Is Google-Chrome a totally CRAP browser?

Message

Bert · #41 Post by **Bert** » Sun 19 Jun 2011, 08:50

01micko · #42 Post by **01micko** » Sun 19 Jun 2011, 10:23

You know Bert, one day I might have a crack at compiling it and see if I can't come up with a decent recipe for Puppy, including a "run_as_root" patch.

(oh and the cache option to the command is an epic fail

)

Bert · #43 Post by **Bert** » Sun 19 Jun 2011, 10:45

01micko wrote:You know Bert, one day I might have a crack at compiling it and see if I can't come up with a decent recipe for Puppy, including a "run_as_root" patch. (oh and the cache option to the command is an epic fail )

You have my permission to start that project now

Yes, the failing cache option is my experience too. Did you also try the option --disk-cache-size=1? ( as opposed to the usual notation in bytes).

There's another option for the cache dir, this switch: --disk-cache-dir, could be useful too?
Found in Peter Beverloo'slist of Chromium commands.

DaveS · #44 Post by **DaveS** » Sun 19 Jun 2011, 13:28

Bert wrote:
01micko wrote:You know Bert, one day I might have a crack at compiling it and see if I can't come up with a decent recipe for Puppy, including a "run_as_root" patch. (oh and the cache option to the command is an epic fail )
You have my permission to start that project now

Yes, the failing cache option is my experience too. Did you also try the option --disk-cache-size=1? ( as opposed to the usual notation in bytes).

There's another option for the cache dir, this switch: --disk-cache-dir, could be useful too?
Found in Peter Beverloo'slist of Chromium commands.

Tried --disk-cache-size=1. Also epic fail

DaveS · #45 Post by **DaveS** » Sun 19 Jun 2011, 14:52

OK, now this is interesting. Specifying an alternate data source as above does not work for current stable release of google-chrome, but it does for the next beta. Really odd!

Bert · #46 Post by **Bert** » Sun 19 Jun 2011, 16:05

DaveS wrote: Tried --disk-cache-size=1. Also epic fail

Hi Dave,

That's bad news.
Did you see the cache grow bigger than 1MB?
I'm asking because I think that is what '--disk-cache-size=1' sets as the limit.

EDIT: and I'm sure this has worked for me in Puppy some months ago, using Chromium 10.x.x.x

DaveS · #47 Post by **DaveS** » Sun 19 Jun 2011, 16:24

Bert wrote:
DaveS wrote: Tried --disk-cache-size=1. Also epic fail
Hi Dave,

That's bad news.
Did you see the cache grow bigger than 1MB?
I'm asking because I think that is what '--disk-cache-size=1' sets as the limit.

EDIT: and I'm sure this has worked for me in Puppy some months ago, using Chromium 10.x.x.x

LOL... when I finally cleared the cache it was at 87 MB

DaveS · #48 Post by **DaveS** » Sun 19 Jun 2011, 17:51

OK.. about to give this up, so.......... back to the original question. I do not intend to provide an answer, you decide.
Item
Google-chrome is a 100MB install
Google-chrome will bury your hard drive in cache files
Google-chrome does not respond to command line parameters
Google-chrome will not run as root unless the user jumps through hoops
Google-chrome speed-dial cannot be user configured and is not included in sync
Google-chrome does not allow you to keep bookmarks in more than one folder
Google-chrome policy regarding data and Google is unclear

On the plus side, Google-chrome seems fast to render pages.

feel free to add to this, but to me, the answer is clear..................

disciple · #49 Post by **disciple** » Mon 20 Jun 2011, 06:04

On the plus side, Google-chrome seems fast to render pages.

So... for the sake of accuracy we could reserve the word totally for IE

And perhaps Chrome is also nice and stable now... is it? I don't use it.

DaveS · #50 Post by **DaveS** » Mon 20 Jun 2011, 06:41

disciple wrote:
On the plus side, Google-chrome seems fast to render pages.
So... for the sake of accuracy we could reserve the word totally for IE

And perhaps Chrome is also nice and stable now... is it? I don't use it.

