digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at arstechnica.com —

Google unveils Chrome source code and Linux port

arstechnica.com — Google has released the source code of its new Chrome web browser. The search giant has also released build instructions for the Linux port, which is not yet fully functional.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • rfcompte, on 09/03/2008, -1/+120"The Linux port is still in early stages of development and is not yet fully functional. " Well at least it won't be needing Wine
    • HamNCheese, on 09/03/2008, -25/+5Why would you - the whole thing is based on WebKit. Thanks Apple :)
      • Peterix, on 09/03/2008, -1/+38No, thanks KDE. Webkit is a fork of KHtml after all.
      • Elranzer, on 09/03/2008, -3/+26"Thanks, KDE," you mean. Ever heard of Konqueror?
      • mrsteveman1, on 09/03/2008, -1/+11Apple has done a lot to the engine since it was called KHTML. It's current fame is in large part due to Apples improvements which, because of the license, have been shared with everyone.
      • TehDoctor, on 09/03/2008, -1/+8Safari doesn't work on Linux, therefore WebKit does not imply Chrome would work. A rendering engine is not browser.

        That said, WebKit itself is based on KHTML, which, after ***** around for a while, Apple finally figured out how to contribute to productively.
      • clsslc, on 09/04/2008, -2/+10"Apple finally figured out how to contribute to productively."

        Yeah, it's about time. Apple sucks.
      • pedepy, on 09/04/2008, -2/+5actually thanks Apple too, since they took a craptasticle rendering engine KHTML and made it work with the rest of the 95% of sites that KHTML can't render to this day.

        I say thanks Stallman, for making a bulletproof license even Apple can't go around (I mean jesus, Apple!)
      • Derrekito, on 09/04/2008, -0/+4Can't we all just get along?

        How about a fight to the death and we can determine the winner of this argument via the outcome.
      • HorseloverFat8, on 09/04/2008, -1/+2What the hell are you talking about? Safari doesn't run on Linux. Webkit is a fork of KHTML, developed by the KDE community.
      • orcishstra, on 09/04/2008, -0/+3Webkit was invented by the Open Source community.
        Apple just raped it just like raped BSD.
      • clsslc, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2"How about a fight to the death and we can determine the winner of this argument via the outcome."

        ***** you, two of my friends died fighting to the death!
    • starchildDSC, on 09/07/2008, -3/+0Who says it won't be needing Wine? And who cares what gets it running anyway? Let's just have it get functional.
  • DeuceDiggalow, on 09/03/2008, -7/+96I was bummed when I went to try Chrome and it wasn't even available for Linux!
    • massaks, on 09/03/2008, -109/+8
      • saleem, on 09/03/2008, -3/+44Surprised you're still at +1 digg. Let's get you started on your descent to Hell (and I'm a Vista user, at that)
      • Gavagai80, on 09/03/2008, -3/+51These words are so deeply hurtful to the linux community, coming as they do from someone with the grammar of a below average orangutan. The scars will never heal.
      • lca473, on 09/03/2008, -2/+41massaks, believe the word is CHEAPSKATE, not cheap scape. Oh, and also Linux in an OS not an app.
      • missingnoh4x, on 09/03/2008, -0/+29I could simply take the flamebait, but instead I'll simply say this: Regardless of what you think, many of us like Linux. Isn't that reason enough for Google to provide a port?
      • Peterix, on 09/03/2008, -0/+21Another reason would be that Google uses GNU/Linux both as a server OS and as a desktop OS.
      • djbon2112, on 09/03/2008, -1/+17Considering Google USES Linux on a majority of its computers, yea, Linux is *****.
      • nossifer, on 09/03/2008, -10/+2Like gOS for example. Googles Linux based OS. Which is i guess crap because this retard cant spell.
      • mrsteveman1, on 09/03/2008, -0/+10Google releases other apps for Linux, clearly they care enough about it to port their stuff.
      • paradigmx, on 09/03/2008, -0/+9ok, Linux has a puny marketshare... on the desktop... *nix based OSes completely DOMINATE the server market.

        And the Linux Desktop marketshare goes up all the time, Microsoft is slowly, but surely losing ground to Linux, all the computer world needs is a catalyst and you'll see a marketshare fluctuation that will cripple Windows. For example, EA and Activision pledging full support for Linux( i realize how unlikely that is, but if it did, a lot of people like me who still hang on to their copies of XP for gaming purposes, would drop Microsoft in an instant because other gaming companies would surely follow suit)
      • lca473, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1massaks, there is a reason your comments keep getting buried, they're "utter crap" as you put it.
    • bsmang, on 09/03/2008, -13/+5Just install VirtualBox and slap an old copy of XP on there. Chrome works like a champ therein.
      • bj1989, on 09/03/2008, -0/+24That's not the point...
      • ommadawn, on 09/03/2008, -0/+16And this is practical because?
      • TehDoctor, on 09/03/2008, -2/+17I bet you'll see a big difference between Chrome on Windows v. on Linux, since each tab is a separate process. Process creation on WinBlows takes 7,000K cycles. It takes 500K on Linux.
      • 4321234, on 09/03/2008, -1/+11I think I read somewhere something about a linux port.

        Oh yeah, at the top of this page.
    • ell0bo, on 09/04/2008, -0/+2I sorta wept bitterly when I went to the website, to find out the open source web browser wouldn't work on my open source OS. I got over it though when I tasted that sweet sweet irony.
    • djbon2112, on 09/04/2008, -2/+1I for one will not give this any credence. "Open source"? Where's the link to download the source code on the downloads page? "A team of engineers..."? ***** them, let me compile my program myself. I'll stick to Firefox, thanks.
    • GrantTLC, on 09/04/2008, -1/+8"I was bummed..."

      You know, this means something completely hilarious in the UK.
    • lunixbochs, on 09/04/2008, -1/+0http://dev.chromium.org/developers/how-tos/build-i ...
    • Culyt, on 09/06/2008, -0/+2It's nothing new, Linux is treated as a second class citizen by Firefox too, there wasn't going to be native widgets until enough people bitched about it, there was that bug in 3.0 they where just going to leave in and only now are we getting a QT widget port thanks to Nokia and their tablets.

      ☢
    • starchildDSC, on 09/15/2008, -0/+0http://digg.com/apple/Chromium_for_Linux_and_Mac

      It's a start!
  • trigatch4, on 09/03/2008, -19/+5Mac and Linux will probably come in 1 month or so... I'm a PC Guy that is now just waiting on the plugins. Until then, I'll drool at what limited sleekness I'm allowed to experience:
    http://ChromeSpot.com
    • k00pa, on 09/03/2008, -18/+2Expect that I think that it dont have plugins support...
    • HorseloverFat8, on 09/04/2008, -0/+3Being a PC Guy doesn't exclude you from being a Linux Guy.
  • adamkparker, on 09/03/2008, -10/+0@k00pa There are a number of plug-in alternatives if you're missing them http://digg.com/tech_news/Google_Chrome_Firefox_Pl ...
  • z00k, on 09/03/2008, -11/+4http://digg.com/tech_news/Serious_Security_Flaw_in ...


