Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Google Preparing To Rollout Stable Chrome Releases Even Faster

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

  • Developer12
    replied
    Originally posted by dlq84 View Post

    I don't get what you're saying. Are you under the impression that Chromium aren't developed by Google or something?
    All of those quotes are from imaginary google employees. Clearly you don't know enough about how chrome came to be dominant.

    Leave a comment:


  • piorunz
    replied
    They can do whatever they want, even release "stable" version every day, I will never use their spying product. Happy with Firefox and blocked goggle cookies.

    Leave a comment:


  • gnattu
    replied
    Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
    There would be an issue of websites no longer being able to identify if the version of the browser is new enough
    It has always been not enough since... decades ago?

    The UA detection is full of hacks and lies, just to not break the web. Websites should always use feature test not version test, because the version number in UA is lying since forever. The more you rely on UA, the more broken the web will be.

    A funny fact: macOS UA still reports they are Mac OS X 10.15, and even on arm CPU still reports Intel. Because some stupid web-server think the version number of macOS cannot larger than 10 and some web-server would assume the client is an ancient powerpc mac if the CPU is not Intel. iPads are using Mac UAs nowadays as default because the iPad UA may lead to an "phone version" website providing ridiculous UI on a larger screen. So please please please, don't use UA as client identification anymore, it is broken enough.

    Leave a comment:


  • schmidtbag
    replied
    Originally posted by ireri View Post
    At this point, they should just make it a rolling release and call it a day.
    Honestly... a rolling release isn't a bad idea for them. There would be an issue of websites no longer being able to identify if the version of the browser is new enough, but browsers already have methods to inform the user that it is severely outdated. They could take it a step further by being more upfront about it if for example your browser's build were a year old.

    I'm not saying they should do this, but I don't think it'd be bad if they did.

    Leave a comment:


  • user1
    replied
    Originally posted by avis View Post
    Welcome SSD tear and wear.

    52 releases per year, 200MB per release, > 1TB writes for nothing.

    Though it's nothing in comparison to how people abuse their devices simply by browsing the web. Barely anyone around me disables disk cache or moves their browser profile to a RAM disk.
    If only traditional package managers adopted delta updates like Flatpak - an area where Flatpak is actually more efficient. I always felt just how dumb it is when updating to a new version with a package manager essentially means completely reinstalling the software with the new version.

    Leave a comment:


  • avis
    replied
    Originally posted by ClosedSource View Post
    Unfortunately, barely anyone on the planet is aware of electronics wear and tear. They assume things randomly break at some point and that if something lasted a week, it is likely to never break.
    People are not entirely wrong though: in the average computer only the moving parts (e.g. fans) and storage have an expiration date of sorts. Motherboards (with solid capacitors), CPUs, GPUs may work indefinitely and they often do. I have more than 20 years old PCs around me which are as good as new. Well made spinning rust (HDDs) is also extremely reliable and may work for decades.

    Leave a comment:


  • ClosedSource
    replied
    Originally posted by avis View Post
    Though it's nothing in comparison to how people abuse their devices simply by browsing the web. Barely anyone around me disables disk cache or moves their browser profile to a RAM disk.
    Unfortunately, barely anyone on the planet is aware of electronics wear and tear. They assume things randomly break at some point and that if something lasted a week, it is likely to never break.

    Leave a comment:


  • carewolf
    replied
    Originally posted by dlq84 View Post

    I don't get what you're saying. Are you under the impression that Chromium aren't developed by Google or something?
    Chromium Embedded Framework is not developed by Google, neither is Edge, Opera, or QtWebEngine.

    And they are trying to kill them one by one

    Leave a comment:


  • Jakobson
    replied
    Originally posted by chromer View Post
    Why? what users want is stability, bug fixes and useful features, not version number!
    By looking at https://www.chromestatus.com/ , you can barely see a useful feature in compare to past and this attitude.
    Google Security blog earlier this month explained it very well:

    Not all security bug fixes are used for n-day exploitation. But we don’t know which bugs are exploited in practice, and which aren't, so we treat all critical and high severity bugs as if they will be exploited. A lot of work goes into making sure these bugs get triaged and fixed as soon as possible. Rather than having fixes sitting and waiting to be included in the next bi-weekly update, weekly updates will allow us to get important security bug fixes to you sooner, and better protect you and your most sensitive data.

    Leave a comment:


  • avis
    replied
    Welcome SSD tear and wear.

    52 releases per year, 200MB per release, > 1TB writes for nothing.

    Though it's nothing in comparison to how people abuse their devices simply by browsing the web. Barely anyone around me disables disk cache or moves their browser profile to a RAM disk.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X