Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Chrome Google Linux

A Mixed Review For Google Chrome On Linux 223

omlx contributes this link to LinuxCrunch's short review of Google Chrome on Linux, writing: "The summary of it is that although Google Chrome is in a beta stage, it is fast, stable, and has a simple, clean, and effective GUI design. On other side, Google Chrome has a small number of extensions, doesn't support RSS, lacks integration with KDE, and doesn't support complex scripts very well. Personally, I didn't succeed in using Flash Player on Google Chrome beta 1 (I am using OpenSUSE 11.2) and I wonder how the quality of Google Chrome OS will be, especially if it's based on Linux and Google Chrome."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Mixed Review For Google Chrome On Linux

Comments Filter:
  • by pclminion ( 145572 ) on Tuesday December 29, 2009 @05:09PM (#30586564)

    What are those dependencies, and how are they licensed? Depending on the license, static linking could force them to open source the entire application.

    This was a continuing source of irritation back when I worked on a closed source Linux app. The glibc people do not give a crap about binary-breaking changes. This resulted in us having to create multiple variants of our product to link against different versions of the runtime libs (in order to support older distros), multiplying our testing efforts by a factor of three. We desperately wanted to just link glibc statically, but that's a no-no because it's LGPL.

  • Re:UI responsiveness (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Hurricane78 ( 562437 ) <deleted.slashdot@org> on Tuesday December 29, 2009 @05:28PM (#30586798)

    I don’t know how many times I have recommended this simple and effective solution to the XUL problem:

    Just compile the damn stuff into something faster! Like a library, but a bit safer (sandboxed).
    Leave the XUL files where they are, monitor them with inotify or at specific events, and re-compile them if they were changed (e.g. by installing a extension. Do not accept pre-compiled stuff in an extension. That way you still get to see all the source.

    There, done. I don’t get what’s so hard about this. The whole parsing and error handling thing is already done. Just walk the tree with functions that replace the nodes with binary code or something alike. And get the dragon book if you haven’t already. :)

  • by eqisow ( 877574 ) on Tuesday December 29, 2009 @05:41PM (#30586930) Homepage

    Last I checked (two months ago?) Chrome had no ad blockng to speak of. Sure, there's AdSweep and AdBlock+, but they just hide ads with CSS, where Firefox stops the ads from ever being downloaded. When I was using Chromium regularly I ended up using Privoxy for ad blocking.

    As I understood the situation at the time, this shortcoming was due to the functionality not being possible in Chrome. So, the browser from the company that sells ads has limited ad blocking functionality. Is anyone really surprised?

  • by __aakdpj1217 ( 1591783 ) on Tuesday December 29, 2009 @06:40PM (#30587906)
    I think you just fail completely at using linux. Why? Well because I'm on OpenSuse 11.2 and have Chrome running. As a matter of fact I'll provide you a picture to prove I'm 11.2, using latest Chrome and w/ working Flash, just so you don't think I'm a troll. As a matter of fact I think this Slashdot news post is from a troll anyways. []
  • Re:Flash not working (Score:3, Interesting)

    by LordLimecat ( 1103839 ) on Tuesday December 29, 2009 @08:21PM (#30589038)
    Who uses flash on youtube if you have chrome? Just install the youtube html5-ifier []. Cuts CPU usage in half, works with most videos, and eliminates the need for flash or extra plugins to download the video-- just rightclick--> save.
  • by pclminion ( 145572 ) on Wednesday December 30, 2009 @02:03PM (#30596878)

    Sorry to sound a bit "curt", but honestly, why don't you just develop your application using something like Intel's Linux compiler?

    I don't see how that would solve the problem, since we'd once again have to distribute the runtime. I didn't even know that ICC supplied its own runtime -- is that even true?

    We weren't trying to weasel our way around license restrictions. We would have been happy to distribute a trimmed runtime and provide source for it, had it been easy enough. I TRIED.

    We made open source contributions on multiple occasions. We found bugs in FreeType, fixed them, submitted patches. We found bugs in Leptonica, fixed them, submitted patches. We made enhancements to jbig2enc which were submitted back. During my last year there we took the plunge and paid $20000 for a commercial license to use xpdf in our product. We found that the error handling wasn't quite how we liked it, so we provided Derek with some suggestions and code, which he reworked in a way he liked a bit better, and put it into xpdf. You get the picture... We were trying to make profit from OUR technology, not by screwing over open source developers. Isn't this the way everyone wants it to work? Aren't we allowed to make profit somehow?

Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons.