SEARCH

Enter your search query in the box above ^, or use the forum search tool.

You are not logged in.

#51 2011-01-07 18:39:29

omns
#! wanderer
From: ~/
Registered: 2008-11-25
Posts: 5,131

Re: Google Chrome Stable

spurious wrote:

That still wouldnt work for me as i the packages in experimental still weren't new enough and left me with unmet dependencies hence i had to grab one from the natty repos.

Interesting, maybe the update to experimental is only a few days away. I'd be waiting for them but it sounds like you know how to tinker, break and fix things just fine wink

Offline

Be excellent to each other!

#52 2011-01-07 19:01:43

#1936
#! CrunchBanger
Registered: 2009-05-15
Posts: 125

Re: Google Chrome Stable

spurious wrote:
#1936 wrote:
spurious wrote:

No i was referring to the possibility of iceweasel becoming the default browser again.

Anyways, i use google chrome unstable and iceweasel 4.0b8 concurrently on my system.  Best of both worlds smile


slightly off-topic but...how where you able to get iceweasel 4.0b8 up and running? i currently have iceweasel 4.0b7 from: deb http://mozilla.debian.net/packages/ ./, however the new beta 8 gives me dependency errors which so far i'm unable to solve.

my problem is similar to the one described here: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermai … 08976.html

thanks for any help


I installed the various unmet dependencies via downloading the debs from the ubuntu/debian unstable repositories and installing them via dpkg.  Not ideal i know, but it was the only way I could get the beta of Firefox/Iceweasel installed from repository.

I needed to install

-  libnss3-1d_3.12.9~beta2-1_i386.deb from the debian unstable repos.

-  libcairo2_1.10.0-1ubuntu5_i386.deb from the ubuntu natty repos
-  libpixman-1-0_0.18.4-1build1_i386 from debian unstable repos

I then proceeded to install xulrunner 2.0 and Iceweasel 4.0b8 from synaptic which installed without errors.




You might have different unmet dependencies on your system, but its just a matter of installing them a later deb package from a trusted repository


ok, thanks! i'll try this approach once i'm back from work.

Offline

#53 2011-01-07 19:20:30

spurious
Member
From: /europe/ireland
Registered: 2011-01-06
Posts: 16

Re: Google Chrome Stable

yea maybe the update wasn't too long away smile


I used to use arch so im well used to tinkering and things breaking but crunchbang is way way better big_smile

Offline

#54 2011-01-08 14:48:02

rikhardfloss
#! CrunchBanger
Registered: 2009-07-27
Posts: 110

Re: Google Chrome Stable

hi all,

just my 2cents...

i really think this is a really bad idea (chrome being the default browser), in a distro with the goals of #!CB... wich i think are being fast and light on resources and apps.

my caveats against this are:

chrome = + memory
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fir … ,2558.html

i have the same results with my ancient laptop, an Acer 3614 with celeron M380 (1,6GHz)+512Mb of RAM

i must say that i don't use Iceweasel, my choice is GNUIcecat, with it + more than 20 extensions in the above hardware i am able to work without any problems having 10 to 12 tabs opened, including gmail and google reader and sometimes writing with scribefire.

i am always running terminal (2tabs) one with screen with 3 screens + rtorrent + zim +htop + mocp + pidgin or pino + clipman and the usual #!CB stock xfce apps like conky

client-id surveillance

thinking about this great thread http://crunchbanglinux.org/forums/topic … -security/ i really don't want to be tagged by google, that's why even using some of their services i turned off HISTORY ( http://techcrunch.com/2009/11/05/google … about-you/ ) and i also make use of duckduckgo or scroogle instead of the plain google search.

things have been improving in Chrome (Chromium doesn't have this issues) but Mozilla is much better when privacy is a concern ( http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101219/tc … emicrosoft ). ; after all Mozilla Foundation doesn't have a business model that depends on your privacy or the lack of it as google does.

http://www.srware.net/en/software_srwar … s_iron.php
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ … e_tracking
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ … rom_Chrome
http://blog.chromium.org/2008/10/google … oogle.html
http://blog.chromium.org/2010/06/in-open-for-rlz.html

tabs + speed
http://arewefastyet.com/

As i said above, Mozilla Firefox or any of it's descendents are much lower on memory resources than Chromium/Chrome at least until Mozilla Firefox implements fully the Electrolysis project.

