Already not a fan of chrome [Archive]

BGFG

March 20th, 2009, 03:48 AM

Summer of code, a multitude of services to help FOSS devs store and organise their projects, when it's time to receive data, there is no problem.

Put a browser together from FOSS hard work, and windows users benefit. Now i hear that version 2 is screaming fast, and GNU/Linux, BSD.....are still waiting on even a beta.

Then there are guys scrambling for scraps of chromium and trying to get that to work. So then will FOSS get the ver2 code later this year or will it still be behind ?

They built a browser from code that already works in FOSS OS'es but can't deliver one yet ? And still people just can't wait. To be treated with disregard.

If i am wrong, edify me and i will listen.

Onoskelis

March 20th, 2009, 03:58 AM

Linux marketshare is only 0.86%

Why should Google care?

Dr Small

March 20th, 2009, 04:01 AM

Dekkon

March 20th, 2009, 04:02 AM

Linux marketshare is only 0.86%

Why should Google care?
Agreed.

If I was Google, anyone with half a brain would know that it's a better business practice to develop for Microsoft first.

I always thought it interesting that Google, a proud supporter of opensource and free software, should develop a browser and then claim that they would make versions for Linux, which of course, I have never seen. Seems like they put the carrige before the team, if you ask me.

One of the reasons that it is taking so long is because they wanted to use a native GUI Toolkit on Linux instead of using a cross-platform toolkit, that way it better integrates into the Desktop Environment. While I'm sure some of the reason is more people where hired for the Windows version to push it out faster, but that's only the smart thing to do.

chucky chuckaluck

March 20th, 2009, 04:18 AM

Linux marketshare is only 0.86%

Why should Google care?

i agree. i don't think we're not entitled to their efforts.

Giant Speck

March 20th, 2009, 04:19 AM

Linux marketshare is only 0.86%

Why should Google care?

Doesn't Google use their own Linux distribution internally?

cardinals_fan

March 20th, 2009, 04:20 AM

Doesn't Google use their own Linux distribution internally?
Yes, but why should they use their own browser?

mrsteveman1

March 20th, 2009, 04:24 AM

FOSS code isn't somehow tied to one platform, it's just code. Far as i remember, Mozilla started life on Windows and still performs better there than on any other platform.

Skripka

March 20th, 2009, 04:27 AM

mamamia88

March 20th, 2009, 04:30 AM

FOSS code isn't somehow tied to one platform, it's just code. Far as i remember, Mozilla started life on Windows and still performs better there than on any other platform.

i'd disagree firefox seems to work better on ubuntu for me than it ever did in windows

Paqman

March 20th, 2009, 04:35 AM

I always thought it interesting that Google, a proud supporter of opensource and free software, should develop a browser and then claim that they would make versions for Linux, which of course, I have never seen. Seems like they put the carrige before the team, if you ask me.

Eh?

First of all, Chrome is definitely in development for both OS X and Linux, they've confirmed this numerous times.
Secondly, what kind of idiot wouldn't make the Windows version their first priority? 90% market share is a fact.

BGFG

March 20th, 2009, 04:38 AM

Linux marketshare is only 0.86%

Why should Google care?

My point exactly. it seems they don't. but lets have a big get together every year, so we can pick your minds and slap the google brand on someone elses hard work.

Edit: and considering that they supposedly run linux in house, i would think that GOOGLE would know the coding in and outs. on another note, i wonder what enhancements the in house has seen, that upstream will never see.

Skripka

March 20th, 2009, 04:38 AM

Eh?

First of all, Chrome is definitely in development for both OS X and Linux, they've confirmed this numerous times.
Secondly, what kind of idiot wouldn't make the Windows version their first priority? 90% market share is a fact.

I think what rightly makes people on Linux grumpy-is that Windows is going to have 2 full released versions of Chrome before Linux even gets a beta....you'd think Google would try to sync up development across platform somewhat...rather than not at all.

23meg

March 20th, 2009, 04:53 AM

My point exactly. it seems they don't. but lets have a big get together every year, so we can pick your minds and slap the google brand on someone elses hard work.

Everyone whose hard work in the form of free software has gone into Chrome, or any "big name" product running on a proprietary platform, which has used suitably licensed free software code, has willingly accepted the possibility of this happening by licensing their codes under permissive licenses that allow proprietary use under arbitrary terms, "brand slapping", relicensing and pretty much everything else in the first place, so it's a non-issue.

wmcbrine

March 20th, 2009, 05:07 AM

I wasn't too impressed by the Windows version of Chrome, so I'm not expecting much from a Linux version.

Dekkon

March 20th, 2009, 05:14 AM

I wasn't too impressed by the Windows version of Chrome, so I'm not expecting much from a Linux version.

Ya, it's GTK anyway, so nothing to be looking forward too. =p haha.

Mr. Picklesworth

March 20th, 2009, 05:16 AM

I agree about performance, to some extent. It's not really the hardware's fault, though, and I for one bought my N810 for the hardware. I treated it like any computer purchase, because this is one of those few devices I can treat just like a full x86 PC. I took a look at the 8 year old 400 mHz Compaq Presario below my desk that I use once a month as a spare server and I thought "this device is that computer, in my pocket, with WiFi and Bluetooth."
Then the noise picked up for OMAP3 chips and the "wow, things have come a long way" moment sort of faded... but it's still darn nice.

Mozilla's engine was just an unfortunate choice for a mobile browser. (I shouldn't say it was a bad one, since at the time the alternatives weren't very great either). The issue is finally starting to be resolved, but it's obvious at the moment WebKit is the best choice available and likely will continue to be as it matures further, finding its way into the GNOME (and thus GNOME Mobile) platform.

If you give Ubuntu a shot, I suggest you use the Enlightenment (e17) desktop with Illume, as is explained on the ITT forums. Otherwise, Android is worth playing with since it has a good mobile web browser and targets hardware pretty similar to the N810's. (There's also Mer, for that matter).
Unfortunately, at present none of the OSs except Maemo itself seem to like sound or GPS on the hardware. That will surely change eventually...

