Slashdot Log In
Chrome On the Way For Mac and Linux
Posted by
timothy
on Sun Jan 11, 2009 02:21 PM
from the oozing-brightly-into-all-corners dept.
from the oozing-brightly-into-all-corners dept.
TornCityVenz writes "I've seen many complaints in the feedback on Slashdot every time an article on Google's Chrome browser hits; the calls for true cross platform availability have struck me as a valid complaint. So now it seems Google is answering your calls, promising in this article on CNET a deadline for Mac and Linux support." I'd really like to not care about the name of the browser I'm using, but the mental cost of switching could be high for someone used to particular Firefox extensions, unless or until they can all be expected to work seamlessly with Chrome.
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
A firm date from Google? (Score:5, Funny)
Is this a sign of the apocalypse?
Re:A firm date from Google? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:A firm date from Google? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, let's not forget that Google rarely seems to advance a software "release" to anything beyond "Beta."
They did for Chrome, which is the particular piece of software we are talking about here.
Also, they are really pushing this browser, to end users. I don't think their plan is browser dominance. I think their plan is to prevent any browser from becoming too dominant.
Parent
Re:A firm date from Google? (Score:5, Funny)
I think it's more a matter of engineering resources. When you're a web-centric company, you'll do anything in your power to bring about the death of IE6.
Parent
What's the rush? (Score:5, Interesting)
but the mental cost of switching could be high for someone used to particular Firefox extensions, unless or until they can all be expected to work seamlessly with Chrome.
What's the big rush? I tried Linux several times before I finally dual booted, then went on later to make the switch. If Chrome offers some features you find compelling, there's no reason they can't share browsing duty.
A little competition is a good thing. Though I do have to say that opening up their platform for custom user extensions was a brilliant move by Mozilla.
Re:What's the rush? (Score:5, Informative)
Except that StarOffice is a paid version of OpenOffice, while Chrome doesn't use many (if any) code from Firefox, not even the rendering engine. Besides, Mozilla isn't "owned" by Google, they receive funds in exchange of providing Google as the default search engine.
Parent
Re:What's the rush? (Score:5, Informative)
Google is a customer / partner of Mozilla. Mozilla offers a service (default search engine) and Google pays a fee for that service.
Parent
Re:What's the rush? (Score:5, Insightful)
ah, but my 15 extensions worth of bloat is quite different to yours (except for noscript and addblock, probably). Since we both just get the features we want, is it rely bloat, which tends to be defined as extraneous and vaguely useful features that have been hanging around for a while.
Parent
Why is it taking so long? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why is it taking so long? (Score:5, Informative)
They wrote a Windows wrapper around cross platform libraries. Then they had the nerve to deny it, even when anybody who looked at the source code immediately after initial release could see the truth of the matter.
Parent
Re:Why is it taking so long? (Score:5, Insightful)
They wrote a Windows wrapper around cross platform libraries.
No, you've inverted it, they wrote a "cross platform layer" that currently only has a Windows libraries based implementation:
Chrome uses abstraction libraries to draw the GUI on other non-Windows platforms, but for now, what sits underneath part of ChromeViews is good ol' WTL.
(from Scott Hanselman's analysis of the Chrome code [hanselman.com])
This indicates that Google did have multiplatform support in mind from the beginning. If they hadn't used native Windows libs for the GUI, I'm pretty certain we'd be hearing just as much bitching about how cross platform libs never perform as solidly as native ones.
Then they had the nerve to deny it, even when anybody who looked at the source code immediately after initial release could see the truth of the matter.
Citation, please.
Parent
Re:Why is it taking so long? (Score:4, Interesting)
I just don't understand why it is taking Google so long to release a Mac and Linux version. Can someone explain some of the technical issues that would cause such a delay? I"m just curious.
Chrome codebase is not "cross platform", in that you can't just go ahead and compile it for Linux. They are still implementing a Gtk ui - see
http://dev.chromium.org/developers/faq
Parent
Re:Why is it taking so long? (Score:5, Informative)
Chrome codebase is not "cross platform", in that you can't just go ahead and compile it for Linux. They are still implementing a Gtk ui - see
Or, to put it another way, Google's entire contribution to the Chrome browser was a non-crossplatform, non-portable UI. V8 and WebKit were done by others and are cross-platform. Google knows their browser is just polish on other people's success with WebKit and V8 which is why they stole the name "chrome" from Mozilla.
