Chromium 62-version builds---what is up with them?

[belham2]

Hi all,

Anyone have any problems running the newer Chrome/Chromium 62-version builds in any pups? Gawd dam# things won't even start in my most stable pup builds---unlike the 61-and-below builds. It runs in the Ddogs but not the pups.

Mike (that's Mr. Walsh with a capital "W" ), you seeing anything? Is Google screwing with us again......man, this is frustrating.

[musher0]

Hi belham2.

Lots of mumble & grumble about it, here

ETP put it in his Xenial64 Pup variant and people are not happy...

BFN.

[perdido]

Is Google screwing with us again......man, this is frustrating.

Do yourself a favor and dump your google products.

.

[Mike Walsh]

Is Google screwing with us again......man, this is frustrating.

Do yourself a favor and dump your google products.

.

Puh-leeze, don't suggest FF & co. I dumped Mozilla years ago due to continuous multiple crashing.....on an almost daily basis.

Trouble is, with the exception of Edge (I don't count IE as a browser; more as an experiment in how to effectively waste CPU cycles), every browser on the market is based pretty much on either FireFox or Chromium.

Just as I've made the final 32-bit Linux Chrome (48.0.2564.116) my default in the 32-bit Pups, I'm seriously considering 'standardising' on Chrome 60 for 64-bit.....and calling it a day.

(There again, I've said that before, y'know?)

@belham2:- As for 62; all I'm gonna say is 'I'm working on it...'

I'm not surprised.....at all. The 'running-as-root' option was always there for developers to test stuff out. Since 59/60, Google have now added a special 'developer mode' to Chrome; I suspect this dropping of the 'run-as-root' option has been on the cards for several months.

Nanny Google has decided, in her wisdom, that the safest Linux model is the standard 'just a user' setup used by the vast majority of Linux distros. This is one scenario where Pup comes unstuck; where multi-user becomes the defacto across-the-board standard in the Linux world. In that scenario, Pup's a complete non-starter.....

Majority rule, mate. But it explains why the Dogs have no problem with it. They're based on Debian.....which has always been 'multi-user'.


Mike.

[perdido]

Is Google screwing with us again......man, this is frustrating.

Do yourself a favor and dump your google products.

.

Puh-leeze, don't suggest FF & co. I dumped Mozilla years ago due to continuous multiple crashing.....on an almost daily basis.

Trouble is, with the exception of Edge (I don't count IE as a browser; more as an experiment in how to effectively waste CPU cycles), every browser on the market is based pretty much on either FireFox or Chromium.

Just as I've made the final 32-bit Linux Chrome (48.0.2564.116) my default in the 32-bit Pups, I'm seriously considering 'standardising' on Chrome 60 for 64-bit.....and calling it a day.

(There again, I've said that before, y'know?)

@belham2:- As for 62; all I'm gonna say is 'I'm working on it...'

I'm not surprised.....at all. The 'running-as-root' option was always there for developers to test stuff out. Since 59/60, Google have now added a special 'developer mode' to Chrome; I suspect this dropping of the 'run-as-root' option has been on the cards for several months.

Nanny Google has decided, in her wisdom, that the safest Linux model is the standard 'just a user' setup used by the vast majority of Linux distros. This is one scenario where Pup comes unstuck; where multi-user becomes the defacto across-the-board standard in the Linux world. In that scenario, Pup's a complete non-starter.....

Majority rule, mate. But it explains why the Dogs have no problem with it. They're based on Debian.....which has always been 'multi-user'.


Mike.

Hi Mike,

Hope you find a way around the latest google hurdle for those that wish to use that browser.

I poked belham simply because he is a big advocate of everything google.

Maybe thegoogle teddy bear will have an answer to this browser dilemna? (Berenstein LOL)

.

[Mike Walsh]

Hiya, perdido.

There's 'fixes' in the works as I speak...

Nah, I know I'm a long-term Chrome user, but I've never exactly been what you'd call 'wedded' to the Google eco-system. Much of the office stuff I keep permanently de-activated, and my preferred search engine these days is Duckduckgo.

Chrome (and Google) do have their good points.....but they're just one small part of the overall experience.

But I know what ya mean about, umm.....certain individuals. Bless 'em!

Maybe the google teddy bear will have an answer to this browser dilemna? (Berenstein LOL)

Yep; that sure looks like Google all over..!!


Mike.

[belham2]

Do yourself a favor and dump your google products.

.

Puh-leeze, don't suggest FF & co. I dumped Mozilla years ago due to continuous multiple crashing.....on an almost daily basis.

Trouble is, with the exception of Edge (I don't count IE as a browser; more as an experiment in how to effectively waste CPU cycles), every browser on the market is based pretty much on either FireFox or Chromium.

Just as I've made the final 32-bit Linux Chrome (48.0.2564.116) my default in the 32-bit Pups, I'm seriously considering 'standardising' on Chrome 60 for 64-bit.....and calling it a day.

