Is anyone else having problems with Chrome 35?

[rjroberts]

I am a very new user to Linux - about 3 or 4 weeks - and a refugee from XP on a desktop and MAC Leopard on a PPC as a result of their planned obsolescence. Basically, I have just been feeling my way around and have been quite pleased. I had a couple problems such as Flash display on Firefox. A friend suggested trying Chrome. Worked like a champ - Flash played, response was quick. Last Thursday, a new version, 35, was presented in the updates and I thought nothing of downloading it. A DISASTER. Colors were all distorted, fonts offset, Flash doesn't play. I looked over the settings and couldn't see anything odd; and, I restored to defaults. So, as an alternative I'm now on Chromium (34) which works though I still have a struggle with Flash which I can't get to work yet. Oddly, the new Firefox (29) gives me its own set of problems - black lines in the URL field and the usual Flash problem. Firefox 28 worked, except for the Flash.

I'd appreciate any advice. A concomitant concern is that these might have been written in anticipation of Linux 17 which could mean that the new release will fix all or, on the other hand, 17 may not work on my old hardware (Pentium 4). All the more reason, I suppose to keep that install disk for 16.

Also, does anyone have experience with managing an iphone/ipod with banshee as a substitute for itunes? Or, does one run itunes within WINE? Before this Chrome disaster that was my only concern.


Thanks,

[passerby]

You've updated your browsers in the midst of some prominent changes
As of v35, Chrome on Linux uses its own graphics stack (Aura). I'm guessing that's why 34 works but 35 doesn't.
As of v29 of Firefox, Mozilla introduced the Australis interface. New interface and suddenly black lines in the URL field? Doesn't seem like a coincidence
Since you're using Chromium for the time being, you could try to get Pepper Flash (ie. Google Chrome's flash) working with it. eg. http://www.webupd8.org/2013/04/install- ... r-for.html
If you'd rather try to get Firefox working, consider using an ESR (extended support release) version. eg. http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=166191

[wayne128]

just trying..

image colours seem OK


youtube run OK too. full screen ok also.

[rjroberts]

Thanks for the responses, somewhat confirming my suspicions/fears.

Wayne, what version of Linux, 16 or 17? If you are still on 16, my guess is my graphics drivers are NG for this version. It's an old computer - about 8 years - I have been trying to keep going for my limited uses. If 17, then maybe, just maybe it's the interface with the OS.

Passerby, I looked for pepperbox in the software manager and package manager with no luck so, it would appear I have to snag it from a Chrome release. SOunds like a fun learning experience.


ETA: an additional question. I thought about a direct download from Google of the Chrome browser. The installer package downloaded successfully but when I run it it says the same version is available through a "software channel" and recommends I use that instead. I read somewhere in my researches that there are more of the little software pieces included with a direct download (no idea if that's true or not) so I wanted to try this route. Can I do any harm going (apparently) out of the software channel?

[WinterTroubles]

I run chrome from a google direct download with no adverse effects and when this latest update dropped all of my plugins were updated and worked automatically, the only exception to that is java support (not javascript which doesn't rely on plugins)) as Oracle have yet to provide the relevant java plugin for Chrome V35 on linux.

[kherring7383]

Yes, It appears that both Chrome and Chromium have issues with plugins that were developed prior to version 35 definately have issues.

After spending some time researching this I couldn't find any info regarding the fix. There was even a hint that since Linux has such a small user base that correcting the plugin issues may not be fixed for quite some time if at all.

Hopefully the next release this may be fixed. On a positive note however, I'm getting reaquanted with Firefox. The most current version 29 seems pretty solid and using the Sync option is handy. It does take a little more effort but I've been able to test the Sync between my desktop and laptop. The browser changes I make to my desktop are reflected on my laptop Firefox shortly after I hit the Sunc option.

I guess what I'm really saying is that this stuff happens everytime there are new devlopments in both Linux distros and applications. The great thing about Linux is there's always another option that work just as good or better eventhough it makes us work outside our comforft zone.

So until Chrome/Chromium gets thier act together consider using Firefox.

[iowabeakster]

After spending some time researching this I couldn't find any info regarding the fix.

I've spent even more time reading today. Google announced that those plugins were not going to supported last September. In January it was announced that support would cease in April (version 34.x). It got pushed back till May (version 35.x that we are struggling with now). But, there was no rush from anyone to get the plugins ported to the new chrome/chromium (pepper) API to make them work by the cut-off date. Instead there was months of pointing at Google, calling them names, and throwing accusations at them (NSA--spyware --selling our data--- trying to hurt the competitors--DRM--evil ).

Those plugins are going to need to be rewritten for the pepper API. And some of the developers that I see are not happy with the openness in regards to the pepper API documentation and procedures.

Google's decisions were based on the long term view, and because the linux-Chrome team is much smaller and can only do so much. In a general sense it's a good thing that those old plugins are not going to be supported, as they were a security risk to our systems. In a practical sense, it sucks as so much of the internet requires us to use them. Firefox and the others are going to stop using them too.

So now we all get to change to browsers that are less secure, but still allow us to do things.

--except me (My Firefox on this Mint 16 has an instantaneous crash on launch, I don't even get a crash pop-up because the pop-up fails) I think I used Firefox 1 time right after installing the OS, to download Chrome.

Although I can run it as superuser. How secure is that!

