Flock Switches To Chromium For New Beta 154
An anonymous reader writes "Flock, the social networking browser, has moved from Firefox open source code to Chromium in its latest beta. The new Flock is essentially a combination of Chrome and TweetDeck, as you can sign in to Twitter and Facebook accounts and look at a single feed that incorporates updates from both. Currently, the beta is only available on Windows, but a Mac version is slated for later this year."
I dont give a flock (Score:5, Funny)
I dont give a flock
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Relax.
Had to be said... (Score:4, Funny)
Get the Flock outa here!
Mozilla Corp blew it... (Score:4, Interesting)
Mozilla corporation seems to be pretty badly run. They solicited donations for the NYT ad(some of my poor college friends scraped together money for it) while overpaying the CEO($500K per year)! The management was supposed to find different ways of getting funding but Mozilla is still dependent totally on Google(which competes with it's own rival browser). Mozilla made $66 million in revenue just in 2006 while development was largely done by unpaid volunteers.
In the meantime, Firefox was quite bloated, crash prone and lost the speed race to Chrome, Thunderbird stagnated and nothing really innovative or useful came out of Mozilla labs. Ubuntu will probably switch to Chromium and Firefox will start losing search revenue. . Probably the only thing going for Firefox are extensions(Chrome supports extensions now) and proper Adblock. Things are so bad that the CEO is planning to step down [computerworld.com]
Sad to see one of the epitomes of FOSS go down in flames like this.
Re: (Score:2)
I would dispute most of those assertions, but even if they were all true, it doesn't necessarily mean Mozilla is badly run. Web browsers are an incredibly competitive environment, there is massive investment from many competitors, and it is very hard to be successful. I mean, I think Apple and Opera are well-run companies but their browsers are basically going nowhere in market share. Safari gets a bump every time Apple releases a device where Safari is the only browser you're allowed to run.
Re:Mozilla Corp blew it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Firefox is hardly "going down in flames".
Sure, it's lacking some features (such as process-per-tab, über-fast javascript execution) that chrome has, but it's still well ahead of Opera and IE. I've still never seen this "crash prone-ness" that people talk about with regard to firefox, maybe because I've always used adblock plus? In any event I suspect it will go away with 3.6.4, which pulls flash and other plugins out of the browser process.
Thunderbird, on the other hand, isn't doing so great. But I'd say that's as much about the rise of gmail and other good webmail based systems as anything else. I would even argue that Mozilla has made the right decision to de-prioritize thunderbird work given the "put literally everything including apps on the web" atmosphere these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, it's lacking some features (such as process-per-tab, über-fast javascript execution) that chrome has, but it's still well ahead of Opera and IE. I've still never seen this "crash prone-ness" that people talk about with regard to firefox, maybe because I've always used adblock plus? In any event I suspect it will go away with 3.6.4, which pulls flash and other plugins out of the browser process.
All it takes is some dodgy dns issue, and firefox grinds to a halt across all tabs (although I can't rep
Re:Mozilla Corp blew it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably the only thing going for Firefox are extensions(Chrome supports extensions now) and proper Adblock.
Safari supports extensions [apple.com] now too so that's going to take a big bite out of their mac market share. Probably the best thing Firefox has going for it now is dev tools like Firebug [getfirebug.com]. I remember how nimble and fast it used to be back when it was still called Phoenix, what the hell happened ?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Safari supports extensions [apple.com] now too [...]
Not to say you are wrong in your prediction, but remember that it is the extensions that have to support Safari to get people to switch from Firefox, not the other way around.
Re: (Score:2)
In my experience, Firefox is the most stable browser on a Mac. Virtually never crashes.
Yes, this probably is because it handles Flash better than other browsers, but there you go; I use Flash.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably the best thing Firefox has going for it now is dev tools like Firebug [getfirebug.com].
Virtually every decent browser in existence already has this functionality. Maybe not quite as good as firebug, but the idea is there. See Opera and Safari.
Why not WebKit? (Score:2)
I'm kind of curious... why Chromium and not the base WebKit project? Are they piggybacking off the browser gui as well or something? It's not terribly hard to build your own browser atop WebKit, and performance wise, both the official version and Google's implementation are neck and neck speedwise. I'm not a web browser developer or anything, but every time I've used WebKit I've been able to integrate it easily into my apps with little overhead. Just wondering why Flock opted for several layers of projects
Re:Why not WebKit? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, they are using the GUI as well. And they are probably doing so to cut development time for other things they care about more than reimplementing another GUI around WebKit.
