×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Chromium 37 Launches With Major Security Fixes, 64-bit Windows Support

Unknown Lamer posted about 4 months ago | from the almost-makes-up-for-<dialog> dept.

Chromium 113

An anonymous reader writes Google has released Chrome/Chromium version 37 for Windows, Mac, and Linux. Among the changes are better-looking fonts on Windows and a revamped password manager. There are 50 security fixes, including several to patch a sandbox escaping vulnerability. The release also brings stable 64-bit Windows support which ...offers many benefits for speed, stability and security. Our measurements have shown that the native 64-bit version of Chrome has improved speed on many of our graphics and media benchmarks. For example, the VP9 codec that’s used in High Definition YouTube videos shows a 15% improvement in decoding performance. Stability measurements from people opted into our Canary, Dev and Beta 64-bit channels confirm that 64-bit rendering engines are almost twice as stable as 32-bit engines when handling typical web content. Finally, on 64-bit, our defense in depth security mitigations such as Partition Alloc are able to far more effectively defend against vulnerabilities that rely on controlling the memory layout of objects. The full changelog.

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

Shooter (2)

hooiberg (1789158) | about 4 months ago | (#47764693)

Somehow I will always remember Chromium as the arcade type shooter with the same name.

Shooter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47765007)

There is nothing but hard vacuum out there,you space nutter.

Re:Shooter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47765035)

There is nothing but hard vacuum out there,you space nutter.

And weeping brown dwarfs.

all that? (2)

turkeydance (1266624) | about 4 months ago | (#47764697)

and for free?

all that? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47764917)

FUCK BETA!

Re:all that? (0)

RicktheBrick (588466) | about 4 months ago | (#47765175)

What the hell? I recently did a google search for chrome to install it. The very first entry on the list was a download that first installed a so called optimizer malware protector program. If one executes the program it will tell one that they have thousands of problems. Just send them some money and they will fix them for you. How am I suppose to know that the program did not install the problems and than ask money to fix them? It is the same as having people come to your door and tell you that your windows are not broken so pay us some money and we will ensure that they remain unbroken. If google will not help protect us from these people than how can I trust them to write a problem free browser?

Re: all that? (1)

Selivanow (82869) | about 4 months ago | (#47765441)

One cannot expect Google to save one from oneself.

Re:all that? (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 4 months ago | (#47766175)

How is google going to stop you from posting lies on Slashdot?

Re:all that? (2)

stoploss (2842505) | about 4 months ago | (#47766753)

How is google going to stop you from posting lies on Slashdot?

Haven't you heard the whispers about the Google kick squad, armed with Reason(tm) hypervelocity rail guns?

That's how.

Re: all that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47767725)

Google can't, but their friends at the NSA can.

Sweet (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47764709)

I hope the Firefox team once copies one sane feature from Chrome to their browser: the 64bit windows build.

Re:Sweet (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47764855)

I hope the Firefox team once copies one sane feature from Chrome to their browser: the 64bit windows build.

Here you go. [mozilla.org]

Re:Sweet (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47764887)

Is there a stable build?

Re:Sweet (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47764923)

I'm sure the Brony community can provide an equine themed build to your liking.

Re:Sweet (1)

OhSoLaMeow (2536022) | about 4 months ago | (#47767477)

+1 funny if I had points.

Re:Sweet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47765111)

You can always rename the file to say stable if that makes you feel better.

Re:Sweet (2, Informative)

Himmy32 (650060) | about 4 months ago | (#47765273)

Pale Moon is a 64 bit build of the LTS version of Firefox. Highly recommend it.

Re:Sweet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47766763)

Pale Moon is pretty shady and not official in anyway.

Re:Sweet (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47764969)

I hope the Firefox team once copies one sane feature from Chrome to their browser: the 64bit windows build.

