Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Google Apple Linux

Google Upgrades Chrome To Beta For OS X, Linux 197

wkurzius writes with this nugget from Mac Rumors: "As anticipated, Google has finally released an official beta version of its Chrome browser for Mac. The initial beta version, termed Build, requires Mac OS X Leopard or Snow Leopard, and is only compatible with Intel-based Macs." And hierofalcon writes with word that Chrome has also been made available as an official Linux Beta.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Upgrades Chrome To Beta For OS X, Linux

Comments Filter:
  • Adblock (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08, 2009 @01:34PM (#30367380)

    Let me know when it gets adblock

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08, 2009 @01:45PM (#30367544)

    Well, no version for MY Linux. I am on CentOS, but I need a zip/tar file that I can install into $HOME. Not ever installing random shit as RPMs, duh.

  • by friedmud ( 512466 ) on Tuesday December 08, 2009 @01:48PM (#30367580)

    In my limited testing with it this morning... I think it is very promising... but I won't quite be switching from Safari on Snow Leopard just yet.

    My main gripe? Scrolling smoothness. It's a small thing... but the jarring scrolling of Chrome is enough to keep me on Safari.

    Other than that I really like the tab tear off system (much better than Safari since you can _reattach_ tabs back into the main window) and the integrated search / location bar (which seems to be able to read my mind...).

    Other than that they are very similar... can anyone spot big differences somewhere? I mean, these days, most browsers are the same. I used to use Firefox for the plugins... but now Firefox, Safari and Chrome all pretty much include the stuff I was using plugins for... so I go with Safari for how well integrated it is with OS X.

    I am glad Google is building a good browser... it will keep everyone on their toes (especially since Microsoft has pretty much bowed out of the next-gen browser market with their unwillingness to implement standards in a timely fashion).

  • by GNUALMAFUERTE ( 697061 ) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <etreufamla>> on Tuesday December 08, 2009 @01:57PM (#30367730)

    The main big issue, is how the company doesn't have an official policy towards local app development.

    When it comes to Google's web apps, you can expect AJAX, DHTML, clean and simple look, etc. OTOH, they local apps all look developed by different companies. They are developing apps in .net (which doesn't make any sense considering where google is standing right now, specially towards microsoft). Their so called "ports" are pathetic. All they do is recompile their apps with the WINE libs. Picasa is an example. And they didn't even test it before releasing, or at least disable the functions that don't work in wine. For example, on Picasa for GNU/Linux, when you click on "make movie" it throws the error "function not available on Windows 2000". They didn't even bother to disable it. If I wanted to run Picasa on Wine, I would just do so. If you provide a port, provide an actual port.

    What really doesn't make sense to me is ... why write applications in non-portable languages/frameworks, and then port them? Why not just go GTK or QT and port it everywhere?

  • Re:Adblock (Score:2, Insightful)

    by dave420 ( 699308 ) on Tuesday December 08, 2009 @02:07PM (#30367872)
    Or just don't go to sites that have advertisements you don't want to see. That seems a bit more fair than using resources of a site you clearly want to visit while denying them income...
  • Re:Adblock (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08, 2009 @02:26PM (#30368138)

    Or just don't go to sites that have advertisements you don't want to see.

    Using psychic powers to determine which ones are going to show you seizure-inducing flashing banners or really loud flash ads or using an ad network that actively attacks your browser to install malware?

    No thanks, I'll stick to using noscript and whitelisting ad agencies that don't try to assault my eyes, ears and computer. If these companies want to profit from me, they'll do the same, or choose a business model that doesn't require me to play along.

  • by Xtifr ( 1323 ) on Tuesday December 08, 2009 @02:52PM (#30368580) Homepage

    Adding its favored repository to your package sources is still several stops short of auto-updating. A bit invasive, perhaps, but hardly what the fear-mongering suggested. I wonder what happens if you run dpkg-reconfigure on the package? If the cron job is only installed automatically when you use default priority (and running dpkg-reconfigure manually automatically switches to low), then I might even have to concede that they did it right.

