Google Chrome 64-bit packages - [CLOSED]

Browsers, email, chat, etc.
Message
Author
jake29
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri 24 Jul 2015, 17:47

#181 Post by jake29 »

Mike Walsh wrote:Ah, good. I'm glad that's worked. Onwards and upwards..!

Just out of curiosity, are you having any problems with it if you try to upload/download anything? Are you getting any crashes?


Mike. :wink:
No issues or crashes so far in my testing.

plrsmith
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed 27 Sep 2017, 08:59

Google_Chrome-61.0.3163.79-amd64-tahr.sfs

#182 Post by plrsmith »

Hi Mike

I am a newbie at using a live usb persistent version of Puppy Linux (tahr64-6.0.5) with an encrypted save file. I have installed your latest Chrome sfs which generally works well. Thank you. However, whenever I try a right click and save action (e.g. right click "save image as") Chrome crashes to a black screen and I have to reboot.

Help please.

Thank you

Peter

User avatar
Mike Walsh
Posts: 6351
Joined: Sat 28 Jun 2014, 12:42
Location: King's Lynn, UK.

#183 Post by Mike Walsh »

Hallo, plrsmith. And 'Welcome' to the kennels. Nice to have you on board...

Y'know, I suspect your problem stems from that encrypted save-file. I don't know of anybody who actually uses one of those things. With Puppy, it's just unnecessary, extra 'complication'.....and it makes Puppy work twice as hard.

However.....

Can you give us some idea of your hardware; make & model, CPU, RAM, HDD, graphics, etc?

How did you install Puppy? Full or 'frugal'? HDD.....or flash drive? Where did you get the download from.....and did you check the md5 hash, just to be on the safe side? You might have a corrupted download; I've not heard of Tahr misbehaving quite like that before.

Mind you, Google are steadily making it harder & harder to produce the Chrome packages for Puppy. Many of us are turning to FlashPeak's SlimJet browser, and SRWare's Iron browser; both based on Chromium (which is where Chrome draws its source code anyway), and both allow you to use a normal Google a/c, along with all your bookmarks and extensions. And the Puppy packages are both 'NetFlix-ready', with the WideVine DRM modules already installed.

You can find them both at the MediaFire a/c in my sig; 'My Puppy Packages'. Just navigate through and help yourself.

It's also possible your Tahr64 needs the GTK-3.0 stuff installed; Chrome has required this since 56 or 57.....but I don't think it'll even fire up without it. You would need to manually install that from the PPM (Puppy Package Manager); you may have realised by now that Pup doesn't 'do' automatic updates.....it's all very 'hands-on', I'm afraid!

Out of curiosity, are you a Linux beginner.....or just new to Puppy?


Mike. :wink:

plrsmith
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed 27 Sep 2017, 08:59

Google Chrome 64-bit SFS packages

#184 Post by plrsmith »

Dear Mike

Thank you for your response. In answer to your questions. I have been using Linux for about 15 years now but am by no means an expert, although I know my way around more than some. However, I am new to USB live installations though and very new to Puppy Linux.

I am trying to revive an old (10+ years) Panasonic Letsnote CF-Y7 Laptop which is a Centrino Duo L7300 1.4GHz with built in 965GM graphics and 2Gb RAM. It is currently running Fedora 20 (which is no longer supported) and I have been experimenting with using a live persistent version of PuppyLinux on a 64GB USB stick to make certain aspects of my PC usage completely and very easily portable. It is because I intend to carry this USB stick around that I have encrypted the save file. The PuppyLinux even though it is on a USB stick is much faster than the installed Fedora OS.

I installed the official distribution of puppy tahr64 from one of the official mirrors and checked the MD5 hash. I have libgtk-3-bin_3.10.8 installed and cannot see any further gtk3 packages in PPM. Chrome loads and starts without hitch.

I also thought my problems may be due to the encryption but I could not see how to remove the encryption from the save file. Can I do this? Or do I have to start from scratch again?

Since my original post, I have discovered an additional problem. Viewing YouTube videos crashes the x server. That is the video keeps playing ( I can hear the sound) but the display goes black.

I am happy with everything else with this installation (although I had to change the permissions on the my-documents folder) and can connect to my wifi, print to my wireless printer, use Libreoffice, mount all the drives/partitions on the laptop etc.

The built in Palemoon browser seems to work without any problems but I would like to use Chrome if possible.