Don't hope, vote. [mozilla.org]

Why not a master password for the PW manager? (2)

mlts (1038732) | about 4 months ago | (#47764729)

I wish for a feature that is in Firefox... and that is the ability to set a master password and encrypt all password manager contents. That way, stored passwords and certificates are independently protected.

Re: Why not a master password for the PW manager? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47764829)

I think it would be nice if Chrome stored all your passwords and especially your certs (like SMIME and PGP keys) on one of Google's servers. That way you'd have them any time and anywhere you want. Google could provide encryption and provide a key escrow service to that encryption so that, if you lose your master password, Google can recover your passwords for you. With Google's safety features, nothing could possibly go wrong.

Re: Why not a master password for the PW manager? (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 4 months ago | (#47764995)

lol snark right?

Re:Why not a master password for the PW manager? (3, Informative)

The MAZZTer (911996) | about 4 months ago | (#47764879)

Chrome already encrypts your data (on Windows at least) using your Windows login credentials using the Crypto API. If the user is not logged in, the passwords are impossible to read. If the user is logged in, all it takes is an API call run by that user to decrypt them, no reauthentication necessary (and this is why you lock your PC when you walk away). I think it is a very usable solution to the "but I save passwords to avoid remembering passwords, I don't want a master password" problem, but still keeping things secure.

I think cookies are encrypted now, too.

Re:Why not a master password for the PW manager? (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about 4 months ago | (#47765801)

So, are you saying that the data is "encrypted" in such a way as to be readable by anything which is running as your user?

Because, basically that would mean that it's not really encrypted in any meaningful way, because you inherently trust every single process to access your passwords.

Quite frankly, that sounds pretty dumb, because it means you explicitly make this available to every single process. So, Adobe could read your passwords if you read a PDF?

That's pretty weak if I understand what you said. And precisely why I don't trust applications to remember my passwords.

Re:Why not a master password for the PW manager? (2)

Mortimer82 (746766) | about 4 months ago | (#47768909)

Once you have any kind of malware on your computer, you have to assume anything you do within the context of that user account is compromised. Any malware which can read your password database could also just as easily be watching your activity and record the password the next time you enter a global password into a password manager.

As a user who is already used to quickly pressing Win+L to lock their computer each time they leave their desk, leveraging the Windows APIs is exceptionally convenient, especially when I consider that I don't have to manage yet another password independently of my Windows login password.

Also, those of us who recognise that it's no longer mid-2000 and that Microsoft has become a company who arguably sets one of the best examples on how to develop software securely, I have confidence that their API for this is thoroughly tested and proven. For Google to even attempt to come close, they would need to expend considerable effort which would ultimately achieve, at best, a reinvented wheel which would also be less convenient for Windows users.

Re:Why not a master password for the PW manager? (1)

mlts (1038732) | about 4 months ago | (#47766109)

Windows has the ability to stash login credentials securely, but on Linux, this functionality isn't present, so having the browser "pack its own parachute" with its own encryption would be nice.

Re:Why not a master password for the PW manager? (1)

Rob Y. (110975) | about 4 months ago | (#47767639)

Chromium under KDE on linux nags you to set up a kwallet for passwords - I assume Gnome has a similar facility. So I guess it takes the same approach as on Windows - i.e., use the password storage facility provided by the OS. Not a bad approach. Kwallet makes you provide a password to access it the first time (presumably each app that accesses your wallet will ask for this the first time you grant it access. That's not the same as giving your passwords to anything you run as the GP suggested (thought maybe it works that way on Windows...)

Re:Why not a master password for the PW manager? (1)

vux984 (928602) | about 4 months ago | (#47767081)

, all it takes is an API call run by that user to decrypt them, no reauthentication necessary (and this is why you lock your PC when you walk away).

I'm far more concerned about malware than coworkers. Does locking my PC stop malware from harvesting the passwords? Does malware only run when you walk away and if you lock your PC that prevents it from running? If only, right? :)

The problem with saving passwords in a the user profile is that ANY non-privileged process running under my account can access them. That is plainly terrible.

