Google Announces Chrome For Mac and Linux Dev Builds 251
Dan Kegel (who admits to being a Chrome developer) writes to point out a post from Mike Smith and Karen Grunberg, Product Managers for Google Chrome, with some good news for non-Windows users who want to play with Chrome: "In order to get more feedback from developers, we have early developer channel versions of Google Chrome for Mac OS X and Linux (for a couple of different Linux distributions), but whatever you do, please DON'T DOWNLOAD THEM! Unless of course you are a developer or take great pleasure in incomplete, unpredictable, and potentially crashing software." (The announcement continues below.)
"How incomplete? So incomplete that, among other things , you won't yet be able to view YouTube videos, change your privacy settings, set your default search provider, or even print.Meanwhile, we'll get back to trying to get Google Chrome on these platforms stable enough for a beta release as soon as possible ..." The downloads are available through the Chrome developer's channel.
Wha...? (Score:5, Funny)
What the hell did they release? A box of crayons where you have to draw the Internet manually?
Re:Wha...? (Score:5, Informative)
What Works
* Almost All Websites
* Bookmark pages
* Most visited sites
* Open link in new tab
* Open new tabs
* Omnibox
* Back, Forward, Reload
* Open link in new window
* Drag a tab to make a window
* Launch new tab
* Cut, Copy, Paste
* Keyboard shortcuts
* about:version, about:dns, about:crash, about:histograms
* Find in page
* History with search
* Form Fill
* Delete Thumbnail in New Tab Page
* Window Positions Remembered
* View Source with synatx highlighting and clickable links
What Doesn't Work
* Plugins (No flash -> No youtube)
* Bookmarks Bar
* Print
* about:network, about:memory
* Web Inspector
* Input methods such as Kotoeri (Japanese)
* Preferences (Partial implementation)
* Full Screen Browsing
* Favicon (thanks brin)
Re:Wha...? (Score:4, Informative)
Unlike the Mac [chromium.org] version. I'm sure they'd appreciate hints on how to use SELinux/AppArmor.
Linux sandbox progress (Score:3, Interesting)
Several approaches are being investigated; see
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/LinuxSandboxing [google.com]
http://lwn.net/Articles/332974/ [lwn.net]
http://www.imperialviolet.org/2008/11/27/sandboxing-on-linux.html [imperialviolet.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not current on development for the Mac, but I've heard that multiple processes can't share a single window in OS/X.
Do you happen to know how Chrome works around this, or is this not an actual limitation?
Re:Wha...? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not current on development for the Mac, but I've heard that multiple processes can't share a single window in OS/X.
Do you happen to know how Chrome works around this, or is this not an actual limitation?
I'm not a mac dev and what i'm posting here is gleaned from several svn log entries. So it might be wrong and inaccurate :). The chrome architecture is that there is a main process which handles the UI and there is one process per site which is launched but do not handle the UI. In Mac, the one process per site works but if you open up Activity Monitor you will see that the additional processes are shown as "Not responding" though in reality they are.
What is happening here is that OS-X expects the additional processes to respond to UI events and since they don't mark them as "Not Responding". Two solutions have been proposed
1. have dummy code which responds to UI events to keep OS-X happy
2. Rip out the Cocoa code from the additional processes which will make OS-X not expect the process to respond to UI events.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to me your dummy code could just respond to anything from OSX with "success", if all that OSX wants is some kind of response and not something particular.
Re: (Score:2)
Hurrah! They've implemented an even more effective Flash stopper than FlashBlock :) Now if only they had generic RPMs for it for us Fedora/openSuse/other users.
Re: (Score:2)
Window Positions Remembered
It does? I use Chrome on Windows XP, and I can't get it to remember the position and size of newly opened windows. It just won't do it.
And here's the funny thing: I played with some Dosbox games recently, and now I notice that Chrome opens new windows in another size and position - but not anything I told it to. Now a new window is just ridiculously small, so my quest to get Chrome to pen them at a certain size and position became that more pressing.