Any help/suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance

Peter

User avatar
Mike Walsh
Posts: 6351
Joined: Sat 28 Jun 2014, 12:42
Location: King's Lynn, UK.

#185 Post by Mike Walsh »

Hi, Peter.

Hm. Well, I'm pretty certain this isn't what you want to hear....but the easiest way to get rid of the encryption is to create a new save-file (without encryption.)

What I would do is to make a back-up of the existing save-file. In Puppy, this is literally a simple copy/paste operation; just copy the save-file to somewhere safe. Then, delete the one on the USB stick's /mnt/home. Reboot, shut-down straight away, and create a normal save-folder. The save-folder has the advantage of being able to expand/contract (like a normal folder/directory) up to the available space on the partition.....unlike the save-file, which periodically needs enlarging if you add a lot of stuff to Pup.

If everything else is working fine, great; that's good to hear. Try it with recreating a new save-folder (you'll have to re-load the Chrome SFS, of course), and let us know what transpires, please. If you've still got problems after that, we'll have a think about the next step. Hopefully, there won't be one!


Mike. :wink:

plrsmith
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed 27 Sep 2017, 08:59

Google Chrome 64-bit SFS packages

#186 Post by plrsmith »

Mike

Thanks. I was afraid that would be the case. I will have a go at that tomorrow hopefully. Actually I might just try a new install without encryption on a different usb stick before giving up with this one. I'll let you know how I get on.

On a different note I tried the SlimJet browser as suggested but this would not start. It gave an error message saying that this could not be run as root but I could not find a way of starting it as spot. Have I missed something?

Peter

User avatar
Mike Walsh
Posts: 6351
Joined: Sat 28 Jun 2014, 12:42
Location: King's Lynn, UK.

#187 Post by Mike Walsh »

Hi again, Peter.
plrsmith wrote:On a different note I tried the SlimJet browser as suggested but this would not start. It gave an error message saying that this could not be run as root but I could not find a way of starting it as spot. Have I missed something?
Nope, you haven't missed anything. This is one of those afore-mentioned little 'problems' that I'm working on right now, in fact, with the newest release, 15.1.4.0. I'm in the middle of doing a revised build as I write this.

Do this for me, would you? (Just to confirm that it's what I think it is...)

Enter

Code: Select all

/usr/bin/flashpeak-slimjet
...in the terminal, and post the output back here for me, please. That'll tell me what I want to know; all of the Chromium-based browsers are pretty 'noisy' in the terminal, but the output provides good trouble-shooting material. Thanks.


Mike. :wink:

plrsmith
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed 27 Sep 2017, 08:59

Google Chrome 64-bit SFS packages

#188 Post by plrsmith »

Mike

In response to your question about my slimjet installation please see below the requested output from terminal:

root# /usr/bin/flashpeak-slimjet
ERROR: ld.so: object '/opt/google/chrome/libpuppygc.so' from LD_PRELOAD cannot be preloaded (cannot open shared object file): ignored.
ERROR: ld.so: object '/opt/google/chrome/libpuppygc.so' from LD_PRELOAD cannot be preloaded (cannot open shared object file): ignored.
[2675:2675:0929/093847.775746:ERROR:browser_main_loop.cc(256)] GLib-GObject: g_type_add_interface_dynamic: assertion 'G_TYPE_IS_INSTANTIATABLE (instance_type)' failed
[2675:2675:0929/093847.775845:ERROR:browser_main_loop.cc(256)] GLib-GObject: g_type_add_interface_dynamic: assertion 'G_TYPE_IS_INSTANTIATABLE (instance_type)' failed
[2675:2675:0929/093847.775865:ERROR:browser_main_loop.cc(256)] GLib-GObject: g_type_add_interface_dynamic: assertion 'G_TYPE_IS_INSTANTIATABLE (instance_type)' failed
[2675:2675:0929/093847.775882:ERROR:browser_main_loop.cc(256)] GLib-GObject: g_type_add_interface_dynamic: assertion 'G_TYPE_IS_INSTANTIATABLE (instance_type)' failed

(flashpeak-slimjet:2675): GLib-GIO-WARNING **: Tried to register an extension of the type (null) to extension point gio-native-volume-monitor. Expected type is GNativeVolumeMonitor.
[2675:2675:0929/093847.907054:ERROR:desktop_window_tree_host_x11.cc(1148)] Not implemented reached in virtual void views::DesktopWindowTreeHostX11::InitModalType(ui::ModalType)
ERROR: ld.so: object '/opt/google/chrome/libpuppygc.so' from LD_PRELOAD cannot be preloaded (cannot open shared object file): ignored.