Re:Why not WebKit? (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly. (I'm one of the Flock devs.)
Chromium is much more than just WebKit, and Flock is reusing most of that. Their UI was very well thought-out, and their V8 JavaScript engine is incredibly fast -- making it a perfect platform for Flock's application layer code which is almost entirely JavaScript.
BTW, since the original article doesn't contain links, here's the site where you can grab the beta if you're so inclined:
beta.flock.com [flock.com]
Mac version is in the works.
Re:Why not WebKit? (Score:4)
Linux version?
Re:Why not WebKit? (Score:4, Informative)
Not sure when. Only 1-2% or so of our 2.x user base was on Linux, so it's not a high priority right now -- but that doesn't mean it won't happen. A few of our devs definitely want to see it happen... but I can't offer a timeline for it right now.
Re: (Score:2)
http://beta.flock.com
Mac version is in
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't realize Chromium was open source. I thought it was closed like Microsoft's IE/ Is Safari open source?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He was too busy getting laid to read some random company's announcements. Have fun with your unlimited knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>How could you not have realized Chromium was open source?
Probably because I don't use Google software (I prefer Firefox, seaMonkey, and Opera), and therefore never gave a flock.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now if this had been an Australian site with many stories mentioning the Secretary General, you may have a point. But it isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
You sure got him...
If you felt any sense of joy or superiority by calling someone out for not knowing something that probably isn't as important to him as it is to others, no matter how "common" you feel the information is, you should examine your outlook on life.
Re: (Score:2)
That's funny, I wasn't aware.
Re:Why not WebKit? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is common knowledge within certain programming and Internet addict communities that Chromium is open sourced. For people outside these communities (which is the vast majority of humankind) it is not common knowledge.
Feel happy when you can enlighten someone to a piece of knowledge. But don't lord it over them. They are sure to know many things common to their communities of which you have no idea. The first step to being accepted by people (getting friends, wife, getting along with workmates etc.) is learning how to accept people.
Dissing someone for not knowing what Chromium is just reeks of an inferiority complex. Learn to accept that others know things you don't know; and you know things that others don't know.
Should I say you've been living under a rock because you don't know these basic concepts of social behaviour, which are ubiquitous across different cultures and time periods? No, it is much better to tell, convince, persuade. Resorting to insults, or astonishment which implies disrespect is just aggressive behaviour, which is something which most societies do not accept (except for the fact that people being aggressive to one another can be fairly entertaining).
If someone asks "what animal does beef come from?", there are several ways to respond. I will list two.
Correct
Incorrect
[person who asked question now feels incredibly stupid and will respond either with aggression, or avoidance of you. Either way, they will not like you]
[alternatively, you will receive a lecture from the politeness police]
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Are you stupid? Have you been living in an igloo for your entire life? It's common knowledge that beef comes from cattle. Preferably Steer, Cows are for milk you dolt!
Either way Beef is not restricted to coming from the female of the species.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> It's not terribly hard to build your own browser atop WebKit
Well, you just have to provide a networking library, a crypto library, a user interface, a cache, and a few other minor things like that.... How "hard" that is depends on whether you have those easily available and whether they play well with each other.
Re: (Score:2)
"Well, you just have to provide a networking library, a crypto library, a user interface, a cache, and a few other minor things like that.... How "hard" that is depends on whether you have those easily available and whether they play well with each other."
Hm, are you sure? WebKit is built on top of both CFLite, which includes networking classes. I'm also pretty sure WebKit includes a caching engine too. And in the project there are native views for most major platforms.
In fact, I see a lot of tutorial's lik
Re: (Score:2)
> Hm, are you sure?
I was, but it looks like people have been adding stuff into the webkit repository.
> WebKit is built on top of both CFLite, which includes networking classes.
It doesn't quite have an HTTP implementation, say.... at least that I can find.
> I'm also pretty sure WebKit includes a caching engine too.
Looks like there is one now, yes. It's interesting that Chrome doesn't use it (and I'm not sure Safari does either, but of course it's hard to tell).
> I see a lot of tutorial's like th
No more Fireflock. What next? (Score:5, Interesting)
I know that this doesn't really matter to Mozilla per se, but Firefox is coming under some tough times in the near future. I have to say, I do fear for the future of my favourite browser (my favourite by a mile, dispite its flaws).
