Trust (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44625635)

Your post intrigues me. What specific information is being conveyed to the end user by the numbers 3.5 or 4.0? And how is that more informative than the numbers 28.0.1500.95 or 29.0.1547.57?

Browsers don't really get to emphasize their "major.minor" version numbers like in the past because anything not absolutely current is unacceptable from a security point of view. Additionally major versions are dead because people want features faster. Both FF and Chrome have shown they can practice continuous delivery of new features without the flawed compatibility/stability problems that let to FF 2.0.x stagnation.

Re:Trust (1)

Arker (91948) | 1 year,12 days | (#44625899)

"Your post intrigues me. What specific information is being conveyed to the end user by the numbers 3.5 or 4.0?"

Version 3.5 represents the 5th significant release within the major release family 3. It may be expected to include the same set of interfaces and features that were included in the initial version 3, but with many minor changes in the form of bugfixes and polish.

By contrast 3.5.11 would represent the 11th quick bugfix patch on top of that release, while 4.0 would represent a significantly re-written successor program, with the possibility of significant changes in the interface and feature category to be excited about, but likely to be more buggy and less polished.

"Browsers don't really get to emphasize their "major.minor" version numbers like in the past because anything not absolutely current is unacceptable from a security point of view."

This is at best half true. The reason browser security is so hard is because the browser industry has absolutely refused to do it right at nearly every opportunity. They are staying busy following UI fads and attempting to add new features for the adware industry, which naturally means they are also constantly adding new vulnerabilities. I used to think this was incompetence but it's now clearly by design - the insecure product helps drive adoption of whatever the heck they decide to put in the next upgrade, which becomes a marketable asset.

But beyond that, sane version numbering can still keep up with a constant release schedule just fine. They were already using micro-releases and pushing them out constantly before the started messing with the numbering, the change was only to obfuscate the significance of new releases.

"Additionally major versions are dead because people want features faster."

Who? Who, specifically, wants features faster? Because I deal with computer users and computer problems 10 hours a day, with users from the most illiterate beginner up to absolutely brilliant specialists that work at the computer all day, and I dont think I have heard a user of any level talking about how they couldnt wait for some new features in their browser since somewhere back about the Netscape 2.xx days.

The constant addition of features is driven by paid developers, particularly by the ad industry. Not by user desire. It is the constant addition of features, along with the accompanying lack of priority given to security issues, that results in the chronic insecurity of the browser. And a fast release schedule will never, ever cure that chronic insecurity. It will only help turn the people into eyeballs to be bought and sold.

Think about it.

Re:Trust (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | 1 year,12 days | (#44627053)

What about Linux : the major version number doesn't stand for anything special. Long gone are the days you had 2.0, 2.2, 2.4 as the *major* version number - see, you should bitch about that because 2.2 ought to be 3.0 and 2.4 ought to be 4.0.
But at some point in the 2.6 series, they fucked up even that. They went on chaning the 2.6.x series and still called it that instead of having a 2.8. So come 2.6.38, 2.6.39 and then fuck it!, we're doing 3.0, 3.1, 3.2 .. 3.11 and still counting. If you dropped the officially meaningless "3." it would mean we've had Linux 9, Linux 10, Linux 11 released in short order and still going up.

The difference is Linux kernel versions get security patches and Chrome and Firefox don't - though Firefox does, it's called the ESR version (it got owned in Windows recently by some targetted spy or criminal malware I don't remember). The browser vendors quit patching every older version because this stuff costs many millions dollars and human/knowledge capital.

Or you can use Internet Explorer and stop bitching! But it's not available on Free OSes. A new browser project would have to be launched (who funds it? Red Hat? maybe they can't) or Firefox ESR has to improve, it does, Firefox 17 is a lot better than Firefox 10 but maybe at some point ESR can receive a bit more focus and longer support.

Re:Trust (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | 1 year,12 days | (#44625085)

Of course numbers are childish. Chrome XXIX is much more grown-up.

Re:Trust (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44624335)

And what do you suggest that is better? 1.4.0922.82? I find the just-increase-an-integer to be just fine.