There's basically one thing that makes Chrome special and that's running tabs in a separate process (for plugins, nspluginwrapper already does this).
Google gets a lot more credit for Chrome than they deserve. If it wasn't done by Google it would be hardly even notable.
Parent
Re:Why is it taking so long? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Why is it taking so long? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I were Google (that is a great sentence) I would base it on QT 4. Fast, customizable, cross-platform, modern and integrated with WebKit.
Parent
Re:Why is it taking so long? (Score:5, Informative)
If I were Google (that is a great sentence) I would base it on QT 4. Fast, customizable, cross-platform, modern and integrated with WebKit.
Qt is nice, but its licensing prevents Google from using it in this way. To use Qt, Google would need to either pay for a license, but it wouldn't be transferable to others, or Chrome would need to be GPLed. Google goes to great effort to license it's code under the Apache/BSD/etc. licenses whenever possible, as it considers this better for it's business (and that's a reasonable position to take).
Until Nokia relicenses Qt to something like the LGPL - many of us would welcome that! - GTK will remain the library of choice in situations like this.
Parent
Re:Why is it taking so long? (Score:5, Informative)
Qt is nice, but its licensing prevents Google from using it in this way. To use Qt, Google would need to either pay for a license,
This would be no problem. Fact is, Google already does exactly this for other products.
but it wouldn't be transferable to others,
??? What are you talking about? Companies sell, eg transfer, software developed with Qt all the time, it's what is made for after all. Obviously the license allow it.
or Chrome would need to be GPLed. Google goes to great effort to license it's code under the Apache/BSD/etc. licenses whenever possible, as it considers this better for it's business (and that's a reasonable position to take).
No need for GPL, you can freely use Qt with a wide range of open source licenses like Apache/BSD/etc. Please check your facts. http://doc.trolltech.com/4.4/license-gpl-exceptions.html [trolltech.com]
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A lot of the core components were basically Windows-specific. They had to either wrap them, or rewrite the UI, which is what is taking the time.
Re:Why is it taking so long? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because Google projects are usually side-projects that the developers work on with part of their time as a 'fun' project.
The developer that chose to do this was probably just having fun and didn't really expect it to be picked as one of the ideas that gets launched to users. So he did it however he wanted.
Now that it's a big project, it's being fixed.
Parent
Re:Why is it taking so long? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Why is it taking so long? (Score:5, Insightful)
I just don't understand why it is taking Google so long to release a Mac and Linux version.
Well, according to this [theregister.co.uk] they used Windows' own HTTP protocol implementation for the first version - they've now written their own.
I suspect that Google are less concerned about taking marketshare from Safari (Mac) and Firefox (linux) than they are about getting established on Windows. Methinks their priority is to ensure that there is a Google-branded alternative to IE they can use as a web app platform just in case Microsoft does something to break Google Docs on IE (inadvertantly of course - no company with Microsoft's reputation would stoop to telling their developers that "IE9 ain't done until Gmail won't run"...)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
GUI programming and inter-process communication are vastly different on Windows than Linux/Mac; a lot of their code for Chrome was to make the existing code (WebKit) work with this design, but a lot of the rest was code that has to be completely rewritten - and chances are, a lot of the code that they wrote that they can keep needs to be updated to work on more than just Windows as well.
Re:Why is it taking so long? (Score:5, Interesting)
I recommend Windows System Programming by Hart [amazon.com] if you want to get a feeling for it. It's arguably a better (and certainly more modern) API than the classic UNIX set. I mean, fork() is a pretty weird way to create a new process, if you think about it.
This is _not_ an endorsement of the entire Windows OS, which has miles-deep layers of cruft and crap on top -- just talking about the kernel and core system services.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No two operating systems are exactly the same, from the programmer's perspective. The available operating system interfaces for everything from file access to network interface control can be very different. Not just the names of library functions, but how the needed functionality is divided into operations. It turns out that the major division in widely used desktop OSes right now is between Windows (does everything its own way) and everyone else (does everything the UNIX way). It's not to say there ar
Re:Why is it taking so long? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Why is it taking so long? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think Google is a better strategist than you are giving them credit to. Google doesn't give a shit whether there is Chrome on Mac or Linux, because those platforms are covered by Firefox and other non-Explorer browsers, and Google is fine with that. Google even sponsors Firefox, by the tune of millions of dollars.
Google has one goal in mind: increase the non-IE marketshare. IE only exists on Windows, hence Chrome only needs to be able to fight on that platform.
Now, if you don't even understand why Google needs to increase the non-IE marketshare, I can't help you.
Parent
Re:Why is it taking so long? (Score:5, Interesting)
Every single person I know that uses Chrome switched away from Firefox.
I know that's only a few data points in the pool, but you can't deny that people who don't "get" alternate browsers will probably never change away from IE.
Parent
Re:Why is it taking so long? (Score:5, Insightful)
Until their machine comes with Chrome bundled as the default browser - that's the end game Google are aiming for here.
Then you'll see IE user-share decline rapidly.
Parent
Re:Market Share (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Why is it taking so long? (Score:5, Funny)
True. But it's horrid across many platforms!
Parent
Firefox extension? (Score:5, Insightful)
but the mental cost of switching could be high for someone used to particular Firefox extensions, unless or until they can all be expected to work seamlessly with Chrome.
Unless I am grossly misinformed, I do not see how Firefox extensions could work at all on Chrome, let alone 'seamlessly'. A statement such as this essentially says "I will only use exactly what I have now"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I read it differently.
I thought it pictures quite well the fact that Chrome will have a huge way to go against firefox if they cannot take some of firefoxes most popular extensions features and offer them in chrome.
I wanna be able to firebug, addblock and a host of other stuff that, if not available in chrome while most of google works fine with ff, then its useless to me.
The real trouble will be spelled out next year, when google decides that this or that feature of their cloud will be chrome only.
We will
FireFox extensions (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, Timothy: it's doubtful you'll see out of the box compatibility with AdBlock for Chrome.
Why would a technology company that generates revenue from ads want to allow you to block the ads?
Slashdot's pretty greedy these days; there's ads in my RSS feed from Slashdot.
I ignore them.
Re:FireFox extensions (Score:4, Interesting)
The only reason to block ads for most people is because they are distracting. This means flash, animated gifs, and rotating scripts. If ads didn't move, there would be a much reduced need to block them. Personally I just can't read a page if something is blinking in the corner. Prior to adblock, I'd have to put pieces of paper over parts of the screen, or scroll it to hide ads. Advertisers have always lost me as customer by advertising in this way.
I don't, and I suspect most people don't, ever block text based ads. I've no problem with them. Thus Google's ads get through. Google understands that text based ads do not bug most people, hence it's always been their ideology to use them.
If adblocking of moving images is more widespread, then text based ads become the primary way of reaching customers. That's a win for everyone -- especially Google. (the only losers are low-life flash ad designers, whose unemployment is most welcome.)
Parent
Re:FireFox extensions (Score:5, Insightful)
The only reason to block ads for most people is because they are distracting.
The reason that I block ads, aside from being ugly and distracting from content, or from being intrusive, is because 99% of the time when a page is insanely slow to load, it's because it's waiting on some Javascript or image from the ad server, which is apparently overloaded.
Most of the time when I try to load a page and it won't load, it's an indicator that ad blocking is off. I also block Google Analytics and Digg badges as well.
I don't, and I suspect most people don't, ever block text based ads. I've no problem with them. Thus Google's ads get through. Google understands that text based ads do not bug most people, hence it's always been their ideology to use them.
'Most people' (that use ads) use predefined ad lists, which include Google ads. Unless a covenant was reached to remove Google from those lists, they'd stay there; the only other option would be for Google to make its own adblock list without its own ads and ship that to the browser.
Though imagine if a company that was the biggest ad provider on the internet released software that let users browse the internet with only their own ads. I can see some people getting pissed off about that.