Paqman

March 20th, 2009, 05:17 AM

I think what rightly makes people on Linux grumpy-is that Windows is going to have 2 full released versions of Chrome before Linux even gets a beta....you'd think Google would try to sync up development across platform somewhat...rather than not at all.

Hey, i'd like to see Linux for Chrome myself. I'd start using it tomorrow, based on the performance of the Windows version.

So they've chosen to push it out the door to Windows first, then concentrate on the second-line OSes after. That's reasonable. Why should they delay the Windows version just to keep a tiny minority of grumpy Linux users happy? We'll get our version in a couple of months. Before the middle of this year for both OS X and Linux versions is what i've heard.

Skripka

March 20th, 2009, 05:20 AM

Twitch6000

March 20th, 2009, 05:24 AM

Giant Speck

March 20th, 2009, 05:33 AM

Hey, i'd like to see Linux for Chrome myself. I'd start using it tomorrow, based on the performance of the Windows version.

So they've chosen to push it out the door to Windows first, then concentrate on the second-line OSes after. That's reasonable. Why should they delay the Windows version just to keep a tiny minority of grumpy Linux users happy? We'll get our version in a couple of months. Before the middle of this year for both OS X and Linux versions is what I've heard.

I agree.

I don't believe Google released Chrome for Windows first because they have a preference for Windows. They released it for Windows first because Windows offers them a much larger group of users that can try out the product and give feedback. They can find out what works and what doesn't and with that information, they can make the browser at least stable and usable so that the issues they had with the Windows version won't repeat themselves when they release the OS X and Linux versions. That way, when they do release the first betas to these operating systems, they already know what problems they experienced the first time around and will be able to fix the new problems that arise from a different set of users using their product.

I want Google Chrome for Linux as badly as many of you do, but I think the only thing we can do is be patient. It's coming.

Paqman

March 20th, 2009, 05:37 AM

By having the linux development so far behind-and getting further behind daily...it can easily lead to "why even bother?"

Except that it isn't. Chrome for Linux is being actively developed. Can we try to stick to facts instead of accusing them of what you think they might do? Innocent until proven guilty, and all that.

Sure let Windows get their version out the door 1st-but finish version 1.x for all platforms before worrying about getting 2.x out the door for windows.

At a guess i'd say: separate dev teams. Retasking the Windows Chrome devs onto the Linux team might not really speed things up that much. Although, not being a code-monkey myself I might be wildly off base here.

Besides, Windows support is where the money is, so it makes sense for them to allocate it more resources. We're lucky they support Linux at all, really.

entr3p

March 20th, 2009, 05:42 AM

Well as many of others have said I don't blame Google for releasing Chrome for Windows first. It makes perfect sense marketing wise.

BGFG

March 20th, 2009, 05:48 AM

Except that it isn't. Chrome for Linux is being actively developed. Can we try to stick to facts instead of accusing them of what you think they might do? Innocent until proven guilty, and all that.

Besides, Windows support is where the money is, so it makes sense for them to allocate it more resources. We're lucky they support Linux at all, really.

But we are not talking about a company with cash flow problems are we ? The 'Summer of Code' is not about 'where the money is' so where did all the pureness of innovation and FOSS ideals go to ?

FOSS is google's best friend, just not in public.

myrtle1908

March 20th, 2009, 05:49 AM

On Windows Chrome is fast...but that is about the only game it can play, as of yet anyway.

Even if/when Chrome comes to Linux-I'll probably play with it for all of 5 minutes before uninstalling it.

In the great words of the thoughtful philosopher: "Meh".

For DOM/AJAX heavy *applications* Chrome is absolutely outstanding. I have written extremely complex web based applications and Chrome eats them up. I long for the day when other browser vendors implement something similar to the V8 JS engine that Chrome sports.

gnomeuser

March 20th, 2009, 07:30 AM

While I am eagerly awaiting a proper Chrome for Linux I can perfectly understand that Google elected to prioritize Windows. It is by far the biggest marketshare, it is where they should put in their effort.

I also understand that the delays to support Linux and OS X are not malice but a fundamental need to support some of the core features of Chrome on other systems as well as polishing up their code to be truly 64bit safe. To make the per tab process stuff work on Windows they did some rather interesting deep hacking into the Windows kernel. This work doesn't just translate over night into Linux, they need to research and develop a solution they feel comfortable with claiming equals those features on Windows.

If Google truly didn't care about Linux they would merely claim that it was not of interest to them to port, instead they pay people to do that work.

sim-value

March 20th, 2009, 07:36 AM

Probably they are still strugling with the Spy or "market analysis" features of Chrome ...

The Government of Germany is not advicing to Use Chrome cause of Privacy Issues ...

wmcbrine

March 20th, 2009, 09:20 AM

I long for the day when other browser vendors implement something similar to the V8 JS engine that Chrome sports.http://andreasgal.com/2008/09/03/tracemonkey-vs-v8/

I think this will be in Firefox 3.1? This is more interesting to me than Chrome.

pwnst*r

March 20th, 2009, 11:48 AM

chrome is very good under windows. so good, it's my preferred browser before FF and Safari. btw, Safari is very good too, but has a tendency to crash once in a blue moon on this, my third new install, second OS. it is beta though, so no worries.

etnlIcarus

March 20th, 2009, 11:58 AM

I agree with the general sentiment in this thread: Google went where the market share told them was a safe bet and there's nothing wrong with that.

However...

Considering the increasingly competitive nature of Google and MS' relationship, I must admit I would have loved it if Google's latest and greatest hype-machines treated Windows as a second-class citizen. Chrome could have been the beginning of the nastiest, dirtiest and most entertaining corporate PR-war in history.

bigbrovar

March 20th, 2009, 12:32 PM

geoken

March 20th, 2009, 01:39 PM

But we are not talking about a company with cash flow problems are we ? The 'Summer of Code' is not about 'where the money is' so where did all the pureness of innovation and FOSS ideals go to ?

