Author Topic: Google Chrome preview for OS X and Linux (Read 6746 times)

itlnstln · « **on:** Fri, 05 June 2009, 10:27:30 »

Just like the title says:

http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/06/google-releases-chrome-preview-for-mac-os-x-and-linux.ars

o2dazone · « **Reply #1 on:** Fri, 05 June 2009, 10:41:11 »

I've seen numerous people complain how it's not for *nix but why didn't they just take Chromium and compile their own? (serious question, not being snide)

Mr.6502 · « **Reply #2 on:** Fri, 05 June 2009, 22:09:57 »

Quote from: o2dazone;94370

I've seen numerous people complain how it's not for *nix but why didn't they just take Chromium and compile their own? (serious question, not being snide)

When I first looked at the Chromium code it was a long way from being workable on *nix. It looked like a lot of it was developed in Visual Studio. It would break just about everywhere trying to build it.

The Chromium team has done a great job of getting it running though. There have been test versions that are practically point and click to install on Linux for a few months now. They were still extremely early test versions, but they showed a lot of progress in not a lot of time. The first time I tried it on Linux was in March and I was impressed. Can't wait to try the latest version.

o2dazone · « **Reply #3 on:** Fri, 05 June 2009, 22:11:50 »

That would make sense, I never looked at the code, but I knew Chromium's roots, thanks for the explanation

xsphat · « **Reply #4 on:** Sun, 07 June 2009, 02:51:46 »

Chrome on OSX is pretty slick but not much works yet so I don't know if it'll be any sort of threat to FF. It's quick as a sling shot and enough of the shortcuts are the same. In truth I am about ready to use anything except FF. Don't like Opera or Safari all that much either. I want something simple and fast as hell that will store bookmarks and never get bulky. So I may never be happy I guess.

bhtooefr · « **Reply #5 on:** Mon, 15 June 2009, 15:36:25 »

You could always bring up NetSurf in X11.app... :lol:

(NetSurf is ridiculously fast, but doesn't support JavaScript at all.)

ch_123 · « **Reply #6 on:** Sat, 29 August 2009, 06:17:49 »

Ive been running the SVN builds of Chromium as my main browser for the past few weeks. Despite the current lack of Flash, I'm really liking it.

cmr · « **Reply #7 on:** Sat, 29 August 2009, 14:19:08 »

flash has worked mostly fine in the nightly chromium builds for over a month. are you starting it with --enable-plugins?

ch_123 · « **Reply #8 on:** Sat, 29 August 2009, 14:34:41 »

I tried it a while ago and it didnt work. Might try it again soon... Would be great not to have Firefox anymore, I got kinda sick of it really...

cmr · « **Reply #9 on:** Sat, 29 August 2009, 14:39:48 »

oh yeah you also have to put libflashplayer.so in ~/.config/chromium/Application/Plugins/ .

also on an amd64 system it will search the firefox plugin path by default and only find 64-bit plugins, which won't work in the 32-bit chromium builds. linking the flash plugin binary into the Plugins dir as i described above should work though.

ch_123 · « **Reply #10 on:** Sat, 29 August 2009, 14:55:04 »

Ahh... The guide I tried suggested that it go in /opt/chromium-browser/plugins. I'll try your one later on and see how it works.

timw4mail · « **Reply #11 on:** Sun, 30 August 2009, 14:44:24 »

Quote from: webwit;112954

I like plugins.. like adblock pro and noscript :fish2:

Two big reasons that I put up with some of Firefox's quirks.

travnewmatic · « **Reply #12 on:** Sun, 30 August 2009, 20:07:00 »

well i just downloaded it and installed it... seems to move a whole lot slower than safari or firefox.. not quite sure what thats a result of

cmr · « **Reply #13 on:** Wed, 02 September 2009, 17:52:36 »

that's a very unusual result. on most machines it blows those browsers away with an embarrassing and frankly unnecessary level of speed.

ch_123 · « **Reply #14 on:** Thu, 03 September 2009, 17:56:13 »

Quote from: webwit;112954

I like plugins.. like adblock pro and noscript :fish2:

I'm pretty sure they are working on plugins/extensions for Chrome, I just don't think they are available yet.

ch_123 · « **Reply #15 on:** Thu, 03 September 2009, 18:16:19 »

If that's true, then it's only a matter of time before someone forks it. Some anti-Google forks have been made already like Iron. They provide a very good basis for a browser, I certainly think it has a lot of potential one way or another.

cherrybomb · « **Reply #16 on:** Thu, 03 September 2009, 23:37:06 »

Awesome article! Thanks!

o2dazone · « **Reply #17 on:** Sat, 05 September 2009, 03:02:38 »

Quote from: webwit;114553

Actually that is a perfect example why you shouldn't allow google politics in your browser. Google will never ever allow 3rd party extensions that battle ads or even basic stuff which prevents all their tracking.