Re:Wha...? (Score:4, Funny)
Before commenting on Slashdot forum posts you could, I don't know, do something as wild and crazy as perhaps READING about how sarcasm is usually done. If you would have used your eyes before your itchy fingers you'd understand that a sarcastic post is more often done out in the open. Naturally the sarcasm has to start somewhere, right? Or did you think that the stork delivered your sense-of-humor as well?
My original post wasn't a radical post against OSS (though I question whether your's was).
Re:Wha...? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I was waiting for a car analogy.
Here you go. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Again, my apologies.
Works for posting to Slashdot :) (Score:5, Informative)
I just installed the .deb on this laptop, running Ubuntu 9.10 alpha. So far, seems nice and pleasant :)
I seem some rendering problems, but Hey, I blame google!
timothy
Re:Works for posting to Slashdot :) (Score:5, Informative)
I've installed the DEB also (on my Ubuntu 9.04). It's pretty stable (has not crashed on me once, though neither has Firefox) and fast. However, my Firefox has close to 80 tabs open (all filled with AJAX, Flash, etc. on my slow 1.4 GHz Celeron M with 512 MB RAM), so I'm not sure how they really compare in terms of noticeable speed while browsing regularly.
Also, just realized Chrome has spell-check!
(By the way, you can upgrade to regular Jaunty. There's no need to keep the Alpha.)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
GP's using 9.10. It's 6 more days till Alpha 2: Karmic release schedule [ubuntu.com].
Re:Works for posting to Slashdot :) (Score:4, Insightful)
You know, there are these things called "bookmarks". It's a lot smarter to use those instead of keeping open more tabs than you can use at once. You can even bookmark a group of tabs!
Re:Works for posting to Slashdot :) (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, bookmarks work pretty well for 50+ new forum threads that didn't exist on your last visit :)
I browse forums by clicking "New posts", then middle-clicking all the interesting threads. Close thread list, read each tab in order. If the wi-fi goes down, I still have lots to read right in front of me.
You're lucky (Score:2)
If it's working at all for you, you're very lucky. I've been trying every .deb update for a (short) while now, and none of them can even load their own start page. Or google. Not sure if the startpage is google. All I see is an MacOS=9.x-style and/or AtariST-style crashed icon in the center of the page area.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You've found a browser that actually works with Slashdot? I'm amazed :)
Use the repositories (Score:2)
https://launchpad.net/~chromium-daily/+archive/ppa [launchpad.net]
The big advantage to this is that you get the nightly builds automatically every time you update; no need to mess with downloading and installing debs
Re: (Score:2)
You can use the Google repository, too; see
http://google.com/linuxrepositories [google.com]
In fact, the .deb for Chrome *adds the google repository*,
so you get updated automatically.
The Google and ppa versions are likely to be very similar.
The main difference at the moment is the icon.
Re:Works for posting to Slashdot :) (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, you do seem to have some rendering problems yourself.
Chromium (not Google Chrome) already works nicely (Score:4, Informative)
I've been using Chromium for some time on my Eee 1000, since FireFox hangs intermittently (slow SSD, which does not like apps that write a lot of stuff).
Chromium is a pleasant experience, fast and snappy. It used to crash all the time (e.g. when doing a copy/paste) but has been improved daily, and is now stable and usable. I don't know what the Google branded version would add on top. "DON'T DOWNLOAD" sounds like reverse psychology. Definitely, download, and use if you have a machine that is a little slower than the average desktop.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Chromium (not Google Chrome) already works nice (Score:4, Informative)
Most Eee PCs have two SSDs: a large, slow one and a small fast one. Firefox became a lot snappier once I moved my profile directory to the fast SSD. Obvious in retrospect, I know...
If you have >512Mb in your netbook you could do what I've done: I keep the entire profile in RAM (on a tmpfs filesystem). On bok the profile is copied in to the ram drive and on shutdown it is rsynced back to the SSD (using --inplace to reduce copy+write operations on the urlclassifier db).
OK so it lengthens boot time a little, but it isn't often the machine is properly shutdown anyway (it tends to be suspended when not in used instead) so doesn't do a full boot often.