FOSS is google's best friend, just not in public.

It's beginning to seem like you don't know exactly what the summer of code is.

The summer of code is not Google inviting foss developers to come over and work on their preferred projects for free. The summer of code is where Google pays projects so they can hire extra developers to advance their code base. This is a mutually beneficial arrangement. Google gets to push a desirable product to the level where it's usable (presumably by them) and the project gets some free manpower to help advance their project. A lot of the features you use every day on your desktop are the direct result of Summer of code interns implementing features that the core devs didn't have time to write.

It basically sounds like you're whining because your dad gave you money to go to the movies but didn't give you a ride. Google did 80% of the work for you, but you complain that they didn't do the last 20%. The chrome source is there for anyone to develop. Google didn't invest in the source, then somehow steal it. All the foss developers who repeatedly claim they could perfect flash if Adobe made it open source are free to create their own chrome based browser.

Dr Small

March 20th, 2009, 01:55 PM

Why do we like to kid our selves with the believe that google is a friend of the linux desktop, and would side with linux against windows. Google's only friend is profit. tell me how many google apps runs natively on linux? name one . just one.
Let's see:
GoogleSketchup ... err, nope.
GoogleEarth ... hmm, nope.
Chrome ... tsk, nope.

I don't know any other Google products though, since I quit being their information friend a long time ago. The Opensource community keeps shouting that Google is their friend, and even though they are a large corporation, we should befriend them. But, if they are so friendly to opensource and the community, I should expect that they would listen the requests of the user and make their products Linux compatible; thus far, I have not seen this.

Tibuda

March 20th, 2009, 02:02 PM

BGFG

March 20th, 2009, 02:04 PM

It's beginning to seem like you don't know exactly what the summer of code is.

The summer of code is not Google inviting foss developers to come over and work on their preferred projects for free. The summer of code is where Google pays projects so they can hire extra developers to advance their code base. This is a mutually beneficial arrangement. Google gets to push a desirable product to the level where it's usable (presumably by them) and the project gets some free manpower to help advance their project. A lot of the features you use every day on your desktop are the direct result of Summer of code interns implementing features that the core devs didn't have time to write.

It basically sounds like you're whining because your dad gave you money to go to the movies but didn't give you a ride. Google did 80% of the work for you, but you complain that they didn't do the last 20%. The chrome source is there for anyone to develop. Google didn't invest in the source, then somehow steal it. All the foss developers who repeatedly claim they could perfect flash if Adobe made it open source are free to create their own chrome based browser.

Sure i know what it is, Heavy R&D for chump change. then no pesky copyrights to deal with. And all the new project code is NOT stored on google servers i suppose.

Gnomeuser makes a very good point, but so does bigbrovar. The only google app given priority in linux is the one where we send info to google servers.

Dr Small

March 20th, 2009, 02:06 PM

All their web applications: Gmail, Google Docs, Calendar, Maps...
I am guessing that the source code is readily available for these platform independant applications?

bigbrovar

March 20th, 2009, 02:09 PM

All their web applications: Gmail, Google Docs, Calendar, Maps... oh really did you say web application .. i thought that ran on a browser not on the Natively on the os .. Hmmm Weird

pdoma

March 20th, 2009, 02:14 PM

You know we have a such a large community here if every one of us send out one email to google saying that we WANT chrome for linux. I think it would open a few eyes at google.

Mehall

March 20th, 2009, 02:17 PM

To all those stating we're less than 1% market: true. But how much of the 89.something% of MS users will try out Chrome?

If they released a Linux version, most everyone would at least try for a while, whereas most Windows users don't know what a browser is, they just access the internet.

gnomeuser

March 20th, 2009, 02:21 PM

Why do we like to kid our selves with the believe that google is a friend of the linux desktop, and would side with linux against windows. Google's only friend is profit. tell me how many google apps runs natively on linux? name one . just one.

Where they can, they tend to support open standards and implement them in existing applications for Linux users since we tend to like what we have. They even encourage and often pay for (via SoC) to have those features supported in other applications. There is no official GoogleTalk client for Linux but we can use all the features in pretty much any im client now.

ebharv

March 20th, 2009, 02:21 PM

Someone correct me if I am wrong,but I do not think Mac even has a google chrome yet <.<.

Oh and I think Firefox was first built on Mac <.<.(just a guess really )

Anyways I don't really care as I have found a nice tweak to make firefox run at a nice speed. After I found this I found no interest in google chrome lol.

This probably isn't the place for this but what's the Firefox tweak. I tried Chrome on M$ and while it was fast, it just didn't move me. It seemed to be the best of all browsers thrown into one package. So I removed it and went back to Firefox whenever I just happen to be in Windows.

I would like to try this "tweak" out though.

Closed_Port

March 20th, 2009, 02:24 PM

Why do we like to kid our selves with the believe that google is a friend of the linux desktop, and would side with linux against windows. Google's only friend is profit. tell me how many google apps runs natively on linux? name one . just one.

http://earth.google.com/download-earth.html
http://code.google.com/p/google-gadgets-for-linux/
http://gears.google.com/

They are working on chrome:
https://launchpad.net/~chromium-daily/+archive/ppa

Oh, and they put a lot of effort and code into wine to make it run picasa:
http://picasa.google.com/linux/

Add to this something like http://code.google.com/soc/ and you have to come to the conclusion that google really is THE 3VIL!11!!11

BGFG

March 20th, 2009, 02:30 PM

You know we have a such a large community here if every one of us send out one email to google saying that we WANT chrome for linux. I think it would open a few eyes at google.