But if you think this is fun, just wait a couple of months. Wait until Chrome on Windows doesn't support the old Java plugin. Maybe Oracle will update the plug-in (ha ha ha). Any guesses how well it'll work? Holy Cow, there's gonna be some fireworks. We haven't had Oracle Java plugins with chrome for a while, but at least we had Iced-tea, which of course now doesn't work.

Sometime, there'll be some plugins for chrome/chromium and Firefox won't have any (or they'll still be allowing the use of the old ones, leaving their users at risk).

Browser War III-- first battle

[WinterTroubles]

There isn't going to any kind of quick fix for those plugins. Those plugins are going to need to be rewritten, and to some degree it's a nearly like starting over for some of them. And some of the developers that I see are not happy with the openness in regards to the pepper API documentation and procedures.

As I stated further up the topic..

I run chrome from a google direct download with no adverse effects and when this latest update dropped all of my plugins were updated and worked automatically, the only exception to that is java support (not javascript which doesn't rely on plugins)) as Oracle have yet to provide the relevant java plugin for Chrome V35 on linux.

The new plugins are not in the repositories, but, they do exist and work (with the exception of java) if you go direct to google and install from there. Not ideal as they should be in the repositories, but, a vast improvement on a broken browser.

[iowabeakster]

I too do not get Chrome from the repositories. I get it directly from Google. I have other broken plugins besides Java.

[WinterTroubles]

My appologies

I should've read more and typed less

[iowabeakster]

No apologies needed. No offense taken.

I'm not even upset about these chrome "issues". These things will happen as software and "the web" evolve. I'm just curious and trying to relay the info that I find, so that others don't need to waste their lives reading the rantings on google-developers.

And I like your signature, describes me perfectly. Although I should probably be more quiet.

[WinterTroubles]

I'm of much the same disposition to you, regarding these issues iowabeakster. Attempting to relay my experience and the experience of those I've worked through this issue with. Things like this happen with these kind of major software changes and making people aware of the various options and part solutions is all any of us can do until a proper fix is made available by the developers in question.

And thanks for the signature appreciation

[JeremyB]

I like how the new version works so far

[Marcel34]

Yes,
I'm also having terrible color problems since Chrome updated from 34 to 35.

The caption/menu-bar is some distorted shade of purple and the fonts are really blurry. Some text is unreadable. It all looks really strange.
Doesn't look like a plugin-problem to me.

Hope this gets fixed soon...

Marcel

P.S. I'm on Linux Mint 15 on two different machines, one shows these problems since updated to Chrome 35, the other one works fine, even after the same update.

[GeneC]

Yes,
I'm also having terrible color problems since Chrome updated from 34 to 35.

The caption/menu-bar is some distorted shade of purple and the fonts are really blurry. Some text is unreadable. It all looks really strange.
Doesn't look like a plugin-problem to me.

Hope this gets fixed soon...

Marcel

Yes, also notice this, but strangely only on Xubuntu (trusty) and not on MINT 17 Qiana. Upgrading to Chrome 36.0.1985.18 beta fixed MOST of the color issues. Expect all will be fixed with new versions.

[wayne128]

Thanks for the responses, somewhat confirming my suspicions/fears.

Wayne, what version of Linux, 16 or 17? If you are still on 16, my guess is my graphics drivers are NG for this version. It's an old computer - about 8 years - I have been trying to keep going for my limited uses. If 17, then maybe, just maybe it's the interface with the OS.

that is Linuxmint-cinnamon-17RC.

[rjroberts]

Thank you all for your help. I am saved! After much frustration and loading/unloading cycles, I thought I had nothing left to lose so I did a 17 MATE install. YES!! The incl;uded Firefox (28) worked fine, no black bars in the URL field and, better yet, the Flash worked "out of the box" no struggle required. Of course I will admit to being very leery of "updating" to 29 since that's where the bars started. I suppose I could download as a package without uninstalling 28 and see what happens. Anyway, it's working. Now all I have to worry about is Wine and iTunes or fiddle with rhythmbox. It'll make things interesting. I don't tolerate frustration well but like fiddling a bit with things if I see progress. I used to deal with command line DOS and, way back, punch-cards and the latest in datacomm, a 300 baud acoustic coupler.

BTW, the experience underscores the comment/philosophy I saw in another thread that the preferred install is a clean one from a boot disk.

[Marcel34]

As a temporary solution I just installed Chromium 31 besides Chrome 35 (both from the repository).....

Marcel

[FLlinux]

The included Firefox (28) worked fine, no black bars in the URL field Of course I will admit to being very leery of "updating" to 29 since that's where the bars started.

I've got Firefox 29 and on LM 13 (MATE) there are no lines in the URL field.

[rjroberts]

Interesting. In 16 I had them and that's where a lot of the grief started..

The new Mint 17 mate is looking better and better. I downloaded chromium 34 and pepperbox: that seems wo be working well. In the package manager on 16 I couldn['t find pepperbox. Now it's there and what they appear to do is download chrome, extract pepperbox and discard the rest of chrome. At least I didn';t see chrome on there. Chromium works well, snappier than Firefox, and the flash videos work. Now, just as an experiment I'll try FF 29 since I prefer chromium.

17 overall is working well though I haven't tried anything substantial yet, just feeling it out. As a potential bug, it >>appears<< as though the power manager screen shutdown doesn't work but I really have to triple check my settings there. The screen saver works.