Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Chrome 3.0

googlesystem.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 54 posts

Re: Google Chrome 3.0

#41

Post by psadauskas »

cookiecaper wrote: post #38
psadauskas wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]…

I stand corrected on the last point. Someone needs to tell Ars and update Wikipedia:

In July 2007, the Ars Technica website published an article announcing that the KDE team would move from KHTML to WebKit.[13]

( From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebKit#cite_ref-arsunfork_12-0 )

Re: Google Chrome 3.0

#42

Post by swombat »

spydez wrote: post #23
dagw wrote: post #12

Earlier 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.

Chrome for Mac is similar. Firefox is my main browser, but I give Chrome a whirl once a week or so and have yet to notice any deficiencies.

Well, one obvious deficiency is the lack of integration with password managers. That's deal-breaker for me.

Re: Google Chrome 3.0

#43

Post by RyanMcGreal »

netsp wrote: post #27

Does anyone find that chrome is just unnecessary? It seems like google got to the game just when all the other browsers hot a point when they are all good. Not long ago, FF seemed like a real edge. Now I just use it cuz I'm used to it and it has extensions that I am used to. Safari is also good and even the new IE is good. I wouldn't mind using either of them or using chrome. The pace of improvement seems to be stron…

I think we can fairly credit Chrome with dramatically raising the bar for javascript performance across the competing browser engines. The V8 virtual machine for Chrome compiles JS to machine code rather than interpreting it or running in bytecode. Mozilla has since responded with the TraceMonkey optimization for its javascript engine; WebKit developed SquirrelFish Extreme; and so on.

Re: Google Chrome 3.0

#44

Post by slyn »

swombat wrote: post #42
spydez wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chrome for Mac is similar. Firefox is my main browser, but I give Chrome a whirl once a week or so and have yet to notice any deficiencies.

Well, one obvious deficiency is the lack of integration with password managers. That's deal-breaker for me.

Printing doesn't work on OS X or on Linux yet either.

Re: Google Chrome 3.0

#45

Post by tl »

jamesbritt wrote: post #39
mattyb wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I have --enable-plugins turned on atm and I don't see any difference between chromium's flash and firefox's, except that when the plugin crashes on chromium, I reload the page instead of the entire browser.

Re: Google Chrome 3.0

#46

Post by nestlequ1k »

dchest wrote: post #10
cmalabs wrote: post #8

"Chrome includes video codecs that allow you to embed videos without using slow and unreliable plug-ins like Adobe Flash." Compared to quicktime/media player and the slew of plugins from the previous generation, flash is much much more reliable.

Compared to QuickTime _on Windows_. On Mac it's not so slow and doesn't load CPU that much (compared to Flash/Mac).

Bullshit. Load a hour long quicktime video from blip tv using safari. It will hang your browser every time. This is on a latest gen Macbook Pro

Re: Google Chrome 3.0

#47

Post by spydez »

swombat wrote: post #42
spydez wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chrome for Mac is similar. Firefox is my main browser, but I give Chrome a whirl once a week or so and have yet to notice any deficiencies.

Well, one obvious deficiency is the lack of integration with password managers. That's deal-breaker for me.

I use SuperGenPass, which is just a js bookmarklet... It works equally well on Firefox, Safari, Mobile Safari, and Chrome.

http://supergenpass.com/

Re: Google Chrome 3.0

#48

Post by mattyb »

jamesbritt wrote: post #39
mattyb wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

It depends on whether you're using the chromium-daily PPA or you used Google's deb (the former looks for Firefox's libflashplayer.so, the latter needs you to install it).

If you're using the chromium-daily PPA (https://launchpad.net/~chromium-daily/+archive/ppa), Chromium will look in a bunch of folders[1] for plugins, including ~/.mozilla/plugins. I suggest you get the tarball from http://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/ and put its libflashplayer.so in ~/.mozilla/plugins. Chromium will look here for it upon startup and you're set.

If you installed using Google's deb (http://dev.chromium.org/getting-involved/dev-channel), it doesn't yet search the Mozilla plugin dirs, and thus you need to make an /opt/google/chrome/plugins dir and put the libflashplayer.so in there and it'll work.

Edit: if you're using Google's deb, you have to run google-chrome with the --enable-plugins switch. The deb adds their repo to sources.list.d, but I have no idea when they'll enable plugins by default in their repo. I'd ride the chromium-daily channel, since lots of shit is broken anyway.

[1]: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev/browse_thread/th...

Re: Google Chrome 3.0

#49

Post by mattyb »

mattyb wrote: post #48
jamesbritt wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did you do that? I have zero flash. (I'm on x86_32 though).

It depends on whether you're using the chromium-daily PPA or you used Google's deb (the former looks for Firefox's libflashplayer.so, the latter needs you to install it). If you're using the chromium-daily PPA ( https://launchpad.net/~chromium-daily/+archive/ppa ), Chromium will look in a bunch of folders[1] for plugins, including ~/.mozilla/plugins. I suggest you get the tarball from http://get.adobe.com/flashplayer…

For those running Ubuntu AMD64, you can put both 32 and 64-bit versions of libflashplayer.so in ~/.mozilla/plugins (call them libflashplayer32.so and libflashplayer64.so if you like), and 32-bit Firefox will load the 32-bit plugin, and Chromium 64-bit will load the 64-bit plugin. You can get the 64-bit Flash plugin here:

http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer10.html

And if anyone's wondering why I'm not running 64-bit Firefox 3.5, it's because the Ubuntu (and possibly Debian, I've no idea) packagers still have it branded 'Shiretoko', which throws off every site searching for 'Firefox' in your UA. Hopefully by Karmic's release they'll have this sorted out.

Also, why does Mozilla not provide 64-bit builds?

Re: Google Chrome 3.0

#50

Post by pohl »

smokinn wrote: post #40
ScottWhigham wrote: post #2

"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.

It's worth noting that WebKit's "Web Inspector" is present in Chrome, which is roughly equivalent to Firebug...so you're not really having to live without that, even.
Post reply on HN