    ... =/
    • duckyinc, on 09/03/2008, -1/+2Basically chrome can be carpet bombed
  • UtahApocalyse, on 09/03/2008, -1/+15I have played with Chrome - Its FAST!
    It needs plugins, or addons though. (Adblock+) Also if you could use Ubiquity in the bar that would make the ultimate browser of the future
    • Rudegar, on 09/03/2008, -3/+19wonder if it's fast because it dont have plugins or addons?
      • solidus636, on 09/04/2008, -0/+6Well, Adblock will give a significant boost because it stops the need to load ads on a page, therefore speeding up page rendering.
    • BeefBaron, on 09/03/2008, -2/+3Adblock kills Google revenue, so I suppose they would try to stop any kind of plugin system that would allow similar functionality.
      • Heywoodj, on 09/03/2008, -3/+3Perhaps this is the reason for Chromes existence.
        It's not a proper web browser if it doesn't support ABP,No script and grease monkey (IMHO of course)
        Maybe Google realized it had nursed a viper on it's bosom that could hurt ad revenue by supporting FF.
        Or maybe my tinfoil hats too tight.
      • iritegood, on 09/03/2008, -4/+9GOD DAMN IT. How many times does it need to be repeated? CHROME IS OPEN SOURCE. It is IMPOSSIBLE to make sure that nobody will ever make any plugin system because CHROME IS OPEN SOURCE. If Google does not create their own extension/plugin system, someone could create their own. Do you know how? BECAUSE CHROME IS OPEN SOURCE. Beefbaron, you are an idiot. And Heywoodj, your opinion is worth jack-*****.
      • RoboDonut, on 09/04/2008, -1/+2I'm pretty sure Google's motto is "Don't be evil"
      • omarciddo, on 09/04/2008, -0/+7While I don't agree with how iritegood made the statement, there's a valid point there. It's open source, released under a BSD license. Don't like the way it's going? Take the code and fork it. Problem solved.
      • HorseloverFat8, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1AdBlock+ doesn't even seem to block Google's text-based ads. I don't think Google need to worry much about it.
      • Culyt, on 09/06/2008, -0/+1Unlikely, people who want adblocking simply aren't going to use their broweser. I tried chrome, thought its fairly nice (I've recently become fed up with Firefox crashing or freezing up, mostly flashes fault and it uses to much memory on the eee to have more than about 5 tabs open without slowdowns). But then I went to Digg and got those massive flashing flash adverts. I also need mouse gestures.

        I probably won't use Chrome until there is plugin support that allows for adblocking, privoxy might be a workaround though but I still need the Linux port since I don't use windows much and gestures (maybe I could learn to live without but keyboard shortcuts are slow when your primary input for the internet is the mouse). Maybe it will be good on the eeepc, but I would then need to install privoxy on it and do it in a way that lets me change between proxies @ home/uni.

        Hopefully the Firefox people take the idea such as threaded tabs as a challange Google did say several times they WANT other people to copy their browsers stuff (specifically the V8 engine at least), since they aren't after selling browsers or getting market share, just providing the best experience for their online stuff.

        Personally I would love a decent lite weight webkit browser. Maybe someone can make a really basic one that has a JIT scripting or something like LLVM support for making it completely modifiable.

        ☢
    • svivian, on 09/03/2008, -2/+4I'm sure they'll allow a "block all ads except Google's" plugin ;)
    • Antithysys, on 09/08/2008, -0/+0I doubt they'd stop it, not to mention Adblock+ is typically used for bannerstyle ads. Google does mostly text/search based. Those are (mostly) unaffected by it.
    • adog317, on 09/20/2008, -0/+1google making $$$$$$$$$$$$$$= ads

      i dont think they would go for adblock+
  • AndrewLeon, on 09/03/2008, -2/+53awww... look at the infant browser.... It' so adorable and everyone want's it to do well!!!
    Just give it time. Firefox did have a few years head start...
    • tidu, on 09/03/2008, -1/+9Is it a boy or a girl?
    • jasonofcompsci, on 09/27/2008, -0/+0For a baby it sure runs fast. Ha, running baby.
  • PostTime, on 09/03/2008, -8/+1Excellent, thanks everyone! Chrome is plugged!
  • Junkey, on 09/03/2008, -2/+14Google knows what the people want.
    • HamNCheese, on 09/03/2008, -8/+1A browser based on Apple's contributions to WebKit. Go Google ;)
      • mrsteveman1, on 09/03/2008, -0/+6The engine is webkit, yes. The rest is completely unrelated to Apple and some of the best features are things Apple doesn't even do in their own browser. The javascript engine is awesome and beats the one that comes with webkit by far.