Ahh, but i don't. What really spurred me to start this thread was happening across a site that spoke of a 2.0 versions of chrome being uber fast and i thought, WTF. People in Linux are still waiting for 1.0

Now take this with a pinch of salt: IF google really runs a custom Linux distro in house, then i would assume that their programming might would be able to design their apps, I single out Sketchup, to run on GNU/Linux. But IF, lets say for speed stability and security, they use linux, THE FREE OS in house, then spend all their efforts coding for another platform, I think that is a slap in the face.

gnomeuser

March 20th, 2009, 02:31 PM

To all those stating we're less than 1% market: true. But how much of the 89.something% of MS users will try out Chrome?

You would be surprised, Chrome has proven to be very popular and Google are pushing it very hard even going so far as to making OEM deals to have it preinstalled on new machines.

Everyone I have shown Chrome have been greatly impressed and have switched, most keep Firefox or IE as a secondary browser since there are still things that doesn't work just right in Chrome but it is their primary browser.

Even the most humble current estimates give Chrome a total of 1% of the marketshare for browsers (measured on non-tech sites so we assume average users, tech sites naturally have a higher Chrome rate). That is already pretty much the same number as they could get if every Linux user switched (using the above estimate). The number is going to increase rapidly as Google continues to expose Chrome especially when the OEM deals start rolling in.

Dr Small

March 20th, 2009, 02:36 PM

You know we have a such a large community here if every one of us send out one email to google saying that we WANT chrome for linux. I think it would open a few eyes at google.
I don't think it would, honestly.

Closed_Port

March 20th, 2009, 02:46 PM

What really spurred me to start this thread was happening across a site that spoke of a 2.0 versions of chrome being uber fast and i thought, WTF. People in Linux are still waiting for 1.0

There are of course two very obvious problems with your "reasoning".
1. You rely on version numbers. Something that is pretty random.

For example, if google hadn't called the current stable version of chrome 1.0 but let's say 0.5, was working on a 1.0 release on windows and simultanously working on a linux port (as they do now), would you also blame them?

2. You seem to think that the linux version will not be based on the latest code but on what is released as 1.0 on windows. If you'd bother to research the matter for a second before going on a rant, you would have found that you are mistaken. So no matter how they will label the releases on windows, when the linux port comes out it will be up to date.

3. You don't seem to have the slightest grasp about what the actual news was with the chrome beta. It wasn't that they have a development version people could run, they had that all along, but that they now started to put something in the beta channel as opposed to the dev channel. You of course now that you can subscribe to different update channels in chrome, don't you?

BGFG

March 20th, 2009, 02:47 PM

BGFG

March 20th, 2009, 02:50 PM

There are of course two very obvious problems with your "reasoning".
1. You rely on version numbers. Something that is pretty random.

For example, if google hadn't called the current stable version of chrome 1.0 but let's say 0.5, was working on a 1.0 release on windows and simultanously working on a linux port (as they do now), would you also blame them?

2. You seem to think that the linux version will not be based on the latest code but on what is released as 1.0 on windows. If you'd bother to research the matter for a second before going on a rant, you would have found that you are mistaken. So no matter how they will label the releases on windows, when the linux port comes out it will be up to date.

3. You don't seem to have the slightest grasp about what the actual news was with the chrome beta. It wasn't that they have a development version people could run, they had that all along, but that they now started to put something in the beta channel as opposed to the dev channel. You of course now that you can subscribe to different update channels in chrome, don't you?

Actually, I argee on that. I do think that the Linux/Mac releases will be up to date. Was just posing food for thought.
Version numbers are relative Gnome 2.30=3.0 etc.

tbroderick

March 20th, 2009, 02:54 PM

Sure i know what it is, Heavy R&D for chump change. then no pesky copyrights to deal with. And all the new project code is NOT stored on google servers i suppose.

The "chump change" is for students to gain real world experience developing open source software while earning a stipend. The impact good be huge. Many of those students will continue developing for the organizations that mentored them during the SoC project or other open source projects.

Copyrights are determined by the organization the student is working for as is the open source license. So it's possible that the student can retain copyright.

And SoC project code is hosted at code.google.com

FYI, Ubuntu has participated in SoC, and I believe one of the students created the KDE frontend to gdebi.

geoken

March 20th, 2009, 02:58 PM

Sure i know what it is, Heavy R&D for chump change. then no pesky copyrights to deal with. And all the new project code is NOT stored on google servers i suppose.

Yeah, cause the heavy R&D that went previous projects like voice recognition gnome applets, face tagging in F-Spot, GDM compositing, Anjuta plugins, Rhythmbox plugins, etc. all directly helped Google.

BGFG

March 20th, 2009, 03:00 PM

Yeah, cause the heavy R&D that went previous projects like voice recognition gnome applets, face tagging in F-Spot, GDM compositing, Anjuta plugins, Rhythmbox plugins, etc. all directly helped Google.

Points Taken :)

bruno9779

March 20th, 2009, 03:01 PM

Google tools suck

geoken

March 20th, 2009, 03:05 PM

Copyrights are determined by the organization the student is working for as is the open source license. So it's possible that the student can retain copyright.

Not only possible. If you're being mentored by Google itself, then you own the copyright by default. The basic heierarchy is;

1) The project owns the copyright and determines the license
2) If they wave the copyright you own the copyright. If they don't specify a license you can choose any OSI approved license.

As mentioned earlier, Google falls into option #2, so anyone writing code for them retains the copyright personally.

Skripka

March 20th, 2009, 03:08 PM

Except that it isn't. Chrome for Linux is being actively developed. Can we try to stick to facts instead of accusing them of what you think they might do? Innocent until proven guilty, and all that.

It is being so actively developed that they are not just one, but nearing two full versions released behind windows.

