Linked by Jordan Spencer Cunningham on Sat 1st Aug 2009 17:48 UTC
Internet & Networking "Linux: If a lack of third-party plug-in support (i.e. Flash) kept you from trying out Chrome on your Linux system, then avoid no longer. The 'early developer version' now supports many plug-ins, and they seem to work pretty well. You'll need to add --enable-plugins to your Chrome shortcut's command line operation to get the 'buggy' plug-in support, but it seems worth the hassle, as YouTube videos are playing relatively stable and smooth. Google's updated their alpha-level Chrome builds to include the newest start page tweaks as well, and it's generally a browser worth checking out, even if a few standard settings and convenience items are still missing."
Order by: Score:
--enable-plugins
by MechR on Sat 1st Aug 2009 18:47 UTC
MechR
Member since:
2006-01-11

Note, it should be:
--enable-plugins

With two dashes in front. They were fused into a single long dash in the Lifehacker article (maybe it was drafted in Word), and ended up as a regular single dash in the summary.

Reply Score: 2

does not work on 64bit versions :-(
by nadavkav on Sat 1st Aug 2009 20:24 UTC
nadavkav
Member since:
2007-03-23

google-chrome-unstable 64bit for debian does not load 64bit flash plugin since it was compiled with the wrong ELF :-(

hope it gets fix soon :-)

Reply Score: 1

No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

32 bit Google Chrome does load flash, and I don't think it's a huge loss for the 64 bit version that it currently doesn't: enabling plug-ins makes Google Chrome for Linux very unstable.

Reply Score: 1

lukic Member since:
2006-09-23

In my case on Kubuntu 9.04 32-bit Chrome with plugins enabled works very stable. I am surfing and watching flash videos for 2 days now and I didn't have any crashes. I am using it right now.

Reply Score: 1

elliott1787 Member since:
2008-07-03

Pretty stable here on 32bit ArchLinux running Chromium 3.0.197.0~svn20090801r22243 and Flash 10.0.22.87.

Reply Score: 1

No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

Actually, retracing my activities I found that what crashed my browser wasn't Flash, but viewing HTML5 video on Youtube. It happens with plugins disabled as well, of course. So just ignore my comment.

Flash does make the browser incredibly slow, though.

Reply Score: 1

andy_js Member since:
2008-02-29

> Flash does make the browser incredibly slow, though.

No change there then.

Reply Score: 3

jfebrer Member since:
2009-07-07

The truth is that Chrome build for 64 bits it is really a 32 bit build packaged to use 32 bits shared libraries.
Probably you have 64 bits flash plugin and you need 32 bits flash for Chrome.

Reply Score: 1

chemical_scum
Member since:
2005-11-02

Yes it works fine for me on 32 bit Ubuntu Hardy LTS, Chromium 3.0.197.0 (0) and Flash 10,0,32,18. But now I need a flashblocker as well as an adblocker plugin. So I guess I will run it without plugins enabled.

Reply Score: 2

Quake Member since:
2005-10-14

You can have an ad-blocker. You can use the extension or script version of AdSweep: http://www.adsweep.org/

Reply Score: 1

elliott1787 Member since:
2008-07-03

Any confirmation that this actually works on Chromium 3 under Linux?

I adapted the directions the best that I could, but could not get it to work. Tried it as a user script and an extension.

chrome://extensions tells me this when I tried to load it as an extension:

"Errors
Could not load extension from '~/.config/chromium/User Scripts/AdSweep.crx'. Manifest is missing or invalid.
Bad version number"

EDIT: I got it to work, I put the script version in "~/.config/chromium/Default/User Scripts/" and started it with --enable-user-scripts. I didn't put it in Default the first few times I tried. It is pretty crappy though, you see the ads when they load, then it hides them. So you aren't saving any bandwidth or rendering time, from what I can tell, it is considerably slower.

Edited 2009-08-02 06:24 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Java doesn't work though
by chemical_scum on Sun 2nd Aug 2009 02:24 UTC
chemical_scum
Member since:
2005-11-02

Java doesn't work though. It bravely tried drawing a blue rectangle where the applet should appear. But that was all it did.

