Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chrome 101 Released With Priority Hints, Federated Credential Management API

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • microcode
    replied
    Originally posted by kylew77 View Post

    Chromium != Chrome. Chrome has several things that Chromium doesn't have like synced passwords, bookmarks, google account, DRM video support, etc. Chrome is only available for select Linux distros and no lesser known operating systems. Sure Chromium works across the Linux and *BSD space but Chrome doesn't.
    DRM works fine in Chromium, you literally just have to install the file. Google account logins work fine, settings sync works fine... At least it did last I checked.

    Leave a comment:


  • kylew77
    replied
    Originally posted by microcode View Post

    Whatchu mean crumbs? Chromium works great on desktop Linux, and they spend a lot of money to keep it that way. They even enabled niche stuff like remote desktop. FIDO2 and WebAuthn work great, WebGL works great, everything works.
    Chromium != Chrome. Chrome has several things that Chromium doesn't have like synced passwords, bookmarks, google account, DRM video support, etc. Chrome is only available for select Linux distros and no lesser known operating systems. Sure Chromium works across the Linux and *BSD space but Chrome doesn't.

    Leave a comment:


  • microcode
    replied
    Originally posted by kylew77 View Post
    Calling Chrome Multiplatform is a bit of misnomer. They have limited Linux support and only officially support a small number of distros and don't even support any of the *BSDs or more exotic OSs. Basically they support ChromeOS, Windows, Mac, and throw crumbs at Linux while giving the middle finger to *BSDs.
    Whatchu mean crumbs? Chromium works great on desktop Linux, and they spend a lot of money to keep it that way. They even enabled niche stuff like remote desktop. FIDO2 and WebAuthn work great, WebGL works great, everything works.

    Leave a comment:


  • microcode
    replied
    Originally posted by Anvil View Post
    who cares, its Goggle Chrom anyway
    The overwhelming majority of web users, that's who cares lol.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlie68
    replied
    Originally posted by eydee View Post
    Wow they eventually did hit 100 before Firefox. Now the competition is over. Google won.
    Let's see if Firefox goes back to 7.12.7 or whatever it's supposed to be right now. It's hard to keep track of it.
    This is a huge problem! Why not start from 000000001?

    Leave a comment:


  • kylew77
    replied
    Calling Chrome Multiplatform is a bit of misnomer. They have limited Linux support and only officially support a small number of distros and don't even support any of the *BSDs or more exotic OSs. Basically they support ChromeOS, Windows, Mac, and throw crumbs at Linux while giving the middle finger to *BSDs.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jaxad0127
    replied
    Originally posted by birdie View Post

    This numbering scheme is insanity and should be abandoned. It gives you zero idea what you're running whether it's fresh and actual.

    I've proposed a different scheme for years now but no one is listening:

    [YY]YY.MM, e.g. [20]22.4 - might not be good if there are several releases a month, see next

    or

    [YY]YY.NN, e.g. [20]22.5 (NN - is the release number for this year starting with 0).

    This makes perfect sense and easy to read.

    Ubuntu actually employed it and I'm almost thankful for that except they stick to crazy useless code names (check their mirrors - no actual releases, code names everywhere) which should have never been there in the first place. It's a Debian anachronism and should die ASAP.
    Unfortunately, a lot of sites check for simple version numbers, so that will break them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anvil
    replied
    they should release it as 22.4.1 an 22.5.1 etc , kinda the same way Mesa versioning

    Leave a comment:


  • birdie
    replied
    Originally posted by eydee View Post
    Wow they eventually did hit 100 before Firefox. Now the competition is over. Google won.
    Let's see if Firefox goes back to 7.12.7 or whatever it's supposed to be right now. It's hard to keep track of it.
    This numbering scheme is insanity and should be abandoned. It gives you zero idea what you're running whether it's fresh and actual.

    I've proposed a different scheme for years now but no one is listening:

    [YY]YY.MM, e.g. [20]22.4 - might not be good if there are several releases a month, see next

    or

    [YY]YY.NN, e.g. [20]22.5 (NN - is the release number for this year starting with 0).

    This makes perfect sense and easy to read.

    Ubuntu actually employed it and I'm almost thankful for that except they stick to crazy useless code names (check their mirrors - no actual releases, code names everywhere) which should have never been there in the first place. It's a Debian anachronism and should die ASAP.
    Last edited by birdie; 27 April 2022, 04:15 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • eydee
    replied
    Wow they eventually did hit 100 before Firefox. Now the competition is over. Google won.
    Let's see if Firefox goes back to 7.12.7 or whatever it's supposed to be right now. It's hard to keep track of it.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X