Innocent until proven guilty, yes-but at what point will they start merging feature-sets in an effort to keep up....granted Google software/services are usually in perpetual beta, but this seems to be in perpetual alpha. These are honest questions to wonder about. Granted this hasn't been going on yet long enough to start making allusions to GNU/HURD development....but....

geoken

March 20th, 2009, 03:16 PM

I also wanted to point out that all the other Google apps (like Picasa, SketchUp, Earth) were not built buy Google. They were bought by Google. The major apps they have built (gears, chrome) are all cross platform (either now or in the near future).

The have made significant contributions to the WINE project to get their other apps working.

simtaalo

March 20th, 2009, 03:21 PM

i know this will sound conspircy theorist, and guys please forgive me in advance, but i honestly think that the delay may have to do with the UNIX/unixlike heritage of mac and GNU/linux making it difficult to datamine. Plus, many users in this community in particular have the technical ability to scrutinise code on a foundation level and that may pose a problem.

I said it. please don't be too harsh in your rebuttle.

so there's no users of windows that could scrutinise code?

i don't get how people can be wary of the data mining issues, the browser is open-source, if they do put that stuff in we can just rip it out. i don't see the problem.

geoken

March 20th, 2009, 03:22 PM

It is being so actively developed that they are not just one, but nearing two full versions released behind windows.

What's the difference? The core is the same across all browsers. When chrome Linux is done it isn't going to be using the core from Chrome 1.0.

It would be like making a front end for ffmpeg, then claiming that you're app is x versions behind the CLI ffmpeg since you're only on 0.1 and ffmpeg is on 0.5.

Vadi

March 20th, 2009, 04:03 PM

Linux marketshare is only 0.86%

Why should Google care?

Because it earned them insane amounts of money. At least one thing they can do is bother to make their products cross-platform.

(fyi, the first Google logo was made in Gimp. They even published the .xcf file to it)

Tibuda

March 20th, 2009, 05:33 PM

(fyi, the first Google logo was made in Gimp. They even published the .xcf file to it)Link?

mc4100

March 20th, 2009, 05:47 PM

Link?

http://web.archive.org/web/19990224043535/www.google.com/stickers.html

swoll1980

March 20th, 2009, 06:56 PM

[inserts tongue into cheek]OMG Google bashing!!1!1!11[removes tongue from cheek]

Twitch6000

March 20th, 2009, 08:35 PM

This probably isn't the place for this but what's the Firefox tweak. I tried Chrome on M$ and while it was fast, it just didn't move me. It seemed to be the best of all browsers thrown into one package. So I removed it and went back to Firefox whenever I just happen to be in Windows.

I would like to try this "tweak" out though.

Here it is - http://www.ubuntugeek.com/speed-up-firefox-web-browser.html

I will admit it doesn't make it as fast as google chrome,but just about.

Lets just say its as fast as I would want firefox to be :D .

pwnst*r

March 21st, 2009, 01:28 AM

Lets just say its as fast as I would want firefox to be :D .

lol? so you're saying you wouldn't want an application to run faster than it already may or may not be?

Sinkingships7

March 21st, 2009, 01:56 AM

Well as many of others have said I don't blame Google for releasing Chrome for Windows first. It makes perfect sense marketing wise.

Well, I mean, you'd think so. But when it comes down to it, a lot of computer illiterate people use Windows, along with other people who otherwise don't care what browser they use. I think a good marketing strategy would be to market to people who can truly appreciate good technology when they see it. If Chrome was released to us nerds, then the way we advocate it to the rest of the public would be devastatingly superior than anything Windows-only users could muster.

On top of that, a lot of us are hackers, and can help with the coding.

Twitch6000

March 21st, 2009, 02:21 AM

lol? so you're saying you wouldn't want an application to run faster than it already may or may not be?

Where the... no how the hell did you come up with that??

If I didn't want it to run faster I would have never looked for the tweak in the first place :roll: .

cardinals_fan

March 21st, 2009, 02:27 AM

If Chrome was released to us nerds, then the way we advocate it to the rest of the public would be devastatingly superior than anything Windows-only users could muster.

Because Linux users have such a strong history of successes in the marketing department... :rolleyes:

Evangelism and apathy are both bad marketing routes, and I have seen little else from Linux users. I proudly practice the latter.

Positive "reviews" from well-known tech "journalists" (both terms used in the loosest possible sense) are the best marketing any software firm can hope for, and they are unlikely to happen without a solid Windows release.

Where the... no how the hell did you come up with that??

If I didn't want it to run faster I would have never looked for the tweak in the first place :roll: .
Your grammar was off. You said:

Lets just say its as fast as I would want firefox to be :D .
That would mean that you wouldn't want Firefox to have any more speed.

gnomeuser

March 21st, 2009, 04:43 AM

In the recent pwn2own contest Chrome is now the only one still standing (http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2009/03/chrome-is-the-only-browser-left-standing-in-pwn2own-contest.ars). Attesting to the validity of it's security design.

mobilediesel

March 21st, 2009, 12:51 PM

First of all, Chrome is definitely in development for both OS X and Linux, they've confirmed this numerous times.

Except that it isn't. Chrome for Linux is being actively developed. Can we try to stick to facts instead of accusing them of what you think they might do? Innocent until proven guilty, and all that.

Interesting that there's no release date. I've also not found an *estimated* release date for Chrome for Linux.

I'd love to see a link where Google confirmed that they are working on Chrome for Linux.

Tibuda

March 21st, 2009, 01:06 PM

I'd love to see a link where Google confirmed that they are working on Chrome for Linux.They got a working native alpha release, which can be installed via a PPA repository. I have installed it, have seen what worked and what was not implemented yet, and uninstalled it.

pwnst*r

March 21st, 2009, 01:38 PM

Interesting that there's no release date. I've also not found an *estimated* release date for Chrome for Linux.