Re:Trust (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | 1 year,12 days | (#44624689)

How about version 2013-08-20?

Re:Trust (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | 1 year,12 days | (#44624715)

Oh yes, let's just agree first on which date format we should use.

Re:Trust (2)

Shikaku (1129753) | 1 year,12 days | (#44624855)

The one that's ISO standard and would be in ABC order.
2013-08-20

Re:Trust (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44624961)

Damn socialist.

Re:Trust (1)

smash (1351) | 1 year,12 days | (#44626815)

Yeah, fuck those guys who want to be able to sort their directory listings when prefixing files with datestamps, right?

Re:Trust (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44624903)

No dammit! That should be:

Oh yes, let's just agree on which date first format we should use.

Re:Trust (1)

cryptoluddite (658517) | 1 year,12 days | (#44626089)

I do not trust google not to load it with spyware or some "legitimate" excuse to constantly call home/checkin/spy on me.

You'll get a lot of replies saying "but they *don't* do that" or "check the source" or "use chromium". Even if it is true that Google *does* nothing bad with Chrome, currently, what do you think they will do when they hire too many people and need to raise more money? Or once there are no other browsers but Chrome?

At some point Google will reach a balance of income and spending because too many people will get fat raises and inefficiency will creep in, and any corporation is going to favor screwing over users/customers before giving themselves a haircut. If they own the browser then they're going to do things with it that Google fans right now think are unimaginable.

Does it have NoisyTab support? (1)

Nanoda (591299) | 1 year,12 days | (#44623999)

Because it's been promised [thenextweb.com] for years.

Re:Does it have NoisyTab support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44624253)

Well, you never know with a proprietary program like Google Chrome. Use something that is open source instead.

So is NoisyTab in Chromium? (1)

tepples (727027) | 1 year,12 days | (#44624881)

Well, you never know with a proprietary program like Google Chrome.

Then let me rephrase: Does the version of Chromium Browser on which this version of Google Chrome is based have an indicator for which page is playing audio?

Pardon my troll, but... (5, Interesting)

Red Jesus (962106) | 1 year,12 days | (#44624031)

I hate to troll what could be a pleasant discussion about a new release of a popular web browser, but Chrome sends lots of extra data to Google and Google sends lots of extra data to the NSA. I therefore do not trust Chrome.

I understand that this is irrelevant to the current topic. If I don't want to use Chrome, I should just use another web browser, right? Like how I didn't want to use GMail, so I got a Lavabit account in 2009. (Seriously!) But Lavabit is gone now. And when I updated my friends with my new email address, I sullenly noted that well over half of them use GMail because the convenience outweighs the loss of privacy.

So... I'm tired and afraid. Google is integrating more features into the browser that are based on the "recency of the websites visited"? That information will almost certainly be radioed back home to Google. And when the NSA is finally forced to answer for their sins before Congress, they'll point to how many people downloaded Google Chrome 29 and they'll say, "People don't mind being tracked! They sign up for this stuff voluntarily!" Regardless of whether that's a good reason for the NSA to be able to read my email, it's going to come up repeatedly in the inquiry, and that one fact might be enough to allow the program continue.

I have no choice but to see the existence of Google Chrome 29 as a threat to my freedom. I wish I could be more reasonable about it, or at least keep my stupid opinions to myself, but being reasonable about Snowden wasn't enough to save my email account.

*sigh*

Re:Pardon my troll, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44624209)

Well, I may have to join this train. I have the update at work, and my computer keeps crashing completely when I try to go to Facebook or Wired in Chrome.

Full on, mouse frozen, nothing moves, must hold button down for 10 seconds to restart computer frozen. I don't know what the hell it's trying to look for, but I got too many computers in this building for it to try to scan SO MUCH that it crashes my computer.

Re:Pardon my troll, but... (2)

jez9999 (618189) | 1 year,12 days | (#44624503)

my computer keeps crashing completely when I try to go to Facebook or Wired in Chrome.

Full on, mouse frozen, nothing moves, must hold button down for 10 seconds to restart computer frozen. I don't know what the hell it's trying to look for

Sounds like it's trying to do you a favour.

