Google Chrome now provides a way for people to get early access releases
automatically: the Dev channel.
The Dev channel lets you test the latest fixes and get access to new
features as they're being developed. We will release new builds to the Dev
channel about every week so that you can preview
Here is a wine version of Chrome for Mac and Linux:
http://www.codeweavers.com/services/ports/chromium/
It's made by the guys at Crossover. It's slow, but it works.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Here's what I'm thinking, please yell if it sounds wrong.
When we implement SSLClientSocket on linux,
we can do it with one-thread-per-connection,
or with nonblocking I/O.
Since all socket I/O goes through the browser process,
one thread per connection would limit us to
however many stacks fit
If I (or anyone) doesn't get back to a code review in a day or so,
feel free to send a *ping* message on the code review. I just
looked through my review queue and noticed a few patches that are
likely ready to go but that slipped off my radar.
It's easy for me to think you're working on
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Dan Kegel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When we implement SSLClientSocket on linux,
we can do it with one-thread-per-connection,
or with nonblocking I/O.
Since all socket I/O goes through the browser process,
one thread per connection would limit us to
however
Happily, Howard Chu recently posted a partial
example of how to do the latter,
http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.tech.crypto/msg/af4b5b6c71b70702
I think the next step might be for me to write an
app demonstrating how to handle 500
simultanous ssl connections using nss and
As Eric mentioned yesterday, we have the merge linking and running. I
just synced [EMAIL PROTECTED] back into the the branch
(chrome_webkit_merge_branch). If you already had a checkout of the
merge, you'll need to delete third_party/{python_24,svn,cygwin} and v8
*before* running gclient sync.
You're saying I should use Firefox? The point is that the pop-up
blocker works only for JavaScript windows and NOT any other type of
window (e.g. - shockwave) able to be put up by JavaScript, that I can
demonstrate. These can come from other sites and can be spoofed as
safe. The point is to
Okay, I must agree with you, okay? However, don't you think that the
pop-up blocker has to work against all pop-ups? I have seen the
fakeAV2008 and others get through this way.
On Sep 16, 1:36 pm, Ian Fette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The whole point though is that running or not running script
Sadly, it's hard to block flash popups without breaking flash. I wish
there were a better answer. Some people have requested things like noflash,
I suspect that once we have an extension mechanism in place this would be a
good candidate for that.
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 2:01 PM, gbob [EMAIL
So, you allow scripts from sites you determine known to not distribute
malware AND the other (cross) sites that site uses for its flash
content?
On Sep 16, 2:11 pm, Ian Fette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sadly, it's hard to block flash popups without breaking flash. I wish
there were a better
11 matches
Mail list logo
