Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 3rd Jun 2009 11:21 UTC, submitted by Hakime
Google One of the defining features of Google's Chrome web browse is its sandboxing feature. You probably won't realise it's there, but from a security point of view, sand-boxing is one of the most impotant factors in browser security, as it severely limits the amount of damage a security hole can do: sure, you've got a hole in the browser, but thanks to sandboxing, you're pretty much locked in - until you break out of the sandbox, of course. Sandboxing on the Windows variant of Chrome was a "complicated affair", says Chromium developer Jeremy Moskovich, but for the Mac version, it's all a bit easier and more straightforward. On Linux, however, it's a mess.
Thread beginning with comment 366799
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
do it one distro at a time
by aeischeid on Wed 3rd Jun 2009 14:37 UTC
aeischeid
Member since:
2009-05-25

Maybe application developers should not worry about developing for 'Linux' as that is sort of impossible due to its nature. Maybe they should just go one distro at a time. developing Chrome for Ubuntu, Fedora or OpenSuse would be doable I would think. Google could pick their favorite distro or the easiest distro for them to develop on. This just seems like the most common sense way to go about it to me.

Edited 2009-06-03 14:38 UTC

Reply Score: 1

fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually, you are right, and that is often what companies do. All they have to do is pick one (perhaps Ubuntu of Fedora) and get it working on that distro. It is then up to the developers of the other distributions to get it working. Of course, this assumes an open-source model. If instead, Chrome is meant to be a closed-source product, they may as well let the wine folks keep doing their thing. It would not be worth their effort to port it to Linux. The good they get for "plays nice with Linux" would be offset by "thumbs nose at Free Software".

Reply Parent Score: 2

No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

Actually, you are right, and that is often what companies do. All they have to do is pick one (perhaps Ubuntu of Fedora) and get it working on that distro. It is then up to the developers of the other distributions to get it working. Of course, this assumes an open-source model. If instead, Chrome is meant to be a closed-source product, they may as well let the wine folks keep doing their thing. It would not be worth their effort to port it to Linux. The good they get for "plays nice with Linux" would be offset by "thumbs nose at Free Software".


No, an open source model isn't needed. Just make it work on Fedora or whatever, and document what kind of dependencies a distro will have to fulfil to make the software work.

Reply Parent Score: 1

MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

I'd be a little surprised if it was meant to be closed source, given the existence of SRWare Iron

http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron.php

Reply Parent Score: 2