91–100 of 139 posts
The answer seems to be "yes", as Jessie has a 3.16 kernel. Lots of speculation though - there's no official announcement, as far as I'm aware, and the OP on the mailing list did not identify as a Google employee.
Replies so far for the lazy: On Sat, Mar 07, 2015 at 07:17:13PM +0200, Georgi Naplatanov wrote: > On 03/07/2015 06:38 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 16:09 +0100, D. F. wrote: > >> Hello, Julien Tinnes from google says that next releases of > >> chromium will drops support for kernels without TSYNC > >> ubuntu 14.10 already has been patched > >> Can I to expect that debian 8/jessie will have suppor…
That seems like an exceedingly childish exchange.
I don't think Chromium has dropped support for kernels It appears a patch needs to be cherry-picked back; a pretty common task for people that maintain older kernels. It's very common to backport patches to drivers you care about (because new kernel versions always introduce bugs in your obscure hardware, you only backport stuff that doesn't already work). There is even a system for doing it in an automated manner: h…
Google has backported this to ChromiumOS https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=430588
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, I'll note that plenty of people use Chrome without extensions. This issue wasn't a showstopper for any of them. Second, you cut out the rest of the comment: "If that causes great hardship for anyone and you want to do the work to figure out what's going on submit patches to fix it, I can provide pointers for where to start looking and code reviews for the patch." Since that comment has anyone done anything oth…
I don't think the other half of that comment affects my point: that the Chrome team is declining to fix bugs that only manifest on older kernels, and hence it's reasonable to call those kernels "unsupported". I agree that it's the Chrome team's prerogative to decide that supporting those kernels is unimportant.
Really, a browser is now dependent on a particular Linux kernel? For example RHEL/CentOS 7 which was released just last year with at least a 10 year support ahead of it is now obsolete according to them because it has a kernel version 3.10... Not that many people are on desktop versions of those OSes, and those that are will not use Chrome (for example, US govt loves them some Desktop RHEL systems, but Chrome is usua…
When you commit to a 10-year support cycle, you'd better be prepared to backport quite a few things. Google's being aggressive about taking advantage of a kernel-level security feature that they developed to solve a real problem. This seems like a good thing overall.
Yes, it is a good thing for the people who 1) use desktop linux and 2) use a rolling distribution or a distribution that was released within the last year. I suspect that might be a rather small percentage of the Desktop users in the world.
It simply means that people who 1) use a desktop Linux and 2) use a stable distribution can't run Chrome (which I imagine solves the security problem in another way). This fraction of a fraction may be larger (corporate desktops, e.g. RHEL, CentOS, Scientific Linux, Debian stable, Ubuntu LTS &c)
Most people update the kernel when their distro does. Ubuntu 12.04 LTS is currently at a .5 version with kernel 3.13. There seem to be no plans for a 12.04.6 with a newer kernel but we'll see. Maybe TSYNC can be backported to 3.13 (I'm unsure about who has to do it) or Chromium can be compiled without TSYNC (distro's choice). If nothing happens this is going to cost Google some users but obviously it's their browser…
Some browsers have different goals. Is that a problem?
It's supremely arrogant to tell your users to change the kernel they are using because you couldn't be bothered to fix a regression in your code. The problem with that approach is self-evident.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair Google's whole business model is based on spying on people to gather data for ad placement. If we're being entirely honest a browser which sends every url you visit to Google by default is spyware.
>If we're being entirely honest a browser which sends every url you visit to Google by default is spyware. [citation needed] Blatantly false.
While typing, the omnibar directly searches on Google and in your web history for the text you typed, may it be a search term, an URL, or content of a page you had visited in the past.
Chrome "unofficially" dropped support for pre-3.16 kernels, such as the kernel in Ubuntu 14.04 LTS, about half a year ago. More precisely, they introduced a bug that caused installing extensions to fail with that kernel, and then declined to fix it. https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=401655 See comment #47: "Ok, while it sounds like this is technically a regression, I'm going to mark this as Wontfix…
Happily there's an even more reasonable workaround of upgrading to a browser that doesn't dictate kernel versions.
These long term support distros are toxic to everyone except proprietary software vendors.
You are surely joking and you're not good at it.
Look at the terribly old / EOL software in RHEL4 that is on "extended support" until 2017:
Java 1.4
SVN 1.1
Apache 2.0
Stunnel 4.0.5
Python 2.3
Glibc 2.3.4
Firefox 1.0
That is terrifying. There's a reason why upstream doesn't release fixes for those old releases.