They're soon losing the Google funding and support (probably).
They seem to be not taking ANYONE's side on anything.
H.264
Ubuntu, even, seem like they'll switch to a custom Chromium browser in the next couple of releases.
They don't seem to be leading the market in features at all any more, and only seem to limply suggest that it's the best by focusing on security (note: I DO think it's the best, what I mean is the public image).
Do other Firefox fans feel that the market might deem it unnecessary or out of touch?
Re:No more Fireflock. What next? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think they've ever lead the market in features; they've led the market in quality.
You've got that completely backwards - at least for the past >=5 years.
Firefox was first awesome because, compared to the alternative, it was fast - damn fast - and lightweight. It also used modern standards, which could certainly be considered a 'feature'.
Then Firefox dominated amongst geeks due to the extensions - the very large, typically high quality extensions. The extension API was a non-trivial part of this - ie, a "feature".
As for quality? Have you given Chrome/Chromium a fair shake? I switched f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox memory & Flock business model (Score:3, Informative)
Well I do have to restart Firefox every day or two to clear memory leaks or fragmentation, which begin to make it unusably slow. But I once had to do this much more frequently, so the problems are getting gradually fixed. It takes a long time to quit after being used for a while, which makes me think it's got an awful lot swapped-out.
If you're not experiencing this, perhaps the leaks are in one of the extensions I use.
As for Flock, it appears its business model is the same as Firefox: search engine pr
Re: (Score:2)
Test after test shows that Firefox uses less memory than other browsers. What memory issues are you referring to? If you can explain how to reproduce them, someone can file a bug report for you.
Why bother filing reports anymore? The devs have consistently denied there are memory leaks despite tons of bug reports. They just blame plug-ins. They seem more focused on adding more fluff and dorking with the gui that fixing problems like memory leaks, lack of protection from unstable plug-ins, all tabs running in one thread so a single tab can kill them all, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where have the devs denied there are memory leaks?
Prime example - http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9046561/Fix_Firefox_s_memory_problems_says_Mozilla_director [computerworld.com].
Basically they said its not a leak, it just uses memory intensively after a while.
Re: (Score:2)
Or how about the devs saying "the general increase is normal"
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Reducing_memory_usage_(Firefox) [mozillazine.org]. or
http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/forum/1/626951 [mozilla.com]
Firefox still slowly increases its memory footprint over time. Any other programmer would call that a leak.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the H.264 point has been mooted by the introduction of WebM (VP8 + Ogg Vorbis). If VP8 is in fact patent-free, it is a good alternative for streaming online video as it provides quality equivalent to H.264 Baseline Profile. In fact, Firefox had builds supporting WebM BEFORE Chrome. Chrome's first release came one day after the public announcement whereas Firefox already had a build at the time of announcement with such support.
MS has stated an intent to include WebM in IE9. Firefox and Chrome alrea
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I used the qualifier "If VP8 is in fact patent-free. . ."
It is very much uncertain whether VP8 is in fact patent-free or whether users of VP8 will be sued for patent infringement by MPEG LA or others.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, if it achieves a similar-but-still-obvious end (digital video is by no means a new concept, and neither is streaming it over the web, MPEG-LA didn't invent either idea) by similar-but-slightly-different means which are similar due more to the fact that they achieve the same ends than because one violates the other's IP, a reasonable patent judge might determine that the differences are great enough to deem MPEG-LA's patents overbroad. Courts are entirely capable of overruling decisions an
Re: (Score:2)
In any case, I think WebM is likely a better solution than including a known patent-encumbered codec in Firefox.
And, I don't support WebM because I have any opposition to H.264. As an avid Blu-Ray watcher, I love H.264. Recent x264 builds have managed incredible IQ at relatively low bitrates, and both H.264 and VC-1 are huge improvements over MPEG-2 in terms of efficiency and quality. Nonetheless, quality is far less of a concern with streaming video. Hopefully, Google will be willing to defend VP8's patent
Re: (Score:2)
In any case, I think WebM is likely a better solution than including a known patent-encumbered codec in Firefox.
Why? Why is it better to include a codec that has patent uncertainty and thus any of it's user (excepting Google of course since they did license the MPEG-LA pool) are wide open to huge claims of infringement from some of the biggest corporations in the world?