        Chrome on vista does kernel level sandboxing. Safari can't even do that on OS X yet because Apple hasn't set it up (but the framework is there). Chrome does the multiple process thing as well, the only other browser i know of that can do this is IE8.
      • sjmulder, on 09/03/2008, -0/+3Apple contributions to KHTML are called WebKit. But they got a lot of help from the community ;-)
    • Reaktor5, on 09/03/2008, -2/+4A Mac version?
    • 4321234, on 09/04/2008, -0/+10Porn? I bet it's porn.
      • solidus636, on 09/04/2008, -0/+4Well, what ELSE is the 'Incognito Mode' for?....Surely it couldn't be for protecting your identity.
      • HorseloverFat8, on 09/04/2008, -0/+3They're already given us Google Image Search and the ability to turn off Safe Search.
  • patburke1980, on 09/03/2008, -9/+2I think Chrome will be great once all the kinks are worked out...but I find it to be pretty damn slow thusfar.
    • HorseloverFat8, on 09/04/2008, -1/+1You're the only one. Everybody else has noticed how damn fast it is.
  • LANjackal, on 09/03/2008, -10/+1*Yawn* no compelling new features relative to Firefox. It's a waste of time.
  • lilcleo001, on 09/03/2008, -8/+2And it begins... I love Firefox but Google is bound to win. It just needs time.
    • HamNCheese, on 09/03/2008, -5/+0People have been saying the same thing about Internet Explorer for years...
    • tacojohn48, on 09/03/2008, -1/+5The interesting thing is that Google bankrolls firefox.
      • mrsteveman1, on 09/03/2008, -0/+8The interesting thing is actually that these 2 browsers are entirely open source, so talk of wars and who will win are completely irrelevant.
  • codyman, on 09/03/2008, -0/+31Considering that this browser only was released yesterday, I think that so far it has had a very good start...

    I remember when Firefox (ala "Phoenix") came out, and it was really a mess at first... but so far Chrome is pretty shiny
    • sfelton, on 09/04/2008, -1/+3But Chrome is paid for by Google, a multi-billion dollar company, while as Firefox didn't have this trust fund.
    • HorseloverFat8, on 09/04/2008, -0/+2It's pretty damn stable for a Beta "0.2" release.
    • onefix, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1It's because they are standing on the work of Apple (Safari) who in turn stands on the work of KHTML (Konqueror). It's not that hard to take an already built engine and put a new face on a mature engine. It's entirely something else to build a new engine.
      • HalationEffect, on 09/05/2008, -0/+0"It's entirely something else to build a new engine."

        Yeah, it's called re-inventing the wheel. By which I mean when there is a perfectly good open source rendering engine out there, why would they even want to spend the time coding a new one? Not to mention the fact that if they did, web developers would be unhappy as they'd then have yet another rendering engine to test their designs against.
  • PEMDAS, on 09/03/2008, -20/+1Hey guys look at this cool trick I learned ( o) (0) Look you can make EYES in jur browsa ( . ) ( o )

    Teach ya how after the jump!

    ( . Y . ) Looks like the eye of the tiger

    the JUMP! ( + . + ) + ( + . + ) = (.)(.) but ya gotta makes mo spaces for bigger eye melons.
  • kahrytan, on 09/03/2008, -4/+35Buried. Inaccurate.

    "Note: There is no working Chromium-based browser on Linux. Although many Chromium submodules build under Linux and a few unit tests pass, all that runs is a command-line "all tests pass" executable."
  • missingnoh4x, on 09/03/2008, -6/+54Buried as inaccurate. This is not the Chrome source code or a Linux port. Chromium is merely the engine behind Chrome, not the whole browser. I can't seen to find the rest of the source anywhere. The FAQ page says that a Linux port of any Chromium-based browser is probably months away, and the build instructions for Linux explain that building Chromium won't do anything more than let you run some tests from the command line.

