Jump to content
rldev

Google Chromium for 2010? [solved]

Recommended Posts

Seamonkey is fine if you like Netscape Navigator :D

 

As opposed to Firefox being the dumbed down version of Seamonkey aimed at the general IT illiterate public, without all the useful extra config options that Seamonkey provides (which apparently would confuse non techies)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seamonkey is just fine... like a slow-motion variation of Opera.

Chromium does not come in native 64-bit binaries, but this is no surprise: neither mozilla.org is providing 64-bit binaries of firefox- the user has to compile them by himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seamonkey is just fine... like a slow-motion variation of Opera.

 

I use both Opera and Seamonkey and I don't notice any speed difference (on older PCs, yes, Opera is faster but it's not noticeable on a modern dual core), maybe that's because Seamonkey has the invaluable 'adblock plus' plugin while Opera has to suffer all the flashy ads slowing it down...

 

I wouldn't use any browser without 'adblock plus' as my primary browser.

(and yes, that comes from someone who has a web site with a modest amount of ad banners on it, I don't care if my web site visitors use adblock, it's a free world and I didn't make my website to get rich, as long as it pays for the web hosting related costs that's fine for me! ;) )

Edited by tux99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone think it is safe trying to install the rpm package for Fedora and OpenSUSE? Does anyone dare to try? :)

 

I did try the rpm, google-chrome-beta-4.0.249.30-33928 (google-chrome-beta_current_x86_64.rpm) at http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/w00t.html I had google-chrome-4.0.223.5r29485-1mvt2010.0.x86_64 from Mandriva Turkiye http://forum.mandriva.com/viewtopic.php?p=740623&sid=816040c774f4e2bdac260f9f97bd7570#740623 installed with a release date of 27 Oct 2009 vs. 06 Dec 2009 for google-chrome-beta, so decided to try the newer build. There was no signature that I could find, so I ok'd the warning, and, since the package name is different, I guess, I had to uninstall the mvt program, first, due to conflicting files.

 

It's ok and I've sometimes loaded google-chrome in case it can handle hulu.com better but I don't see that it does. I would expect if I'm opening a new Tab from link (middle-click), that page would display automatically but it doesn't and I don't see a place to configure it. I'd say it works fine, for what it is, but I won't use it, much.

 

Thanks for the link! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Works rather decently here. Using the devel branch from here although the 249 beta is also OK.

My main complaint is that they are prebuilt and as such they can't be used with kgtk to get rid of the gtk+ file dialogs for better KDE4 looks.

Other than that, they are fast and stable.

Edited by scarecrow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The shomaker goes barefoot...

 

Apperantly chrome requires lsb package of version 3.2 or later. Running 2009.0, I only have version 3.1, so I can't install chrome on my machine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...