chromium 64: which is the best?

chesterfork · 2009-08-21 19:29:24

hi,
i see from AUR that there are almost five packages about chromium. I would like to know which is the best, or better than the others, than works fine with java and flash(possibly 64 bit NATIVE)??

thanks in advance,
umberto

wonder · 2009-08-21 19:42:43

this one: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=29499

you have to edit after chromium.desktop and add to exec --enable-plugins

when it will be ready this one will be the best: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=29440

Last edited by wonder (2009-08-21 19:43:53)

chesterfork · 2009-08-21 20:09:32

thanks mate!

Why the second one will be the best?

Last edited by chesterfork (2009-08-21 20:21:24)

chesterfork · 2009-08-21 20:42:42

I checked well, and that's seems to be the best to chooes, as far as i read (and understood ) :

from AUR, yaourt chromium-snapshot
compile everything that he asks, like lib32-libxt lib32-gtk2 lib32-nss lib32-curl
then download from adobe.com the linux.tar.gz version of flash player, and move, as root, in /opt/chromium-browser/plugins
may you need to create plugins directory. It worked for me, and it-s quite good.....thanks anyway wonder for your help...

to make flash run, add to your chromium.desktop(or in alacarte menu): --enable-plugins --enable-greasemonkey --enable-user-scripts --enable-extensions "$@"

Everything works fine, but i-m not able to use the sync bookmarks function (--enable-sync isn0t it)? it seems that in this version not works....

Last edited by chesterfork (2009-08-21 20:56:51)

wonder · 2009-08-21 21:07:58

i see you don't want to choose what i've suggested. let me explain why
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=29499
is using a native 64 bit binary instead of chromium-snapshot that use 32 bit binary and you need lib32 stuff (some of them in aur).

to have plugin on this one you only need to add what i've told you into chromium.desktop, that's it. it will use the path from mozilla to detect plugins.
java,flash, whatever.

now, why the second it will the best?
because it will compile chromium (not use a binary from google or ubuntu) and will use archlinux packages.

Last edited by wonder (2009-08-21 21:08:52)

chesterfork · 2009-08-21 21:19:52

thanks for deeper explanation.....i tought that the snapshot was more new (forgetting the 64 bit question ).....i have come back to chromium-browser-dev....as you advised! There is a way to --enable-sync to get running on chromium-browser-dev? (in windows the dev channel version with this parameter works fine)....THANKS

wonder · 2009-08-21 21:24:54

try the same as with plugins. i don't know if is implemented in linux version.

chesterfork · 2009-08-21 21:32:56

i did but noticed not working for now

duister · 2009-08-21 21:54:15

The chromium-browser-dev package has just been updated to a newer build (r23955). Unfortunately, I still can't find the Sync option in the menu (that's where it's supposed to be, right?).

Btw, if you're annoyed with the dev build page that opens up each and everytime you launch Chromium, you can remove that by adding "chrome://newtab" to the launch command (same place where you added --enable-plugins).

Last edited by duister (2009-08-21 21:56:27)

Ranguvar · 2009-08-21 23:43:20

The best, IMHO: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=29218

kalpik · 2009-08-22 04:34:19

^^ That's not native 64 bit.. Notice it uses lib32 stuff..

Ranguvar · 2009-08-22 05:47:43

The OP said _possibly_ 64-bit native Even non-native, I still think Iron > Chrome/Chromium.

R00KIE · 2009-08-22 13:14:19

Ranguvar wrote:

The OP said _possibly_ 64-bit native Even non-native, I still think Iron > Chrome/Chromium.

Yup, thats right, no one likes apps that phone home

jt512 · 2009-08-23 02:56:44

wonder wrote:

this one: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=29499
you have to edit after chromium.desktop and add to exec --enable-plugins

What is "chromium.desktop"? I don't seem to have a file or a directory with that name.

Jay

wonder · 2009-08-23 06:57:47

jt512 wrote:

wonder wrote:
this one: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=29499
you have to edit after chromium.desktop and add to exec --enable-plugins
What is "chromium.desktop"? I don't seem to have a file or a directory with that name.
Jay

/usr/share/applications/chromium-browser.desktop

kozzi · 2009-08-25 19:55:23

wonder wrote:

this one: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=29499
you have to edit after chromium.desktop and add to exec --enable-plugins
...

Better way, is set CHROMIUM_FLAGS in /etc/chromium-browser/default
e.g:

CHROMIUM_FLAGS="--enable-extensions --enable-plugins"

Arch Linux

#1 2009-08-21 19:29:24

chromium 64: which is the best?

#2 2009-08-21 19:42:43

Re: chromium 64: which is the best?

#3 2009-08-21 20:09:32

Re: chromium 64: which is the best?

#4 2009-08-21 20:42:42

Re: chromium 64: which is the best?

#5 2009-08-21 21:07:58

Re: chromium 64: which is the best?

#6 2009-08-21 21:19:52

Re: chromium 64: which is the best?

#7 2009-08-21 21:24:54

Re: chromium 64: which is the best?

#8 2009-08-21 21:32:56

Re: chromium 64: which is the best?

#9 2009-08-21 21:54:15

Re: chromium 64: which is the best?

#10 2009-08-21 23:43:20

Re: chromium 64: which is the best?

#11 2009-08-22 04:34:19

Re: chromium 64: which is the best?

#12 2009-08-22 05:47:43

Re: chromium 64: which is the best?

#13 2009-08-22 13:14:19

Re: chromium 64: which is the best?

#14 2009-08-23 02:56:44

Re: chromium 64: which is the best?

#15 2009-08-23 06:57:47

Re: chromium 64: which is the best?

#16 2009-08-25 19:55:23

Re: chromium 64: which is the best?

Board footer