I hope that helps

Peter

User avatar
Mike Walsh
Posts: 6351
Joined: Sat 28 Jun 2014, 12:42
Location: King's Lynn, UK.

#189 Post by Mike Walsh »

Morning, Peter.

Yah, that looks about right; pretty much as I suspected.

Give the new version of SlimJet a try (I've just uploaded 15.1.4.0 this morning), and let me know if it works for you. I've 'treated' both the slimjet 'binary' and the 'slimjet-sandbox' with PhilB's 'bbe' script. This should have corrected the problem, all things being equal.

Let me know what happens, please. Oh, one little tip for future postings, which just makes it easier for everyone to read; when you post terminal output stuff, highlight that section, then just click on the 'Code' button above the editor window. That'll wrap

Code: Select all

highlighted text


.....code 'tags' around that section, and make it stand out better, as above.....okay? Every forum I've ever belonged to does the same things in a different way.....Murga-Linux.com is no different in that respect..! :)


Mike. :wink:

plrsmith
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed 27 Sep 2017, 08:59

Google Chrome 64-bit SFS packages

#190 Post by plrsmith »

Mike

I have tried both Slimjet and Iron and they both install and function properly synchronising with my chrome account.

Chrome still does not install/work but I no longer need this as Iron and/or Slimjet meet my requirements.

Thank you for your assistance

Peter

User avatar
Mike Walsh
Posts: 6351
Joined: Sat 28 Jun 2014, 12:42
Location: King's Lynn, UK.

Re: Google Chrome 64-bit SFS packages

#191 Post by Mike Walsh »

plrsmith wrote:Mike

I have tried both Slimjet and Iron and they both install and function properly synchronising with my chrome account.

Chrome still does not install/work but I no longer need this as Iron and/or Slimjet meet my requirements.

Thank you for your assistance

Peter
Excellent! That's what we strive for here at Murga-Linux; happy users! SlimJet is an awesome browser, TBH. I think I only keep up with Chrome out of habit, these days..... With SlimJet, Iron and the like around now, there's no longer any real need to do so.

Glad to hear you're 'sorted'. Nice one.


Mike. :wink:

belham2
Posts: 1715
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2016, 22:47

#192 Post by belham2 »

Hi Mike,

Was just wondering, I know Google has been giving us the middle-finger lately, but is there anyway to get your "Google-Chrome-62.0.3202.62-amd64-slacko.sfs" working in micko's latest Slacko64-6.9.9.9? I've loaded it in two different 'frugal' installs I have of Slacko64-6.9.9.9, and the sfs loads & installs ok, but it will not start or run.

If the new chrome versions won't run, what's the latest we could fall back to for Slacko64-6.9.9.9 w/o going to far back in terms of releases??


Thanks.

User avatar
Mike Walsh
Posts: 6351
Joined: Sat 28 Jun 2014, 12:42
Location: King's Lynn, UK.

#193 Post by Mike Walsh »

belham2 wrote:Hi Mike,

</snip>

If the new chrome versions won't run, what's the latest we could fall back to for Slacko64-6.9.9.9 w/o going to far back in terms of releases??


Thanks.
Mm. 60 should be OK; I'm still using it myself, because it also uploads/downloads without crashing, too. I've still got it hanging around somewhere; I'll re-upload 'em if you like, in case anybody else is interested.

EDIT:- Usual location, look in the 'Chrome 60' folder.

Mike. :wink:

belham2
Posts: 1715
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2016, 22:47

#194 Post by belham2 »

Thanks, Mike!

I started to downloaded it, then happened to look in a 'frugal' install-backup I had of another pup, and there it was! Boy, I really need to do some housecleaning on the 'frugal' install backups I have, and also backups overall.

Thanks again.


Also, I had one last question:

What is the idea behind the 22mb "lib' folder you have in the chrome.sfs files? When you go straight to Google, of course this isn't included in their download files, and I've found these downloaded chromes (debs) runs fine in my 64-bit pups. So I'm curious about these included "libs" and also a few other things:

1) this "lib" folder is placed inside the /opt/google/chrome folder. Shouldn't it be placed in the respective pup OSes /usr/lib folder?

2) also, most 64-bit pups already have these libs in that /usr/lib/ folder, so I am confused why they're again in the sfs?