As the above link also shows the new FIrefox is much much faster, i've been testing it (FF4.09pre) and it's quite fast and once again lower on memory resources than Chromium (devel) that i also test using ubuntu's PPA in my #!CB statler xfce i686.

Because of all of the above i really think it's not a good idea make Chrome the default browser, but this is just the opinion of a happy #!CB Statler user.


P.S. forgive my english

Offline

#55 2011-01-08 17:11:14

anonymous
The Mystery Member
Registered: 2008-11-29
Posts: 9,419

Re: Google Chrome Stable

Ok but does Google Chrome feel slower? Or does it slow down your other programs?

Offline

#56 2011-01-08 18:16:32

rikhardfloss
#! CrunchBanger
Registered: 2009-07-27
Posts: 110

Re: Google Chrome Stable

anonymous wrote:

Ok but does Google Chrome feel slower? Or does it slow down your other programs?

indeed!

it's simply impossible to work with 3 or 4 tabs opened in chromium/chrome (i just installed the #!CB version of chrome).

Offline

#57 2011-01-08 19:25:01

spurious
Member
From: /europe/ireland
Registered: 2011-01-06
Posts: 16

Re: Google Chrome Stable

rikhardfloss wrote:

hi all,

just my 2cents...

i really think this is a really bad idea (chrome being the default browser), in a distro with the goals of #!CB... wich i think are being fast and light on resources and apps.

my caveats against this are:

chrome = + memory
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fir … ,2558.html

i have the same results with my ancient laptop, an Acer 3614 with celeron M380 (1,6GHz)+512Mb of RAM

i must say that i don't use Iceweasel, my choice is GNUIcecat, with it + more than 20 extensions in the above hardware i am able to work without any problems having 10 to 12 tabs opened, including gmail and google reader and sometimes writing with scribefire.

i am always running terminal (2tabs) one with screen with 3 screens + rtorrent + zim +htop + mocp + pidgin or pino + clipman and the usual #!CB stock xfce apps like conky


tabs + speed
http://arewefastyet.com/

As i said above, Mozilla Firefox or any of it's descendents are much lower on memory resources than Chromium/Chrome at least until Mozilla Firefox implements fully the Electrolysis project.

As the above link also shows the new FIrefox is much much faster, i've been testing it (FF4.09pre) and it's quite fast and once again lower on memory resources than Chromium (devel) that i also test using ubuntu's PPA in my #!CB statler xfce i686.

Because of all of the above i really think it's not a good idea make Chrome the default browser, but this is just the opinion of a happy #!CB Statler user.


P.S. forgive my english



Chrome is generally regarded as one of the fastest browsers on the market along with opera, and in my experience, on a 1.6ghz atom netbook, it really seems much sleeker and faster then the old default Iceweasel which took an age to start.
Performance on sites such as gmail and slashdot seems much faster on chrome compared to iceweasel and thats even with the newest beta of iceweasel.


The apparent increased memory usage is due to the separation of processes within the browser, eg flash is sandboxed and each page is given its own process.  To measure the correct memory usage of chrome, type about:memory in the tab bar and look for the resident memory column.  This measures memory that isn't shared with any other process apart from the browser itself.



arewefastyet.com is a mozilla owned website, and as such its probably a little bit subjective.



However, its only the default browser.  Nothing stopping anyone from installing midori/firefoc/opera or whatever they want  instead of chrome

Last edited by spurious (2011-01-08 19:37:11)

Offline

#58 2011-01-08 19:30:54

corenominal
WRONG
From: Lincoln, UK
Registered: 2008-11-20
Posts: 5,131
Website

Re: Google Chrome Stable

spurious wrote:

However, its only the default browser.  Nothing stopping anyone from installing midori/firefoc/opera or whatever they want  instead of chrome

Agreed:

sudo apt-get remove google-chrome-stable && sudo apt-get install <your-preferred-browser>

Simples! smile


Ex-developer of #! CrunchBang. Follow me on Twitter smile

Offline

#59 2011-01-08 19:50:31

Unia
#! Octo-portal-pussy
From: The Netherlands
Registered: 2010-07-17
Posts: 4,634
Website

Re: Google Chrome Stable

corenominal wrote:

lol


If you can't sit by a cozy fire with your code in hand enjoying its simplicity and clarity, it needs more work. --Carlos Torres

I am a #! forum moderator. Feel free to send me a PM with any question you have!