Re:Pardon my troll, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44624385)

I understand that this is irrelevant to the current topic. If I don't want to use Chrome, I should just use another web browser, right?

Yup, you can use Firefox. I doubt it calls back home to Mozilla Foundation...

Re:Pardon my troll, but... (1)

Adult film producer (866485) | 1 year,12 days | (#44624565)

I was using google for everything until the last few days.. in the process of moving to a new email service now, it's a PITA but it has to be done. There is no way I'll use this google product under this surveillance environment.

Chrome sends data to Google? (1)

dgharmon (2564621) | 1 year,12 days | (#44624989)

"Chrome sends lots of extra data to Google"

I can't see any evidence of 'extra data` in Wireshark ..

Re:Pardon my troll, but... (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44625279)

Chrome sends lots of extra data to Google and Google sends lots of extra data to the NSA

Citation please?

Poster downthread indicates that this is not the case (at least for the first part), having examined the actual traffic. I'd say that you're assuming facts not in evidence. And what do you mean by "extra data"? Do you mean that data that would be necessary in order to provide this feature? I suppose that's "extra" if you're looking for a completely lean and mean browser that runs more or less as a command line for your own highly skilled, deft fingers. Why, a browser should only give me exactly what I ask for, and not one whit more! And so should a search engine! Why, I would prefer to enter my searches as a regex, and if you can't do that then get off my lawn!

And how do you know that this is even happening on the server side? What if it's providing a raft of search results and then additionally filtering/ordering them on the client side based on your local history? I'm assuming that if you're super concerned about this kind of stuff that you're not browsing "signed in" to a Google account, and/or using an Incognito window.

But it's a threat to your freedom. Or something.

Re:Pardon my troll, but... (4, Insightful)

SoupGuru (723634) | 1 year,12 days | (#44625617)

Oh for God's sake. The NSA has compromised everything. Google is no exception. Google is actually doing more than any other company to fight the gag orders and expose the extent of the monitoring. If you're concerned about privacy , do you stick with any number of companies that are compromised or do you stick with one company that is compromised but shows an extreme dislike of it? And not only that, Google is a company that has clout and resources.

I'm not trying to advocate for Google here, I just don't see too many other companies so publicly pissed off at what they're being forced to do.

Re:Pardon my troll, but... (1)

smash (1351) | 1 year,12 days | (#44626819)

Citation needed. Is this why they were caught deliberately misusing the Safari "do not track" request?

Re:Pardon my troll, but... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44627067)

Citation needed. Who said anything about them "deliberately" misusing Safari's broken features? Maybe you just pulled that part outta your ass?

Re:Pardon my troll, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44627159)

Well, google was fined heavily for doing it

Re:Pardon my troll, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44626771)

Chrome/Chromium, learn the difference. Chrome is from chromium and chromium doesnt report. You're faulting chrome for being chrome, just use chromium or new opera for the same rendering engine

I'll have to see what I thin of this (1)

ackthpt (218170) | 1 year,12 days | (#44624097)

so you’ll get more contextually relevant suggestions at the right time. ...

Generally I don't want suggestions and ask straight away how I can disable such features.

Make it more Firefox Like (3, Interesting)

wisnoskij (1206448) | 1 year,12 days | (#44624691)

I really do not want a bar that auto searches through my history. 99% of my history is one off sites I will never visit again. Give me a bar like FF's where I can exclusively search through my bookmarks (you know the list of sites that I want to visit again).

This (1)

Radical Moderate (563286) | 1 year,12 days | (#44625311)

I know bookmarks are so last century, but they work really well for some us. Chrome could do a better job of letting users manage them.

Re:Make it more Firefox Like (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44625971)

99% of my history is one off sites I will never visit again.

What like Slashdot?