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit, both of them are biased.
MPEG-LA are a cartel that needs to be out of business. They are actively stifling progress in the useful arts and preventing progress in general.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Decrying FUD and putting your fingers in your ears because someone said something you disagree with doesn't make it untrue.
MPEG-LA are a cartel that needs to be out of business.
You do realize that MPEG-LA going out of business doesn't eliminate or invalidate the patents in the pool, right? All that is going to do is make it a bigger pain for anyone who wants to implement video codecs by having to individually go to all licensors.
They are actively stifling progress in the useful arts and preventing progress in general.
Breaking up the MPEG-LA isn't going to stop the businesses whose patents making up the pool from being able to do so anyway. It's j
Re: (Score:2)
Ideally the patent pool patents would be revoked at that point, even better would be ending the nightmare that is software patents.
WebM may or may not fall foul of some legitimate patents, but claiming it does so without even a real legal review is pointless.
Re: (Score:2)
No one does that, stop this bullshit fud.
The MPEG-LA provides no indemnification for any patents not covered by the pool.
Re: (Score:2)
I love how people like you throw out the term FUD as a catch all for anything you dislike hearing. FUD has a connotation of spreading something that is false or dubious in order to effect someone's perceptions. What was false or dubious in what the AC said? Is it not true that Google provides no indemnification? Is it not true that Google is an MPEG-LA licensee? How does the fact that the MPEG-LA may or may not provide indemnification have any bearing on those statements or somehow make them false?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really since you can't use Flash on either the iPad or iPhone, so the only way to view streaming video is through HTML5, and presumably H.264. In either case, HTML5 fins.
Macs can run any browser of your choosing including Firefox and Chrome, which do support VP8. VP8 just seems like a better choice than H.264 for streaming video. Perhaps when all the other major browsers support VP8, Apple will add support.
Re: (Score:2)
So.. Firefox is taking a stand on H.264 for good reason, and in the process given WebM an opportunity to get off the ground. This isn't such a big deal for now because 99% of web video is still being served via Flash at this point. I don't know where that debate will end up, but I wouldn't bash Firefox for that.
As for revenue from Google, I'm not aware of that revenue going away. If it did, I'm certain one of the other search players would be willing to pay for default premiere placement in Firefox - as
Re: (Score:2)
SRWare Iron has site-based permissions blocking by use of the adblock.ini file. Then you combine that with an element hider to get rid of the HTTP Error stuff that permissions blocking leaves behind.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder if there is some issue on your system causing performance problems with Chrome. For example, I know there is an incompatibility between Nod32 4.0 and Chrome 5 that causes insanely high ping. I was getting 10 ping in speedtests on Firefox 3.6.3 and 550 ping in Chrome 5. After upgrading to Nod32 4.2 the issue was fixed. Chrome went from sluggish to blazing.
I find Chrome to be as fast, or faster than Firefox in all circumstances. It is usually faster. The browser loads instantly on a Core i7 system wi
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, I use Firefox 3.6.3 and Chrome 5. I've used Firefox since it was Phoenix, and Mozilla before that. I love Firefox for the amazing extensions, Awesomebar, recently closed tabs etc. but I also like testing out new browsers, and I have to say I'm very impressed with Chrome. I really like that each tab is sandboxed in its own tab. It makes everything more responsive, and the rendering speed is ridiculous. There really is nothing better than having a browser load before you have the opportunity to remove yo
Re: (Score:2)
Since chrome lacks a real base of plugins it is fast, but useless. Call me back when they fix that little issue.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm using Adblock, FlashBlock, and Session Manager in Chrome. While Adblock isn't as good as Adblock plus, it works fairly well. I certainly wouldn't say Chrome lacks a base of plugins.
Re: (Score:2)
Vimperator, the chrome plugins like it suck. Without vimperator I can't even be bothered to look for the other plugins I want. Is there a noscript for chrome?
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, I'll be more specific, since this is 100% reproducible for me. It's not a ping time issue, or a networking issue - pages load at perceptibly the same speed for me (i.e. I'm not sure which loads/renders the page faster, but it doesn't seem like the difference is that big a deal on most pages). Firefox may be marginally faster in this area, but that could just be an HTTP pipelining setting or something like that.