Offline

#60 2011-01-08 21:17:58

#1936
#! CrunchBanger
Registered: 2009-05-15
Posts: 125

Re: Google Chrome Stable

#1936 wrote:
spurious wrote:
#1936 wrote:

slightly off-topic but...how where you able to get iceweasel 4.0b8 up and running? i currently have iceweasel 4.0b7 from: deb http://mozilla.debian.net/packages/ ./, however the new beta 8 gives me dependency errors which so far i'm unable to solve.

my problem is similar to the one described here: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermai … 08976.html

thanks for any help


I installed the various unmet dependencies via downloading the debs from the ubuntu/debian unstable repositories and installing them via dpkg.  Not ideal i know, but it was the only way I could get the beta of Firefox/Iceweasel installed from repository.

I needed to install

-  libnss3-1d_3.12.9~beta2-1_i386.deb from the debian unstable repos.

-  libcairo2_1.10.0-1ubuntu5_i386.deb from the ubuntu natty repos
-  libpixman-1-0_0.18.4-1build1_i386 from debian unstable repos

I then proceeded to install xulrunner 2.0 and Iceweasel 4.0b8 from synaptic which installed without errors.




You might have different unmet dependencies on your system, but its just a matter of installing them a later deb package from a trusted repository


ok, thanks! i'll try this approach once i'm back from work.


worked flawlessly, thanks spurious

Offline

#61 2011-01-08 22:57:07

spurious
Member
From: /europe/ireland
Registered: 2011-01-06
Posts: 16

Re: Google Chrome Stable

Glad to help big_smile

Offline

#62 2011-01-09 22:56:05

TRF
#! Member
Registered: 2009-07-25
Posts: 86

Re: Google Chrome Stable

+ one more vote in favor of icecat ... chrome goes mad with 5-10 tabs open (with memmory use of 75 % (not a disk cache - eats real mem). I'm slowly migrating to icecat though ... firefox sync works there with charm
the other option to consider is epiphany ...

Offline

#63 2011-01-09 23:00:59

anonymous
The Mystery Member
Registered: 2008-11-29
Posts: 9,419

Re: Google Chrome Stable

What would be the advantage of Icecat over Iceweasel? Both are basically just Firefox nah?

Offline

#64 2011-01-10 04:35:11

TRF
#! Member
Registered: 2009-07-25
Posts: 86

Re: Google Chrome Stable

icecat from ppa is more recent version and it does not eat more RAM (I compare with same plugins installed and >10 tabs opened - usually same tabs)
3.5.16 vs 3.6.13 tNng4aw
and I do love "Firefox" about ... using Chrome for CB forums though >)

Offline

#65 2011-01-10 04:52:27

Texus
#! CrunchBanger
Registered: 2009-09-08
Posts: 151

Re: Google Chrome Stable

Swiftfox works nice for me.

Offline

#66 2011-01-10 14:02:45

albannach1
Member
Registered: 2010-12-26
Posts: 15

Re: Google Chrome Stable

Texus wrote:

Swiftfox works nice for me.

+1
I've played around with Chrome but I really can't notice a speed difference from Swiftfox. Plus I love my extensions!
I don't care what the default browser is, so long as it's not a part of some "meta-package" and I can easily apt-get away and get my browser of choice up & running.

Offline

#67 2011-01-10 21:42:08

TRF
#! Member
Registered: 2009-07-25
Posts: 86

Re: Google Chrome Stable

BTW it there any chance to do (open all tabs in folder) in chrome ... when you do have additional subfolders chrome just opens them TO (or just asks) damn ...

Offline

#68 2011-01-10 21:43:54

anonymous
The Mystery Member
Registered: 2008-11-29
Posts: 9,419

Re: Google Chrome Stable

@TRF - you can right-click a bookmark folder and select Open All Bookmarks.

Offline

#69 2011-01-12 12:30:52

rikhardfloss
#! CrunchBanger
Registered: 2009-07-27
Posts: 110

Re: Google Chrome Stable

spurious wrote:

Chrome is generally regarded as one of the fastest browsers on the market along with opera, and in my experience, on a 1.6ghz atom netbook, it really seems much sleeker and faster then the old default Iceweasel which took an age to start.
Performance on sites such as gmail and slashdot seems much faster on chrome compared to iceweasel and thats even with the newest beta of iceweasel.