The urlclassifier db appears to be the main culprit for the "unexpected" IO in firefox. and even with all the relevant features turned off it seems to keep updating the file. If you don't want to put your whole profile in RAM (there is the risk of losing important bookmarks and cookies and such if the machine unexpectidly loses all power including battery or if normal shutdown scripts otherwise fail to be callde) you could probably just copy this file in and replace it with a symlink.
How does this differ? (Score:5, Interesting)
How does this differ from the Chromium daily builds [launchpad.net]? Is it identical only officially a Google product, or are there technical differences?
Beta? (Score:5, Funny)
I'll just wait for the final release.. can't take to long.
repo (Score:2)
from http://dev.chromium.org/getting-involved/dev-channel [chromium.org] :
Installing Google Chrome will add the Google repository so your system will automatically keep Chrome up to date. (If you don't want Google's repository, do "sudo touch /etc/defaults/google-chrome" before installing the package.)
But it didn't (and I didn't touch /etc/defaults/google-chrome)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, never mind my previous post
Knowing Google, they did things differently and added /etc/chron.daily/google-chrome which has the deb line and the signing key
Re: (Score:2)
added /etc/chron.daily/google-chrome
Hey that is different!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm posting using Google Crone, it's probably a bug
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad you didn't and I'm sure I won't have any issues either, check my other post /etc/cron.daily/google-chrome creates /etc/apt/sources.list.d/google-chrome.list
There's no need to act superior :)
Of course I do! (Score:3, Funny)
"[...]but whatever you do, please DON'T DOWNLOAD THEM! Unless of course you are a developer or take great pleasure in incomplete, unpredictable, and potentially crashing software."
Of course I do. I used Windows 95 for years!
Re: (Score:2)
Yuck, a Chrome developer (Score:3, Funny)
They say it like it's something dirty!
Girl: "Mom, I've got a new boyfriend."
Mum: "Really, pumpkin?"
Girl: "Yes. He's a Chrome developer!"
Mum: "Oh!" *faints*
Dad: *finally looks over his newspaper* "Straight to your room YOUNG LADY! You're grounded for a week with no telephone!"
Re:Yuck, a Chrome developer (Score:4, Funny)
Still mad at Google (Score:3, Insightful)
Trust me, I admire Google. But I am mad at them for using the "wrong" toolkit in developing Chrome for Linux. Slashdotters, this is *my* opinion having used both toolkits and deployed software though not as complex as a browser on all operating systems.
And I have at least one supporter [purinchu.net] on this front.
What they should have done is to fund development of Chrome using the "right" tool for the job. What would be wrong with that?
Re:Still mad at Google (Score:5, Informative)
Two issues are being confused there. First, do you use a cross-platform toolkit, or do you write a true native GUI for every platform and just keep the backend in common? Google have decided to write a new GUI for every platform, and I think they are probably correct to do this. Qt (and GTK+) are cross-platform, but they are not quite native (though arguably Qt is better at this).
Once that choice is made, all you are doing is picking a toolkit for Linux. GTK+ has the advantages of being familiar to the chrome devs, matching the existing ff dependency, being the most widely-used toolkit (and therefore appearing native for the largest number of users), and being "good enough".
Re: (Score:2)
>> First, do you use a cross-platform toolkit, or do you write a true native GUI for every platform and just keep the backend in common?
I'd say considering in how bad of shape Chromium on Linux and Mac are, it's pretty damn clear that writing separate GUIs is the wrong approach. Skype is another example of an app that gets is completely wrong. They have separate "native" GUIs for each platform, and each platform is completely different than any other. If I know how to do something in Windows, I won
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It would have been smarter to use Qt than to have very Windows- and Mac- customized ports, and then you would have got a Linux port for free. You can use QGtkStyle (included in Qt 4.5, but you can run it yourself now) to make Qt apps look like GTK ones.
This seems kind of retarded because Google Gadgets is already GTK and Qt. Obviously they didn't build a GUI abstraction layer then, and reinvented the wheel then (with Qt and GTK+ versions.) So now they will do it all again for Chrome. I guess someone should
Re: (Score:2)
This seems kind of retarded because Google Gadgets is already GTK and Qt.