There is some interesting stuff going on Disciple. Basically, the current stable version does not seem to accept command line parameters, but the current beta does. This means that current stable does not respond to the alternate data location parameter, whereas current beta does. I am wondering therefore if current beta might also respond to the disk cache size parameter, so am about to try to find out.
As far as stability, I get 100% stability so far from both stabe and beta, so that is a big plus. MOST flash video seems very smooth too.

r1tz · #51 Post by **r1tz** » Mon 20 Jun 2011, 07:01

Hmmm... my experience with google-chrome are follow.

I felt that it is the fastest browser.(rendering)

But there a many pages which refuse to load correctly.

I didn't like its font as much as other browser.

I feel that the layout is very simple, and nice. but also as a result of that, many options are hard to find.

Nice extensions, i used the quick-dial, email checker and a couple more.
the quickdial extension is very good, you can export and import too.

It is not stable.

the bookmarks, i thought wern't bad. you can open a tab with all the bookmarks/folders and organize them.

You can actually tell chrome what folder to store cache in. so if you mount your ram, you can have cache in ram.
Or you also can keep you ram out of the savefile which save valueble space

lithpr · #52 Post by **lithpr** » Mon 20 Jun 2011, 23:59

Yes, Google-Chrome is a total crap browser.

disciple · #53 Post by **disciple** » Tue 21 Jun 2011, 01:29

I didn't like its font as much as other browser.

You didn't like the fonts it is using in web pages? Or you didn't like how it is rendering the fonts?

stalane · #54 Post by **stalane** » Thu 23 Jun 2011, 19:41

13.0.782.32 beta

seems to work fine with --user-data-dir= into spot's directory. lazy mutt does nothing else anyway.

DaveS · #55 Post by **DaveS** » Thu 23 Jun 2011, 19:46

For some strange reason installing latest stable into Spup borked printing and I had to revert to a save file back-up, so the time being, I have so done with Google-chrome. Thankfully Disciple pointed out how to get fonts to render nicely in Opera

01micko · #56 Post by **01micko** » Thu 23 Jun 2011, 23:31

DaveS

This is a PPM bug. The problem is that Puppy uses dpkg-deb to unpack debs and what happens is that the original ownership/permissions that the file was packaged with are transferred to "/". You would have found that spot was broken too. To fix it you have to alter the permissions in /initrd

Run

Code: Select all

ls -l /initrd

to check ownership and permissions.
You want to see drwxr-xr-x (some-number-here) root root as the first 4 fields fo each entry.

Don't take this as gospel but I think the command is chmod 0755 initrd/* (to fix permissions)

and again don't take this as gospel but I think the command is chown -R root:root /initrd/* (to fix ownership)

The bug is reported and there is a fix, but it hasn't filtered upstream yet.

As a work-a-round you can unpack .debs manually and merge them with the filesystem.
*Make a folder and put in your .deb.
*inside that foler make another one
*unpack with dpkg-deb -x file.deb foldername
*this somehow fixes permissions/ownership so just merge with "/"

DaveS · #57 Post by **DaveS** » Fri 24 Jun 2011, 04:39

Interesting...... need to give this a try

r1tz · #58 Post by **r1tz** » Fri 24 Jun 2011, 05:17

disciple wrote:
I didn't like its font as much as other browser.
You didn't like the fonts it is using in web pages? Or you didn't like how it is rendering the fonts?

the font it is using. i dont know what font it is, looks a little Arial-like to me.

disciple · #59 Post by **disciple** » Fri 24 Jun 2011, 07:54

Some websites specify their own fonts, but I think any major browser lets you configure the default fonts - why don't you just make them the same as whichever browser it is that you like?

DaveS · #60 Post by **DaveS** » Fri 24 Jun 2011, 17:28

01micko wrote: As a work-a-round you can unpack .debs manually and merge them with the filesystem.
*Make a folder and put in your .deb.
*inside that foler make another one
*unpack with dpkg-deb -x file.deb foldername
*this somehow fixes permissions/ownership so just merge with "/"

OK, cool. Can confirm this is working fine

Thanks Mick

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

Is Google-Chrome a totally CRAP browser?