What drives me bonkers with Chrome is the scrolling of pages. When I mousewheel-scroll, w
Re: (Score:2)
Odd, it scrolls fine for me in Chrome 5.0.375. There is a slight delay while the page fully loads, but after that it scrolls smoothly. Firefox is smooth immediately, but the delay is at most 1/10th of a second.
What build of Chrome and OS are you using?
I'm on Windows 7 and am using Chrome 5.0.375. I compared against Firefox 3.6.3.
Re: (Score:2)
Windows 7, using SRWare Iron 5.0.380. But I've observed the same thing with official Chrome builds too. Perhaps I'll try to replicate on my desktop at home, which is also Windows 7 with a quad core Q6600, but a much beefier Nvidia graphics card (whereas my work desktop has some craptastic old ATI card in it).
Re: (Score:2)
I appreciate how thoroughly you've gone through all these points, and I agree with almost all of it. I certainly agree with anything and everything about the technical superiority of Firefox...
However, I don't think that those Javascript tests do anything other than to influence the geekier computer users. At the end of the day, any evidence that Chrome is faster than other browsers is enough. It's enough to put "Try Chrome! It's faster, easier and better!" (or whatever) on the Google homepage. The masses w
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry for the double-post. I just want to clarify that, where I come from, "grand" means "OK", not "of high quality".
Re: (Score:2)
I have the opposite experience: Chrome renders waaaaaay faster than Firefox for me, even for javascript-less (or almost) pages.
That said, personally, when I say "Firefox is slow", it tends to be a broad way of talking about its start speed and memory usage that make IE look good.
Re: (Score:2)
I know that this doesn't really matter to Mozilla per se, but Firefox is coming under some tough times in the near future. I have to say, I do fear for the future of my favourite browser (my favourite by a mile, dispite its flaws).
FF is coasting. What is it coasting on? It's amazing base of extensions. Once that base of extensions is replicated for Chrome, that's pretty much it. For what it's worth, it's still my default browser, and I foresee it being that for quite some time.
Re: (Score:2)
I know that this doesn't really matter to Mozilla per se, but Firefox is coming under some tough times in the near future.
It certainly does matter to Moz if Google pulls the plug:
"In 2006 the Mozilla Foundation received $66.8 million in revenues, of which $61.5 million is attributed to "search royalties." Mozilla Foundation [wikipedia.org]
That is as close to 90% as makes no difference.
It strikes me as worrisome that this is the best and most recent look at the foundation's finances that the Wikipedia has to offer.
H.264
Re: (Score:2)
"This" = "Flock using a Chromium codebase"
Sorry for the lack of clarity.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't seem to be leading the market in features at all any more
They haven't for several years now.
Re:No more Fireflock. What next? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right. I didn't explain my main worry. There's a strong trend towards Chrome because of its simplicity, and I like Firefox because of its completeness. People who "give to shits about freetard politics" would use GNU Icecat. I don't. I just think that Firefox is the best.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a strong trend towards Chrome because of its simplicity, and I like Firefox because of its completeness.
See, the entire reason I started using Firefox, way back when it was still Firebird I think (maybe one name before that even) is because it was _just_ a browser. Now it's just as bloated as IE. So I use Chrome. Chrome today is what Fire-whatever was nearly a decade ago. I spent the ~5 years before Chrome was released trying to avoid upgrading Firefox as long as possible and dreading each "upgrade", as each one seemed to get slower and more annoying. I shouldn't have to download a bunch of plugins to make th
Re: (Score:2)
it was _just_ a browser
This is why I have high hopes for Chrome. If you go to Google [google.com], (and aren't logged in) you still get basically the same plain old Google page you've gotten since the 90's. It's got new features, but they're slim and fast. Chrome might escape the feature bloat that's destroyed Firefox.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More buttons than I actually use = bloated
More than one second to load = bloated
I started using Firefox because it was faster than IE. This means, relatively, IE used to be the more "bloated" of the two. Now, IE loads faster, runs faster and navigates pages faster than Firefox. Now, out of the two, Firefox is the more bloated. I know this is anecdotal evidence and that there's some "unbiased" analysis out there demonstrating Firefox is faster, but on a fresh install of Windows 7, with a fresh install of the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I still have Phoenix 0.5 stuffed away in a folder somewhere even though I rarely use Windows. Man, that thing was fast & simple. It just blew every other browser out of the water by comparison at the time.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the problem with firefox: they forgot their original goal was creating a lean fast browser. As time marched on they started adding features that now makes it bloated and comparable to Mozilla/Netscape that it replaced. I still need it for a couple sites that work with IE/FF but not any of the Webkit browsers or Opera.