    So yeah, we Linux users still have to wait a while for Chrome.
    • missingnoh4x, on 09/03/2008, -2/+17Who's digging me down? Chromium is merely part of Chrome, and that and V8 are the only things you can get the source to, it seems. On the sidebar of the Chromium wiki, you can see that Chromium is not all there is to Chrome:

      "Google Chrome is built with open source code from Chromium."

      As for Linux ports of those, straight from http://dev.chromium.org/developers/faq :

      "Q. Does Chromium build a working UI on Mac or Linux?
      A. No, not yet. We have ported and are building some very important building blocks, but we do not have a finished working interface on either platform. Read more: Platforms and Priorities.

      Q. Well when will it be ready on Mac and Linux?
      A. Porting to a completely new platform is a lot of work that will take some time. We are working extremely hard, and we expect some impressive results in the coming months. You should expect to wait months, and not days, until there is something you can use."

      And in a big bold note on http://dev.chromium.org/developers/how-tos/build-i ... :

      "Note: There is no working Chromium-based browser on Linux. Although many Chromium submodules build under Linux and a few unit tests pass, all that runs is a command-line "all tests pass" executable."
    • uahgekido, on 09/03/2008, -0/+7They're digging you down because the source code released is, in fact, the source code for a full Chrome browser. Download the code (if you can get it to not time out because of too much traffic), build it in Visual Studio, and you will get the Chrome browser for Windows. Granted, that doesn't help Linux users, and we are in the Linux/Unix section, but yeah.

      You are correct, though, that the port to Linux isn't even remotely close to useful yet, and any code released pertaining to a Linux port would not appear to be much of anything other than an engine at this point.
    • webcrumb, on 09/03/2008, -1/+1Downloading the snapshot build will give you a full browser, plus it's more current than the official Google build. And you can install it where /you/ want to.
    • HorseloverFat8, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1If you're interested in the progress of the Linux version, you can see which parts build and which parts don't with the Chromium waterfall here: http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/waterfall/
  • massaks, on 09/03/2008, -30/+2
    • watcht, on 09/03/2008, -0/+9Good luck in learning how to spell and punctuate. You retarded troll.
    • sadisticmind, on 09/03/2008, -0/+7Linux is a great OS, and an even better idea. what other Operating System grows off its own community?
      I may be a PC guy but i can still see the benefits from different Operating Systems
      • HorseloverFat8, on 09/04/2008, -1/+2BSD does! That said, all the GNU software is the same, so any compatible OS will benefit. Also, Linux runs on PCs (as well as other systems). What you mean to say is that you're a Windows guy, I assume.
  • alexbu, on 09/03/2008, -5/+2Tried to compile Chromium, but it takes a lot of time and a bunch of disk space.
    • HorseloverFat8, on 09/04/2008, -1/+2The point is you CAN compile it, and edit it, and contribute to the project. Not how much of your disc space it will take, or how long it takes your computer to compile.
  • spyd3rweb, on 09/03/2008, -1/+10Why couldn't they just help develop firefox instead of starting a new browser?
    • bluehavana, on 09/03/2008, -0/+9Because it is a total architecture redesign that really only google has the money to fund and the non-committeeness to get out of the rut. The whole multiprocess architecture is complicated and expensive to develop. Also, if they released via the BSD license there is more of a likely hood of proprietary browsers implementing standards.
    • int10h, on 09/03/2008, -0/+11Because it's designed in a fundamentally different way than Firefox. For example, each tab runs as an isolated process instead of a in thread like Firefox, this is not something that can easily be changed between versions even if Mozilla wanted.
    • fluxion, on 09/03/2008, -0/+10its a shame Adobe's memory-leaking, cpu-maxing proprietary flash plugin will invariably bring it right back to ***** City

      edit: er...meant to respond to int10h
    • pw378, on 09/04/2008, -0/+3They are doing both... Google almost single-handedly funds Mozilla/Firefox development while also developing the new browser technologies in Chrome. Why limit themselves to one or the other? Try many things, and let the best rise to the top!
      • Derrekito, on 09/04/2008, -0/+2Competition is GOOD. I can't wait to see what will happen in the following months.