    If I happen to get bored enough to actually try it rather than just reading about it, I might test this, but don't hold your breath. I'm not really in the market for a new closed-source browser. :)

  • by FictionPimp ( 712802 ) on Tuesday December 08, 2009 @03:05PM (#30368790) Homepage
    Well, I use google calendar, google search, google mail, google voice, google maps... If google doesn't know what I'm doing by now, they are doing something wrong.
  • by Temporal ( 96070 ) on Tuesday December 08, 2009 @03:14PM (#30368912) Journal

    You make it sound evil. Most people don't want to be nagged with constant update reminders. In fact, most people will ignore those reminders, leaving them vulnerable to security exploits. Hence, Google has built an updater which can automatically install updates in the background. Remarkably, it manages to do this without ever asking you to reboot or even to restart the program being updated, which cannot be said of any other software updater I've ever seen.

  • Re:Adblock (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nerdfest ( 867930 ) on Tuesday December 08, 2009 @03:26PM (#30369042)
    I'm not a big fan of their comments either, but I do think that their opinions on privacy and their actions on them are two different things. In my view they haven't crossed into the evil camp, and still have a better record with peoples' privacy than most companies. As always, we should keep an eye on them ...
  • by clone53421 ( 1310749 ) on Tuesday December 08, 2009 @03:30PM (#30369112) Journal

    The complaint is that it is a separate updater process, it runs itself at boot time, and it is difficult to prevent it from doing so.

    Firefox, by comparison, updates itself when it starts up, and periodically checks for updates while you are online.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08, 2009 @04:45PM (#30370054)

    i'm sorry but even if it's google, no company is allowed to install software on my system that is not explicitly disclosed, and no fine print does not count. nor are they allowed to not give me the option to opt out or turn it off.
    if i end up with chrome on my linux box it will be without keystone, even if just to spite them and yourself.

  • by dan325 ( 1221648 ) on Tuesday December 08, 2009 @05:08PM (#30370328)
    I am personally not deeply troubled by this behavior. I like having the latest version of Chrome running on my machine. That being said, they really should let users opt out (or, better yet, make it an opt-in on first launch) of automatic updates. And, to my knowledge the keystone auto updating is the behavior on Mac and Windows. In Linux, it just uses apt. I don't have any issue with the Linux behavior, except that they might add a dialog informing the user that they're modifying /etc/apt/sources.list during the install. You have to remember that there are two sides to this coin: with auto updates turned on, you are vulnerable to any bugs that may be introduced by an update and to any nefarious / evil conduct from Google as darkly insinuated by the above poster. Conversely, without auto updates, you are vulnerable to any security issues that the updates fix. Frankly, the later concerns me a lot more than the former, and I suspect most of the non-tin-foil-hat-wearing community would concur.
  • by Rich0 ( 548339 ) on Tuesday December 08, 2009 @06:20PM (#30371282) Homepage

    I have nothing against an app offering to add itself to the list, but it should ask first. Maybe I trust debian to patch an app more than I trust the guys writing the app?

  • Re:Adblock (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dave420 ( 699308 ) on Wednesday December 09, 2009 @05:43AM (#30375354)
    Then as soon as you see those flash adverts, leave the site, and don't come back. If everyone with AdBlock did that, then the flash adverts would go away, as alternate non-annoying revenue streams are found. You are perpetuating the situation, and rather selfishly at that.
  • by Des Herriott ( 6508 ) on Wednesday December 09, 2009 @08:49AM (#30376070)

    This one's a show-stopper for me (and, I suspect, others). Chrome offers to save your passwords but gives absolutely no protection on the saved password database. The discussion threads I've seen about this suggest that the Chrome devs don't even understand why this is such a serious problem. Chrome has a lot to like, but I'll be sticking to Firefox for now.

Thus spake the master programmer: "When a program is being tested, it is too late to make design changes." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"