I'd love to see a link where Google confirmed that they are working on Chrome for Linux.

why would they bother stating that here (http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/linux.html)

bigbrovar

March 21st, 2009, 01:51 PM

http://earth.google.com/download-earth.html
http://code.google.com/p/google-gadgets-for-linux/
http://gears.google.com/

They are working on chrome:
https://launchpad.net/~chromium-daily/+archive/ppa

Oh, and they put a lot of effort and code into wine to make it run picasa:
http://picasa.google.com/linux/

Add to this something like http://code.google.com/soc/ and you have to come to the conclusion that google really is THE 3VIL!11!!11

Dude i think the key word is Native .. as in runs without wine.. for heck sake i could run the windows version of picasa on wine already.

Closed_Port

March 21st, 2009, 02:11 PM

Dude i think the key word is Native .. as in runs without wine.. for heck sake i could run the windows version of picasa on wine already.
Dude, ffs, with the exception of Picasa, which I explicitly noted as using wine, they are all native. Get a freaking clue!

Edit:
Oh and before I forget, you couldn't run Picassa in wine already at least not as good as it runs now. That's why google contributed quite a lot of code to wine to make it work. But then I guess, contribution code to an open source project is considered evil now...

rasmus91

March 21st, 2009, 02:26 PM

Why should Google care?

I think google cares a lot. Maybe they see that theres not a big need for better web browsers on Linux.

And about them not caring about Linux generally:

Also most recently Google has begun to fund Wine, which acts as a compatibility layer, allowing users to run some Windows programs under Linux.

taken from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux#Market_share_and_uptake

Skripka

March 21st, 2009, 02:41 PM

Dude, ffs, with the exception of Picasa, which I explicitly noted as using wine, they are all native. Get a freaking clue!

Edit:
Oh and before I forget, you couldn't run Picassa in wine already at least not as good as it runs now. That's why google contributed quite a lot of code to wine to make it work. But then I guess, contribution code to an open source project is considered evil now...

Not entirely, they don't make 64bit native versions of their apps-and you have to edit 32bit PKGBUILDs to get them to compile.

kaixi

March 22nd, 2009, 09:25 PM

To all the fellow Ubuntu users who are defending Google:

Google is not a real friend of Linux, they're a big corporation and they're only interested in making a big profit. IMHO, they're clever people trying to take advantage of the Linux community; having people developing open source apps so that later they can take the code for free..

Just look at what they did to Mozilla. Once Google learned everything they could about how to make a good browser from Mozilla they abandoned them and made Google Chrome (which despite being open source, still doesn't have a fully working version for Linux)

Summing up, I wouldn't be surprised to see Google releasing their own operating system once they've stolen all the code from Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, etc. After that, as usual, they will claim they've built the best OS in the world from scratch and they will stop supporting Linux.

Believe me, deep down Google isn't different to any other corporations such as Apple or MS.

speedwell68

March 22nd, 2009, 09:39 PM

I have used Google Chrome in XP. I use XP for testing websites, basically my XP install is only there for testing in windows only browsers. My point is this....

...Chrome sucks.:D

Closed_Port

March 22nd, 2009, 09:50 PM

Just look at what they did to Mozilla. Once Google learned everything they could about how to make a good browser from Mozilla they abandoned them and made Google Chrome (which despite being open source, still doesn't have a fully working version for Linux)

1. It is the defining principle of free software that others can use your code.
2. Chrome uses webkit and it's own javascript engine. They didn't take anything from Mozilla.
3. Mozilla made and continues to make millions working together with google. Why should that be a bad thing?

Vadi

March 22nd, 2009, 10:47 PM

I think you misread "Once Google learned everything they could about how to make a good browser from Mozilla".

JackieChan

March 22nd, 2009, 10:48 PM

I love using Chrome on Windows because it alerts me of sites that contain harmful software. FireFox could probably do this too with a proper add-ons, but I'm too lazy to look for them. Besides, I just love Google to pieces and love supporting them.

Chrome isn't as good as Flock or FireFox, and it lacks a lot of the important extensions and add-ons that FireFox has, but it's certainly better than Opera and Internet Explorer.

Closed_Port

March 22nd, 2009, 10:51 PM

I think you misread "Once Google learned everything they could about how to make a good browser from Mozilla".

When talking about Debian, etc. late he's specifically mentioning code, isn't he?

I also couldn't for the life of me figure out what else he could have meant, seeing how different chrome is from firefox, but maybe someone can enlighten me as to what they took from mozilla.

etnlIcarus

March 24th, 2009, 01:41 PM

I love using Chrome on Windows because it alerts me of sites that contain harmful software. FireFox could probably do this too with a proper add-ons, but I'm too lazy to look for them.

This has been in Firefox since the 2.0 release (http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/phishing-protection/). Hell, it even gets it's definitions from the exact same source Google (the search engine) and Chrome do.

Anyway, just playing with a Chromium nightly. Something I like: no statusbar - instead, a tooltip appears in the bottom left corner of the window whenever I mouseover a link. Something I don't like: I thought it's supposed to use native GTK+ widgets? What's with the full-skin?

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/2366/screenshotnqc.th.png (http://img4.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screenshotnqc.png)

Giant Speck

March 24th, 2009, 02:15 PM

Well, with the Chromium Nightly, I can't get a tab-bar, and I can't open anything from the... uh... I'm just going to call it the "wrench menu".

Mr. Picklesworth

March 24th, 2009, 02:32 PM

Anyway, just playing with a Chromium nightly. Something I like: no statusbar - instead, a tooltip appears in the bottom left corner of the window whenever I mouseover a link. Something I don't like: I thought it's supposed to use native GTK+ widgets? What's with the full-skin?[/URL]

You're playing with the Chromium nightly, not Chrome for Linux. (Yes, Google did a rather clumsy job differentiating the two). Chrome for Linux with real GTK widgets doesn't exist for us mortals yet.

etnlIcarus

March 24th, 2009, 02:35 PM

It should probably be named the, "wrench menu", formally. For some reason I'm imagining Arnold Schwartzenegger yelling, "Click tha wrench!"