The apparent increased memory usage is due to the separation of processes within the browser, eg flash is sandboxed and each page is given its own process.  To measure the correct memory usage of chrome, type about:memory in the tab bar and look for the resident memory column.  This measures memory that isn't shared with any other process apart from the browser itself.



arewefastyet.com is a mozilla owned website, and as such its probably a little bit subjective.



However, its only the default browser.  Nothing stopping anyone from installing midori/firefoc/opera or whatever they want  instead of chrome

1. yes chrome is fast but as several tests show the new Firefox 4.09pre is as fast, and we shouldn't look just for JS performance, in fact in this regard the new browsers are very much at the same level, everyone of them.

2. yes i know that, i mentioned that and i said that when Firefox implements Electrolysis it might waste more memory the way chrome now does.

3. you're right "arewefastyet.com is a mozilla owned website," but it really doens't matter they own the site because the tests they use in that site are made by the other browsers to test their own performance, in that site mozilla doesn't use their own JS test called http://dromaeo.com/ but instead Google's and Apple JS tests, Sunspider and V8Bench.

4. this is a forum, that is why i just wrote my opinion and nothing more, i know that i am not forced to use chrome the same way i never used Iceweasel.

5. at least goole is doing a great service to the entire web by releasing and supporting free standards:

Google to pull H.264 HTML5 support from Chrome
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/ … 68092.html

cheers

P.S. the default #!CB install/livecd should have 3 choices, the default browser, a cli browser and a lighter one for the gui, Midori, uzbl or maybe Hv3.

Last edited by rikhardfloss (2011-01-14 12:13:34)

Offline

#70 2011-01-14 21:32:21

gnomic
Member
Registered: 2009-01-26
Posts: 47

Re: Google Chrome Stable

Yes, what about proxiy settings in Chrome? When is this browser going to become feature-complete for Linux? I watch and wait as successive versions appear only to see yet again that silly tab pop up advising me to modify my environment should I want or need to use a proxy. Hello??? It might be an educational exercise to learn how to do this, but it could also be regarded as an unnecessary nuisance. I don't see this weirdness with any other browser in Linux (well actually I haven't checked what goes on in lynx :-).

As it happens I spend a lot of my web time in an environment where a proxy is required for downloads via ftp, so this deficiency in Chrome is an active pain. Could it be that Google doesn't think Linux important enough to provide a fully functional browser? Is there something I'm missing here, a valid reason why Chrome doesn't provide for simple proxy setting?

Offline

#71 2011-01-18 03:04:08

caieng
#! CrunchBanger
Registered: 2009-12-31
Posts: 103

Re: Google Chrome Stable

spurious wrote:

I'm delighted the google chrome has been replace the aging 3.5.9 Iceweasel, which is very outdated by this stage.

Several members have commented on the relative speediness of Chrome.  I decided to test a few browsers, including the new default, Chrome, and, the familiar Ice Weasel.  I found that both Chrome and Ice Weasel were equally fast/slow, depending on your point of view.

Faster than what?  Faster than an old, obsolete version of SeaMonkey running on Windows98 SE. 
Slower than what?  Slower than Konqueror running on CrunchBang XFCE 686, or AMD, from Jan 2011.

The algorithm is Internet Radio Station, i.e. streaming audio reception.  Test involves measuring installation time, boot time, power off time, browser start up time, and, most importantly, time required to receive streaming audio, from three different radio stations, (mp3, ogg, aac+) using VLC, the default streaming audio player in both CrunchBang (1.13) and Windows 98 (0.86f).  The computer is a PIII, 1.1 GHz, with SATA drive, and S3 AGP video card, about 12 years old.  I also ran the same tests on a PIV D, with CrunchBang XFCE AMD (Jan 2011, NOT Liquorix, which in my experience is wholly unusable, unpredictable, and without merit.)

