Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chrome 56 Released With WebGL 2.0 By Default, FLAC Support

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

  • Chrome 56 Released With WebGL 2.0 By Default, FLAC Support

    Phoronix: Chrome 56 Released With WebGL 2.0 By Default, FLAC Support

    Chrome 56 is shipping tonight to stable users of Google's web-browser...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...ogle-Chrome-56

  • #2
    wasnt Flash supposed to be Disabled by Default in 56?

    Comment


    • #3
      Genuinely surprised that FLAC came to Chrome as well, let alone less than a month after shipping in a stable release of Firefox. This makes me happy; now I don't need to transcode my music collection to play it in my browser player.

      Comment


      • #4
        Chrome 56 ships with HTML5 by default
        And earlier versions didn't?

        Comment


        • #5
          WebGL 2.0 by default, sensitive pages (including those with password boxes) loaded over HTTP are now marked as insecure, support for FLAC audio is enabled by default
          I'm wondering whether Mozilla and Google coordinated on this... because I remember seeing all three of these pop up on Planet Mozilla as new features recently.

          Comment


          • #6
            I don't understand FLAC support in FF or Chrome or whatever-browser.
            1. Why do browsers have to be jacks-of-all-trades?
            It just increaes surface for vulnerabilities and bugs. And memory footprint.
            2. Why FLAC?
            FLAC is awesome for a backup of your CDs. But seriously, does anyone listen to his/her music collection via Browser? And: Would anyone in the world stream FLAC? That is a lot of bandwidth.

            Anyone here remember the origins of Firefox? It was once outcoupled from the Mozilla Suite (formerly Netscape, today Seamonkey) because it was named to be so "bloated", "obese" and "slow". FF 3 was fairly good and fast, but I can't say that about today's FF. (Of course, webpages have become increasingly horrible. Back in the days people used sometimes colours that looked like a LSD trip, but today there is more ads and broken Java Script code than actual content.)
            Stop TCPA, stupid software patents and corrupt politicians!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Adarion View Post
              I don't understand FLAC support in FF or Chrome or whatever-browser.
              1. Why do browsers have to be jacks-of-all-trades?
              Because OS vendors like to have bullshit lock-in or are simply different, while browsers are basically becoming the unifying layer to have a single program (web application or whatever) work everywhere, and people MUST have and know how to use a browser.

              This is actually the plan of Google with Chrome, don't know about Mozilla.

              It just increaes surface for vulnerabilities and bugs. And memory footprint.
              If modules are not loaded, there is no waste of RAM. As for vulnerabilities.. heh, the issue is PDF reading or flash, not a far simpler media player.

              2. Why FLAC?
              FLAC is awesome for a backup of your CDs. But seriously, does anyone listen to his/her music collection via Browser? And: Would anyone in the world stream FLAC? That is a lot of bandwidth.
              It seems the future of music players is in browsers that stream stuff, but with FLAC they can become local music players as well, so people can ditch whatever they were using and use only one application for all their music needs.

              FF 3 was fairly good and fast, but I can't say that about today's FF.
              I can. If you have the right addons that stfu the bullshit in the webpages it's still fairly good and fast. The issue clearly lies in the webpages.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Adarion View Post
                I don't understand FLAC support in FF or Chrome or whatever-browser.
                1. Why do browsers have to be jacks-of-all-trades?
                It just increaes surface for vulnerabilities and bugs. And memory footprint.
                2. Why FLAC?
                FLAC is awesome for a backup of your CDs. But seriously, does anyone listen to his/her music collection via Browser? And: Would anyone in the world stream FLAC? That is a lot of bandwidth.

                Anyone here remember the origins of Firefox? It was once outcoupled from the Mozilla Suite (formerly Netscape, today Seamonkey) because it was named to be so "bloated", "obese" and "slow". FF 3 was fairly good and fast, but I can't say that about today's FF. (Of course, webpages have become increasingly horrible. Back in the days people used sometimes colours that looked like a LSD trip, but today there is more ads and broken Java Script code than actual content.)
                Yeah, I would love it as well if web pages could look like they did in the 90s/early 2000s again (and I mean that they build it like that, not forcing the end user to use something like Dillo). The web today is bloated and a lot of websites are sluggish and horrible to navigate (I block ads though), not to mention that they often sport a horrible color scheme as well.

                Comment


                • #9
                  excellent news. If only it was available for XP too.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Adarion View Post
                    I don't understand FLAC support in FF or Chrome or whatever-browser.
                    1. Why do browsers have to be jacks-of-all-trades?
                    It just increaes surface for vulnerabilities and bugs. And memory footprint.
                    2. Why FLAC?
                    FLAC is awesome for a backup of your CDs. But seriously, does anyone listen to his/her music collection via Browser? And: Would anyone in the world stream FLAC? That is a lot of bandwidth.

                    Anyone here remember the origins of Firefox? It was once outcoupled from the Mozilla Suite (formerly Netscape, today Seamonkey) because it was named to be so "bloated", "obese" and "slow". FF 3 was fairly good and fast, but I can't say that about today's FF. (Of course, webpages have become increasingly horrible. Back in the days people used sometimes colours that looked like a LSD trip, but today there is more ads and broken Java Script code than actual content.)
                    1:because people are lazy, and browsers succeeded where JVM failed : a VM available on all platforms. I'm saying nothing about the quality of the VM (it's crap)...

                    2. Because geeks like us will recommend the browser which has more features.

                    Yes, I remember the origins of firefox, I (like you, I suppose) have also witnessed the migration of applications over the border of the browser window. The decentralized web is a dream, that will not happen...
                    Instead of taking control of our computers from proprietary OSes, we gave control of our computers to other remote proprietary computers.
                    Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go fire up my NNTP client.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X