Re:Why not a master password for the PW manager? (1)

Mortimer82 (746766) | about 4 months ago | (#47769011)

If you are infected with malware, that malware could just as easily watch the password you type into a password manager, if anything, for Windows users, using the supported, well tested and proven Microsoft APIs is likely to be much better than Google trying to reinvent a wheel, which at best would still not be quite as convenient for users.

Re:Why not a master password for the PW manager? (1)

vux984 (928602) | about 4 months ago | (#47769373)

that malware could just as easily watch the password you type into a password manager

That is actually far from "just as easily".

1) Hooking into the keyboard is much easier to detect from an antivirus-suspicious activity point of view.

2) It also requires that the malware be running WHILE I load unlock my password manager and enter the master password.

I personally run password safe, with multiple safes, with different category passwords because I distrust the native browser password storage.

Sure the low value websites safe is opened daily. But the one with my utilities and daily banking? Often goes a week or two at a time without being unlocked. The one for even higher value targets - my tax accounts, my domain registrar, certain investment accounts, often goes several weeks at a time between accesses.

That gives me in practice, a fairly large window to detect and remove malware before I'm hopelessly and completely compromised.

Compare that to your alternative, where the malware, can harvest all the passwords I've saved literally within milliseconds of its first run.

There is no comparison. I'll gamble with a keylogger over risking a malicious user process just being able to read my saved passwords every time.

Re:Why not a master password for the PW manager? (2)

Mortimer82 (746766) | about 4 months ago | (#47769843)

You just happen to be super vigilant with your security and if Chrome had implemented a Firefox style password protected password manager it most certainly would not have met your needs either. You are very different from the vast majority of users and the most worthwhile measure you take above Firefox and Chrome, is that you compartmentalise your passwords. You however are a part of a very small number of people who go to those lengths and for the vast majority of users who have all their passwords in the same "vault", they would expose all their passwords within a day, making Chrome's strategy of leveraging Window's API arguably more secure than building their own. And keep in mind the vast majority of people would be infected for weeks or even months before they notice.

As for your argument about key loggers being "harder" to develop than other malware, keep in mind that a lot of malware these days is bought as a kit with a tonne of features. The people writing the malware are typically separate from the parties utilising the malware and once a password stealing module is written, it's available for everyone else to use, regardless of how hard it was write. Also, who said it had to be a key logger? It could be sniffing unencrypted memory, peeking forms in the browser window, it could be watching in countless different ways to avoid being detected as a key logger by AV.

And in regards to AV watching for key loggers, if they know to watch for key logger type activity, then it stands to reason they could also log attempts to read the password management API. In practice it's a cat and mouse game, as AV writers work to detect malware activity, malware writers work to avoid detection.

Malware writers are financially incentivised to come up with solutions, do not think that the hurdle required to get key sniffing is substantially different to that required for using the Windows API for password management, if it takes them a couple of weeks more to write one method, they might bill their clients more, or perhaps they are forced to include the feature so their clients don't use a competing product.

While you are a rare exception as you take extraordinary lengths to protect your credentials, for the vast majority of people, once they have malware, everything on their user profile is likely compromised and single password vault vs Windows API won't help them one bit, except that the Microsoft developed password vault is more convenient to users and likely better than a comparatively simple solution which would ship with a browser.

Re:Why not a master password for the PW manager? (1)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | about 4 months ago | (#47766229)

ChromeIPass + KeePass works rather well.

Gradients (1)

Ark42 (522144) | about 4 months ago | (#47764761)

Can it render large CSS gradients without horrible banding yet?

Re:Gradients (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47764849)

We don't know.

Re:Gradients (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47764937)

The answer is still no, apparently: https://code.google.com/p/chro... [google.com]

What a world we live in, where IE11 and Firefox have vastly better real-world CSS3 support and Chrome is just a pile of crap.

Re:Gradients (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47765501)

Looks fine [css-tricks.com] to me.

