Google releases half-baked Chrome

Google is not an open source enthusiast. They are a money enthusiast. You know, like every other company out there. And, at least for now, Windows is where they money's at.

They could just as easily ignore the Linux and OSX space, so I for one, am glad we have SOMETHING to touch and feel and patiently wait for a more mature version.

They choose the wrong toolkit and now they are paying the price.

If choosing the "wrong toolkit" means having a successful launch of the Win32 product while it takes many more months to deliver the Linux and OSX one, then I think they chose properly. As much as I hate to admit it. The world browses on Win32. "The needs of the many..." and all that.

"you are a developer or take great pleasure in incomplete, unpredictable, and potentially crashing software".

I thought that is why most people moved to Gnu/Linux and away from the above as exemplified in MS Windows.

No, by 'wrong toolkit' he meant 'not a toolkit that allows for easy, cross platform development'.

For instance, they could've gone with the open source QT libraries from Trolltech (now owned by Nokia). They would've been able to release Chrome for Linux almost simulatenously as the Windows version.

Some development toolkits reduce the platform specific bits of an app to as little as 5%...

Mac has such relatively easy platform, i guess. InterNet being experience. However, if You get little video window that won't enlarge, ENlarge your entire page Zoom to 400%, Nice & tight, With FULL Screen effect. Particularly useful in Beta Mind.

On Verizon 20-120 Mb games, FORGET 4770 game ard from ati, 7 will load & nOT Play, Ultimate will play, sort of on fireGL XP on FireGL is Great. in Vista machine prompts NO 3D. Yet, for TV Converter, it turned it into NEW Device, So DVD like, amazing, thats where got 4X ide from mess'a.

Does CHROME & MAC require 3D Display capable? See, ati got 2 Promised Pentium unit on 690G in 7 64r/c +4770 card. ANY Other Mdoern Card Been Much Improved, its really No More than very Complex Display Device., theres IS Absolutely NO Reason To Complain About Hardware NOR Software, at present, ITS ALL For Sale or LOAN< Open Sassy.

If You Cann't Build Into Today Is SimpleMindness, F.U.D. & too much expectation for more. I anticcaptate final formica might be Best Finish, yet Butchers Bloke NO Shoak media tranistions.
How many use ultimate to write game dvds on? Why Does 64 FALL Off, After ALL These years/ & dave?... r u list ening?, ,l ,, ,<y Name Is Mac Krone.

You speak a lot of jeberish.

Opera recently released their new beta and it is very fast, I wonder why the INQ never even mentioned the release, they used to.

If you knew much about the engineering effort required to deliver Chrome on three very different platforms you would not say google has been slow getting a linux version delivered.

The plan for Chrome is that each platform port uses native platform technologies as far as possible rather than using a cross platform toolkit such as QT that gives a rough approximation of the same. So that means we will get Win32, Cocoa and GTK+ versions of Chrome. In many areas, notably the sandbox/multi-process architecture, there are no suitable cross platform toolkits that do the job anyway. So Chrome will not use a common toolkit for all platforms, rather it will use some common components (WebKit, V8, skia etc.) and platform specific code for the rest.

There has been a lot of Chrome specific stuff to develop to get Chrome working, not least a new javascript engine V8, said sandbox/multi-process architecture and amending the ever changing WebKit to support the above. So although the plan was to always have a Win32, OS X and Linux version all built using the latest WebKit from the WebKit repository, doing all that simultaneously would be extremely ambitious and risky. And stupid.

Instead google chose to get the Win32 version working first (probably as it has the biggest user base). This allowed them to deliver a fully working browser with all the new stuff coded and tested. The technical issues with having sandboxed WebKit rendering processing and plugins such as flash all running in a different processes to the actual browser have been worked out. The WebKit specific bits have now all been upstreamed. The developer stream of Chromium is now pulling WebKit straight out of the WebKit repository - i.e. it is no longer a forked version of WebKit.

The task now is to get the equivalent Win32 specific stuff working for OS X and Linux. The good thing is they now have a Win32 version to use as a reference version for testing. While the OS X and Linux version are being built the code, including the Win32 bits, are also being refactored so that as much common code can be extracted as possible in order to minimise the platform specific code. Taking the multiprocess architecture as an example, much of the code changes that allow rendering and resource loading to occur through well defined interfaces rather than adhoc is actually platform independent. In fact, I would not be surprised to see Apple use the same architecture in future versions of Safari as the WebKit side of things are already in place.

I think you're right - vondrashek is actually from Jeber. Good spot.

Nobody cares about your whiney excuses. Go back to watching what people search for and reporting it to the government, that's the only thing Google appears to be good at.