Google Releases Chrome 5.0 For Win/Mac/Linux 347
ddfall writes "Four months after the release of version 4.0 for Windows, Google has announced the availability of Chrome 5.0 for Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux — the first stable release to be available on all three major platforms. Chrome 5.0.375.55 is available to download from google.com/chrome. Users who currently have Chrome installed can use the built-in update function."
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:this is going to be (Score:4, Insightful)
Why not go with Chromium?
Re:yay? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent is not a troll. It's a valid complaint. Displaying the entire URL, including the protocol, is absolutely the standard and should remain that way.
Re:yay? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:yay? (Score:4, Insightful)
Heh. I didn't even realize that. The funny thing is, I have no idea how to upgrade anyway. They don't have the usual File/Edit/View menus. There's just a wrench icon, and it doesn't appear to have any updater under its menu hierarchy.
Googling around (heheh) I found out they left out the F/E/V on purpose. That might make sense for mobile, but I'm using a nice wide LCD with more screen real estate than you can shake a stick at. Without F/E/V I feel like I'm subject to somebody's vision of "clean minimalist design" where they thought they knew what was best for the user. For cryin' out loud, if I wanted to use a Mac I'd already be using one. Hey... maybe it'll automaticly upgrade to 6.0 if I throw it in the recycling bin... no, wait... AHA! The updater is in the "About Chrome" thingy.
Oh sure, bury the updater in the widget that usually just shows copyright info. That's, just... wonderful. To be fair though, interfaces to updaters aren't quite as standard as F/E/V.
Re:yay? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because users who want to know what their browser is doing want to see it, that's why. No other justification is needed.
One of the commenters on the CNET story on the issue compared it to the Windows practice of hiding file extensions, which is a good analogy. We know how well that worked out (click here on mysterious_attachment.doc{.exe} and see what happens!) Sure, the protocol name may be gabble to most users, but at least the information's there, right out front. And occasionally it even leads them to educate themselves, asking a more technically knowledgeable friend, "What is that http thing, anyway?"
Re:Correction (Score:2, Insightful)
Presumably the Synaptic package gizmo does the same things, but I am far too cool for GUIs, so I don't know.
So... if you're too cool for GUIs, tell me, why are you using Google Chrome and not lynx or w3m?
Obligatory Adblock Reply (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:this is going to be (Score:5, Insightful)
Facebook went from being a closed network to an open one with several changes to the privacy controls, that awful Beacon feature, etc. They never back down until there's immense pressure. Usually even then they don't back down entirely. And it's all so they can monetize their site.
Google made a mistake with their wifi collection software and quickly admitted to it when asked about it, then came up with a plan to destroy the data.
How are these two things even remotely similar?
Re:Can it accept add-ons yet? (Score:3, Insightful)
You also dismiss the Javascript blocking because it's all-or-nothing for each site, when OP said: "or at least disable scripts on a per-site level". So you've discounted another feature even though it meets his (minimum) requirement.
If you don't want to use Chrome then fine, but why are you answering on behalf of someone else??
Re:this is going to be (Score:3, Insightful)
which saps my bandwidth on the backend to report my surfing habits back to google.
The whole german wifi debacle is making this company just as hot to handle as facebook.
Several points...
1) If you want to eliminate the "phone home", you can do so very easily under options-->under the hood. Uncheck the top 5 boxes; now your data is secure. This is what I did on a live-boot cd where CPU and bandwidth are at a premium.
2) If you do not feel you can trust that it isnt communicating, you can actually VERIFY that, either through about:net-internals, or wireshark, or netstat, or router logs. Not to mention most of the source is actually AVAILABLE....
3) Google as a whole tends to be in line with foss philosophy. They make it clear what they are after-- your data-- but otherwise they use open protocols, with open access, unlike just about anyone else. Ever try and move your data off of AOL, or Yahoo? Ever try to access hotmail over imap? Ever try and do a contacts export from AOL?
4) If it is really that big of a deal, use Chromium; you really cant complain that that requires blind trust (as it is open source). Of course, note that with any browser, when you use google, you have 90% of the same privacy issues-- most of the Chrome issues stem from auto-suggest.
5) The "wifi debacle" amounted to Google coming out with no prompting or coercion and saying, "We may have goofed and gathered some data, bear with us while we investigate." Thats a lot different than having a leak or getting caught doing something, and I think it is unfair to try to equate them with Facebook. If you're a techie, and have used google products, you KNOW what theyre after anyways, and they generally give you tools to opt out anyways.
Re:this is going to be (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:yay? (Score:5, Insightful)
If Chrome does this, then this is a flaw. Transparent clipboard modification should never be done, by any program.
A (much) better method would be to insert the protocol string when the user clicks on the URL bar.
I can't stand all this extra logic they've stuck into URL bars (and other text fields, for that matter) in the last ten years or so... It's a text entry field, it should act like one. It shouldn't select all when I click on it, it shouldn't try to guess where I want my selection to end, snap it to word boundaries or whatever... And the simplest, most straight-forward way of making the protocol selectable for copy/paste is just to have it in the URL bar in the first place.
Re:yay? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because users who want to know what their browser is doing want to see it, that's why.
That's a pretty small minority -- I've actually seen more people at the other end of the scale, where they don't know what the URL display is at all. If they want to eg check their yahoo mail, they don't go to the URL box and type "mail.yahoo.com", they go to the search box, type "google", search (using google) to find google, click on the first result to get to the google home page, then type "yahoo mail" into that box, search, and click the first result there...
(This is what happens when we train people to follow patterns with no understanding of how it actually works :( )
Re:this is going to be (Score:3, Insightful)
It's the pieces for which source isn't available that worries me.
I mean, would you eat at a place that said "90% of our food is bought from trusted sources"?
Re:yay? (Score:2, Insightful)
Because slashdotters who want to know what their browser is doing want to see it, that's why. No other justification is needed.
There fixed that for ya. The average shmo couldn't care less what their browser is doing as long as the page loads up. Heck I'm willing to bet that that half of slashdot doesn't care either. I for one am interested in 2 things.
:-)
1. Is it SSH encrypted? Browsers make this plainly obvious without the protocol in the address bar.
2. Has the page finished loading? Because it kinda sucks when an button does nothing because the javascript hasn't loaded yet.
Mind you this is semantic drivel since the address bar actually does show in the latest Chrome. But sure let's argue about a supposedly crap feature which was removed from the latest version anyway
wanted feature #1 for me (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll switch to Chrome the day it can support a plugin which can block the downloading of ads and other unwanted content, not just hide them with a bit of CSS and Javascript.
(An adblocking proxy isn't a viable solution for me.)
Re:yay? (Score:1, Insightful)
What's wrong with select all on click? That's normal behavior.
Linux geeks thought it was a smart idea to set that behavior in Firefox only to find the majority of users googling how to change it back, yet they never get the point.