(There again, I've said that before, y'know?)

@belham2:- As for 62; all I'm gonna say is 'I'm working on it...'

I'm not surprised.....at all. The 'running-as-root' option was always there for developers to test stuff out. Since 59/60, Google have now added a special 'developer mode' to Chrome; I suspect this dropping of the 'run-as-root' option has been on the cards for several months.

Nanny Google has decided, in her wisdom, that the safest Linux model is the standard 'just a user' setup used by the vast majority of Linux distros. This is one scenario where Pup comes unstuck; where multi-user becomes the defacto across-the-board standard in the Linux world. In that scenario, Pup's a complete non-starter.....

Majority rule, mate. But it explains why the Dogs have no problem with it. They're based on Debian.....which has always been 'multi-user'.


Mike.

Hi Mike,

Hope you find a way around the latest google hurdle for those that wish to use that browser.

I poked belham simply because he is a big advocate of everything google.

Maybe thegoogle teddy bear will have an answer to this browser dilemna? (Berenstein LOL)

.

LOL, so says the man with the Trump-like skill to take a molehill and make it a mountain....on a totally different planet. Do they build border walls too on that planet?

[belham2]

Hiya, perdido.

There's 'fixes' in the works as I speak...

Nah, I know I'm a long-term Chrome user, but I've never exactly been what you'd call 'wedded' to the Google eco-system. Much of the office stuff I keep permanently de-activated, and my preferred search engine these days is Duckduckgo.

Chrome (and Google) do have their good points.....but they're just one small part of the overall experience.

But I know what ya mean about, umm.....certain individuals. Bless 'em!

Maybe the google teddy bear will have an answer to this browser dilemna? (Berenstein LOL)

Yep; that sure looks like Google all over..!!


Mike.

MIke,

Don't let ole' Perdido fool ya......he's just one of our (Republican, in the States) wild-hair boar unpredictables who delves in an alt reality we keep trying to pull them back from. We won the White House & Congress, keep trying to tell 'em that, but now we just don't know what to do with these lovingly-addled attack dogs. To be sure, mate, I hold Google in about the same esteem I hold Boris & Theresa (and any other before them), if ya know what I mean

[musher0]

belham2?

I'm an aging, hippie-like, long-haired, clean-shaven, bohemian, CanadiEn
NDP'er (aka for you Americans: way more to the left than your lefties!!!),
and I totally agree with perdido!

"Dump all your Google products!", is what I say too.

Way to go, perdido!

BFN.

[perdido]

MIke,

Don't let ole' Perdido fool ya......he's just one of our (Republican, in the States) wild-hair boar unpredictables who delves in an alt reality we keep trying to pull them back from. We won the White House & Congress, keep trying to tell 'em that, but now we just don't know what to do with these lovingly-addled attack dogs. To be sure, mate, I hold Google in about the same esteem I hold Boris & Theresa (and any other before them), if ya know what I mean

Boris and Natasha! <g>
Theresa is not a Russian spy (at least not yet), maybe she will be outed after Mueller gets done, the way he is going!

.

[perdido]

belham2?

I'm an aging, hippie-like, long-haired, clean-shaven, bohemian, CanadiEn
NDP'er (aka for you Americans: way more to the left than your lefties!!!),
and I totally agree with perdido!

"Dump all your Google products!", is what I say too.

Way to go, perdido!

BFN.

Yowzer! We must be eating from the same bowl! LOL

.

[8Geee]

Well, I have to say that I don't in general like any new browser. This monetizing craze has just gotten out of hand. MHO is that were being treated like drug-addicts and the pusher is thinning the mix at a greater cost. I mean really... this update addiction is out of control. /MHO

Regards
8Geee

[dancytron]

/stuff snipped
Majority rule, mate. But it explains why the Dogs have no problem with it. They're based on Debian.....which has always been 'multi-user'.


Mike.

FWIW, the "--no-sandbox" switch still seems to work in Debian Dog.

Code: Select all

#!/bin/sh

/usr/bin/google-chrome-stable --user-data-dir=/root/chrome/user --disk-cache-dir="/root/chrome/cache" --disk-cache-size=10000000 --media-cache-size=10000000 --no-sandbox --disable-infobars "$@"

The other way is to run it as a regular user from root.

Code: Select all

#!/bin/sh

xhost +local:puppy

su puppy -c "/usr/bin/google-chrome-stable --user-data-dir=/home/puppy/chrome/user --disk-cache-dir=/home/puppy/chrome/cache --disk-cache-size=10000000 --media-cache-size=10000000 "$@""

#old way
#gksu -u puppy "/usr/bin/google-chrome-stable --user-data-dir=/home/puppy/chrome/user --disk-cache-dir=/home/puppy/chrome/cache --disk-cache-size=10000000 --media-cache-size=10000000"