Re:Gradients (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47765661)

Try this https://code.google.com/p/chro... [google.com] in Chrome, Firefox, and IE. Notice now the large version of the same gradient looks like crap in only Chrome, but the rest all render it just fine.

Another oddity of this same bug in Chrome is this, which just defines all logic: http://jsfiddle.net/7C7ey/ [jsfiddle.net]
Compare that in Chrome to Firefox and IE. You can't even come up with a reason to explain how bad it looks in Chrome, it just boggles the mind what could possible be causing that.

Re:Gradients (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47765817)

You can see the bug in "Linear Gradient (with Specified Arbitrary Stops)" on that page, but it is subtle. Compare Chrome to any good browser and notice how the blue starts to form bands on the far edge, instead of blending properly.

Hello, it is 2014 (4, Insightful)

qbast (1265706) | about 4 months ago | (#47764821)

Why even bother with 32 bit builds?

Re:Hello, it is 2014 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47764885)

Because not everyone upgrades their computers every 2-3 years. My parents are still running a 32 bit OEM flavor of vista. They do not have the cash to go buy even a 300-400 dollar computer. Frankly they do not care. They get on their read a bit of email and use it for a bit of ebay.

Sure an upgrade would be nice for them. But it must come in the 'free range' and still be able to use their software.

Re:Hello, it is 2014 (2)

qbast (1265706) | about 4 months ago | (#47765317)

Then would they care about browser upgrade?

Re:Hello, it is 2014 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47765347)

Because opencandy installed chrome for them.

Re:Hello, it is 2014 (1)

reikae (80981) | about 4 months ago | (#47766831)

If you've upgraded in the last ten years you very likely have a 64-bit CPU. Athlon 64 machines probably can be had for free. From a quick search it also seems that Windows license allows you to choose either 32 or 64 bit version. I realise 64-bit computing wouldn't benefit your parents, but it doesn't require you to hop on an upgrade treadmill.

Re:Hello, it is 2014 (1)

Ravaldy (2621787) | about 4 months ago | (#47766907)

Yes but your OS needs to be 64 bit and until Windows 7 became dominant, 32 bit was still the biggest seller by far. If I recall until last year 80% of Windows OS installs were 32bit. Until last year many laptops still came with 32 bit Windows 7 which as far as I'm concerned was dumb.

Re:Hello, it is 2014 (1)

antdude (79039) | about 4 months ago | (#47769283)

I still use my very old, updated Windows XP Pro SP3 at home. It does what for me. I don't game and do anything fancy like I used to do.

Re:Hello, it is 2014 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47764901)

That was what I was saying back in 2007 when x64 support for Windows would have been thought of as abnormality.
Personally I think Windows never should have left the 16-bit era.

Re:Hello, it is 2014 (3, Insightful)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 4 months ago | (#47764907)

Even well into Windows 7, 32-bit continued to a very serious market share of NEW installs. At this point I do not think we are getting very many 32 bit installs at all, but any computer over 3 years probably has about a 60% chance of running a 32-bit OS. XP was the market overlord of a very long time, and continues to have a significant share, and its 64 bit edition was unusable.

Re:Hello, it is 2014 (1)

datapharmer (1099455) | about 4 months ago | (#47764993)

Strange, I used windows 64 bit for several years with no problem. That said I built it with components I knew had stable 64-bit drivers. Only problem I had was many browser plugins were 32-bit only but I can't blame Microsoft for that. It was a hell of a lot better than Vista x64 I can tell you that!

Re:Hello, it is 2014 (2)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 4 months ago | (#47765329)

There are devices [lenovo.com] sold that have a 32 bit OS installed. For devices that will never have more than 2 GB of RAM, it makes sense to save a little bit of memory by using the 32 bit version when it is all that is needed. Granted, it won't be long before just about every device has 4GB of RAM, and we will completely lose the 32 bit build.

