Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Businesses Software The Internet Linux Apple

Chrome On the Way For Mac and Linux 308

Posted by timothy
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Chrome On the Way For Mac and Linux

Comments Filter:
  • by aussie_a (778472) on Sunday January 11, 2009 @02:23PM (#26408805) Journal

    Is this a sign of the apocalypse?

    • by Savione (1080623) on Sunday January 11, 2009 @02:36PM (#26408931)
      Google "hopes to release versions for Mac OS X and Linux by the first half of the year". That's the closest thing TFA gives to a date, and Google hardly promises anything. The summary is somewhat misleading.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by joe_kull (238178)

        The summary is somewhat misleading.

        You must be new here.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by secmartin (1336705)
        According to the mac status page [chromium.org] for Chromium, the browser currently fails 10% of the Webkit layout tests; work hasn't even started on building a user interface yet. So I think a release within six months is a bit optimistic.

        If you'd like to get a preview of the Mac release, there are up-to-date builds available here [securityandthe.net] so you don't have to compile it yourself.

    • Well, let's not forget that Google rarely seems to advance a software "release" to anything beyond "Beta."

      • by j-pimp (177072) <zippy1981.gmail@com> on Sunday January 11, 2009 @03:15PM (#26409265) Homepage Journal

        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.

  • If only... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by samexner (1316083)
    They've been promising Linux and Mac ports for Google Talk for several years. Still hasn't happened.
    • And only excluded those communities from two entire versions. I'm sure no one minded though.

    • Re:If only... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by buddyglass (925859) on Sunday January 11, 2009 @03:31PM (#26409415)
      Who needs the Google Talk IM client when its an open API and you can use Pidgin or Adium?
      • by Tanktalus (794810)

        Or Kopete or gaim or ... if, you're really adventurous, you could probably even use telnet. Of course, there are always people who will use butterflies [xkcd.com].

      • You would be correct if any of those (Pidgin, etc) would support video and voice (which they don't). It's been years since we have been promised at least voice support, but it isn't there. So, Pidgin and Co. can do IM just fine, but that is about it.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by NekoXP (67564)

        Two problems with that

        1) Google Talk client doesn't support AIM (even though the web version does, sigh) or the video chat. That means you wouldn't use the Google Talk client as much as you might want to

        2) Pidgin crashes a fucking hell of a lot. I've never used a version that didn't blow up on exit, or nuke when a file is downloaded, or if someone messages you, or if you enable ANY plugin at all. The quality of the project is absolutely down there in the sewers, and the same bugs affect both the Linux AND W

  • What's the rush? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by HangingChad (677530) on Sunday January 11, 2009 @02:27PM (#26408849) Homepage

    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.

    • Though I do have to say that opening up their platform for custom user extensions was a brilliant move by Mozilla.

      It was, wasn't it? It doesn't matter how bloated and buggy FF3 becomes, I'll still keep using it because of the overwhelming power of extensions.

      Any new browser really has to support user-made extensions to survive amongst the geeky, one feels.

      • Any new browser really has to support user-made extensions to survive amongst the geeky, one feels

        True, but the geeky, also known as the early adopters or cutting edge users, are not typically the majority of the market. In 1996, yes, in 1999, maybe, but in 2009, we're a very vocal minority.

        To be honest, I'm making that call based on anecdotal data; I don't know what the real numbers are, but for most people I know or work with outside of my geek set, a custom browser is IE with the Google toolbar, or if you're a teenager, StumbleUpon.

        The funny thing is that, while these browser extensions are gr

  • by ClaraBow (212734) on Sunday January 11, 2009 @02:28PM (#26408853)
    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.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 11, 2009 @02:37PM (#26408947)

      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.

      • by idlemachine (732136) on Sunday January 11, 2009 @10:00PM (#26412765)

        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.

    • by ultrabot (200914) on Sunday January 11, 2009 @02:43PM (#26408999)

      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

      • Gtk? Ugh. Why not write the whole damn thing in Python with tkinter and just write a webkit interface for the python app? Then, when webkit changes, just update a DLL/shared library, and use Py2Exe or something similar for Win deployment.
        • by FST777 (913657) <frans-jan.van-steenbeek@net> on Sunday January 11, 2009 @03:32PM (#26409427) Homepage
          Because they want Chrome to be fast. While python is fast for a scripting language, it is not up to the task of delivering the fastest browser known to man.

          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.
          • by kripkenstein (913150) on Sunday January 11, 2009 @04:02PM (#26409705) Homepage

            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.

            • by Klivian (850755) on Sunday January 11, 2009 @04:48PM (#26410103)

              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]

              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                by kripkenstein (913150)

                Companies sell, eg transfer, software developed with Qt all the time, it's what is made for after all. Obviously the license allow it.

                Not what I meant by 'transfer'. You can copy the software, but not transfer the license. In other words, you can distribute your product, but others are not free to fork your product and redistribute it. The forkers would need to purchase a license as well.

