Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Chrome Google Software Upgrades Technology

Google Releases Chrome 12 188

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the shiny-and-new dept.
An anonymous reader noted something that will be of interest to the 26% of Slashdot readers who have switched to Chrome: "Google has released Chrome 12, adding plenty of new features to its minimalist web browser and fixing a number of security vulnerabilities. Google software engineer Adrienne Walker said of the safe browsing mode, 'We've carefully designed this feature so that malicious content can be detected without Chrome or Google ever having to know about the URLs you visit or the files you download.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Releases Chrome 12

Comments Filter:
  • Version numbers (Score:5, Informative)

    by gizmod (931775) on Thursday June 09, 2011 @08:48AM (#36386644)
    Sheesh, these browser version numbers are climbing quickly. Quick release cycles these days. Firefox 5 is allready in beta.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      I pity Debian in all of this.

      • Re:Version numbers (Score:5, Insightful)

        by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Thursday June 09, 2011 @09:15AM (#36386930) Journal
        Depends on how much of the release-churn is purely internal, and how much involves ever-climbing demands on the version numbers of dependencies...

        For applications that are relatively self-contained, and make few, or very conservative, demands about their environment, it really isn't a big deal. Where things get ugly, for users of debian stable or other slow-moving distributions(some of the enterprise desktop stuff can get rather long in the tooth as well...), is the applications that expect their environment to be as bleeding-edge as they are.

        Having apt report that Foo N+1 is available every damn time it runs is a minor nuisance. Having to maintain an entire parallel universe of libraries and stuff grabbed from testing or unstable just to update your browser is a major nuisance.
        • For applications that are relatively self-contained, and make few, or very conservative, demands about their environment, it really isn't a big deal.

          This cuts both ways. Google has grabbed a bunch of open source libraries, sometimes respecting the license, hacked on them, and rolled them into Chrom*.

          So, with Chrome you've got a bunch of bloat and dead-end forks on your machine. Tom Callaway, Fedora contributor, has a Chromium repo that factors this all back out, using the upstream libraries directly. So

          • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Thursday June 09, 2011 @10:04AM (#36387518) Journal
            That is certainly true. There are excellent reasons why the linux-style light-binaries-that-specify-lots-of-dependencies + a good package manager to sort it all out model is desirable. And, even if you go with a gigantic static binary in the end for convenience of installation, having a source like the one you describe, where everything is neatly broken out, is highly desireable: It is comparatively simple, with the right tools, to turn a list of dependencies into a big static blob. The reverse, not so much.

            My point was narrowly addressed from the user side: Unless your environment is so slow moving that X is missing major features or such, installing a new iteration of a big static blob every week isn't a big deal, even if it is architecturally ugly. Something that nicely breaks out the dependencies, on the other hand, can involve very, very, "interesting" explorations into package-management hell and upgrading half your system with questionably compatible backports from Unstable.

            In an ideal world, you would really want something like Callaway's work to be the 'canonical' version, ready to be slotted into sufficiently new or fast moving distributions, with the option of programmatically emblobifying the whole mass into a simple-to-install lump for situations where you can't tamper with the system's shared libraries.
          • by dmiller (581)

            Google has grabbed a bunch of open source libraries, sometimes respecting the license, hacked on them, and rolled them into Chrom*.

            If you have any cases where you think that Chrome is failing to comply with the terms of a free software license, then please file a bug at http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/list [google.com] - we take license compliance very seriously. (I'm a Google engineer, though not working Chrome).

            • we take license compliance very seriously

              Good to know, thanks. My recollection may be dated as well - the ones I recall being significant were ffmpeg and sqllite, but seeing as how I haven't read about any friction recently, it's probably safe to assume these have been amicably resolved.

    • Re:Version numbers (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Lunaritian (2018246) on Thursday June 09, 2011 @08:54AM (#36386696)

      I have Chromium 12.0.742.91 on my computer. Have they really made hundreds of beta releases?