And Google Gadgets has different engineers working on it. The team working on Chrome, as Ben pointed out, has more experience and familiarity with GTK which is why they are using it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It would have been smarter to use Qt than to have very Windows- and Mac- customized ports, and then you would have got a Linux port for free. You can use QGtkStyle (included in Qt 4.5, but you can run it yourself now) to make Qt apps look like GTK ones.
Qt may be a cross platform toolkit, but the reality is that you don't get the same level of responsiveness out of it on all platforms as you can get using platform specific tools.
In a market like the web browser market, feeling a little sluggish compared to the competition is fatal, and they were completely correct not to use Qt for all platforms. Not that I'm sure GTK is the best choice for Linux, but for a project like Chrome, it's definitely the right choice to use the best tools available on each platf
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For a UI, writing the code just isn't the hard part. The hard part is designing the UI specification so that you know exactly how you want it to behave in every situation. Once you have that, coding to spec is a matter of man hours and testing, but there's nothing fundamentally difficult or uncertain about it. Keep in mind that no one's talking about rewriting the engine for each OS.
For the vast majority of projects, you're entirely right that it makes more sense to take a small performance penalty for t
I Know...... (Score:2)
CPU Usage... (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's why I'm excited about/anxious for Chrome on OS/X:
I used Firefox for awhile, a couple of years back. It bogged down the CPU, especially after running for awhile.
So I switched to Opera (and shortly thereafter went from Windows to OS X). It was a peppier experience. But with newer releases, and the increasing use of Flash (I think) on the Net, it started getting slower and slower. I don't like having my fan run while I'm simply sitting and reading a static page. Turning off all plugins seems to avoid that, so I point the finger at Flash. But not having Flash, or only having it on demand, is fairly annoying. Also, there's some sites Opera just won't render properly. Not many, but some.
So I switched back to Firefox, with the advent of 3.0. Even doing nothing, sitting with a few static pages open (and Adblock, Flashblock) it seems to still hover at 10% CPU usage. Bleh. Enough to keep my fan humming all the time.
When I tried Chrome on Windows, I was quite excited, with the process-per-page approach. I can see *what* page is slowing things down, and kill it if I chose. That's my biggest beef with Opera/Firefox (I won't even let IE into the discussion :P): you can't tell *what* page is slowing down your browser. I've tried JavaScript debuggers, other dev tools to try and found out, but have had no success.
I'm praying that Chrome on OS/X will be my salvation (although I've become dependent upon some Firefox extensions, particularly vimperator :P). Upon first glance, it looks pretty good (and I'm using it to post this article). It seems to suck up 30% CPU for 20 seconds or so *after* finishing loading a page, but then does settle down.
Right now I have about 5 tabs open, and each is using 2-3%, which is slightly concerning. That could add up to be just as bad as Firefox/Opera. But for now, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt of being an early release, and keep my fingers crossed that the "Browser That Finally Doesn't Suck [CPU]" is on the horizon...
Re: (Score:2)
NoScript extension for Firefox may alleviate the symptoms :-) Does it fix the REAL problem? No. It is almost most annoying to use, when 75% of ALL websites I visit just fail to work without JavaScript, and I mean even navigation does not work, as sloppy Web-programmers use the horrid Microsoft-invented "postback" technique, which uses encoded navigation target as part of a JavaScript function call. Nothing insults WWW when the very method of navigating it - hyperlinks - is rejected in favour of some proprie
Re: (Score:2)
NoScript helps me identify big fucking idiots. Then if I have a choice, I avoid their website. Anyone who is turning perfectly good links into javascript-only links is clearly not marketing to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If you like the OSX experience enough to stick with it. Why not give Safari 4 beta a try? It comes with better integration into OSX and has most of Chrome's features, with biggest miss being the sandboxing. It also uses the Webkit engine for rendering webpages, which is somewhat faster than Firefox's Gecko.