3) Also, the "libpuppygc.so". I'm still too stupid to understand that, exactly what it does and also when it is placed in the actual startup of "google-chrome"? Is the idea to make the chrome.sfs self-reliant with all libs included in the sfs, and thus not having to worry about if they are all there in the 64-bit pup it is being installed to? And for your sfs creations, running Chrome means it uses the libs and only the libs that are in the sfs, and not the ones in the puppy OS? If so, is the libpuppygc.so thus the so-called "Governor" to make all this happen, since it is the first thing 'pre-loaded' in the line 35 of /opt/google/chrome/google-chrome?:

Code: Select all

LD_PRELOAD="/opt/google/chrome/[b]libpuppygc.so[/b]" exec -a "$0" /opt/google/chrome/chrome --user-data-dir=/root/.config/google-chrome --disable-infobars "$@"


P.S. Sorry :oops: if I'm asking too many questions...just trying to learn more, and clarify confusion when attempting to understand all things puppy--which I'm fairly sure will never happen given this neanderthal-thick skull of mine.

User avatar
Mike Walsh
Posts: 6351
Joined: Sat 28 Jun 2014, 12:42
Location: King's Lynn, UK.

#195 Post by Mike Walsh »

Hi, belham2.

Yes, you're right about why the 'lib' folder is within the 'Chrome' folder; it is to make the browser self-reliant.....to stop the libs 'breaking' compatibility for other, existing apps (I have no idea what other people may have installed!) As for the contents, battleshooter pretty much figured them out.....it's to do with the upgraded NSS requirements, and all the dependencies thereof.

'Libpuppygc.so', well; rather than me try to explain it, read Iguleder's post on the subject, where he introduced it:-

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=72667

LD_PRELOAD is all to do with pre-loading libs'n'stuff, & 'environment variables' (which I still don't fully understand; I'm no 'coder', I'm afraid). All I know is 'libpuppygc.so' works......or did do, up until Chrome 62. I'm still working on that, but it may be a wee while before I finally figure out the 'magic formula' that'll get it running the way I want it to. Chrome 63 will probably be out before I do; I have a lot of 'irons in the fire' at the moment. Chrome's kind of on the 'back-burner' for now; 60 is working fine for me on the odd occasions when I do boot into Tahr64, so I'm sticking with it for now.....

The libs probably are in the newer 64-bit Pups.....but the only one I'm currently running is the oldest, 'modern' 64-bit Pup; Tahr64. And that one needs that stuff.....and there's still plenty of people who use it.

------------------------------------------------------

To be fair, you cannot point the finger at Google. Chrome is written for the 'multi-user' model. 99% of Linux distros employ that 'multi-user' model. Almost all of those distros also have regular, on-going updates.....so by the time Chrome release a variant like these last two, everybody's systems are already capable of running it. This is one of those Puppy-specific problems (due to the 'root' model, and lack of automatic updates) that simply has to be tackled as & when it crops up.

That's life in Puppyland..!


Mike. :wink:
Last edited by Mike Walsh on Sun 29 Oct 2017, 11:54, edited 1 time in total.

quirkian2new
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue 06 Oct 2015, 14:10
Location: on the inter-planet train

#196 Post by quirkian2new »

hello Mike and fellow google-chrome users,

I downloaded your google-chrome58 and made a sfs which contains all my favorite extensions,
adblockplus,and better-browser for chrome.

when doing a search on google, Better browser-for chrome automaticall display the next page when you reach
the bottom of a page. This saves the trouble of clicking on next page and make search more efficient.
when i want to go into details, i simple right click the item selected and let it open in a new tab. So
adblockplus,and better-browser for chrome combination makes search on google very efficient.

During the past 2 days, when i am browsing with this google-chrome58.sfs a box suddenly appear at the right upper corner
saying that this better browser-for chrome extension is automatically disabled. The box asked for my confirmation, but
it is just disabled no matter i confirm or not. And the extension CANNOT be re-activated again in any manner. I don't think this extension has any harm or malware. I have been using it quite a long time(since google-chrome29 on Fatdog630)

Is it a bad thing once again done by google ? The extension developer
has spent a lot of effort developing extensions, how can it be just disabled "unilaterally". Is the extension contain
a malware OR google-chrome contain malicious malware ? I am not a coder, i just want effifiency in my search.