                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] [trolltech.com]

                I am aware of this, but not entirely sure about what it means. After all, you can already link GPL code with BSD code (that's how the BSDs use ext2/3 code, for example). That's because the BSD license is compatible with the GPL, which means BSD can be rel

        • by zlogic (892404)

          Chrome's V8 javascript language compiles Javascript into native code, that's one of the main reasons it's so fast. Also, it uses a lot of platform-specific hacks to do this, especially for memory managemen, support for multitasking etc.

      • by cryptoluddite (658517) on Sunday January 11, 2009 @03:43PM (#26409527)

        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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by chill (34294)

      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: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by patro (104336)

        The question is: why were the core components windows-specific?

        Why couldn't they choose cross-platform components in the first place? I doubt it would complicate things much (note I'm only talking about choosing cross-platform components, not about making sure the whole thing compiles on other OSs), and they could have spared much of the later hassle of porting the core components.

        • by Aladrin (926209) on Sunday January 11, 2009 @03:31PM (#26409417)

          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.

          • by Barraketh (630764) on Sunday January 11, 2009 @05:59PM (#26410709)
            Actually, I don't think this was a 20% project. Chrome had a team of engineers working on it, and at its core it has the V8 Javascript engine. You don't just wake up one day and say "Hey, why don't I write an optimized Javascript engine from scratch!" This is a project that fits in with Google's strategic vision, and it had the necessary manpower allocated to it.
    • by itsdapead (734413) on Sunday January 11, 2009 @02:54PM (#26409107)

      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"...)

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Curunir_wolf (588405)

        Well, according to this [theregister.co.uk] they used Windows' own HTTP protocol implementation for the first version - they've now written their own.

        Which is one of the major reasons I had problems using Chrome as a default browser. Not having something like the "foxyproxy" plugin was bad enough, but dealing with Chrome's hooks into the Windows/IE proxy settings was really annoying.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Sentry21 (8183)

      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.

      • What's the big difference in IPC? I mean... shared memory is shared memory. Network sockets are network sockets. Any clever Windows thing should be wrappable in shared memory and semaphores and work fine on POSIX with only a thin compatibility layer.

        • by philgross (23409) on Sunday January 11, 2009 @04:18PM (#26409843) Homepage
          Nope. Win32 is emphatically not Unix. If anything, it's closer to the old DEC VAX VMS OS [wikipedia.org] (Dave Cutler's [wikipedia.org] earlier OS). While there are POSIX compatibility adapters, the native OS provides services that look pretty different from the classic UNIX ones (process creation, IPC, security, etc.).

          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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by drfireman (101623)

      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

    • Yeah, I don't get this. They did Google Earth in Qt, IIRC. Why did they decide to switch away from that?

    • by IceFox (18179) on Sunday January 11, 2009 @03:04PM (#26409181) Homepage
      At least for Linux I wrote up a bunch it two months ago here: http://benjamin-meyer.blogspot.com/2008/11/status-of-chromium-on-linux.html [blogspot.com] Summary: It didn't even compile on anything but a very specific windows compiler when it was launched in September. Chrome was done by a Visual Studio team entirely on Windows. Now they are discovering all the fun of not planing ahead for cross platform.
    • by blind biker (1066130) on Sunday January 11, 2009 @03:26PM (#26409369) Journal

      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.

  • Firefox extension? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 11, 2009 @02:28PM (#26408857)

    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)

      by alexborges (313924)

      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

      • You'll never see an adblock plugin for Chrome from Google themselves. As a company that runs two of the largest ad networks on the Internet (Doubleclick and Google Adsense), they won't even consider it.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Firehed (942385)

          No, but they have explicitly stated that they'll have extension support in Chrome, and will do nothing to stop a port of AdBlock.

  • FireFox extensions (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tink2000 (524407) on Sunday January 11, 2009 @02:28PM (#26408861) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • by owlnation (858981) on Sunday January 11, 2009 @02:40PM (#26408963)
      Google would lose nothing from allowing adblock. In fact, they would only gain from it.

      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.)
      • by Sentry21 (8183) on Sunday January 11, 2009 @03:01PM (#26409163) Journal

        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.

      • by argiedot (1035754) on Sunday January 11, 2009 @03:10PM (#26409235) Homepage

        I don't, and I suspect most people don't, ever block text based ads. I've no problem with them.

        With newer filter-sets, people no longer block anything that annoys them - they just block the whole lot.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Most people install FilterSet-G with AdBlock. It blocks Google text ads by default

      • 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.

        Google owns doubleclick.com

    • by Dwedit (232252) on Sunday January 11, 2009 @03:07PM (#26409205) Homepage

      SRWare Iron [srware.net] (A modified version of Chrome) has built in adblocking, but it's nowhere near as good as what Adblock provides.

