I don't know if anyone noticed, the page has an ad link for IE 8.0 at the very top before the article begins. That looked funny.
Google Chrome 3.0
31–40 of 54 posts
Re: Google Chrome 3.0
#32You know what's still missing and I'm surprised... there's no way to see raw headers sent/received in the dev tools!
Is the Resources panel not adequate? Granted, it does format the headers, but it does show the HTTP method, the request headers, and the response headers for the page and each resource.
D'oh! You are absolutely right.
Somehow I've missed that little sub-menu all this time.
Re: Google Chrome 3.0
#33I realize there is probably no place for it in marketing banter, but it bothers me that they don't give the WebKit project any visible credit.
I feel the same about Safari and Webkit towards KHTML.
Back when Safari first came out, there was a lot of credit given to KHTML, and Apple quickly had public-facing Subversion repositories available with full product history so that KHTML could adopt any changes they wanted. Since then, WebKit and KHTML have gone radically different directions, to the point that I'm not honestly sure the latter exists anymore.
Apple, I thought, did the right thing by providing a full hat-tip to KHTML at the time of the fork. I also think their attitude towards KHTML since then has been completely fair.
Re: Google Chrome 3.0
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would steal focus away from Google's promotion of their secret magic sauce that they sprinkle on everything to make it better.
Well, the sauce is nice, but more realistically, why should every story about chrome mention webkit? How could we (google) police that? We mention webkit all the time and , more importantly, try to get our fixes and patches upstream.
I just searched the Chrome blog for "webkit" and here's the results:
http://www.google.com/search?oe=utf8&ie=utf8&source=...
In general I think Google is very good about promoting Open Source awareness, my post was my attempt at humour :D.
Re: Google Chrome 3.0
#35"You shouldn't read too much into Google Chrome's version numbers. Just because you can now install Google Chrome 3.0, it doesn't mean that Google wants to appear more mature than it already is." * cough(bullshit)
The lady doth protest too much.
Can't really blame, them, though. They're aiming for the corporate market, and there, the people deciding between Chrome 2.0 and IE 8.0 really don't care for the difference between Java and JavaScript. Well, maybe not the people deciding, but certainly the people they have to explain those decisions to.
Re: Google Chrome 3.0
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would steal focus away from Google's promotion of their secret magic sauce that they sprinkle on everything to make it better.
Well, the sauce is nice, but more realistically, why should every story about chrome mention webkit? How could we (google) police that? We mention webkit all the time and , more importantly, try to get our fixes and patches upstream.
The Webkit user agent string already mentions like 5 other browsers/render brands, I think that may be considered enough mentioning.
Re: Google Chrome 3.0
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel the same about Safari and Webkit towards KHTML.
Back when Safari first came out, there was a lot of credit given to KHTML, and Apple quickly had public-facing Subversion repositories available with full product history so that KHTML could adopt any changes they wanted. Since then, WebKit and KHTML have gone radically different directions, to the point that I'm not honestly sure the latter exists anymore. Apple, I thought, did the right thing by providing a full ha…
For quite a while, Apple were jerks about contributing there changes back. The patches they submitted to KHTML were huge, undocumented, and full of OSX-specific code. It tooks many months of griping by KHTML, GPL advocates and the community before Apple opened up thier KHTML fork as a CVS repo, and some time later, simply open-sourcing Webkit itself. But at the beginning, it was quite a fight to get Apple to acknowledge Webkit's open-source roots.
The KDE project has now dropped KHTML and switched to Webkit.
Re: Google Chrome 3.0
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Back when Safari first came out, there was a lot of credit given to KHTML, and Apple quickly had public-facing Subversion repositories available with full product history so that KHTML could adopt any changes they wanted. Since then, WebKit and KHTML have gone radically different directions, to the point that I'm not honestly sure the latter exists anymore. Apple, I thought, did the right thing by providing a full ha…
For quite a while, Apple were jerks about contributing there changes back. The patches they submitted to KHTML were huge, undocumented, and full of OSX-specific code. It tooks many months of griping by KHTML, GPL advocates and the community before Apple opened up thier KHTML fork as a CVS repo, and some time later, simply open-sourcing Webkit itself. But at the beginning, it was quite a fight to get Apple to acknowle…
This is inaccurate, KDE still uses KHTML. I've certainly seen the point argued back and forth amongst KDE developers, but all versions of KDE still use KHTML, and I assume it's still maintained somewhat. KHTML and WebKit aren't just interchangeable pieces of Konqueror, see http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/3998 .
thiago from #kde informs me that "the guy [who claimed that KHTML is gone] is completely wrong", "[KHTML] is happily in use and cannot even be dropped yet".
I was also informed that "there are plans [to change to Webkit], but they're slowgoing" and "nothing concrete has happened yet". If anyone has access to an official announcement to this effect, I'd appreciate a link, because last I knew there were just developers bickering back and forth about which to keep.
Also, I assume that with WebKit SFX would become the KDE browser's JavaScript engine instead of KJS, and that would be nice. KJS is much slower in my experience.
Re: Google Chrome 3.0
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been using the Linux version for several month now and honestly cannot tell the difference between it and the windows version. Just as stable, just as fast, and flash works without any problems. I'm guessing there is a good reason why they're not comfortable releasing it yet, but as an end user I haven't run across that reason.
I'm running Chromium on Ubuntu x86_64, and I've yet to get Flash to work with anything other than YouTube.
How did you do that? I have zero flash. (I'm on x86_32 though).
Re: Google Chrome 3.0
#40"You shouldn't read too much into Google Chrome's version numbers. Just because you can now install Google Chrome 3.0, it doesn't mean that Google wants to appear more mature than it already is." * cough(bullshit)
Well, if you compare Chrome 3.0 vs Firefox 3.0 (or 3.5), what features does Chrome not have? As far as I can tell it's only missing Firefox's extensions so if you can live without Adblock, Firebug, etc you can trade the extensions for Chrome's outright speed.