Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses The Internet

Examining Chrome's Source Code 288

An anonymous reader writes "Chrome is open source, and there's clearly still some work to be done on it. In this article, Neil McAllister decided to take a peek under Chrome's hood and view it through the eyes of the developers who will improve and maintain it in the coming years. It seems Google's open source browser currently has much to offer prospective hackers — provided they use Windows. Quoting: 'The Chromium site explains how to download the source code for Linux, Mac OS X, or Windows. Unfortunately, if you're eagerly awaiting a Mac version of Chrome, you shouldn't hold your breath. As the Mac OS X area of the Chromium developer site explains, "Right now, the Mac build is a work in progress that is much closer to the start than the finish." In fact, according to the latest status report, the Chrome developers have yet to get even the browser core running under Mac OS X. Rendering actual Web pages is still a long way off, to say nothing of a usable Aqua GUI. Then again, the Linux version is in arguably even worse shape.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Examining Chrome's Source Code

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 13, 2008 @08:10AM (#24989411)

    They still have a near monopoly on the entire Linux desktop market!

  • by txoof ( 553270 ) on Saturday September 13, 2008 @08:26AM (#24989505) Homepage

    I suppose it's good business sense to write software for the most popular platform. With around 75% [w3schools.com] of the OS hits being from Windows, it would be prudent to sink resources into a windows browser, rather than Mac or Linux.

    On the other hand, Mac use is steadily climbing and climbing among young people. Young people are typically drawn to free and shiny (one might say, Chromed) things. They're also good at starting and perpetuating trends. In that light, it might make sense for Google to sink more resources into making an OS X version. It's important to not only have a good product, but to make it fashionable to use that product. Lord knows how many people are still using IE, not because they like it, but rather because they don't know there's anything faster or better out there out there.

    They might as well forget about Linux though. Everybody knows that Linux users are crotchety and only really want to use wget and for really special pages, lynx. I for one can't remember the last time I used a window manager and LIKED that new fangled environment. Too many colors and flashing lights, it's like those arcades that them darn kids like to visit.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 13, 2008 @09:04AM (#24989675)

    They even did worse, they made it for MS Windows 32 bits from the start. Too bad for them.

    Yeah, now they're stuck with 90+% of the existing desktops on the planet. Whatever will they do?

  • by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Saturday September 13, 2008 @09:53AM (#24989951) Journal

    When MS uses the word Beta, they really mean pre-alpha. Release is Beta. If you want a release quality MS product you need to look for the discontinued tag.

    Google is simpler, they got beta, beta and beta. One works, one doesn't, the other works for everyone except you and just when you became totally dependent on it, they kill the project.

    Linux has Beta and RC. RC is solid but out of date so nvidia doesn't have drivers for it anymore, beta is solid but nvidia doesn't have drivers for it yet.

    Solaris has only one version, more solid and sensible then a rock, it is labelled "Giving your accountant a heart attack".

All great discoveries are made by mistake. -- Young

Working...