Reply Score: 2

v terminal services plug-in
by Different on Sun 2nd Aug 2009 08:19 UTC
RE: terminal services plug-in
by Laurence on Sun 2nd Aug 2009 13:12 UTC in reply to "terminal services plug-in"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Hi,

Does it have a RDP plug-in. I'm planning to connect it to Windows server such as ThinServer

http://www.aikotech.com/thinserver.htm


Why not just use an RDP client then?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: terminal services plug-in
by sbergman27 on Sun 2nd Aug 2009 13:41 UTC in reply to "RE: terminal services plug-in"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

While we're sort of on the topic... anyone know of a Windows Terminal Services client for Linux (doesn't have to be a browser plugin) which handles Windows 2008 Server's proxy via http/https capability? rdesktop does not.

Reply Score: 2

hype?
by emilsedgh on Sun 2nd Aug 2009 14:26 UTC
emilsedgh
Member since:
2007-06-21

i feel there is too much hype around this project and the reason is only google.

OMG chrome has plugins support now
OMG chrome looks like a gtk+ app now

chrome was nothing if it wasnt google's. i mean, its not chrome's goodness, its just google's hype.

Reply Score: 0

RE: hype?
by sbergman27 on Sun 2nd Aug 2009 14:35 UTC in reply to "hype?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

chrome was nothing if it wasnt google's. i mean, its not chrome's goodness, its just google's hype.

Webkit is about the most exciting development going in the browser world, due to its quality, speed, and refreshingly clean code base.

Plus Chrome and IE are the only browsers which have broken out of the old and flawed "threads are cool" mentality, and are thus the only browsers that implement a sane process model for today's browser usage patterns. (Now, if you want to talk about hype gone pathalogical, let's talk about threads.)

Edited 2009-08-02 14:49 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: hype?
by emilsedgh on Sun 2nd Aug 2009 16:41 UTC in reply to "RE: hype?"
emilsedgh Member since:
2007-06-21

oh, wait, im not talking about webkit. webkit is cool and there is no doubt.

what chrome has to offer, is not really interesting. i mean it definitely was a good idea to make a browser with threads so if a tab crashes, others wont. but that that little idea/feature worths a whole new browser?

look at gmail. when started, it had many many things to offer. chrome? nothing compared to that.

also, do you really think users care about multi-thread stuff in chrome (if there was no hype around it?)
how many times you experienced a crash on firefox?

what im saying is that, if gmail was not google's and belonged to a not really famous company, it was still going to be successful. but if chrome was another company's project, it had no user at all.

and this multi-thread thingy is one of those OMG's:
OMG if a tab crashes on chrome it wont cause crash in whole program.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: hype?
by WereCatf on Sun 2nd Aug 2009 16:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: hype?"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

how many times you experienced a crash on firefox?

Quite often, actually. I still use it, but I will be pretty glad when they get around to making it threaded in a way that only one tab crashes.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: hype?
by sbergman27 on Sun 2nd Aug 2009 17:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: hype?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Quite often, actually. I still use it, but I will be pretty glad when they get around to making it threaded in a way that only one tab crashes.

You probably already know this, but nspluginwrapper yields some advantages in this area even if you are running a 32 bit browser. Wrapping the plugin means it runs in its own process. When Flash crashes, the browser doesn't. Unwrapped, the browser dies when Flash does. (Did I say Flash? I meant to say 'the generic, anonymous plugin'.)

Edited 2009-08-02 17:20 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: hype?
by sbergman27 on Sun 2nd Aug 2009 17:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: hype?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

oh, wait, im not talking about webkit. webkit is cool and there is no doubt.

And what other major browsers for Windows or Linux, based on Webkit, are as far along as Chrome/Chromium? None, so far as I know. MacOSX has Safari, of course.

i mean it definitely was a good idea to make a browser with threads so if a tab crashes, others wont. but that that little idea/feature worths a whole new browser?

Absolutely. If Firefox, for example, decides to follow that route, they're going to end up with what is essentially a new browser. And yes, the feature is well worth it.

also, do you really think users care about multi-thread stuff in chrome

That's 'multiprocess'. (Actually hybrid multiprocess/multithread.) They care about stability, even if they don't understand threads and processes.

how many times you experienced a crash on firefox?

Plenty.

But let me ask you this. Why are you taking the time and trouble to complain (in not a few words) about Chrome/Chromium getting a Page 2 story on OSNews about a major new feature which represents a significant milestone for the open-source project? I sense an agenda of some sort.