Re: (Score:2)
For the record, IE8 (even the first beta) used multiple processes to handle tabs. It doesn't have Chrome's nice "Task Manger" interface, but you can fairly easily tell which tab is slowing things down (by cycling through them, if nothing else) and can kill a slow or even completely hung tab without brining down the rest of the browser. I'm not sure which of Chrome and IE8 had this idea first (or if they got it from some common source) but it's a good one and could stand to be copied widely. Firefox in parti
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, i think, high cpu usage in pages that have flash is accurate description. The thing is, combination of sloppy Flash Player bytecode executing in a suboptimal version of Flash Player (i. e. for Linux to name one) really sucks the juice out of the CPU and laptop batteries. I am experiencing all those things. Laptop + Linux + Flash = slow, irresponsive experience.
Perhaps a good solution would be to implement some kind of careful sandbox in which all plugins would run, but not necessarily out of security co
So what is this in KDE speak? (Score:2, Flamebait)
But seriously, this is how it's done KDE. Note that people still want to download it and test it despite the fact that it is not labeled a
Nice html engine. Pitty about the UI (Score:2, Insightful)
I find the Chrome interface quite revolting. But what's even worse is the psychotic bitchings of Ben Goodger [google.com], former Mozilla developer. My response to Ben [homelinux.org] discusses the issues he raised.
Does the job? (Score:4, Insightful)
I would bet that while you can't print, view YouTube videos or change your privacy settings yet, the core functionality of aggregating data about the user's browsing behaviour and sending it to Google with a uniquely identifiable ID is firmly in place.
Nice.. i guess, but not for me. (Score:2)
Great..., another package that wants me to install half of gnome.
( it's linked against gconf. )
As a kde user i'll have to say no this round.
I'll stick to firefox/konqueror for the time being.
Pretty happy with Firefox at the moment (Score:4, Insightful)
Using the Fedora Linux here and have been for a rather long time. I am very much "anti-advertiser" simply because they have a huge propensity to "go too far" with their advertising and data collection. (I have nothing against advertising when it comes to respectful means that the customer seeks out for himself.) Google, for everything else they do in terms of evolving the internet technologies, is still an advertiser. I don't trust them. I can't imagine why anyone else would either.
BETA A.S.A.P.? (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, hurry up with that.... so you can keep them in BETA for 5+ years afterwards. :p
Irony (Score:5, Funny)
DON'T DOWNLOAD THEM! Unless of course you are a developer or take great pleasure in incomplete, unpredictable, and potentially crashing software.
How ironic, they announce new Mac and Linux versions and tell you not to download them unless you use Windows.
-
Phoning home (Score:3, Interesting)
Does it still send unknown encrypted data back to google at will [foliovision.com]?
Thanks, that's all I need to know about this browser.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Chromium will not send any data to anyone.
Yes, it's awful, it won't even send the data to the screen! When you type in a URL in the address bar, Chromium will retrieve the data and then KEEP IT TO ITSELF. It will smugly show a blank screen instead of showing the data. I think I even heard a satisfied snort from it.
NOT amd64 (Score:5, Informative)
A friend wrote up a Gentoo ebuild for it, which I went and installed (for the amd64 version - I run an almost entirely 64 bit system). Try to run it, and got this message:
That's odd ... double check ... yes, /usr/lib64/libgconf-2.so.4 exists ... No ... they couldn't have ...
$ file /opt/google/chrome/chrome
/opt/google/chrome/chrome: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.8, stripped
*facepalm*
The 64-bit Chrome is *NOT* 64-bit, and will not run on 64-bit systems which are missing a number of 32-bit libraries.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, they really have managed write an javascript engine that isn't 64-bit clean in 2008.
You do understand that their JavaScript engine is a JIT, right? Which means that it compiles to native code. Which means that the compiler part has to be distinct for every new architecture.
"64-bit clean" doesn't even enter into this - it's not a simple matter of not making silly
assumptions like sizeof(long)==4.
Re:Already have Safari, kbyethnx (Score:5, Informative)
But they aren't... SEPARATED INTO PROCESSES!