        side note: Ajax seems to run seamlessly in Chrome compared to my experiences (Windows and Linux version) with Firefox.
  • WiCk3D, on 09/03/2008, -3/+4i wish firefox 3.2 takes all the cool features in chrome. i think thats what will happen
    • tacojohn48, on 09/03/2008, -0/+6I would guess more like firefox 4.0; it would take a huge overhaul of the way tabs are handled.
      • init100, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1You are probably right. Firefox 4 will be built on the Mozilla 2.0 platform, and such major architectural changes as some of the features of Chrome are suitable for a major version change.
  • Rudegar, on 09/03/2008, -0/+7recall other first beta's like
    IE8 which would on my PC crash at start-up until i removed it
    and safari which would crash if i tried to bookmark a page

    so in many respects google made a good first beta
    • computershack, on 09/03/2008, -5/+1..as long as you ignore the carpetbombing bug and the fact that Chrome's "Omnibar" can also access all keystrokes a user types, and Google will store some of this information along with IP addresses.
      • HorseloverFat8, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1You are paranoid. You need to see a psychiatrist before posting any further on Digg. Thanks.
    • jasmus, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1I have a feeling Google use the term Beta a little different from everyone else.
      • HorseloverFat8, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1Especially considering Gmail is still in beta.
      • 1timeuser, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1That was the joke horseloverfat8.... Google leaves things in beta forever.
  • Rudegar, on 09/03/2008, -5/+3recall other first beta's like
    IE8 which would on my PC crash at start-up until i removed it
    and safari which would crash if i tried to bookmark a page

    so in many respects google made a good first beta
  • taketheleap, on 09/03/2008, -7/+9Man, everyone seems so impressed that Google released a good "beta" (those of you referencing "Phoenix", you actually mean 'Alpha' btw). As per Google's own admission, they 'tested' this with their HUGE spider network first, totally eliminating the need for alpha versions.

    They didn't even release an alpha version. They did all that ***** in house. Stop being so impressed. It's Google. They're huge, they're awesome. I get it.

    But until they can improve on Firefox's customization, it's insane speed and it's huge community of developers, I'll pass on Chrome.

    Firefox FTW.
    • MadHarvey, on 09/03/2008, -0/+10Aww, don't worry, Firefox isn't like your girlfriend. It won't mind if you want to give something new a spin..
    • Derrekito, on 09/04/2008, -0/+3I love Firefox as much as anyone, but Chrome is very slick. Everything seems to render so nicely. Hopefully with some addons I will be able switch over; but until then I hope this helps motivate the Firefox team to polish up Firefox or even give them some ideas and new directives (other than security of course).
    • HorseloverFat8, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1If you bothered to check any benchmark tests, you'd see that Chrome is at least as fast, sometimes faster than FF.
    • mohtasham, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1Basically, firefox disappointed me with their version 3 for linux. I don't know really know whether it's flash's fault or firefox's that the CPU usage increases when visiting pages with flash.