      • Re:Version numbers (Score:5, Informative)

        by WrongSizeGlass (838941) on Thursday June 09, 2011 @09:22AM (#36387024)

        I have Chromium 12.0.742.91 on my computer. Have they really made hundreds of beta releases?

        Not betas, but builds.

        I wonder how many versions of Chrome will ever have a minor version number greater than '0'? I don't recall seeing one recently (at least since Chrome 4).

      • Hundreds of builds probably.

      • by jitterman (987991)
        And today (maybe yesterday) they released 13.0.782.11, which replaced 13.0.782.10, which (I kid you not) replaced 13.0.782.1 (no zero at the end, otherwise, same number). I draw the conclusion that they are happy to make an install available every time they push the "compile" button.

        You can see the build history (and get any of them that you want to) at Filehippo [filehippo.com]
        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          And today (maybe yesterday) they released 13.0.782.11, which replaced 13.0.782.10, which (I kid you not) replaced 13.0.782.1 (no zero at the end, otherwise, same number). I draw the conclusion that they are happy to make an install available every time they push the "compile" button.

          A single number doesn't allow you to take branches into account. Version 13's stable branch is 782. After branching 13.0.782.0, a bug was fixed, and that build (13.0.782.1) was released. Nine more bugs were found and fixed, and 13.0.782.10 was released.

          Every build that might conceivably be released gets a unique number. This way you know exactly what code was in a user's build when they report bugs. Chromium is open source, and anyone can cut a release at any time.

          I have no idea why people get so upset

        • If you're on the dev channel what do you expect?
          • by jitterman (987991)
            Don't get me wrong - I'm not complaining. I do install every build just to see what they're doing with the code, and it doesn't bother me to do it regularly. My post was only to let Lunaritian know that if he wants to move up or down on his installed version, he can easily find any release he wishes.

            I think it's cool of them to let those of us who wish it grab their latest builds, and that they tend to patch bugs quickly (hence "*happy* to make an install available..." it's a good thing, not a gripe).
      • by Ant P. (974313)

        So are you using Windows 5.1.2600, 6.0.6002 or 6.1.7601?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Part of me can't help but suspect that it's so Firefox, with a measly version 4, looks new and less trustworthy.
      A piece of software with 12 versions under its belt seems a bit more time-proven than one with 4.

    • by BreezeC (2040184)
      Firefox 5 will release this month later.
      I don't see any new feature in firefox 5.
      Firefox 5 like Linux 3.0.0,just the number.
      I hate number,I don't need number.
      • I understand Linux going to Linux 3.0.0, though. I have moved to a release-early-release-often model and it has made it where every release I do is either a minor release or a maintenance/patch release. So what I have started doing is incrementing the major version number after I the software has become much more advanced and updated than it was compared to the previous major version number.

        So if I am at version 6.47.10 and compared to 6.0.0 it is a greatly different and improved product, I go ahead and up

      • Burma Shave.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    malicious content can be detected without Chrome...ever having to know about the URLs you visit or the files you download

    Uhh.....how exactly does a web browser function without knowing what URLs you visit?

    • I'm assuming that the clarification lies in the bit you elided: Chrome doesn't have to report to Our Google Overlords the URLs you visit for it to work, and Chrome doesn't need to "know about" the URLs in question(ie. it doesn't have to do some AV-like "download-list-of-the-500,000-new-malicious-URLs-for-today" behavior).

      I don't know if the statement is mere fluffy hyperbole about some rather rudimentary heuristic mechanism(along the lines of the existing handy-but-not-rocket-science feature of offering
      • by xquark (649804)

        I believe they use two sets of bloom filters one for known bad sites and one for known good sites - each is roughly ~1.5MB large and can be found in your google install dir, Search for files with the word "filter" in their name.

  • I don't understand how geeks could consider using the web without noscript. I shudder at the thought of letting Slashdot actually run all the shitty scripting stuff they want to run.