Re:Hello, it is 2014 (2)

DRJlaw (946416) | about 4 months ago | (#47766011)

For devices that will never have more than 2 GB of RAM, it makes sense to save a little bit of memory by using the 32 bit version when it is all that is needed.

If that is your sole metric, perhaps. But x64 mode provides other features such as additional registers, a larger address space for ASLR, etc. Much of the speed increase Google is touting is due simply to the ability of the compiler to use x64 mode code.

Re:Hello, it is 2014 (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 4 months ago | (#47767089)

I guess it depends on where you think the bottle neck would be and where you want to optimize. Is the bottleneck in your CPU, and you want to make sure you can use all the registers, or is the bottleneck in the amount of memory you have, causing your device to swap things out of RAM more often? Running a full desktop OS with full desktop applications on 2GB of ram is already pushing the limits on the minimum amount of RAM that most users could deal with. It may make sense to conserve memory as much as possible so you don't swap to disk, because that will greatly affect the user experience, rather than run the loaded process just a little faster because you have extra registers.

Re:Hello, it is 2014 (1)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | about 4 months ago | (#47766255)

64-bit isn't just about ram, it's also about the extra registers & instructions.

Re:Hello, it is 2014 (1)

Himmy32 (650060) | about 4 months ago | (#47765289)

Because support for 64 bit plugins are still lagging...

Re:Hello, it is 2014 (1)

cant_get_a_good_nick (172131) | about 4 months ago | (#47765621)

Moving to 64 bit means your entire ecosystem needs to move to 64 bit. Is every plug in, including every corporate internal plugin migrated to 32 bit? Even IE still has both builds, for this reason.

Re:Hello, it is 2014 (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 4 months ago | (#47765737)

Why even bother with 32 bit builds?

Especially if one of the claims is that the 64-bit renderer is "twice as stable"?

Frankly, that's not a claim that I was expecting to hear. People looking at cashing in on Google security bug bounties should probably be looking at datatypes that are not being properly used and are overflowing and crashing on 32-bit.

Re:Hello, it is 2014 (1)

antdude (79039) | about 4 months ago | (#47769081)

Because some people still use 32-bit OSes on very old machines? :(

Google? (1, Funny)

MagickalMyst (1003128) | about 4 months ago | (#47764827)

This is a Google product. Nothing to see here, move along.

Video decoding regression (3, Informative)

kav2k (1545689) | about 4 months ago | (#47764839)

> For example, the VP9 codec that’s used in High Definition YouTube videos shows a 15% improvement in decoding performance.

Except that with this version, hardware-accelerated decoding broke scaling [google.com] , so it now seems to scale as nearest-neighbor. Thankfully, on Windows it's possible to override hardware decoding with chrome://flags, which is a workaround for now.

Re:Video decoding regression (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 4 months ago | (#47765439)

Tragically Flash support still seems to be working. I was hoping that moving to 64 bit would break it.

Re:Video decoding regression (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47767451)

Also started using DirectWrite vs. GDI for font rendering, which seems to be causing all sorts of issues with web fonts. Can also be disabled in chrome://flags.

The tabs are slightly sucky (2)

jones_supa (887896) | about 4 months ago | (#47764941)

An old gripe: the tab implementation could be improved. To begin with, when using the normal horizontal tab strip, Firefox makes it scrollable with arrows when it gets crowded. Chrome just makes the tabs smaller and smaller. And hey, give me vertical tabs, à la Firefox's Tree Style Tab extension. Great way to utilize a wide screen monitor. Chrome did indeed have an experimental side tabs option a couple of years ago, but they removed it, and apparently their extension API hasn't allowed any third party to make a good vertical tabs implementation. Ah well.

The tabs are slightly sucky (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47768243)

If you go to chrome://flags and enable Stacked Tabs, tabs have a minimum size and one end of the tab bar starts stacking when there are too many to show at once. Unfortunately, this vital feature is Windows-only and will probably be removed in the future in the name of consistency.

