PDA

View Full Version : Linux version of Google Chrome to use GTK+



Mr. Picklesworth
February 17th, 2009, 04:57 PM
Hooray! Sounds like Google is serious about getting this right. We may have a decent, efficient native web browser yet. (Let's just hope it also listens to the XDG standards, has a dbus interface and follows GNOME's HIG).

http://www.osnews.com/story/20980/Linux_Version_of_Chrome_To_Use_Gtk_

halovivek
February 17th, 2009, 04:59 PM
Let see when it gets released.

kostkon
February 17th, 2009, 05:03 PM
Oh nice! :p

Simian Man
February 17th, 2009, 05:07 PM
Let see when it gets released.

Indeed. Furthermore let's see how long it is kept in beta.

s.fox
February 17th, 2009, 05:31 PM
I still won't use it. I suppose I just don't trust google enough not to collect data about me.

Tibuda
February 17th, 2009, 05:58 PM
Good news. I just don't want it to mess with my windows borders as it does in MS Windows.

Dragonbite
February 17th, 2009, 06:39 PM
I still won't use it. I suppose I just don't trust google enough not to collect data about me.

Does it still do that, or has that been removed?

s.fox
February 17th, 2009, 06:45 PM
Does it still do that, or has that been removed?

You mean it DID/ DOES actually do that on the windows version? I was just being wary. I defiantly have a good reason not to trust them if thats' true

Zenze
February 17th, 2009, 06:46 PM
Does it still do that, or has that been removed?

Last I heard they were talking about fixing that, but I haven't kept up with it.

Tibuda
February 17th, 2009, 06:49 PM
Does it still do that, or has that been removed?If they intend to release the source-code, they would remove it before (open source spy makes no sense). But I don't even know if Chrome is going to be open source.

EDIT: just found this in the link Mr. Picklesworth posted

Since Chrome is open source, it could still be possible that a Qt version will be developed independently of Google, of course.

Erunno
February 17th, 2009, 06:50 PM
follows GNOME's HIG).

Judging by the first screen shots of the OSX versions the Google engineers don't really seem to care about interface conventions on the target platform. More likely they'll try to push the (admittedly well-designed) Windows interface on other platforms as well.

geoken
February 17th, 2009, 06:51 PM
Good news. I just don't want it to mess with my windows borders as it does in MS Windows.

It doesn't mess with mine. Even with my custom theme, the window borders match the rest of the theme. It makes the border larger than the typical app but this is for functional reasons, when the space is required it's filled with tabs and when it isn't it expands the size of the window border giving you a larger area to drag, click, etc.

Dragonbite
February 17th, 2009, 06:58 PM
So what is the big advantage of Chrome anyway? Why should I install it on my Linux box?

cb951303
February 17th, 2009, 07:01 PM
good news! I don't trust google either but with an open source project like this I doubt they will be able to spy on us. Also, I'm sure by the day it's released people gonna take the source and rebrand it so that we don't have to live with google logos all around on our screen :)

I think firefox needs a serious competition for linux. a GTK based webkit browser backed by Google would do the job :popcorn:

geoken
February 17th, 2009, 07:04 PM
So what is the big advantage of Chrome anyway? Why should I install it on my Linux box?

*Fast javascript
*Process per tab (ie. you could force kill an individual tab as if it were a seperate app without effecting the browser or any other running tabs)
*You like their UI ideas

Those are my main reasons.

binbash
February 17th, 2009, 07:21 PM
*Fast javascript
*Process per tab (ie. you could force kill an individual tab as if it were a seperate app without effecting the browser or any other running tabs)
*You like their UI ideas

Those are my main reasons.

Firefox 3.1's js engine is faster than chrome

Hells_Dark
February 17th, 2009, 07:22 PM
*You like their UI ideas


Personally, i love their UI ideas.
Having the downloads presented like any other page is awesome.
I'm tired of the download window with firefox (i tried extension in order to have a kind of new bar for them, but it's not as good as the chrome idea)

TheAL76
February 17th, 2009, 07:27 PM
Let see when it gets released.

Supposedly in June.

I'm excited, though, I feel it's a solid browser with the potential to be a great one. And to get more choices in software is always a great thing, IMO.

Dekkon
February 17th, 2009, 07:29 PM
*Fast javascript
*Process per tab (ie. you could force kill an individual tab as if it were a seperate app without effecting the browser or any other running tabs)
*You like their UI ideas

Those are my main reasons.

I think the separate process per tab is already a win, I am already sick of having to Kill firefox in whole.

Though I believe they would have been completely better off with using QT instead. I am convinced that the only qt browser is going to be Konqueror which is why it's development should be further supported. Also, Qt defaults to GTK I believe when on Gnome, so we don't have to deal with GTK apps looking like crap on KDE.

Erunno
February 17th, 2009, 07:31 PM
Firefox 3.1's js engine is faster than chrome

Only when comparing the unreleased Firefox 3.1 to the released Chrome 1.0. Chrome's development version (2.0 devel) features a new version of the V8 JavaScript engine which recently beat Squirrelfish Extreme on both the V8 test as well as SunSpider (haven't seen numbers for Dromaeo yet).

Tibuda
February 17th, 2009, 07:36 PM
Also, I'm sure by the day it's released people gonna take the source and rebrand it so that we don't have to live with google logos all around on our screen :)Or maybe a version without tabs in the title bar. Just joking, I just don't like the idea, but can live with it.


I think the separate process per tab is already a win, I am already sick of having to Kill firefox in whole.That's really good, but can different processes really use the same window? (sorry, I'm no GUI programmer)


Though I believe they would have been completely better off with using QT instead. I am convinced that the only qt browser is going to be Konqueror which is why it's development should be further supported. Also, Qt defaults to GTK I believe when on Gnome, so we don't have to deal with GTK apps looking like crap on KDE.Qt looks crap in Gnome, even with QGtkStyle.

cb951303
February 17th, 2009, 07:51 PM
Or maybe a version without tabs in the title bar. Just joking, I just don't like the idea, but can live with it.
you don't like to idea of rebranding or having google logos all over :D ?



That's really good, but can different processes really use the same window? (sorry, I'm no GUI programmer)
windows version has this option, it's really a great feature considering that I have to kill firefox at least couple of time a day :D



Qt looks crap in Gnome, even with QGtkStyle.
if you mean the crappy looking fonts, then there is a trivial solution for this that requires only to create a .fonts.conf xml file on your home dir. Although with QT version 4.5 they fixed it.
QGtkstyle looks 100% same as GTK. Even the file dialog is native GTK.

ghindo
February 17th, 2009, 07:54 PM
Firefox 3.1's js engine is faster than chromeThat point is really kind of trivial. Javascript speed has basically become an arms race among browsers.

Vince4Amy
February 17th, 2009, 07:55 PM
I'll use it if they make a QT Version too.

Mr. Picklesworth
February 17th, 2009, 08:01 PM
Qt looks crap in Gnome, even with QGtkStyle.It also feels like crap in GNOME, lacking basic functionality like configurable menu accelarators and the ability to use the scroll wheel on notebooks.
Oh, now I've started it :P

I didn't realize it used the native file dialogue, though. That's cool! I wish there were more Qt4 apps to play with in the repositories. Oh well, some day...

Nah, I would not be surprised to see a Qt version appear eventually, which would make me very happy when using KDE. In fairness, KDE already has an amazing web browser with a functioning rendering engine. GTK-based desktops deserve one, too :)

As for the "Google is secretly harvesting my personal information" thing... This project is open source. It would not be very secret with the code right there in the open. And no, they are not.

I seriously believe they are building this browser because they want to combat Microsoft's efforts to persuade people into the MSN-defaulting Internet Explorer. If they make a browser that is so vastly superior that its rays of awesome shine down even on the most clueless users, people use it and search / see Google with it. They can call the shots for web standards instead of Microsoft. Fine by me, because Microsoft has consistently not cared at all about web standards other than their own.