    • by Hazel Bergeron (2015538) on Thursday June 09, 2011 @09:04AM (#36386814) Journal

      But how will Google make money if you keep your information to yourself?

    • by Rogerborg (306625)

      Beats me. That's a dealbreaker. Switching from IE to Chrome, OK, I can see that. But from Firefox? I just don't get it.

      Of course, I'm posting this from Lynx (for realsies) so I may not be representative even of Slashtards.

      • by chill (34294) on Thursday June 09, 2011 @09:27AM (#36387072) Journal

        AdBlock Plus, NotScripts, and WebDeveloper are available for Chrome which are the only plugins I really would consider "must have".

        Chrome is, for me, significantly faster than Firefox 4 on 64-bit Ubuntu, Windows 7 and Windows XP. It starts up faster, uses less memory, renders pages faster -- all of it.

        Yesterday, after viewing dozens of documents in multiple tabs on the web, memory use in Firefox had climbed on my system to over 1 Gb. Closing down and opening the same set of tabs in Chrome, I proceeded to work in that for the rest of the day. Memory usage peaked at 380 Mb, and hovered around 250 Mb.

        I could feel Firefox starting to bog down as the day wore on. I did not get that feeling with Chrome.

        • by jackbird (721605)

          Do you have a suggestion for firefox-like live bookmark folders in Chrome? I've tried a couple of the RSS chrome extensions, but none of them feel right.

          • by chill (34294)

            Sorry, I don't use them so don't know what would be good or not.

            Someone should start a website that lists Chrome extension equivalents to various FireFox add-ons.

            • by jackbird (721605)

              It's not an add-on, it's a core firefox feature. That having been said, I agree. Also, try them. You can make a bookmark folder full of slashdot headlines and go straight to articles that look interesting.

        • by drinkypoo (153816)

          Notscripts' user interface is complete shite compared to noscript and actually lacks functionality, it's not just hard to use. This is the one thing that stops me from leaving Firefox. Well, that and that back when I was using chrome they would often break things in the dailies, but you had to use dailies to even get decent cookie management.

          As long as noscript is better on Firefox, I will continue to use (and preach!) Firefox.

      • by Wiarumas (919682)
        Switching - I wouldn't recommend it. However, having both installed does make sense. I make sure to install Firefox AND Chrome on every PC/laptop in the home. Firefox is great for casual browsing, but when in a hurry, I find that Chrome is the better browser to use. Especially on older PCs, it starts up much faster. You might not be as safe without the must have add ons, but if all you need to do is check your email, weather, bank account, etc, its worth the minimal risk.
        • by Mateorabi (108522)
          I find a basic Chrome install is nice for online banking in a separate browser without having to quit Firefox and reload just to have a clean, banking-only browsing session.

          Now if only they'd let you choose to install it somewhere other than 'Documents and Settings'.........grrrrr.
    • oh no. . . you have to manually install an addon. gasp.
    • by elrous0 (869638) *

      I shudder at the thought of letting Slashdot actually run all the shitty scripting stuff they want to run.

      Don't worry, /. scripting is like the weather. If you don't like it, just wait till tomorrow and they'll change it. Every day brings a brand new opportunity for them to screw it up in new and creative ways.

    • by dicobalt (1536225)
      According to the creator of NoScript (Giorgio Maone) Chrome is incapable of running NoScript http://forums.informaction.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1676&sid=23a681ccbaa7d58b3c03c444af2de8f6&start=60 [informaction.com]

      At this moment one of the major obstacles is the multi-processing design choosen by Chromium, which forbids every kind of synchronous communication between chrome and content and therefore prevents critical configuration data (e.g. NoScript's whitelist) from being safely and reliably shared across the application. Other APIs, especially in the networking area, are missing as well. By comparison Electrolysis (E10s), the new multi-processing design choosen by future Firefox (and current Firefox Mobile betas) poses challenges, but they're not impossible ("code just needs to be written") and in fact NoScript is being adapted.

