Get A Move On Google!
A load of tech-based blogs (and some atheist ones) have been going on about the new Google browser “Chrome”. It looks good (nice and basic), and it is built on the best rendering engine: WebKit. I’ve often wished Mozilla just used WebKit, or at least had a function to switch rendering engines. There has been a bit of idle chatter about possibly using WebKit with Firefox, but it never leads anywhere.
There is one problem with Chrome though; it doesn’t work on Linux. That might not come as a surprise to most people, since a load of you probably use Windows (eurgh), or Mac OSX (eurgh eurgh). However, given Google’s commitments to Linux it is rather odd that they wouldn’t develop the version for Linux at the same time as the Windows release. Every Google server currently runs Linux, all their company computers run Linux, and it is no secret that the company itself hates Microsoft.
So why have they committed to a Windows Beta, and then promised a Linux version after the release of version 1.0? They don’t understand that I have to restart my computer, boot into the miserable NTFS partition, wait 5 minutes for XP to load, fiddle about with the wireless network which never manages to start properly, and then wait a further minute for my web browser to load, all just to download and install a copy of the beta.
Seeing as I don’t use Windows for anything other than gaming, I usually wouldn’t have much time to play around with it. Luckily, in two days time, Spore comes out, and my ext3 partition won’t see the light of day for several weeks. Of course my laptop will still provide me with my daily fix of Gentoo for good measure. So Chrome will become my browser for browsing Spore forums, looking at creatures other people have created, and of course, downloading copious amounts of “Spornography”.
Possibly Related Posts:
Subscribe to my RSS Feed if you like what you read!
Follow me on Twitter!
Loading ...
That is interesting, however, think about it this way: Since this is a “beta” release I am sure they want a large pool of people downloading and testing it. Since the majority of computer users use Windows, then releasing it on Windows first makes sense.
James
3 Sep 08 at 4:08 am (GMT)
Yeah I understand their motives. I just wish they had worked on a beta for Linux as well, considering a large proportion of open source developers use Linux.
Adrian Hayter
3 Sep 08 at 4:16 am (GMT)
Well, Since its open source, maybe the community could port it to linux.
Provided their license allows it :P
Sandeep
3 Sep 08 at 5:47 am (GMT)
Sandeep, as it’s Open Source I’m certain their license will allow it ;)
Adrian, try using a VM
db0
3 Sep 08 at 6:26 am (GMT)
Have you seen its speed on JAVA?
I’m flabergasted.
Luis Dias
3 Sep 08 at 1:23 pm (GMT)
The Windows version doesn’t even work in Wine, the bastards. I don’t want to boot to Vista! D:
Chicken Girl
3 Sep 08 at 1:27 pm (GMT)
I know! First thing I tried…grrr.
To be honest, the only reason everything is fast is because the browser is so lightweight. Java is simply running faster than it would in Firefox or Opera because Chrome is taking up less processing power. Rendering engines and browsers have no control over Java since it is a system thing.
Adrian Hayter
3 Sep 08 at 1:54 pm (GMT)
Doh, Adrian, you are really destroying your credibility. Java can be built into the browser, and in fact, Google Chrome uses Java V8, an entirely new Java machine that is way waaaay faster than these fellas. Compared to it, it looks like a Formula 1 race car against segways. Really, I’m not even hyperbolying it.
Check this out.
Google the CG comic strip if you want to know layman details about it. It’s a well made comic too.
Luis Dias
3 Sep 08 at 3:22 pm (GMT)
Luis,
Ah, I see your misunderstanding. Java is different to JavaScript. You are talking about the JavaScript V8 engine, not Java.
Java is a totally different programming language made by Sun. It cannot be built into the browser as it has to run on a virtual machine.
Trust me, I know what I am talking about, I program in both Java and JavaScript :D
Adrian Hayter
3 Sep 08 at 3:28 pm (GMT)
I was about to mention that someone is confusing Java with Javascript but adrian got to me first :)
db0
3 Sep 08 at 3:31 pm (GMT)
Hint, when I’m saying JAVA, I’m really saying JavaScript. It should be obvious, but reading your answer again, I think that it wasn’t so obvious.