Sleeping at the wheel.... (1, Interesting)

niftymitch (1625721) | 1 year,12 days | (#44624707)

Someone is sleeping at the wheel. At this moment I see:

Google Chrome 30.0.1599.10 (Official Build 217721) dev
OS Linux
Blink 537.36 (@156117)
JavaScript V8 3.20.15.5
Flash 11.8.800.129

Re:Sleeping at the wheel.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44626163)

OP is talking about the STABLE channel, not the dev channel...

foirst post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44624721)

or mislead the BSD sux0rs. What dyi[ng. See? It's any parting shot,

Fix the bugs first? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44624783)

I'm a chrome user. I read the chrome update, and said "what?".

For background: I'm a google voice user. As far as I can tell, Google has abandoned voice in place. I'm a chrome user. Except chrome has huge issues with streaming video: you'll find thousands of complaints of no volume. I use facebook only to read what my friends are doing, and yet gmail continually wants to try to combine my accounts. Gmail wants my phone number. It keeps trying to put my real name on youtube account, which I repeatedly deny. It GOT that real name attached to my gmail because it was required by Google voice, and it connected the two without asking.

Google has lost their polish. They're no longer putting out products that are improvements over what is generally available. Instead, they're trying to lock in my data while letting incredible opportunities like Google Voice languish with no attention. Major bugs aren't being fixed. And no, I DON'T want to use google+ or whatever the hell it is.

Google is quickly becoming Microsoft.

Restart Chrome available yet? (1)

BenJeremy (181303) | 1 year,12 days | (#44625167)

Yes, I can go to Chrome://flags, change a flag and then use the restart button, but why can't I make an extension to do that? I just want to refresh my Chrome browser windows without losing my tabs, cleaning up the lost/wasted memory. My machine reboots rarely... once a week is rare, normally once a month. Chrome is the only beast that becomes ungainly in RAM usage.

Chrome is an OS masquerading as a browser (1)

rsborg (111459) | 1 year,12 days | (#44625575)

Just look at all the features they've included and focused, and added recently and ask yourself if it's improving your browsing experience or if it's replicating something you'd expect to be in the operating system itself (e.g.: bulitin pdf reader, builtin flash runtime, webtrc, cloud password store, logging *into your browser*, ability to cast to Chromecast, etc). While not mutually exclusive, Google is focusing on Chrome being almost independent of the underlying OS.

These moves are very indicative that Google is positioning Chrome as a replacement to the desktop operating system. In fact just today I saw an indiegogo for an opensource mail app [1] that is completely bypassing Windows and simply targeting OSX/Linux (natural given the audience). This is becoming more and more the case as apps are built for OSX, Android, iOS and the web (where Chrome is now dominating).

Google's intentions re: Chrome are not 100% aligned with users' needs.

[1] http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/mailpile-taking-e-mail-back [indiegogo.com]

I'm hoping better URL suggestions are a reality (1)

Y-Crate (540566) | 1 year,12 days | (#44625789)

Nothing like going to one website on one occasion, only to have it come up first, every time you begin to type the URL for a site you visit every day.

Or, having an article you read three months ago appear in the drop-down, but not the one you called up three times that day.

Have they enabled .opus support yet? (1)

Dr.Dubious DDQ (11968) | 1 year,12 days | (#44625889)

Support for .opus [opus-codec.org] files in HTML5 <audio> tags has been in chrome for a few versions now (finally - Firefox has had it for about a year now), but they've kept it disabled by default (and you've had to manually enable "playback of opus in video[sic]" in the switches to use it).

Have they enabled that by default yet, or do we have to continue waiting for the glacial pace of webm-with-vp9-and-opus support to work its way through for them to allow it by default?

Chrome 29 (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44626743)

I'm holding off.. I'm waiting for Chrome 278.

Re:Chrome 29 (1)

Chrisq (894406) | 1 year,11 days | (#44627745)

I'm holding off.. I'm waiting for Chrome 278.

At this rate you'll be back with us by Christmas

Cookies per session (1)

Jethro (14165) | 1 year,12 days | (#44626767)

Does it have an option to accept cookies for This Session Only yet? That's the only reason I haven't switched.

botnet (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,11 days | (#44627619)

inb4 botnet

botnet (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,11 days | (#44627887)

many people claim that chrome is a botnet and we should all use firefox for this reason. i agree to an extent and the FSF may endorse not using closed source software but the truth is that chrome just 'works'

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>