Erunno
February 17th, 2009, 08:08 PM
That point is really kind of trivial. Javascript speed has basically become an arms race among browsers.

True, I've never had the impression that web applications are notoriously slow with today's JavaScript engines. Lag due to the Internet connection delay seem to be a bigger problem as the interface sometimes waits until it receives a response from the server. On the other hand the web applications are probably tuned to the execution speed of this browser generation so newer and faster JavaScript implementations might make new applications possible.

Anyway, the only browser which could benefit from a faster JavaScript implementation immensely is Firefox, where JavaScript is also used heavily in XUL. Unfortunately, TraceMonkey will probably be disabled for the interface in 3.1 as the developers can't vouch for the stability of both the native interface as well as the extensions.

One of the major improvements by the process separation is that it is less likely that a busy tab or a resource hogging plug-in will block the user interface as it runs in its own process. This really helps on sites which either use JavaScript or Flash extensively.

Sand & Mercury
February 17th, 2009, 08:10 PM
Was hoping for a GTK version, but ah well. I'll be happy when Chrome comes to Linux natively, but I'll only be using it for website testing.

Erunno
February 17th, 2009, 08:14 PM
As for the "Google is secretly harvesting my personal information" thing... This project is open source. It would not be very secret with the code right there in the open. And no, they are not.

This is a common fallacy as you simply don't know if the binary you download is derived from the publicly accessible source code and that it hasn't been modified before compilation. Not that I intend to advocate paranoia as I don't really believe that Google is harvesting information unless already advertised.

Plus, most Linux distributions compile their code themselves so this point is probably moot. Just a reminder when downloading binaries. :-)

Tibuda
February 17th, 2009, 08:19 PM
This is a common fallacy as you simply don't know if the binary you download is derived from the publicly accessible source code and that it hasn't been modified before compilation. Not that I intend to advocate paranoia as I don't really believe that Google is harvesting information unless already advertised.

sudo aptitude install build-essentials
sudo aptitude remove --purge aptNow I'll only install from source.

dragos240
February 17th, 2009, 08:32 PM
If it's going to be open, i'll use it.

doorknob60
February 17th, 2009, 08:39 PM
I'd use it if there was a Qt fork for it, because GTK apps don't look that great in KDE. When I used a GTK setup on the other hand, KDE and Qt apps blended in perfectly with Qgtkstyle... I'll just stick to good ol' Konqueror for now.

geoken
February 17th, 2009, 08:55 PM
Iron was a fork of Chrome on Windows. I'm sure the same will happen to the Linux port if the privacy settings are upsetting to people.

billgoldberg
February 17th, 2009, 09:02 PM
I don't really care.

I've tested it again recently on Windows 7 and it still has no features.

Firefox 3.1 beta is as fast as Chrome and has way more features (add ons).

billgoldberg
February 17th, 2009, 09:04 PM
I'd use it if there was a Qt fork for it, because GTK apps don't look that great in KDE. When I used a GTK setup on the other hand, KDE and Qt apps blended in perfectly with Qgtkstyle... I'll just stick to good ol' Konqueror for now.

Try gtk-qt or qt-gtk (I always get them confused) works pretty good.

Kinetic Being
February 17th, 2009, 09:19 PM
Try gtk-qt or qt-gtk (I always get them confused) works pretty good.

GTK apps work look fine in KDE for me, and its the vanilla KDE 3.5.9, and I don't have any of those qt-gtk (or gtkQT, gtk-qt-style, whatever) plugins.

Just check off "Apply KDE colors to non-kde apps" in the Colors section of the KDE Config App.

BGFG
February 17th, 2009, 09:46 PM
I still won't use it. I suppose I just don't trust google enough not to collect data about me.

I think that may be why it's taking so long to deliver on Linux and Mac. It'll be a lot harder to hide data mining code and have it work on the Linux and Mac models. Colour me paranoid :lolflag:id ?