Chrome is unique among the current field of browsers in that there are three ways to run it — the default, which is simply the latest stable release (currently 1.0), the beta channel, which offers monthly updates and could have bugs here and there, and the developer channel, which will give you the latest bleeding edge builds and is almost guaranteed to have bugs.
Except that it's not unique at all.
Is it really too much to expect that if you're writing for a popular online tech publication that you be careful about making claims of uniqueness without, you know, actually checking first?
I understand that with "blogs" and all, there aren't really any editors or other staff doing any kind of proofing or "editing" but it's just not that difficult, especially when making absolute claims, to check first to see if they're factually true.
For the record, Firefox has had release, beta, and nightly update channels for years. There's absolutely nothing new or novel about Chrome's program there. Nothing at all.
It's really not that hard. Please try to do better.
kthxbye.
update: Oops, left off the link. Sorry. Just an oversight while I was cleaning up the post to be less inflammatory. Also, Chris Blizzard has a nice blog post up explaining how to follow the different channels and Myk, in the comments here, links to the Channel Selector add-on.
Posted by: Jaap | January 9, 2009 10:33 AM
Firefox have a "channel changer" program that help with the management of the channels?
Posted by: Michael | January 9, 2009 10:41 AM
@Michael: Yes, the Update Channel Selector extension.
Posted by: Myk Melez | January 9, 2009 11:09 AM
Very cool - hadn't seen that Add-on. Thanks.
Posted by: Michael | January 9, 2009 11:16 AM
Jaap, sorry about that. I had a draft that included the link and when I "toned it down" (no need for me to hurl insults, right?) for the post you're reading here, I forgot to carry over the link. Fixed.
- A
Posted by: Asa Dotzler | January 9, 2009 11:17 AM
Sure, Firefox has these channels, but is it all automated like in Chrome? Myk mentioned an extension for doing this, but from what I understand you don't need an extension in Chrome to "subscribe" to the other two channels and automatically receive the updates for that channel. So in that respect, Chrome is unique. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Posted by: Jake Munson | January 9, 2009 11:35 AM
Like everything else in Chrome, they've taken something from other browsers and improved it slightly.
Posted by: stu42j | January 9, 2009 11:42 AM
Though Jake makes a good point, I agree with Asa that the article is wrong. Obviously Firefox, Seamonkey (and before that Mozilla) and Camino have done this for years, and I think it can be done in Safari too (by way of the WebKit nightlies).
Really poorly researched article an Asa is right to point the author out on this.
Posted by: Neil T. | January 9, 2009 12:39 PM
Though Jake makes a good point, I agree with Asa that the article is wrong. Obviously Firefox, Seamonkey (and before that Mozilla) and Camino have done this for years, and I think it can be done in Safari too (by way of the WebKit nightlies).
Really poorly researched article an Asa is right to point the author out on this.
Posted by: Neil T. | January 9, 2009 12:44 PM
@Jake
You don't need an extension in Firefox, just go to installdir/defaults/pref/channel-prefs.js and edit your channel. The extension is just a helper to make it easier (which is what I assume the chromechannel-2.0.exe mentioned in the article does for Chrome).
Posted by: FP | January 9, 2009 4:29 PM
Thanks for the link to Christopher Blizzard's page on actually finding these things. Sad to say, i spend waaay too much time looking for these when i need them... Any chance we'll see a link from the main FF download page any time soon?
Posted by: Shog9 | January 9, 2009 4:47 PM
Asa: the second "except" of your post hurts my eyes, it should be "accept".
Posted by: Stifu | January 10, 2009 3:12 AM
Damn, I'm tired. You actually wrote "expect". Sorry about that.
Posted by: Stifu | January 10, 2009 3:15 AM
Asa, please enclose quotations in quote marks. It makes writing much easier to understand. Thanks.
I'm not so sure that Google has improved on anything here. The update is handled by a memory-resident updater. That's not playing nice, and it's one of two reasons I'm not going to keep Chrome.
Posted by: VanillaMozilla | January 11, 2009 9:35 AM
it's not just blogs, it's in the news too :
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/156822/google_says_chrome_will_be_forever_in_beta.html
So Chrome is not unique at all, Firefox is forever in beta/in 'never-ending' beta too!!!
Posted by: it's not just blogs | January 12, 2009 7:36 PM
Asa, please next time name the source... I now had to Google for one of the phrases from your quote.
I assume this is your source? http://blog.wired.com/business/2009/01/chrome-20-previ.html