Luis Dias
3 Sep 08 at 3:32 pm (GMT)
Oups, I see you got me there, hehe.
Luis Dias
3 Sep 08 at 3:33 pm (GMT)
Not really, considering there is a programming language already called “Java” :P
Adrian Hayter
3 Sep 08 at 3:35 pm (GMT)
Yeah, but like you said, Java is completely independent of browsers (and I’ven’t been hearing from it for quite some time, I’m not a programmer), so I was… well heck. What am I doing apart of showing my profound ignorance on these things? :D
All I know about this is that it really marks the path that Google wants the browsers to go for: Speedy AJAX (did I blunder in that too? lol). Apple seems poised to follow same route, they are also interested in web apps (mobile me), so it’s a brand new territory. Google Gears with speeedy AJAX is a hell of a threat to windows turf. Yeah, you can say (I’ve been hearing that for too long), but it’s like water on rocks. It eventually destroys it.
Luis Dias
3 Sep 08 at 3:46 pm (GMT)
I agree, JavaScript should be an important step in browsers. What should be the most important thing though is conforming to web standards, as well as usability.
I hope Google can add functionality for extensions whilst at the same time keeping the product lightweight. At the moment, the browser is a very lightweight structure that holds webkit and V8. As it grows it will slow down marginally, so adding only important features and performance tweaks will make it the best browser.
I’d love for it to beat Firefox one day. The open source community needs a decent WebKit based browser :D
Adrian Hayter
3 Sep 08 at 3:51 pm (GMT)
Right on. Apple clearly doesn’t know what they’re doing and is a horrible company. Why, did you know they actually took a small open-source project called KHTML and built their own derivative, called Webkit, which has eclipsed the original project? How dare they do… oh… wait…
The Vicar
3 Sep 08 at 6:14 pm (GMT)
The Vicar,
So by hating an Operating System I automatically hate the company? Apple have done a load of great things, iPods and WebKit included. Their operating system is not one of the good things though, neither are their expensive branded computers.
Adrian Hayter
3 Sep 08 at 6:21 pm (GMT)
@Vicar: Sorry, are we supposed to thank Apple for taking the job others did and building on it without having to write their own stuff? It’s not like they had a choice for if KHTML was under BSD then apple would probably never have released the code back to the community as they did with their newest kernel.
So yeah, Apple, great company…Only when they can’t do otherwise
db0
3 Sep 08 at 6:23 pm (GMT)
[...] on non-windows operating systems. With the release of Google Chrome, the new browser from Google, I was disappointed that they had failed to make a beta version for other operating systems. However, I tried running [...]
Why I Love Wine - The Atheist Blogger
3 Sep 08 at 7:20 pm (GMT)
I was going to post a long reply to that, but seriously — who wants to get into this subject? There are a million zillion websites and forums where this sort of thing is debated ad nauseum, and I doubt any discussion is going to add anything new. It suffices to say that I disagree, and keep trying Linux at approximately six-month intervals without (yet) being impressed.
The Vicar
3 Sep 08 at 7:46 pm (GMT)
Well I’m not trying to convert anyone to Linux. Most distributions are not for general users and it takes a lot of getting used to. Luckily I understand the system so I know how to use it effectively, and for me it is faster and more secure than Windows and OSX. I would prefer to pay $0 for something that works for me than have to pay $1800 for a laptop that doesn’t seem to have anything going for it other than being “thin”.
Adrian Hayter
3 Sep 08 at 8:02 pm (GMT)
And that’s your choice. (And, incidentally, mine as well — I’d rather carry the extra weight/volume and have more capability built in.) But I know of two people who have specifically been buying laptops based on size and weight for years, because they travel a lot, who thought the Macbook Air was the best thing since sliced bread.
The Vicar
3 Sep 08 at 8:47 pm (GMT)