Edited 2009-08-02 17:27 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: hype?
by emilsedgh on Sun 2nd Aug 2009 17:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: hype?"
emilsedgh Member since:
2007-06-21

[quote]But let me ask you this. Why are you taking the time and trouble to complain (in not a few words) about Chrome/Chromium getting a Page 2 story on OSNews about a major new feature which represents a significant milestone for the open-source project? I sense an agenda of some sort. [/quote]

i didnt meant to complain, just chatting with few people to see if they think the same and/or argue me.

about the above, well, firefox is stable to me and i personally dont think multi-thread worths that much.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: hype?
by WereCatf on Sun 2nd Aug 2009 18:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: hype?"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

firefox is stable to me and i personally dont think multi-thread worths that much.

Just try to think out of the box a little; some people have to use less stable plugins sometimes and for them any extra stability in the browser will be very welcome. As it might be very welcome for plugin developers as well. And it just so happens that FireFox ain't all that stable for everyone. People who use their browser for research and have perhaps even dozens of tabs open will find it absolutely disastrous every time the browser dies, so to them too it'll be god sent to be able to close only the crashed tab and not lose everything they had open.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: hype?
by smitty on Sun 2nd Aug 2009 18:23 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: hype?"
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

The correct solution for buggy plugins isn't to seperate the browser tabs into seperate processes (IMO), it's to seperate each plugin into it's own process so that it can't affect the browser.

That said, I think Chrome has shown that the process per tab model can work and has interesting properties. I think (and hope) that Firefox is working on making this an optional feature, so that you can turn it on if you have the extra memory to spare or leave it off it you want to.

Also, for those who are worried about losing a dozen tabs if Firefox happens to die, worry no more. I regularly browse with > 40 tabs open at a time, and have never lost one. OK, crashes are very rare for me, but whenever they do happen (usually a windows crash rather than firefox) I just restart Firefox and it asks me whether I'd like to restore my tabs or not. I click YES, and then they're all back.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: hype?
by sbergman27 on Sun 2nd Aug 2009 18:41 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: hype?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

The correct solution for buggy plugins isn't to seperate the browser tabs into seperate processes (IMO),

Chrome's hybrid multiprocess/multithread model is the best generalized solution for a complex and security sensitive application like a browser. It protects against unstable plugins and crash bugs in the browser itself. It lets users and developers clearly see the resource usage that their site/application is using. And allows the user to easily identify, and terminate, sites/apps which exhibit pathological resource consumption or other behavior. It's just the right way to do it. Give me one good reason that my online banking session should live in the same virtual memory space as my YouTube session and OSNews sessions. From a security standpoint, that's insane.

Regarding the memory issue... the way Firefox hogs^Wutilizes resources to "improve" performance and "enhance" the user experience... the difference between threads and process/threads is likely to be in the noise. Especially considering the substantial memory savings of Webkit relative to Gecko.

Edited 2009-08-02 18:45 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: hype?
by elmimmo on Tue 4th Aug 2009 13:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: hype?"
elmimmo Member since:
2005-09-17

The fact that it loads way faster than Firefox and handles more stuff more promptly does count a lot to me. Firefox starts feeling heavy rather fast no matter if I use it on my Macbook or on my netbook. Chromium flies by comparison (and I am not talking about HTML rendering speed, but about the way the chrome -hehe- reacts to user input).

Reply Score: 1

UltraZelda64
Member since:
2006-12-05

"If a lack of third-party plug-in support (i.e. Flash) kept you from trying out Chrome on your Linux system, then avoid no longer."

Nah... in my case, it was more along the lines of daily 12MB "updates," extreme bugginess, incompleteness, and in general its obvious alpha status that hits you upside the head like a sledgehammer every time you run it...

Chromium was such a bad experience, I might just even bypass even the betas and *maybe* finally give it a chance once it hits its first official release. And even then, I seriously doubt it'll become a browser I use on a daily (or even weekly) basis. I'm in no hurry really, considering Google Chrome on Windows didn't exactly impress me from a user interface perspective. Under the hood, though, I admit that it makes some nice changes that would be great to have (processes per tab/tab separation and process monitor, specifically).

Edited 2009-08-03 01:01 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Build tools
by qbeck99 on Mon 3rd Aug 2009 22:57 UTC
qbeck99
Member since:
2009-08-03

So to build a browser on linux, I now need to install google build tools?
Totally unreasonable,

Reply Score: 1