Re:The tabs are slightly sucky (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 4 months ago | (#47770061)

I switched to chrome because of this. With lots of tabs open Firefox have no indication of the number of tabs. At that point I'm usually interested in going through sequentially anyway and not go through by specific content, I.e. open up interesting Slashdot articles.

64-bit support (2)

Imagix (695350) | about 4 months ago | (#47765003)

So when are they _finally_ going to have a 64-bit OS X version?

Re:64-bit support (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 4 months ago | (#47765141)

It is 64 bit, check about:buildconfig.

Re:64-bit support (1)

Imagix (695350) | about 4 months ago | (#47765345)

Chrome isn't responding to about:buildconfig... and calling file on the executable:
$ file Google\ Chrome
Google Chrome: Mach-O executable i386

Re:64-bit support (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 4 months ago | (#47766271)

Oh, my mistake. Wrong browser. :-)

Pointer focus still broken (1)

crow (16139) | about 4 months ago | (#47765187)

If you're using Linux with pointer focus, Chrome is severely broken starting with version 35.

https://code.google.com/p/chro... [google.com]

Chromium 37? (5, Funny)

OolimPhon (1120895) | about 4 months ago | (#47765283)

I thought this was a story about an isotope...

Re:Chromium 37? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47765565)

You're at least 5 releases early, probably 13: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_chromium

Re:Chromium 37? (0)

cant_get_a_good_nick (172131) | about 4 months ago | (#47765635)

:) sorry, no mod points today.....

Does it self-update to 64-bit? (1)

taxman_10m (41083) | about 4 months ago | (#47765297)

I've been running 32-bit Chrome on Windows 7 64-bit. Does the Chrome self-update upgrade it to Chrome 64-bit or is it a seperate download somewhere?

Re:Does it self-update to 64-bit? (3, Informative)

jones_supa (887896) | about 4 months ago | (#47765377)

It is a separate download at https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/browser/?platform=win64 [google.com] .

Re:Does it self-update to 64-bit? (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 4 months ago | (#47765591)

Question: In Chrome, I just clicked on the triple bars to the right of the search bar, clicked on 'About Google Chrome', and updated from there. Now I'm running Chrome version 37.0.2062.94 m. Is this the 64 bit version?

Re:Does it self-update to 64-bit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47765781)

No. I'm puzzled, dazed, confused and stunned that they choose to promote the feature and then don't even provide a small check box to help selecting the build of the customer/product's choosing.

Re:Does it self-update to 64-bit? (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 4 months ago | (#47765825)

Now I'm running Chrome version 37.0.2062.94 m. Is this the 64 bit version?

The 64-bit version says "64-bit" in parenthesis after the version number.

If you just updated your 32-bit version, it's likely that you will stay in the 32-bit channel.

Re:Does it self-update to 64-bit? (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 4 months ago | (#47765875)

Now I'm running Chrome version 37.0.2062.94 m. Is this the 64 bit version?

The 64-bit version says "64-bit" in parenthesis after the version number.

If you just updated your 32-bit version, it's likely that you will stay in the 32-bit channel.

Thanks, to you and the above AC. Guess I'll update it again.

Re:Does it self-update to 64-bit? (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 4 months ago | (#47767109)

Just updated from your link, after 1st attempt received a message (loosely) stating 'Chrome cannot install on top of the same version." 2nd attempt worked, now showing, "Version 37.0.2062.94 unknown-m (64-bit)". Thanks again...

Stability improvements? (1)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | about 4 months ago | (#47765399)

I understand why 64 bit can improve performance on x86 platforms because the 64-bit transition also rolled in other improvements like more registers.

I understand why 64 bit can improve the performance of security mitigations by making guessed addresses more likely to result in a controlled crash rather than arbitrary memory scribbling.

I cannot think of any reason why switching to 64 bit builds should halve the crash rate, unless this is just a side effect of 64 bit hardware being newer and less crappy overall. Can anyone else explain this to me?