OK, seriously and drama aside, I do think that's a good idea, and it also seem to help as a way to help out with memory management. I always thought Safari sucked a lot of RAM, especially on Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Already have Safari, kbyethnx (Score:4, Informative)
But that's kind of the point. Finally, we can severely reduce memory bloat due to memory fragmentation by separating tabs into different processes.
Chrome has a higher memory footprint at first, but then as Firefox continues to use more and more RAM, Chrome's memory usage remains consistent.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No its not.
Was IE released for WINE? No.
Was Safari released for Windows? Yes.
Re:Already have Safari, kbyethnx (Score:5, Funny)
Why would I need this? I already have a webkit browser with tabs on top.
Because you want one that doesn't suck.
Re:Already have Safari, kbyethnx (Score:4, Insightful)
Because you want one that doesn't suck.
And that would be the one that doesn't let you change the (marketing dept. approved I presume) privacy settings and search engine?
I smell a rat.
Re:Already have Safari, kbyethnx (Score:4, Insightful)
Really, an alpha build is expected to be considered a finished product? They never said we won't let you change privacy settings/search engine, it's called "we haven't even bothered coding features because this isn't stable".
If your ass smells like rats, that explains where your head is.
Re: (Score:2)
And how it doesn't suck then?
I'd say that Safari and Chrome are comparable. But setting speed aside, Chrome 2.0 really felt more like 0.2 when compared to FireFox. Long list of missing features, blatantly non-existent integration with Google own on-line applications...
I understand the enthusiasm about faster surfing (Chrome is about only browser which can render /. new layout in near real time), but otherwise they have quite long way before minimalist's feature parity.
Re:Already have Safari, kbyethnx (Score:5, Interesting)
And how it doesn't suck then? I'd say that Safari and Chrome are comparable.
Chrome is obviously not ready for real use on OS X or Linux yet, but it is an architectural leap forward. It has real sandboxing of tabs so that one tab can't make the others unresponsive or take down the browser is a huge leap forward. With the Web being so central to most people's workflow these days this is akin to the move to a multitasking OS. I think that's what has most of us excited, not speed or new features at this point. It has a long way to go, but the underlying architectural decisions provide for more potential.
Re:Already have Safari, kbyethnx (Score:4, Interesting)
Chrome is obviously not ready for real use on OS X or Linux yet, but it is an architectural leap forward. It has real sandboxing of tabs so that one tab can't make the others unresponsive or take down the browser is a huge leap forward. With the Web being so central to most people's workflow these days this is akin to the move to a multitasking OS. I think that's what has most of us excited, not speed or new features at this point. It has a long way to go, but the underlying architectural decisions provide for more potential.
I know they advertise this, but it honestly hasn't proven to be true. I've been using Chrome daily since it came out (less bloat than Firefox, less suck than IE), and when a tab freezes, they all freeze.
Re:Already have Safari, kbyethnx (Score:5, Insightful)
Because multiple players means competition, and competition means innovation, which leads to a better browsing experience for all of us, regardless of which you're using.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Speaking of browser innovation... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Any idea how long the feature has been around?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Looking right now, I don't see an option when right clicking a tab (or in the window) to open the current tab in its own window.
It does, however, let you move a tab from one window to another by dragging it to the already existing window's tab bar.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Avoiding software monoculture. On both OS X and Windows, Safari has been shown to have a substantial number of security flaws. Even if I liked its minimal configurability and general look and feel (I don't, but that's a personal thing) the security issues would lead me to avoid using it, much like IE6. (Hmm... is this some kind of rite of passage for a browser bundled with an OS? I hope Apple gets its security act in gear faster than Microsoft did - they're starting to become popular enough to be a worthwhi
Re:It's okay (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think open source software is necessarily about what you want it to be. Just because Firefox is better than the competition today doesn't mean that Firefox will always be the best but if nobody tries to make anything better then stagnation will ensue. Monoculture is bad no matter who is director and I would rather see 20 options than 2.
Re:It's okay (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if the rest of that argument (let's not have competition now that the browser I think is good is winning) made sense and all that matters is killing IE, Chrome is an additive force. In a world with only IE and Firefox, if you disliked Firefox, there'd be no alternative. There are people who like Chrome better than Firefox; if your goal is killing IE, that's *more* switchers, even if a bunch also switch back and forth between Firefox and Chrome.