Except for etc/hosts/

Google may not win "browser wars 2.0". But what they're doing for standards, and web developing is catastrophic. Granted you're always going to want your "robust" browser which will trim ECMAscript, alert you of new gmail, and blacklist all advertisements (trust me, I use it too). But webkit (whether it be in a Chrome rendition or Safari) is pushing the limits of html5 and css3. It may not matter to some, but it's still really important. Google is shaping the web in the way video game developers shape computer hardware.

bhtooefr · « **Reply #18 on:** Sat, 05 September 2009, 15:16:58 »

Thing is, IE6 is going to keep hurting the market until at least April 2013, when XP SP3 finally moves out of all support. Then, corporate internal web apps that are IE6 only may start moving towards standards compliance... or worse, XP and IE6 will start to get used without any updates in corporate environments.

cmr · « **Reply #19 on:** Sat, 05 September 2009, 15:27:42 »

the extension API is not finished but you can follow its progress here:

http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-extensions?pli=1

for now there is only adsweep, which is unmaintained but hides about 90% of ads

ch_123 · « **Reply #20 on:** Sun, 06 September 2009, 04:34:05 »

Quote from: bhtooefr;115109

Thing is, IE6 is going to keep hurting the market until at least April 2013, when XP SP3 finally moves out of all support. Then, corporate internal web apps that are IE6 only may start moving towards standards compliance... or worse, XP and IE6 will start to get used without any updates in corporate environments.

I really think websites should start to render themselves IE6 incompatible en masse so that those companies have no choice but to switch over. Would make things much easier for web devs too.

timw4mail · « **Reply #21 on:** Sun, 06 September 2009, 11:27:44 »

Quote from: ch_123;115230

I really think websites should start to render themselves IE6 incompatible en masse so that those companies have no choice but to switch over. Would make things much easier for web devs too.

Slowly starting to happen, but not quickly enough, I'm afraid.

o2dazone · « **Reply #22 on:** Sun, 06 September 2009, 11:55:20 »

What they should have done is implemented a quirks mode IE6 in IE7 and IE8, for all the internal legacy software in corporations. Until then, whatever IT of said company won't upgrade because they don't have a proficient inhouse programmer, or money to contract one, to roll everything over to a new platform.

So in a way were "stuck" with IE6 until the support is cut, and it becomes such an unsafe application to use, that the cost of cleaning up spills is more than hiring out a developer to redo all their internal apps.

More parts of the web should be doing this...but as a front end developer you're kind of stuck. A client doesn't care about your Anti-IE empire. They want to make sure their website works across as many browsers as possible.

ch_123 · « **Reply #23 on:** Fri, 09 October 2009, 12:28:58 »

There's now a 64-bit version available for Linux, which means that I can now use flash.

o2dazone · « **Reply #24 on:** Fri, 09 October 2009, 20:01:25 »

wasn't linux the first to get flash in 64bit browsers? thats p crazy

ch_123 · « **Reply #25 on:** Sat, 10 October 2009, 05:28:05 »

Quite possibly. I think my laptop had a 64-bit Flash plugin, which is why it didn't work with 32-bit Chrome. I could have probably fixed it myself, but never bothered to.

I find it odd that there still isn't a proper 64-bit Firefox for Windows. Same with Opera as far as I know.

AndrewZorn · « **Reply #26 on:** Sat, 10 October 2009, 05:41:33 »

shiretoko?

ch_123 · « **Reply #27 on:** Sat, 10 October 2009, 05:55:58 »

What about it?

AndrewZorn · « **Reply #28 on:** Sat, 10 October 2009, 06:16:34 »

...64bit firefox

ch_123 · « **Reply #29 on:** Sat, 10 October 2009, 06:31:18 »

Shiretoko = Codename for Firefox 3.5

To the best of my knowledge, there's no stable 64-bit release of Shiretoko for Windows. There may be a testing version, but none for the average user.