You're playing with the Chromium nightly, not Chrome for Linux. (Yes, Google did a rather clumsy job differentiating the two). Chrome for Linux with real GTK widgets doesn't exist for us mortals yet.As I understand it, Google is simply waiting for the Chromium project to mature before slapping a Google sticker on it and calling it Chrome for *nix.

GepettoBR

March 24th, 2009, 02:54 PM

It should probably be named the, "wrench menu", formally. For some reason I'm imagining Arnold Schwartzenegger yelling, "Click tha wrench!"
As I understand it, Google is simply waiting for the Chromium project to mature before slapping a Google sticker on it and calling it Chrome for *nix.
I thought Chromium was just a single-package Wine+Chrome of sorts. It certainly looks identical to Chrome on windows, though in my experience it runs a lot slower.

I love using Chrome on Windows because it alerts me of sites that contain harmful software. FireFox could probably do this too with a proper add-ons, but I'm too lazy to look for them. Besides, I just love Google to pieces and love supporting them.

Chrome isn't as good as Flock or FireFox, and it lacks a lot of the important extensions and add-ons that FireFox has, but it's certainly better than Opera and Internet Explorer.
Wow, you seriously think that Chrome is better than Opera? The only reason I haven't ditched Firefox for Opera is StumbleUpon...

Honestly, though, from a strictly end-user point of view I think that Chrome is at IE level, far far below Firefox, Opera and Safari. I dual-boot XP for the sake of gaming and Photoshop (CS3 is Hell in Wine) and for the heck of it I have all 5 installed on my XP partition. Here's what I think of Chrome:

The bookmarks are horrible to manage and there's no easily discoverable way to disable the bookmarks bar permanently.
The menu is not user-friendly at all.
It's faster than IE and Safari, but there isn't any significant difference from Firefox or Opera, except for being much faster than FF in loading large Java content.
I store my data in an ext3 partition and use FS-Driver on Windows, for some reason Chrome is the only browser that can't save anything directly to that partition - I have to save to the Windows partition first, then move it over, which means no large downloads for me. I find it peculiar that IE is actually better at working with a UNIX filesystem than Google's product.
Except for Safari, it is the least customizable browser of them all (yes, even less than IE - in IE I can at least drag the buttons around)

The only big advantage I see in Chrome is that it starts up very quickly. The launch time is comparable to Internet Explorer, and when you remember that half of IE's code is already preloaded when Windows boots, that's really amazing. Still, I think it has a loooong ways to go before I consider using it seriously.

Sure, you may argue that the engine is better and that it's safer, but that doesn't really show to the end-user. And since my main platform is Linux anyways, an up-to-date Firefox and properly configured iptables are more than enough to protect my data. I'm not a part of the tinfoil hat crowd.

While I think that Google should be less of a hypocrite (and that could go either way - either they stop singing about how they love Linux or they act on it) I don't really care if Chrome ever makes it to Linux.

And about the Google apps running natively, I'm perfectly satisfied with Google's Picasa approach of investing in Wine compatibility. The end result is the same, it's easier for them to maintain the application, the benefits to Wine code end up affecting other Windows apps as well and in the end it's profit for everyone. uTorrent announces on their front page that they work on Windows and Wine, and I don't hear any complaints about them making a Linux-native version. Why should we be less lenient with Google when tey actually pay other people to make FOSS better?

Icehuck

March 24th, 2009, 03:18 PM

And about the Google apps running natively, I'm perfectly satisfied with Google's Picasa approach of investing in Wine compatibility. The end result is the same, it's easier for them to maintain the application, the benefits to Wine code end up affecting other Windows apps as well and in the end it's profit for everyone. uTorrent announces on their front page that they work on Windows and Wine, and I don't hear any complaints about them making a Linux-native version. Why should we be less lenient with Google when tey actually pay other people to make FOSS better?

I'm actually not happy with this approach of getting apps on Linux. Why should I have to use an emulator? Yes wine is an emulator, since its not Windows and in pretends to be Windows. Since Wine changes all the time it has a chance of breaking other programs if you upgrade. However, you need to upgrade it to use other software.

No one complains about Utorrent because people would rather use Deluge, Ktorrent, or whatever. I think Deluge runs much better then Utorrent ever could.

GepettoBR

March 24th, 2009, 03:29 PM

I'm actually not happy with this approach of getting apps on Linux. Why should I have to use an emulator? Yes wine is an emulator, since its not Windows and in pretends to be Windows. Since Wine changes all the time it has a chance of breaking other programs if you upgrade. However, you need to upgrade it to use other software.

No one complains about Utorrent because people would rather use Deluge, Ktorrent, or whatever. I think Deluge runs much better then Utorrent ever could.

No, Wine isn't an emulator. Your definition of "emulator" is incomplete and oversimplified. Wine should be thought of more as an interpreter. Read this page for more info: http://www.winehq.org/myths

Also, I believe you're referring to the development versions of Wine, which IIRC are bi-weekly. There is no guarantee that they won't break anything, but that's because they aren't the stable release. You also need newer versions of windows to run newer Windows software, and they also break compatibility with older software - the difference is that Windows' release cycle is seven years long.

meho_r

March 24th, 2009, 03:38 PM

Please enlighten me: If I have Firefox with a million addons which works fine and is developed for Linux and not in a manner of side-product, why should I care about Chrome which may or may not be developed for Linux at all? And if speed is the only thing it's better in than Firefox/Opera/IE etc., why shouldn't I use Midori (http://www.twotoasts.de/index.php?/pages/midori_summary.html) instead? It IS, after all, faster than any browser around.

Skripka

March 24th, 2009, 03:50 PM

Please enlighten me: If I have Firefox with a million addons which works fine and is developed for Linux and not in a manner of side-product, why should I use Chrome which may or may not be developed for Linux at all? And if speed is the only thing it's better in it than Firefox/Opera/IE etc., why shouldn't I use Midori (http://www.twotoasts.de/index.php?/pages/midori_summary.html) instead? It IS, after all, faster than any browser around.

