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

Bringing Chrome to ARM64 Linux Devices

blog.chromium.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 78 posts

Re: Bringing Chrome to ARM64 Linux Devices

#41

Post by drnick1 »

kelvinjps10 wrote: post #19
hugs wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they probably meant desktop. i do browser test automation (selenium, vibium), and the lack of google chrome on arm64 trips up new users frequently. the workaround is to just use chromium, but that's a confusing extra step for some if it's not automated and hidden for you. on that note, it would have been nice if they also clarified if this means they'll be shipping an official "chrome for testing" for arm64 linux, to…

Don't most people use chromium instead of chrome anyways on Linux?

Yes, and the last thing we need is Google's cancer spreading to Linux.

Re: Bringing Chrome to ARM64 Linux Devices

#44

Post by zamadatix »

oofbaroomf wrote: post #23

Wait... weren't there many ARM Chromebooks already?

Much like Android, Chromebooks are considered a different target even though they use the Linux kernel. This release will be for a generic Linux desktop binary rather than specific 1st party systems.

Re: Bringing Chrome to ARM64 Linux Devices

#45

Post by Hackbraten »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #28
Hackbraten wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spotify requires Widevine CDM to run, and Firefox doesn't come with Widevine on Debian-based distros. The .so hasn't been available on arm64 except for ChromeOS. You can rip the .so out of ChromeOS (that's what RaspberryPi OS did). But ChromeOS uses its own flavor of libc so a couple of patches to glibc are required. Same thing with YouTube. A few months ago, YouTube started to require Widevine CDM if one uses the m.…

Firefox pre-packaged for Ubuntu on my NVIDIA Spark has no problems with YouTube? I guess it must be a snap, not a deb package, but... wouldn't that work?

Regular YouTube works as is (but has performance issues on my weak phone.)

It's m.youtube.com that seems to require the DRM thing, at least for me. Have you tried that?

Re: Bringing Chrome to ARM64 Linux Devices

#46

Post by [deleted] »

mort96 wrote: post #12
westurner wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is necessary to run Linux ARM64 binaries on Android ARM64? To run conda-forge arm64 Linux binaries on Android in termux requires proot-distro because the ABIs are slightly different FWIU. What is necessary to run Android ARM64 binaries on Linux ARM64? Android Studio, LineageOS or BlissOS's outdated Android containers, a runtime like vinegarhq/sober that emulates just enough of Android. An Android binary that mak…

A fully statically compiled Linux ARM64 binary which only interacts with the kernel through syscalls should run no problem on ARM64 Android. From the kernel's perspective, there is no difference between a "Linux binary" and an "Android binary" because the kernel in Android is Linux. Most programs want to interact with various system libraries and system services though. Android and your typical desktop Linux system s…

[deleted]

Re: Bringing Chrome to ARM64 Linux Devices

#47

Post by CJefferson »

samtheprogram wrote: post #3

I'm confused, how does Chrome work on ARM64 Android phones today?

It required custom glibc patches, and getting videoes to work required some kernel stuff as well.

This is a combination of getting stuff merged upstream, and removing the need for some more specialist features.

Re: Bringing Chrome to ARM64 Linux Devices

#49

Post by leni536 »

Debian ships Chromium on many architectures for a long time now, apparently. I never tried it outside of x86_64, so I can't say how usable it is. What am I missing? Is this about V8 JIT and widewine? Although those must be already supported on chromebooks, so I don't know.

Lists of architectures on oldstable (bookworm): amd64, arm64, armhf, i386, ppc64el

https://packages.debian.org/bookworm/chromium

From where I stand it seems they enabled a build architecture for Chrome, but I don't think this required a lot of porting effort. Kudos for the official support though.

Post reply on HN