AndrewZorn · « **Reply #30 on:** Sat, 10 October 2009, 06:36:36 »

okay, i didnt know shiretoko wasnt available on windows (i thought i remember using it)

but shiretoko also refers to the 64bit firefox in linux

ch_123 · « **Reply #31 on:** Sat, 10 October 2009, 06:45:14 »

Yeah, my original point was about the lack of 64-bit browsers in Windows when they have been knocking around for ages in Linux.

Do you use Arch? They have a habit of debranding Firefox and calling it the codename of whatever release it is.

AndrewZorn · « **Reply #32 on:** Sat, 10 October 2009, 06:59:03 »

yes but i had the same name for the 64bit firefox before, ive only been using arch a couple weeks
i still remember having 64bit ff on windows though
just ditched it because it wasnt worth the effort come reinstall

Mr.6502 · « **Reply #33 on:** Sat, 10 October 2009, 09:03:03 »

There were a few websites that posted 64 bit builds of FF for windows. I remember trying Minefield Firefox or something like that a while back. I didn't stick with it because it wasn't being updated regularly and I didn't feel like looking at the source myself.

bhtooefr · « **Reply #34 on:** Sun, 11 October 2009, 10:08:25 »

The thing is, is a 64-bit build really necessary?

Other platforms out there run a 32-bit userland on a 64-bit kernel, when stuff simply doesn't need more than 4 GiB RAM or more than 32-bit variables, due to the performance and memory hit of running the 64-bit stuff.

Mr.6502 · « **Reply #35 on:** Sun, 11 October 2009, 15:57:22 »

Quote from: bhtooefr;124468

The thing is, is a 64-bit build really necessary?

Other platforms out there run a 32-bit userland on a 64-bit kernel, when stuff simply doesn't need more than 4 GiB RAM or more than 32-bit variables, due to the performance and memory hit of running the 64-bit stuff.

I haven't seen a real need for it myself. I haven't found a time when more than 4 gigs of virtual address would benefit a web browser.

AndrewZorn · « **Reply #36 on:** Sun, 11 October 2009, 22:10:21 »

i think it is more about 64bit components working properly within it

itlnstln · « **Reply #37 on:** Mon, 12 October 2009, 07:20:01 »

The x64 versions of Windows have a 64-bit version of IE, but since there aren't many plugins for the 64-bit version, I don't use it. The few times I have, it works pretty well, though.

timw4mail · « **Reply #38 on:** Mon, 12 October 2009, 07:35:21 »

Quote from: itlnstln;124621

The x64 versions of Windows have a 64-bit version of IE, but since there aren't many plugins for the 64-bit version, I don't use it. The few times I have, it works pretty well, though.

Pretty well, for a broken browser, I suppose.

cb951303 · « **Reply #39 on:** Mon, 12 October 2009, 16:11:14 »

I'm using chromium on linux for 2 weeks now and I'm pretty sure I won't go back to firefox ever again. I'm missing my plugins though :/

itlnstln · « **Reply #40 on:** Mon, 12 October 2009, 16:13:35 »

I had to uninstall the Chrome Frame add-on for IE. It was causing a lot of crashes. I hope they continue to develop it, though, I would like to see how this impacts the browser landscape in the future.

ch_123 · « **Reply #41 on:** Mon, 12 October 2009, 16:20:19 »

Why bother using the addon? You should just try using Chrome itself...

Mr.6502 · « **Reply #42 on:** Mon, 12 October 2009, 18:32:25 »

Quote from: AndrewZorn;124581

i think it is more about 64bit components working properly within it

I should probably rephrase it as: I haven't found a time when more than 4 gigs of virtual address would benefit a web browser or browser plugins/components.

ch_123 · « **Reply #43 on:** Tue, 13 October 2009, 01:53:08 »

Well, if you have a 64bit OS you might as well have native 64-bit software to go with it.

itlnstln · « **Reply #44 on:** Tue, 13 October 2009, 07:42:35 »

Quote from: ch_123;124877

Well, if you have a 64bit OS you might as well have native 64-bit software to go with it.

Makes sense to me. Now if software companies would realize this is a growing trend...

News:

Author Topic: Google Chrome preview for OS X and Linux (Read 6746 times)