Just what I needed ... built for FaceBook& Twi (Score:2)
Flock that!
Chrome Extensions (Score:5, Insightful)
So now Flock is Chrome + Javascript application layer on top of that. The Flock devs are aware they can basically write javascript extensions, right? Those extensions will work on all 3 platforms of Chrome/Chromium.
Why not just release them as pure Chrome extensions and call it a day? What is the benefit of calling it a separate browser?
The Chromed Bird extension for Chrome was what caused my wife to switch over. It is my favorite Chrome extension for any platform.
Flock was taken a Linux/Mac/Win product and turned it into a Windows only product without offering anything new or worthwhile.
Re:Chrome Extensions (Score:5, Informative)
Why not just release them as pure Chrome extensions and call it a day? What is the benefit of calling it a separate browser?
Chrome extensions don't allow for the UI we added in Flock. No sidebars, etc...
Also, extensions are much harder to monetize than browsers, so it would be a lot harder to make a successful business out of it that way.
Third, we're going for mass market rather than niche. Extensions are cool and all, but most web users out there don't have a clue what an extension is, let alone a browser.
The new Flock will be Windows/Mac at least. Linux is still a possibility too. We think the new version offers an improved experience for most users. Not quite as feature-full as the old version, true, but it's much faster and simpler which is a good trade-off for most users.
Re: (Score:2)
What limitations on the UI changes do plugins impose?
Maybe this is why nothing like vimperator exists on chrome.
Re: (Score:2)
If Chromed Bird is any example, you can add an icon to the toolbar, pop up a mini-window to display content, do animations and transitions, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
That's it?
Vimperator significantly alters the look of firefox. It even adds modality, so to type this I am in insert mode.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how much more you can do. I know you can write extensions basically in pure HTML5/JS.
The question is why bother releasing a Windows only browser that is basically Chrome plus javascript application layers that only duplicate existing functionality that is available on multiple platforms?
I CAN'T give up Firefox just yet (Score:5, Insightful)
Chrome/Chromium still doesn't have an adblocker that actually blocks ads instead of just hiding them. Adblock Plus saves bandwidth, finishes loading a page quicker because you'll never get hung up on a slow/dead ad server, and neatly reformats the page to work without the ads.
Once THAT level of functionality in an adblocker arrives with Chrome/Chromium, only then will I consider switching. And don't tell me to use a HOSTS file; what if I want to whitelist certain sites?
Re: (Score:2)
Chrome/Chromium still doesn't have an adblocker that actually blocks ads instead of just hiding them. Adblock Plus saves bandwidth, finishes loading a page quicker because you'll never get hung up on a slow/dead ad server, and neatly reformats the page to work without the ads.
"Finishes loading a page quicker" isn't necessarily true. Most of the sites I frequent either don't have ads, or let me turn off ads, and even the ones that don't, ads load asynchronously, so Chrome is usually still faster than Firefox+ABP.
It's been a while since I've used either AdBlock (again, the sites I frequent are usually reasonable about them), but the last time I checked, ABP for Chrome is better at reformatting the page than ABP for Firefox, so that doesn't apply either.
Bandwidth is the only real o
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Not so fast... (Score:2, Insightful)
"Note that Chrome doesn't actually support this all the way, so a few resources might still load before AdBlock can get to them, in which case we'll remove those as usual."
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm using it right now right now. It's actually a pretty nice secondary browser because you can plug NoScript into it, and in general, it's nicer than Opera, Safari, Chrome, K-Meleon, or IE. If people aren't using it, they really should give it a go. I don't know what that whole 'social browser' thing is all about (I don't use MySpace or Facebook or any of that crap), but as a second Firefox it's great.
Re: (Score:2)
I just wish it had true ad-blocking. Not seeing ads is nice, but nothing really beats actually getting rid of them completely (both for bandwidth and security).
Other than that, I agree, Chromium is pretty nice. I installed the unstable (dev) version as a test, and now I find myself rarely using Firefox. I even installed Chrome on my Windows box, and use it happily around 75% of the time, even if it is blissfully sending my history to Google (I really don't do anything that anyone would ever care about, b