The conclusion of this testing is that Chrome is certainly not faster than Ice Weasel, but the latter is, in my opinion, more user friendly, than Chrome, and neither browser is as fast as Konqueror.
(For those who like Midori, it is still in development, and does not offer a feature required for this testing algorithm, namely, the ability to "remember" a need to funnel the data to VLC, without requiring the user to acknowledge that fact.... Opera, also tested, but not with CrunchBang--as Opera is not Included in the Synaptic list of choices available for download--was tested with a different distro, and proved 20% slower than FireFox aka Ice Weasel,--Chrome in that distro was a complete failure, invoking Firefox to reach VLC.)

SM = Sea Monkey 1.13
IW = Ice Weasel
Ch= Chrome
Ko= Konqueror

Win 98:  Boot up: (sec)  power off: (sec) browser startup (sec) mp3 (sec) ogg (sec) aac+ (sec)
.............................70..............5................SM............2...............9...............10................9

CrunchBang: ........70.............10................Ch............7...............6................7.................6
..................................................................IW.............7...............6................7.................6
..................................................................Ko............10..............5................6.................5

The three radio stations may be found here:
http://www.listenlive.eu/classical.html

mp3: http://www.nrk.no/klassisk/
ogg: http://www.rozhlas.cz/d-dur/portal/
aac+: http://www.radio4.nl/

Bottom line:  in fifteen more years, maybe Linux will be able to power off as fast as Windows 98, but I hope it won't take fifteen years to find a browser than can start as quickly as obsolete SeaMonkey starts up in Windows 98....All those who tout the superiority of this or that browser:  show me the data.
Less talk, more numbers.  I will stick with Konqueror on CrunchBang XFCE, until someone produces something better.

CAI ENG

Offline

#72 2011-01-18 03:56:36

corenominal
WRONG
From: Lincoln, UK
Registered: 2008-11-20
Posts: 5,131
Website

Re: Google Chrome Stable

Since installing Google Chrome "Stable", I have experienced a few seg faults where the browser has completely disappeared from my screen. This is not good. I cannot remember a time when Iceweasel crashed in such a manner. Has anybody else experienced anything like this?

* * * * I think I probably made a mistake by including Chrome! * * * *

Anyhow, I have now installed Iceweasel 4.0 Beta 9 on my systems. I have been using it as my default browser for the past few days and it is working well. I think it is definitely worth considering it as a replacement for Chrome.


Ex-developer of #! CrunchBang. Follow me on Twitter smile

Offline

#73 2011-01-18 04:35:31

vrkalak
#! Die Hard
From: Las Vegas > US
Registered: 2009-09-14
Posts: 1,647

Re: Google Chrome Stable

I have been using Google-Chrome-Beta since you added it to the #!Repros.

I have not had any problems what-so-ever.  Still crisp and fast.

Granted Chrome does not have all the Add-ons and Extensions that Firefox/Iceweasel has, but . . . that's cool.  cool

Last edited by vrkalak (2011-01-18 04:35:55)


Registered Linux User: #497030
my DeviantART page
-- #!Crunchbang- Sid "Animal"  (Fluxbox) -- LMDE Fluxbox Edition -- Manjaro-Fluxbox --

Offline

#74 2011-01-18 04:47:53

anonymous
The Mystery Member
Registered: 2008-11-29
Posts: 9,419

Re: Google Chrome Stable

@caieng - have you tried Seamonkey on Linux?

Also why use internet streaming for testing browsers? When people say a browser is fast they're usually referring to startup speed or page loading (text/images). Also the focus for modern browsers seems to be faster javascript engines.

Offline

Help fund CrunchBang, donate to the project!

#75 2011-01-18 04:54:45

hhh
Cityspeak
Registered: 2010-08-04
Posts: 3,253

Re: Google Chrome Stable

corenominal wrote:

Anyhow, I have now installed Iceweasel 4.0 Beta 9 on my systems.

I'm getting stuck. I'm following these instructions...
http://glandium.org/blog/?p=1529
... so I temporarily added this to my sources list...

# Iceweasel 4 beta
deb http://ftp.debian.org/debian experimental main
deb http://mozilla.debian.net/ experimental iceweasel-4.0

I then ran an apt-get update and apt-get install -t experimental iceweasel which successfully installed... Iceweasel 3.6.13. What am I doing wrong?


bunsenlabs     8)     forum mod squad

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB

Copyright © 2012 CrunchBang Linux.
Proudly powered by Debian. Hosted by Linode.
Debian is a registered trademark of Software in the Public Interest, Inc.
Server: acrobat

Debian Logo