      NotScripts user interface is laggy and often misses domains. NotScripts does not have anywhere near the thorough level of protection that NoScript has.

    • yeah, in about version 5 actually--and as a built-in, no add-ons needed
    • by lee1 (219161)
      Maybe "geeks" know about more sophisticated tools such as Privoxy, which work with any browser.
  • Isn't this what happened to Firefox?
  • And since Chrome 10 or 11, they disabled GPU acceleration of flash video... so even if my ION laptop is highly capable of decoding 1080p, I can NOT watch youtube video in more than 360p. It has worked for years and they disabled it, shame...

    Before someone ask, I have the latest nvidia driver, flash, I disabled the chrome black-list, etc.
    • by Shados (741919)

      Hmm, really? Not doubting your word per say, but my wife and I spent last weekend watching 1080p flash videos full screen (connected to the TV) pretty much non-stop using Chrome 11.

      She has a first generation HP ION netbook. There's no way in hell the CPU could have handled it.

    • There's no HTML5 hardware acceleration either. At least not on my machine (Athlon X2 5600+, nVidia 8800GTS 640), which stutters in every HTML5 speed tests I've run under Chrome. Firefox, on the other hand, runs those tests just fine.

      How very underwhelming.
  • does chrome have it's own local master password yet? until then i am never going to use it.

      • by PARENA (413947)
        Also, I noticed today that Chrome was asking to access kwallet which I thought was pretty good. So there is some integration already, as well, without the use of addons.
      • by JeffSh (71237)

        I appreciate you taking the time to look, but not really. Near as I can tell, the only password storing/saving mechanisms available for Chrome are in the form of "online services" which I've no interest in being a part of.

        I just want my passwords saved, securely encrypted with seed, to my local hard disk. I don't want to create an account with a service, because I don't trust them to safeguard my passwords, nor have any interest in them knowing which sites i save passwords to or any other number of things o

        • by JeffSh (71237)

          Strike all that. I was wrong. I'll have to check out the chrome/keepass integration. I think that's new since last I checked, thank you!

  • "...without Chrome or Google ever having to know about the URLs you visit or the files you download." He then grinned and winked knowingly.
    • by BitZtream (692029)

      Without Google knowing in advance about the URL. This feature totally allows Google to distribute their detection techniques to users rather than on their own network. When their detection code spots something via Chrome, it can then tell Googles services which can add that to the blacklist if it turns out that it really is a malicious site (after Google's services have verified it, so random people can't send a fake 'bad website!' to Google and get any site they want blacklisted.

      I don't think they were i

  • It's getting a bit old that any click within a comment, including within the textarea while I'm trying to reply, gets interpreted as clicking on the "Parent" link, thus requiring me to open the entire thread all the way to the root.

    • by snowgirl (978879)

      It's getting a bit old that any click within a comment, including within the textarea while I'm trying to reply, gets interpreted as clicking on the "Parent" link, thus requiring me to open the entire thread all the way to the root.

      Yes, yes, GOD YES. I'm so sick of it.. I tried running Safari to try another browser, and the performance is terrible on my Netbook... I know IE is terrible performance as well. I haven't tried Firefox, so I won't say for sure that Chrome is the only reasonable browser for my Netbook, but its looking darn close.

      • by Yvan256 (722131)

        Try Opera.

    • click on the "comment subject" input type=text line, then hit tab to get into the textarea field without triggering the errant javascript

      yes, i know, this sucks too, it's only a half-measure. it's just easier to manage until slashdot finally fixes their javascript

      slashdot: i code for the web. my desktop always has 5 browsers open: firefox, safari, ie, chrome, and opera. i test to make sure my code works in all five

      slashdot: please make sure you do the same before you release your code to the wild

      thanks

    • by Qzukk (229616)

      Apparently 99% isn't enough for them to fix it, since IE and Firefox both appear to have the same problem.

