Google Chrome for Linux
google.com
google.com
Download link: http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_download.php
Comparison with Chrome: http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_chrome_vs_iron...
Can anyone confirm if Linux Chrome plays well with Flash?
Update: Flash still doesn't work perfectly -- as my trip to scribd just proved. For times like this, I just reopen the page in Firefox.
(Note to people that think this is true; install f-spot on Linux some time. It's a C# application, and ends in .exe. Even though it has nothing to do with Windows, except that Microsoft spec'd C# and Microsoft makes Windows...)
Picasa for example is emulated through wine on Linux/Mac, but that's because it was developed originally for Win32.
Wine and WineLib are different things.
I noticed that detail when I was trying out Chromium a while back, and it still hasn't been fixed. It seems like a simple but basic security feature. I don't know what else isn't done yet, but it does make me worry. No guarantees that Firefox isn't doing similar things I'd object to, but I don't know about them, so for better or worse I have more confidence in it.
Even if it encrypts the password before storing them on disk, the encryption/decryption key are necessarily on disk anyways, no?
You can use a master password to decrypt your encrypted password database.
Your operating system might have a keyring service or an encrypted filesystem you can use to store your keys in.
You might even use a hardware token, or some specialized on-board hardware for storing your passwords securely.
I have no idea if Windows has a password manager, but I don't know why it wouldn't.
> I've been able to use the chromium daily builds without any problems for about 6 months :)
I have been using the Chromium Ubuntu PPA for about 2 months and have had no issues until this week (details: http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=29536 ).
Although crippling to Chromium on my machine, I am sure my newly encountered issues will be resolved shortly, so I am not worried.
Just thought that I would update - as of today's PPA update, the issue is resolved.
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=7357
Basically, if you do a redirect (30x) then the referrer isn't set. This means that a number of things are broken. The referrer should be set, and is set in all other browsers.
For example, if someone clicks on a tinyurl link, which redirects to your website, you won't get info on where they came from. The referrer will be empty.
Bug was reported in feb, I'm not sure why it's not been fixed, since it's a pretty big bug.
edit (i.e., have it be that actually clicking it yields the windows behavior of being in a 'scroll mode' - motioning it down will have me going down the page, instead of actually wheeling it down)
I see a bunch of people in a room, one with a can of soda, and another with a banana. Is this a party?
I'm pretty sure I can't Inspect Element on my ubuntu build either, but I will try it when I get home.
In all reality however google is no more evil than telephone companies that allow the government to place wire taps on lines or datacenters allowing the government to take the private server your website is on.
To the extent that you can plot the morality vs. legality of acts on a cartesian plane it's nice to find most points near the diagonal, but that doesn't mean they aren't separate axes.
Civil disobedience is appropriate for individuals, not institutions.
Think of it this way: Ought it be the role of corporations to decide what laws are evil and what laws to follow, or should that it be the role of judges and elected officials to nullify and repeal them? I would rather put the responsibility (and blame) on the latter, not MBA's responding to short-term shareholder interests.
This is the same knee-jerk idiocy as to the Kindle's DRM issue: Amazon is not an institution equipped to decide on the morality of DRM. They're an institution designed to maximize shareholder value. Let the elected officials decide questions of morality, and let the corporations decide how to organize individuals into profit-maximizing groups.
You say this, yet oddly you you seem to put little moral weight on individual actions.
If an institution collectively performs an act that is evil, and the law does not act to punish it, do you truly place no responsibility on the individuals who participated? An institution cannot act except via the individuals who comprise it. Diffusion of responsibility is anathema to a moral society; great evil can be performed on behalf of institutions by "good" people when it isn't their "responsibility".
The reality, of course, is that people usually rationalize their way out of being complicit in evil, and in any case are almost never held responsible for their participation, but I don't often hear people promoting that as a good thing!
"Reflect now, Socrates," the laws might say, "that if what we say is true, you are not treating us rightly by planning to do what you are planning. We have given you birth, nurtured you, educated you; we have given you and all other citizens a share of all the good things we could. Even so, by giving every Athenian the opportunity, once arrived at voting age and having observed the affairs of the city and us the laws, we proclaim that if we do not please him, he can take his possessions and go wherever he pleases. Not one of our laws raises any obstacle or forbids him, if he is not satisfied with us or the city, if one of you wants to go and live in a colony or wants to go anywhere else, and keep his property. We say, however, that whoever of you remains, when he sees how we conduct our trials and manage the city in other ways, has in fact come to an agreement with us to obey our instructions. We say that the one who disobeys does wrong in three ways, first because in us he disobeys his parents, also those who brought him up, and because, in spirit of his agreement, he neither obeys us nor, if we do something wrong, does he try to persuade us to do better. Yet we can only propose things, we do not issue savage commands to do whatever we order; we give two alternatives, either to persuade us or to do what we say. He does neighter. We do say that you too, Socrates, are open to those charges if you do what you have in mind; you would be among, not the least, but the most guilty of the Athenians." And if I should say "Why so?" they might well be right to upbraid me and say that I am among the Athenians who most definitely came to that agreement with them. They might well say: "Socrates, we have convincing proofs that we and the city were congenial to you. You would not have dwelt here most consistently of all the Athenians if the city had not been exceedingly pleasing to you. You have never left the city, even to see a festival, nor for any other reason except military service; you have never gone to stay in any other city, as people do; you have had no desire to know another city or other laws; we and our city satisfied you."