Parent
Re:FireFox extensions (Score:5, Insightful)
With newer filter-sets, people no longer block anything that annoys them - they just block the whole lot.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is there actually a precedent for successful legal action over stuff like that? Have advertisers sued VCR manufacturers, Tivo, etc? What about the old adware junk that would look at ads and let users see competing offers? I know advertisers complained, but did anything ever come of it? I don't think there's a specific law against it, and there aren't contracts between any of the parties involved.
Re:FireFox extensions (Score:5, Informative)
Have advertisers sued VCR manufacturers, Tivo, etc?
Yes.
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2001/11/48065 [wired.com]
Parent
Re:FireFox extensions (Score:5, Insightful)
Please don't use Filterset.G. There are far better options out there.
http://adblockplus.org/en/faq_project#filterset.g [adblockplus.org]
Parent
Re:FireFox extensions (Score:4, Informative)
SRWare Iron [srware.net] (A modified version of Chrome) has built in adblocking, but it's nowhere near as good as what Adblock provides.
Parent
Re:FireFox extensions (Score:5, Informative)
Via an older article [cnet.com] on Cnet I found the Chrome extensions document [chromium.org], spotlighted [aaronboodman.com] on November 29th by Google programmer Aaron Boodman. From the document:
Use Cases
The following lists some types of extensions that we'd like to eventually support:
This list is non-exhaustive, and we expect it to grow as the community expresses interest in further extension types.
Emphasis mine.
Parent
Good News After An Understandable Delay (Score:3, Informative)
Having been checking out the incredibly high quality Google Chrome code and what it is doing it is understandable that there was going to be a delay for other platforms.
The reason Chrome is so much faster than other browsers - especially even after days of constant webbrowsing is all the platform specific work with memory protection and threading.
I've honestly been using the Chrome source code as a tremendous learning tool to get up to speed on how to write modern threaded application code.
The delay will be worth it when you get your hands on it. Switching to Chrome had that feeling of running your old apps on a new and faster computer. It just feels so smooth no matter how many tab or windows are open or how much Javascript is running in the background.
Mental cost of switching (Score:4, Insightful)
Why bother on the Mac? (Score:3, Insightful)
We already have a pretty decent, well supported Webkit powered browser with a reasonable userbase. I'm not really seeing google bringing anything new to the party.
Re:Why bother on the Mac? (Score:4, Insightful)
There's benefit to having broad OS availability. Safari is available on OS X and Windows but not Linux. Safari is also pretty closed as far as plug-ins are concerned. So is Chrome, at the moment, but they're working to rectify that. If Safari ran on Linux and had an open platform for add-ons, I'd be more inclined to agree with you that there's no need for Chrome.
Presumably Google's other motivation is to provide a run-time environment for future web-based applications they might release. If they own the browser on which these applications will run, they can more easily remedy any bugs or performance concerns that crop up instead of having to wait for a third-party to take care of them.
Parent
extensions (Score:5, Insightful)
Wake me when they have NoScript, AdBlock+/ElementHiderHelper, Repagination, ChickenFoot, FoxyProxy, RefControl, etc...
Not Intel-only on the Mac, please (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I know I'm hopelessly behind the times with my *ancient* G4 mini, but if there's a group that needs a faster browser, it's us "obsolete computer users". Obsolete meaning the computer, not the user.
I know that x86 is the way forward, but I see more and more Intel-only apps that make me wonder what exactly prohibited the devs from making it a Universal Binary.
Microsofts Live Mesh comes to mind (I wanted to install it to compare it to Dropbox); not even a decent message stating that it was Intel-only, it just said that my device wasn't supported or something. Dropbox on Linux/PPC is another culprit, btw.
I'm hoping V8 gets ported to PPC as well, although I'm somewhat worried that it won't, since a JS interpreter sounds a bit more involved than a file syncing thingy.
Re:If only... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:only IM, no video, no voice (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:only IM, no video, no voice (Score:4, Informative)
The only reason Pidgin can't do it is that they haven't supported it yet (and probably won't, because the devs are very stuck up).
Ever heard of libjingle [google.com]? It's the "video and voice" component of Google Talk, which is basically an extension to XMPP.
Any client that supports libjingle (I use Empathy [gnome.org], see screenshot [collabora.co.uk]) can do voice calls to Google Talk users.
Parent