    • by Waccoon (1186667)

      This is a web site that shows a spinning busy indicator at the bottom of the screen when you try to close the window (at least on Firefox).

      Just how Web 2.0 does a web site have to be that it now needs to "shut down?"

      • Definitely doesn't do that on Chrome, and I'm surprised it does on Firefox. When I close a tab, or a window, it makes sense to let the page know and give it a small window to react, but it should be killed before I really notice.

  • by Alzheimers (467217) on Thursday June 09, 2011 @09:38AM (#36387220)

    http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Chrome/thread?fid=29ea05faa34bade40004a21398e523be&hl=en [google.com]

    Mid-2011 and a web browser this 'Mature' still doesn't have Print Preview. Oh well, at least you can use '3D-Accelerated CSS'.

    Which do you think I need more?

    • by jackbird (721605)

      What's "printing"?

    • by swillden (191260)

      What do you use print preview for? Obviously, previewing before printing, but for what? Does the preview sometimes make you decide you don't really want to print the page? Are you tweaking HTML to get better print formatting on a particular browser?

      I can see using preview on word processors, spreadsheets, etc., but printed web pages pretty much are what they are. I've never felt the need to preview, so I'm curious what your use case is.

      • by sehryan (412731)

        I am designing a website right now, and I need it to look a certain way when it prints. I am using a print stylesheet to optimize the format for printing.

        In Firefox and IE, checking the format is as simple as print preview. I have yet to test it in Chrome, because I am going to have to actually print it to see what it looks like, and then every time I make an adjustment, which could be quite a bit of paper.

        The irony is that I usually test in Chrome first for screen. But because no print preview, I have been

        • by eggz128 (447435)

          I have yet to test it in Chrome, because I am going to have to actually print it to see what it looks like, and then every time I make an adjustment, which could be quite a bit of paper.

          Install a PDF virtual printer. Still not quite as convenient, but much cheaper.

      • by BZ (40346)

        If I go to print a page and just print it, it's pretty common to get 3 pages of print out, with my content on the first page and ads on the other two.

        Preview lets me see that and decide to print only the first page, or some other range of pages.

      • perhaps you only need one or two pages out of a 10 or 50 page html document. Perhaps a preview would help you pick the pages you need.
    • by rdnetto (955205)

      I use Chrome everywhere, but Chrome has terrible printing in comparison to Firefox. Compare the output when printing (e.g. Wikipedia) - Chrome doesn't layout nearly as well and uses twice as much paper.
      And for the sibling post who asked what printing is, not everyone has a tablet. It's also the easiest way to convert to PDF.

  • They removed Gears from this release. I have an app that has a full offline mode and relies on Gears; as a band-aid fix yesterday I had to downgrade a user to Chrome 11 that had automatically updated. I know, I need to get with the times and port my code to HTML 5. Even more so, as Gears only supports Firefox up to 3.6, and IE up to 8.
  • Just a note.. I figured out launching apps from the omnibox, one of Chrome 12's new features, only means an app installed via the chrome app store. You can't just type "cmd.exe" or "Command Prompt" and expect it to launch. But if you install the Angry Birds app via the Chrome Web Store, you can type "Angry Birds" and your game will load.
  • by psydeshow (154300) on Thursday June 09, 2011 @02:11PM (#36391374) Homepage

    The "Incognito Window" option in Chrome 12 is private browsing done right. Nothing is shared with other windows / tabs. Not even session cookies.

    It's not a single-site browser option, but it's as close as we may get for a while. Bravo, Google, you nailed it... EXCEPT WAIT. If you open multiple incognito windows, they all share the same set of cookies. Which is kinda fail.

    Damn! They were so close! Oh well.

Our informal mission is to improve the love life of operators worldwide. -- Peter Behrendt, president of Exabyte

Working...