Finally i think i am the only one to decide whether the extension should be disabled, not google nor google-chrome.

anyone has similar experience ?
Attachments
Screenshot.jpg
(31.51 KiB) Downloaded 662 times
Last edited by quirkian2new on Sun 29 Oct 2017, 00:56, edited 1 time in total.

dancytron
Posts: 1519
Joined: Wed 18 Jul 2012, 19:20

#197 Post by dancytron »

FWIW, when Google just doesn't like an extension (like ones that download youtube videos e.g. http://addoncrop.com/youtube_video_downloader/), they don't disable them. They just remove them from the Chrome Store. So, yours might really have malware.

quirkian2new
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue 06 Oct 2015, 14:10
Location: on the inter-planet train

#198 Post by quirkian2new »

I reboot computer and started google-chrome.sfs again, this extension still there and still works.
I did another search, it still works. But when it reaches the end of page5 , the confirmation
box again appear at the upper right corner and again this extension is disabled and page6 is never
automatically displayed(see the captured screenshot).

Maybe this extension filtered google ads so that the google server dislike it ? Maybe...maybe...

I really dont know..........
Attachments
Screenshot.jpg
(73.97 KiB) Downloaded 650 times

User avatar
Mike Walsh
Posts: 6351
Joined: Sat 28 Jun 2014, 12:42
Location: King's Lynn, UK.

#199 Post by Mike Walsh »

dancytron wrote:FWIW, when Google just doesn't like an extension (like ones that download youtube videos e.g. http://addoncrop.com/youtube_video_downloader/), they don't disable them. They just remove them from the Chrome Store. So, yours might really have malware.
@ quirkian2new:-

Dan's absolutely right. Any extension/app you have installed from the Store that Google have decided they don't like just gets removed. End of story.

Because it's installed to Chrome (in the /root/.config/google-chrome directory), it will still continue to work locally. But the first you'll be aware of something not being quite right is usually when a warning pop-up appears (and things are not behaving themselves).

If you're a long-term Chrome user, like me, you'll be aware that at start-up, there's always a burst of network activity. This is Chrome 'phoning home' to the mother-ship, Google, and checking that your browser is performing within Google's 'accepted' parameters..!! :roll: All part of the Google 'Big Brother' we-know-better-than-you mentality.....which is supposedly for your own good.

(Do remember that the vast majority of Chrome users are running it under Windows.....and many Windows users don't have the faintest idea about safety & security, and how to implement it.)

This behaviour is not, of course, confined to Chrome alone. All of the Chromium-based browsers exhibit the exact same behaviour.....especially if you're using a Google a/c.


Mike. :wink:

User avatar
Mike Walsh
Posts: 6351
Joined: Sat 28 Jun 2014, 12:42
Location: King's Lynn, UK.

#200 Post by Mike Walsh »

Evening, boys & girls.

Following a revelation earlier on today from belham2 on how he runs the newest version of Chrome as 'spot' (and with full sandboxing, too!), I am happy to be able to offer Google Chrome 62.0.3202.75.

This is why the delay since the last release from me. I've been trying all sorts of ways to tame Chrome 62, and get it to behave itself.....to no avail. Belham's method, however, works beautifully. (I have to make use of code developed by others, I'm afraid; my own coding skills are rudimentary at best...) :oops: :roll:

It's not perfect, I'm afraid. It still crashes when you try to upload/download anything (or maybe that's just my machine - I couldn't honestly say!).....but for general browsing, and listening to/watching streaming audio/video, it's fine. I think I know what needs doing to make it quit crashing, but I haven't had a lot of spare time recently.....so I thought I'd at least let y'all know the thread isn't dead.

Temporarily I'm using the Axel Download Accelerator, compiled from smokey01's instructions in the latest Puppy Newsletter, along with the GUI so kindly provided. Works great, too!

There's still life here!

-----------------------------------------------------------

As before, the new libnss and associated dependencies live in their own folder within the /chrome directory, given preference over the system versions via LD_PRELOAD; this is to keep the new versions from interfering with apps that still require the older ones to function. Also, credit where it's due; once again, grateful thanks to battleshooter for his timely assistance with this.

NetFlix is working fine, and PepperFlash auto-updates as it has done for several releases now, so.....enjoy.

Any probs other than the upload/download issue, you know where to find me. I will get it sorted soon, promise.....but if you're not suffering from this particular hitch, feedback on that would also be appreciated, too.


Mike. :wink:

Post Reply