However, outside of that, there's nothing bad with having many browsers around. What is bad is having many contrary *concepts* around. Chrome didn't drag a new rendering engine in, they used WebKit, which is good. Actually, they used a fork of WebKit, which is bad, but WebKit has been able to handle this stuff by merging in the necessary abstractions in the past.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Firefox for Linux is actually quite shitty, they haven't fixed that scrolling bug in ages.
- Posted from the x64 .deb version of Chrome, which is working suspiciously well.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not on a Mac it doesn't. While Fx 3.0 is far better than previous versions on a Mac, it's still pretty poor. And you can't use Fx 3.0 on older Macs at all.
Adblock and flashblock etc are coming for Chrome. I use Firefox now, but unless Fx4.0 works significantly better on a Mac, and is multi-threaded, my continued use of it is time-limited. That's entirely Mozilla's own fault. They seem to be focusing on rebuilding Firefox as the Netscape suite, rather than actually making th
Re: (Score:2)
I have an old G3 running 10.3 that looks great and works well for surfing and playing music. I'd absolutely love to get Fx 2.0 off it, and use a browser that works effectively.
The latestOpera [opera.com] still works fine on 10.3. It doesn't "look" very Mac-like but I'd call it effective.
You can also try iCab [www.icab.de] which has interesting features of its own. It uses the system WebKit engine, though, which in 10.3 is outdated.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorry for the extra reply. I forgot to recommend Camino [caminobrowser.org] which uses the Gecko rendering engine but is a real Mac application, and has built-in ad blocking.
Re: (Score:2)
Not on a Mac it doesn't. While Fx 3.0 is far better than previous versions on a Mac, it's still pretty poor. And you can't use Fx 3.0 on older Macs at all.
The last version of Safari for Mac OS X 10.3 was 1.3.2 (January 11, 2006). The last release of the Firefox 2 series for Mac OS X 10.3 was 2.0.20 (20 Dec 2008). That is a helluva lot of dedication and you just stepped all over it.
There was a proposal for the drop of Mac OS X 10.3 [google.com] support a long time ago for Firefox 3. I recommend you read it. I'll be giving a few quotes below to stress the important parts.
For Gecko 1.8 there were significantly more Panther testers in the community than there are now. That trend will continue over the next 6 months and almost certainly accelerate when Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) is released. By the time we release Gecko 1.9, I suspect that our community Panther testing resources will be so small as to be nearly insignificant.
I think you can guess how small a minority of a minority is. At that time, Omnigroup was was estima
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And why do you think Google is interested in preserving Firefox as an end goal? They are not a non-profit foundation. They are much more like Microsoft or Apple: they want to make money.
One potential way to make money is to control the internet content all the way through end-user delivery. It may enable some things that seem otherwise impossible: delivering protected copyrighted content, for example. If they offered a browser that wouldn't let you save YouTube streams, then maybe the RIAA would let
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it doesn't run on my Abacus, either. That's fucking ridiculous, yo.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So ... open source is a Linux-only thing?
No, but Linux is the only opensource OS where these releases are available. But that is somewhat beside the point, which is the assumed monopoly of x86. The same issue affects both OS X and Linux, so while Mac/PPC people are complaining about the situation, Linux/PPC should complain as well.
However, the opensource bit is important, because the assumed x86 monopoly means that many vendors view Linux as just another x86 binary platform. Which really misses the point of using Linux (as an alternative to the
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, PPC stands for POWER Performance Computing [wikipedia.org]. Or Particle Projector Cannon [sarna.net] in case you're into BattleTech.
BTW, my sig is mostly aimed at people who start their posts like "IANAPPP (I am not a particle projector physicist) but..."
Re:In related news: chromium! (Score:4, Funny)
$ apt-get install chromiunm
I tried that but all I got was a stupid scrolling arcade game. :(
Re: (Score:2)
5 years ago I was arguing the same thing except I was questioning why everything was only packaged up as RPM.
Re: (Score:2)