      I think IE was not a good competitor for IE. Opera didn't have a large market share. I guess Chrome will be a very good competitor for FF and we will see a lot of improvements in web technology soon. Of course, if IE disappears from the earth, we will be able to play call of duty 4 on web browsers, soon.
  • eddiestone, on 09/03/2008, -8/+3great, linux port like picasa do? no, thanks. I'll keep firefoxing.
  • DennisIsAwesome, on 09/03/2008, -1/+2Linux Woot! i hope we can change the color of the browser, to much blue. i want black
    • cesclaveria, on 09/03/2008, -0/+4they say you never go back...
    • PixelEater, on 09/04/2008, -1/+1V-V-Vista?
    • HorseloverFat8, on 09/04/2008, -1/+1It's the colour of your Windows theme. Try changing the theme. What were you expecting? It's no bluer than any other application you're running.
  • raremind, on 09/03/2008, -3/+0Sure its open source but use the thing to post or email and Google owns your blog post, email, pretty much anything you do using the browser. No kidding check out this story
    http://digg.com/software/Google_Chrome_With_a_pric ...

    Wow is all I can say. Way to keep it open source Google!
    • HorseloverFat8, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1Google has changed their EULA and these changes have applied retroactively. Try keeping up with things.
  • adammharvey, on 09/03/2008, -3/+4What i really want is for it to be ported to mac, but oh well at least i have VMware with XP and Ubuntu.
  • sfacets, on 09/03/2008, -1/+4Yay! Steal all the code and integrate it into Firefox!
    • linharesalex, on 09/04/2008, -0/+3it's not stealing. it's OSS. Don't you see the difference?
    • RedGreen1, on 09/04/2008, -0/+3Progressing other projects is hardly theft.
      • HorseloverFat8, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1Especially since it's built on the Webkit, KHTML and Firefox projects.
    • mohtasham, on 09/04/2008, -3/+1The thing that distinguishes chrome from firefox is its small size and simplicity. Firefox is more than 5MB while chrome is only 470 KB. Mozilla will have very hard time competing against speed of chrome.
  • 4321234, on 09/03/2008, -2/+3Off topic but, are they EVER gonna fix the live bookmark freeze in Firefox3??????
    Using Minefield/3.1b1pre and it's still the same.
  • Lee05162004, on 09/04/2008, -2/+1I'm liking it so far. Although I keep switching between Firefox and Chrome because of some stuff. Mostly I don't like the ads that are visible in Chrome. I like my adblock extension plus many others for Firefox.
  • Heywoodj, on 09/04/2008, -4/+2@iritegook Just paranoid speculation on my part (and a little trollish I'll admit).
    I'll wait for someone independent and with skills to go through the 200000 lines of code before I trust it.
    They allready did a "my bad " on the EULA now get to work and tell me what else is under the hood.
  • PacketScan, on 09/04/2008, -3/+1ok time to start working on the bugs.. Count me in.
  • 2oonhed, on 09/04/2008, -2/+2Local newscasters just announced that a Mac and "Links" version of Google Chrome would be released soon.
    • HorseloverFat8, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1Are you sure they didn't say Links with an extra "I" sound before the KS?
  • orcishstra, on 09/04/2008, -1/+1Linux and Mac versions of Chrome coming soon according to Wikipedia!
  • viverant, on 09/05/2008, -2/+0Sorry Google I call ***** on your "attempts to build/test it on multiple Linux distros". The openSuSe build service was created just for this purpose and excuses for not using it make you sound like Microsoft. Get off your high horse and drop/ignore any former Novell employees who have grudges and do what benefits the open source community as a whole.
  • 2oonhed, on 09/06/2008, -0/+1Yes, I am sure, he mispronounced or misread Linux as links.
  • moduration, on 09/06/2008, -0/+0cool
    enjoy+
    ูู^^
  • jmoisesreyes, on 09/12/2008, -0/+0Anyone figure out why https is not working with Chrome.exe with Wine on Linux?
  • m6arate, on 09/13/2008, -0/+1if there is no proper linux port than it isn't *really* open source. Chrome has less of the open source spirit than opera
  • starchildDSC, on 09/15/2008, -0/+0Well, now we can all check it out:

    http://digg.com/apple/Chromium_for_Linux_and_Mac

    All hail open source. And, I suppose Wine was needed after all ^_~.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.