Re:Stability improvements? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47765719)

I cannot think of any reason why switching to 64 bit builds should halve the crash rate, unless this is just a side effect of 64 bit hardware being newer and less crappy overall. Can anyone else explain this to me?

I may be a bit cynical about this, but many things that were crashing in 32-bit builds and stable in 64-bit builds gained stability from the expanded per-process memory range. The same buggy code with incompetent memory management would reach a crashing point when it ran out of new memory to violate, but as a 64-bit program it took enough longer to hit the higher barrier that it would appear completely stable.

Re:Stability improvements? (1)

cant_get_a_good_nick (172131) | about 4 months ago | (#47765735)

Though I'm sure there are other reasons (maybe better 64 bit tools?) you self answer a bit. Your Point #2 means Chrome crashes early and obviously, making any pointer bugs quicker to be squashed. This means the bugs get fixed fast, fewer make it to Release builds, and you should crash less.

Another reason may be heap size. Even if you don't fill free memory, you can fragment it. Picture what you can put in one 5 gallon bucket, vs what you can put in 5 x 1 gallon buckets. Much less flexible. So if 32 but chrome gets tight on memory becuase of web pages seen and closes, seen and closed and memory fragmented, it may just give up and crash/exit.

Re:Stability improvements? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47769205)

> So if 32 but chrome gets tight on memory

How? Chrome uses a proper, UNIX-like multiprocess model rather than the more dangerous single shared memory space that Microsoft's attempt at a browser uses. A single web page shouldn't ever get tight on memory. That isn't a reason, and there aren't any really, to use a 64-bit browser.

Just being honest here... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47765567)

but I cannot fathom how people, and techies specifically, trust a browser that has ties to the company that does nothing but track people for the sake of profit. I just cannot wrap my head around why people willingly are not fighting the trading of privacy for something "free". We all know the tradeoff isn't fair. Free this and free that and we are giving our lives away for what really?

I similarly distrust supermarket loyaly cards, which purport to save you money, but track and sell your preferences to third-party vendors who are also in the game for nothing but profit. One of the things that scares me is the buyers included in these companies are insurance companies, both medical and other, who then proceed to find ways to make your policies more expensive in future based on your current lifestyle. This is starting to happen.

My life is private and what I do should not cause an increase in costs for me. The goal, after all, is socialised medicine anyway, so screw for-profit medical companies.

Re:Just being honest here... (1)

ledow (319597) | about 4 months ago | (#47765949)

1) If you're in business, likely you don't care about the privacy of searches anonymised under legal agreements because, well, there's just nothing quite that interesting and if your employees complain, you have to wonder what they are Googling in their spare time that they don't want you to know about.

2) Alternatives. I was an Opera user since before 3.something. It peaked a year or two ago, the developers were moved on, and it's now just junk and uses Chromium backend. IE isn't a sensible alternative either (trust no browser that wants you to go to Bing by default, has the Bing toolbar, etc. either). Quite what are we supposed to use and deploy? Firefox? The MSI and GPO integration is still all random-third-parties that we have to trust did it right and didn't add their own junk in.

Sorry, but on the face of it, the privacy "problem" isn't really a problem for most people. I agree that privacy is an issue and I get more than most people that privacy is just something you should have by default, not be made to justify or fight to get. But, honestly, there's little choice.

And when you're a techy working for a business, you'll deploy what's been agreed on, which will be the lesser of most evils. At least Chrome MSI-deploys and has proper GPO and respects Windows Internet Options, and is cross-platform in other respects.

At home, I still use Opera. But only until websites start crapping out on it, because there's no way I want to touch the newer versions anyway (whatever their underlying browser).

Re:Just being honest here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47767111)

Thank you for your professional response; it's one of the few I've received here on /. that isn't snarky.