    • by De Lemming (227104) on Sunday January 11, 2009 @03:20PM (#26409303) Homepage

      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:

      • Bookmarking/navigation tools: Delicious Toolbar, Stumbleupon, web-based history, new tab page clipboard accelerators
      • Content enhancements: Skype extension (clickable phone numbers), RealPlayer extension (save video), Autolink (generic microformat data - addresses, phone numbers, etc.)
      • Content filtering: Adblock, Flashblock, Privacy control, Parental control
      • Download helpers: video helpers, download accelerators, DownThemAll, FlashGot
      • Features: ForecastFox, FoxyTunes, Web Of Trust, GooglePreview, BugMeNot

      This list is non-exhaustive, and we expect it to grow as the community expresses interest in further extension types.

      Emphasis mine.

    • by steveha (103154)

      Why would a technology company that generates revenue from ads want to allow you to block the ads?

      Well, I'm sure they don't really want to allow you to block the ads. But I'm also sure that you will be able to.

      If they really wanted to make sure no one ever could block ads, they could have simply not released the source. They could have released a free-as-in-beer web browser, and crippled it however they liked. This would reduce overall acceptance of their browser, as some of us wouldn't use it, but proba

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 11, 2009 @02:30PM (#26408873)

    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.

  • by TeknoHog (164938) on Sunday January 11, 2009 @02:47PM (#26409029) Homepage Journal
    Because nobody using Mac or Linux has ever switched from a different operating system.
  • by moderators_are_w*nke (571920) on Sunday January 11, 2009 @02:47PM (#26409033) Journal

    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.

    • by buddyglass (925859) on Sunday January 11, 2009 @03:28PM (#26409387)

      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.

    • Safari on windows is quite the memory and cpu hog.* I certainly hope it's better on Mac, where both are more scarce. If it's as bad on Mac as it is on windows, though, I think people would run for chrome the second it was made available.

      *I suppose my experience could be a configuration issue: the freakin' apple page that it starts with occasionally pegs my trusty ol' athlon XP at 100% and 450 MB footprint. Still, Chrome, Firefox, and IE don't do that or anything like it, and I'm quite unmotivated to do a

  • So now it seems Google is answering your calls, promising in this article on CNET a deadline for Mac and Linux support.

    The article actually used phrases like "hopes to" and "wants to" regarding the release dates.

    If Google promised specific release dates, I'd get really worried about quality, and about Google becoming a marketing-driven rather than engineering-driven organization.

    As Blizzard has shown us, the "we'll release it when it's ready" policy correlates well with excellent products.

    • As Blizzard has shown us, the "we'll release it when it's ready" policy correlates well with excellent products.

      You can take it to far though, like 3D Realms with Duke Nukem Forever.

  • extensions (Score:5, Insightful)

    by burris (122191) on Sunday January 11, 2009 @03:16PM (#26409279)

    Wake me when they have NoScript, AdBlock+/ElementHiderHelper, Repagination, ChickenFoot, FoxyProxy, RefControl, etc...

  • Google Chrome isnt exactly giving me a geek boner yet.

  • This seems like an instance where "most bang for your buck" comes into play. IMO Google doesn't need to offer the full flexibility of FireFox as long as they provide replacements for the most popular plug-ins. In other words: Ad-Block Plus, Foxmarks, GreaseMonkey and FireBug.

    Ad blocking, and "content blocking" in a more general sense, has always struck me as a task that should be "built in" to a browser instead of handled by a plug-in. Possibly also bookmark synchronization. GreaseMonkey and FireBug ar

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Funny you should mention that, Opera has all those out of the box.
      -AdBlock ("content blocker")
      -Foxmarks (Opera Link)
      -Greasemonkey (User JS)
      -Firebug (Dragonfly)

  • If they do OSX, its minor to get it to BSD.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by MarkKnopfler (472229)

      {Free,Net}BSD has linux binary compatibility I think. A linux port should be running on them. Opera flies that way I think.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by jeremyp (130771)

      You'd have better luck porting the Linux version. The Mac OS X user interface API is very different from anything that runs on BSD.

  • by blind biker (1066130) on Sunday January 11, 2009 @03:30PM (#26409401) Journal

    Google doesn't have a strategic interest for Chrome on Linux or Mac, as there IE is nonexistent. Chrome was created specifically to fight against IE. And IE exists on Windows only.

    So far, Google's tactical move has worked, by chipping almost 1 percent of marketshare from IE. Firefox users aren't going to switch to Chrome (in general) but some IE users will.

  • 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.

    Is that coming from the same people that ask to switch to FFox from MSIE (or from Windows to Linux), even that could be some "essential" plugin/extra/program/whatever that wont work seamlessly in firefox?

    At least there is an advantage in Firefox extensions: they are (most, at least) opensource. If Chrome have any way to be able to "plug" code from others (call it plugin, extension, addon, whatever) those essential firefox extensions could be ported, adapted or recoded to fit in the new browser, and with a

  • by DiLLeMaN (324946) on Sunday January 11, 2009 @05:01PM (#26410203) Homepage

    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.

  • by Requiem18th (742389) on Monday January 12, 2009 @02:26AM (#26414229)

    Talking about not caring about the name of a browser, I'm still offended that they went for a name directly from Mozilla's codebase, chrome. They read a page from Microsoft it seems.

Pound for pound, the amoeba is the most vicious animal on earth.

Working...