Firefox really isn't that developed for Linux either, as it is anything but optimized-it is more an afterthought.

Midori/Arora are faster and lighter weight. And I use Arora.

Icehuck

March 24th, 2009, 04:10 PM

Also, I believe you're referring to the development versions of Wine, which IIRC are bi-weekly. There is no guarantee that they won't break anything, but that's because they aren't the stable release. You also need newer versions of windows to run newer Windows software, and they also break compatibility with older software - the difference is that Windows' release cycle is seven years long.

Except I can run Windows 95 apps on Windows 7. Tested this with Office 97 which was made for Win95. That would be 5 new releases of Windows(counting Windows 7) that it worked with. Not that I would it's just that I could.

As to stable releases of Wine those only existed less then a year ago. I admit I haven't used Wine since about that time, however; I'm sure each stable version still has regressions. Why? We don't have access to the Windows API to check to see exactly what it does. Especially when they release newer versions of Windows.

GepettoBR

March 24th, 2009, 04:26 PM

Well, some software works and some doesn't. I can't run Monkey's Island 2 on Windows XP 64-bit Edition because it goes insanely fast and there's no proper way to clock it.

I do't know how we got sidetracked into discussing wine itself instead of Google supporting Wine instead of native, but back on topic:

Wine offers speed and responsiveness that rivals and sometimes exceeds the speed and responsiveness of the exact same software on Windows. If it's easier for Google to develop Picasa with Wine in mind, since it will be only one version to maintain and not two, if all it takes for you is to install one small package that many people already have anyways (yes, msot people don't - it's still widely available, small and easy to install) and if in the end it will work just as well as a native program, then why not?

That's not the ideal solution, of course, but it's fine as far as I'm concerned.

Methuselah

March 24th, 2009, 07:03 PM

Aaah...chrome...the putrid smell of more google spyware.
One recommendation, always read googles TOSs and be sure to turn of certain rather err..chatty default options in their software.

BGFG

March 29th, 2009, 02:39 AM

Aaah...chrome...the putrid smell of more google spyware.
One recommendation, always read googles TOSs and be sure to turn of certain rather err..chatty default options in their software.

Indeed, i recently installed sketchup in XP and was shocked at the amount of outgoing connections my firewall intercepted and I subsequently denied. I know that you can build and download components but the amount of traffic generated was ridiculous.

Onoskelis

March 29th, 2009, 02:54 AM

I love Google Chrome. Currently using the Chrome 2.0 beta and it is already noticeably faster than it's first release. In fact, I'd say it's the fastest browser out right now.

Giant Speck

March 29th, 2009, 04:42 AM

I love Google Chrome. Currently using the Chrome 2.0 beta and it is already noticeably faster than it's first release. In fact, I'd say it's the fastest browser out right now.

I like the fact I can finally use the middle mouse button in Chrome.

The only thing now that irks me is the fact I can't use keyboard shortcuts while typing on forum WYSIWYG editors.

GepettoBR

March 29th, 2009, 03:23 PM

I like the fact I can finally use the middle mouse button in Chrome.

The only thing now that irks me is the fact I can't use keyboard shortcuts while typing on forum WYSIWYG editors.

Seriously? For how many years have other browsers had this feature and Chrome still hasn't caught up.

Giant Speck

March 29th, 2009, 03:27 PM

Seriously? For how many years have other browsers had this feature and Chrome still hasn't caught up.

I can't tell if that's supposed to be a joke comparing Chrome to Internet Explorer or if you're actually serious...

GepettoBR

March 29th, 2009, 03:29 PM

I can't tell if that's supposed to be a joke comparing Chrome to Internet Explorer or if you're actually serious...

Both. I haven't used Chrome 2.0 but the lack of middle-clicking did annoy me in the first version, like you pointed out. What's the point of releasing a browser that lacks certain basic features that everyone expects?

Mr. Picklesworth

March 29th, 2009, 03:38 PM

Both. I haven't used Chrome 2.0 but the lack of middle-clicking did annoy me in the first version, like you pointed out. What's the point of releasing a browser that lacks certain basic features that everyone expects?

It's a browser, not a legal paper?

Giant Speck

March 29th, 2009, 03:43 PM

GepettoBR

March 29th, 2009, 03:55 PM

Because the main focus of the first release was stability, not features.

"Main focus" doesn't equate to "single focus". Middle-clicking is a basic, easy-to-implement feature. It's just another hotkey. I'm not talking about anything complex or extraordinary like a popup-blocker - just the ability to use the middle button on my mouse for something, like every other browser out there (even Internet Explorer, for crying out loud) has. It seems rather unprofessional to me that they would leave that out.

cdwillis

March 29th, 2009, 04:03 PM

Google is not a real friend of Linux, they're a big corporation and they're only interested in making a big profit. IMHO, they're clever people trying to take advantage of the Linux community; having people developing open source apps so that later they can take the code for free..

Isn't the Google Summer of Code one of the biggest contributions to the GNU/Linux movement (in general)?

Just look at what they did to Mozilla. Once Google learned everything they could about how to make a good browser from Mozilla they abandoned them and made Google Chrome (which despite being open source, still doesn't have a fully working version for Linux)They haven't abandoned Mozilla... yet.

Summing up, I wouldn't be surprised to see Google releasing their own operating system once they've stolen all the code from Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, etc. After that, as usual, they will claim they've built the best OS in the world from scratch and they will stop supporting Linux. I'm sure it would just be Google Linux and they could get more marketshare for us than any other method I can think of. Besides, if they used Linux as the base for their OS it would still have to be released under the GPL.

Believe me, deep down Google isn't different to any other corporations such as Apple or MS.They make money with advertising. I'm not saying they're perfect, but they are a step above Microsoft and Apple in my opinion.