CodeWeavers Package Google Chrome For Linux and Mac 239
jfbilodeau writes "The fine folks at Codeweavers performed an 11 day experiment in getting Google Chrome working on Linux and Mac. Their efforts resulted in the Chromium proof of concept. 'Not only does this give Mac and Linux users a chance to see what all the hype is about, it also lets the world see just how far Wine has come and how powerful it truly can be. In just 11 days, we were able to bring a modern Windows application across to Mac and Linux.' Caveat: their implementation is free as in beer but not free as in speech."
Predictable, Really. (Score:5, Interesting)
Google's vision isn't truly understood by everyone, IMHO. Google knew that the Open Source community would fork and port Chrome anyway and that freed up time for developers to work out the system bugs and get the thing live. Releasing the source code is a redeemable action from the many gripes that flooded about Google not offering Linux or Mac support in Chrome on launch, among other [arstechnica.com] things.
Now I personally would like to see a fork that would upgrade Chrome to remove any significant Windows reliance. I don't trust Microsoft to put my interests first and therefore I don't like the idea of a browser that relies so heavily on Microsoft for security.
It's a hack! (Score:4, Interesting)
The Fonts on Linux Suck (Score:5, Interesting)
Case in point: http://img140.imageshack.us/my.php?image=chromeox9.jpg [imageshack.us]
Ah well. I guess it'll give me something to play with until Google puts out an official Linux build.
Re:"just" 11 days? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, like a lot of :) For instance it does all the multi-process and security stuff. But then it also does what a lot of Windows programs do these days and replace the standard window management stuff as well. It relies on parts of Internet Explorer as well (like the HTTP library).
Windows apps Chrome does some, uh, interesting things that you might not expect a them to do
If you want an example of the sort of fun they had making things work, the bug this patch fixes [winehq.org] was "Chrome URL bar has a black background" yet the fix is to the low level assembly generated by Wines build process. That's because Chrome shims BeginPaint/EndPaint by patching the in-memory system DLL headers, so it can muck about with the Windows richedit control internals and the Chrome IAT patcher didn't support Borland style imports.
For a program that has such complicated interactions with the OS, and is so heavily reliant on it for functionality, 11 days is remarkably good actually. A good sign of Wines increasing maturity.
Re:Won't you take me.... to crappytown? (Score:1, Interesting)
funny....Chrome did that to me on Windows too. well,
Re:Native port? (Score:3, Interesting)
You're missing a few points though.
1. I can see a number of people purchasing the Windows version of MSOffice because it has VB macro support.
2. A number of web developers would use IE on and off. I'm sure there are a few bank sites that still only support IE with active X.
3. Games use their own guis for immersion. Done correctly, no Mac user would ever notice. Especially for games I could see Mac users bending backwards so they wouldn't have to boot up Windows.
4. If Wine becomes more streamlined, I can see a real problem emerging. Say, for example, web browsers start pointing exe files to wine automagically. Noobs everywhere will rejoice being able to install their smiley programs and pr0n-playing active-x apps. (sarcasm)
I personally don't think this will be another OS/2 for the reasons you said, Moebius Loop. Well, at least until Apple loses it's grove.
It is always important to compare and contrast from history. The more complete Wine gets, the more I wonder if it's becoming a the equivalent of opening a can of worms.
Re:Predictable, Really. (Score:3, Interesting)
Mac and Linux users should reject Windows applications and games. If they can't, they should question their OS of choice.
You're joking right?
Re:Won't you take me.... to crappytown? (Score:5, Interesting)
> I suspect that's par for the course for a Wine-ported app
Wine apps are/can be much better than that on Leopard. I only have one data point, but I use it _extensively_ and it works super-well. And stably. And actually, maybe even better than on Windows.
The app? ies4osx [kronenberg.org] under Darwine. Specifically, I am running Internet Explorer 6.0 for web-dev testing.
The ONLY complaint I have is that it's under the "X" program, instead of it's own program, so I can't cmd-tab to it effectively. Web I'm doing web-dev, I also run Xemacs, so I have to ctrl-tab to get to IE, then cmd-tab to get to Safari and Firefox.
And it's such a small complaint that I haven't even googled for a solution yet.
You're looking at it wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
You're looking at it wrong. Wine will not truly shine (I made a rhyme!) until developers start thinking of it as a tool for porting their programs to Linux/Mac OS X. For this, Mac and Linux markets becoming large enough is a natural and slightly lofty prerequisite. Wine itself only has to reach adequate compatibility status.
During porting, large studios will use Wine to simplify and speed up the job. Rather than changing their code to make it compatible with Wine deficiencies, it will make more sense to submit fixes back to WineHQ. When you get a 100 random studios doing this at once, Wine development will absolutely fly.
Until we hit that point, Wine will only be a good tech demo for most applications. There is no possible way to keep up with the Windows API realistically as is. There needs to be commercial muscle behind the project looking out for their own interests.
With Wine 1.0, I do personally think Wine has reached adequate compatibility status. I also think the Mac OS X market share surge is getting developers interested again in alternative platforms. Wine working on Mac OS X is delicious cake. Google using Wine for some of it's apps is actually a very very good sign....
Re:Predictable, Really. (Score:3, Interesting)
Aha, but we will always have C:\Windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts
Because Microsoft focuses on application compatibility above all else, and removing hosts would probably break five 10 year old apps.
Re:Google Earth is native! (Score:3, Interesting)
They aren't, it's just that Maps supports a smaller set of features than Earth does (because DHTML is less powerful than OpenGL for rendering).
Re:Predictable, Really. (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't trust Google to put my interests first either.
For that matter there are no companies and very few people who I trust to put my interests first other than me...
I don't think that is even odd. Strange would be being able to trust others to do so. It would make me an ant in an ant colony. Oh I trust the hive to put my interests first because the hives interests ARE my interest.
Naw. I'm not an ant. I'm an Aardvark. Where's my cucumber? [wikipedia.org]
Anyways, I wonder if it's legal to strip out all of Google's Ads etcetera. Oh it's possible, but is it legal? Surely once most of the work is done, some hacker will strip out the ads and spyware and post the result to freenet where anyone can download it. They could even call it the Google is Satan browser. It would be funny.