http://www.osnews.com/story/20253/Process_Model_Explained Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2009, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Mon, 06 Jul 2009 03:58:27 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif http://www.osnews.com http://osnews.com/thread?329387 http://osnews.com/thread?329387 Your Read More summary is wrong. According to TFA the default is "--process-per-site-instance". What you describe is the optional "--process-per-site mode". Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:25:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (TheBashar) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?329393 http://osnews.com/thread?329393 ... but when this is production code, giving the general public this knob that can be set four ways is just shifting work from the developers to the users.

There are also going to be more bugs; the four different modes of operation are going to tweak different bugs. And if a design goal is that one tab can die without hurting the others, and you put out a comic book bragging about this, why not just implement it that way and be done with it? Fri, 05 Sep 2008 23:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (JoeBuck) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?329396 http://osnews.com/thread?329396 Sure, if you go along with the one user fits all approach, then yes, the developers should sit down 'the user' and test him till he bleeds to find out which method is best.

Being rather subtler than that, however, they have tested, and provided, an optimal default that 99% of users are expected to be satisfied with. People with non-standard hardware or software requirements however, can, with a little research, find out how to make chrome suit their particular needs more often.

This sort of customisability is applauded in most Open Source software, why not this piece? Sat, 06 Sep 2008 01:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (stestagg) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?329403 http://osnews.com/thread?329403 I voted you up because I think you bring up a good point, but I disagree. It could cut either way. I agree with you that more defects in the code will be manifest by giving users more flexibility with how they use the program, but the argument could also be made that forcing the developers to accommodate a larger variety of usage scenarios would force the overall code quality to be higher to reach release quality. Sat, 06 Sep 2008 03:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (thebackwash) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?329404 http://osnews.com/thread?329404 From reading their development website, one of the reasons they went with the option of operating in the single-process model was because it's easier to debug using the standard Visual Studio debugging environment. Once they had the feature, what's the point of suffering the pain of removing it, especially since they expect some of the users to also work on developing Chrome's open source codebase?

[Posted from Chrome, on which I just seem to have hit a scrolling bug] Sat, 06 Sep 2008 03:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (PlatformAgnostic) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?329413 http://osnews.com/thread?329413 A set of command switches isn't an explanation.
People who can call Chrome on the command line to find those out would understand what they did.

Still, nifty that it's that flexible. Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Kroc) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?329414 http://osnews.com/thread?329414 http://dev.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/process-models Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (cyberix) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?329415 http://osnews.com/thread?329415 Who gives a rats ass?

Google isn't really doing anybody a favor with this browser.

If you look really closely you will see that it is still a beta, but they do _not_ tell you that it has lots of unpatched security flaws and that running a beta has serious implications.

There are active exploits for Chrome and the security and privacy are just horrible. (http://security.bkis.vn/) From the way it is build, installed and preconfigured it just sucks, but people think Google betas are just like other peoples final releases. Gmail is beta for how long now??

Conclusion:

Avoid Chrome. Sat, 06 Sep 2008 11:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (kragil) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?329418 http://osnews.com/thread?329418 Now that's more like it! Why wasn't this the article! Sat, 06 Sep 2008 14:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Kroc) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?329433 http://osnews.com/thread?329433 I've been watching the Chrome 'vulnerabilities' very intensely. Besides this, there have been ~5 others, all just crashes ("denial of service"). If you'll remember, Safari didn't have too great a launch on Windows, either. Sat, 06 Sep 2008 16:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (i3X171UM) Comments