Netflix support? (1)

cant_get_a_good_nick (172131) | about 4 months ago | (#47765595)

I remember some Chromium build that had Netflix support, a.k.a streaming DRM support. Did this make the cut?

Chrome 38 is the big one (2)

kervin (64171) | about 4 months ago | (#47765691)

Encrypted Media Extensions [wikipedia.org] lands in 38. This is what Netflix's using in their new HTML5 player. So hopefully, finally, Netflix on Linux.

Now if they can just get Java working on Linux again we'd be all set.

Re:Chrome 38 is the big one (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47767509)

Actually Chrome 37 works already. On Ubuntu Trusty I had to update the libnss3 library to Utopic's version (from 3.15.4 to 3.16.3) and then spoof my user agent to pretend I'm running Windows, but once done it works, and works well (far better than running through Windows in a VirtualBox VM, which had a smooth picture but crackly sound).

I've used that in the Chrome 37 beta for a couple of weeks and that was the version promoted to stable. There's more info on OMG! Ubuntu! [omgubuntu.co.uk] .

I haven't seen whether this means you can remove Silverlight from Windows & Macs now but in theory it should be possible.

Re:Chrome 38 is the big one (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47769807)

If you want Netflix on Linux, you can do that with pipelight and an extension that changes your user agent string to Firefox for Windows.

at first read i was shocked. (1)

nimbius (983462) | about 4 months ago | (#47765747)

Chromium 37 launches

with 37 protons im sure it did!

Re:at first read i was shocked. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47766851)

You should work on your jokes a bit more. Chromium 37 has 24 protons and 13 neutrons, and no reason to "launch".

Does chrome still require a root privs sandbox? (1)

Viol8 (599362) | about 4 months ago | (#47765975)

Yes? Then it can carry on fucking right off, its going nowhere near my machines. I'll take the OS security over the supposed security of a browser subsystem thanks.

Re:Does chrome still require a root privs sandbox? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47766705)

This isn't to argue against you since I agree, but I think you can just unpack the binary tarball, delete the chrome-sandbox binary, and it will just not bother with sandboxing when you run it. But when you install, it will ask for root privs to setuid that binary, since it wants to install it by default. Even worse, I think Firefox are adopting this very sandbox themselves, because they need a stable sandbox to "safely" support.. wait for it.. Google's EME spec. Pretty fucking epic.

Does chrome still require a root privs sandbox? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47768577)

The point of the sandbox is to protect the OS from the browser itself (e.g. so you can't exploit a bug in the renderer to gain access to the kernel or user files). setuid is necessary to chroot() the sandbox (protects the filesystem) and put it in a PID namespace so it can't kill() other processes.

You can read about it here: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/LinuxSUIDSandbox
You can inspect the source: https://code.google.com/p/setuid-sandbox/

Willful ignorance is no excuse for spreading FUD.

changing the subject of the post (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47766015)

from "chrome" to "chromium" does not make it any better than the "zomg a new chrome" shitspam we see every three hours when a new version is released.

Extension APIs? (1)

harmonica (29841) | about 4 months ago | (#47767197)

Every news report on Chrome 37 sounds the same, including the phrase "supports various new applications and extension APIs". Everyone's just copying from the press release. What are the new extension APIs? JavaScript APIs?

SideTabs... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47768111)

...are they back yet? No? Chrome still sucks then

Finally! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47768797)

Another nail in the coffin for Firefox and their ignorance of 64-bit architecture.

Dev and beta builds (1)

Cyfun (667564) | about 4 months ago | (#47769585)

Just curious, but how many regular Slashdaughters aren't already using the beta or dev builds? I would imagine this crowd would be on the bleeding edge, especially since they got native Linux Netflix support working in one of the recent builds.

Better looking fonts on windows? (1)

bad_fx (493443) | about 4 months ago | (#47770251)

Perhaps I just need to get used to them, but the "better looking fonts" on windows don't actually look better to me, they look worse. I'm not really sure what it is, but there definitely seems to be something slightly off about them.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?