Updates to Google Chrome Linux support

[Dirk Pranke]

Hi Everyone,

To provide the best experience for the most-used Linux versions, we will end support for Google Chrome on 32-bit Linux, Ubuntu Precise (12.04), and Debian 7 (wheezy) in early March, 2016.  Chrome will continue to function on these platforms but will no longer receive updates and security fixes.

We intend to continue supporting the 32-bit build configurations on Linux to support building Chromium. If you are using Precise, we’d recommend that you to upgrade to Trusty.

Kind Regards,

-- Dirk

[ bcc: chromi...@chromium.org ]

[Sorin Toma]

Well then, farewell Chrome! If I can not use the same browser on all my platforms, I will not use it at all. Firefox might be slower, but it works on my old 32bit only laptop.

[Mārtiņš Možeiko]

Does this affect only binary releases or Chromium source in general?

If I'm running Chromium on Linux with 32-bit ARM hardware, does this mean no more security fixes after next March?

[Ilja Friedel]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Mārtiņš Možeiko <martins...@gmail.com> wrote:

Does this affect only binary releases or Chromium source in general?

The announcement below is carefully worded. No more official Linux 32 bit *Chrome* binaries will be released by Google, but there is the "intend to continue supporting the 32-bit build configurations on Linux to support building *Chromium*."

 

If I'm running Chromium on Linux with 32-bit ARM hardware, does this mean no more security fixes after next March?

I am pretty sure ChromeOS and Android will continue to build and release 32 bit ARM binaries based on Chromium sources for quite some time. Hence external 32 bit ARM *Chromium* builds should continue working with minor effort (the usual disclaimer).

 

On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 3:19:37 PM UTC-8, Dirk Pranke wrote:

Hi Everyone,

To provide the best experience for the most-used Linux versions, we will end support for Google Chrome on 32-bit Linux, Ubuntu Precise (12.04), and Debian 7 (wheezy) in early March, 2016.  Chrome will continue to function on these platforms but will no longer receive updates and security fixes.

We intend to continue supporting the 32-bit build configurations on Linux to support building Chromium. If you are using Precise, we’d recommend that you to upgrade to Trusty.

Kind Regards,

-- Dirk

[ bcc: chromi...@chromium.org ]

--
--
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromi...@chromium.org
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-dev
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-dev...@chromium.org.

[Mike Frysinger]

Google has released 32bit ARM devices this quarter.  that means Chromium will be supported on 32bit ARM for at least 5 years.  in fact, every time a 32bit ARMv7 device is released, it's another 5 years of support.

-mike

[Dirk Pranke]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 8:32 PM, Ilja Friedel <i...@chromium.org> wrote:

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Mārtiņš Možeiko <martins...@gmail.com> wrote:

Does this affect only binary releases or Chromium source in general?

The announcement below is carefully worded. No more official Linux 32 bit *Chrome* binaries will be released by Google, but there is the "intend to continue supporting the 32-bit build configurations on Linux to support building *Chromium*."

 

If I'm running Chromium on Linux with 32-bit ARM hardware, does this mean no more security fixes after next March?

I am pretty sure ChromeOS and Android will continue to build and release 32 bit ARM binaries based on Chromium sources for quite some time. Hence external 32 bit ARM *Chromium* builds should continue working with minor effort (the usual disclaimer).

Everything Ilja wrote above is correct :). The same applies to 32-bit x86 builds as well.

-- Dirk 

[Bryan Quigley]

Right now on my 64 bit machine the download page default to 32-bit.  Will that change sooner?

If you've installed 32 bit on a 64 bit capable OS will it transition automagically to a 64 bit Chrome at EOL?

Can you share the usage percentages behind the decision?

Thanks!

Bryan

[1] https://www.google.com/chrome/browser/desktop/index.html

On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 6:19:37 PM UTC-5, Dirk Pranke wrote:

[Dirk Pranke]

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Bryan Quigley <gqu...@gmail.com> wrote:

Right now on my 64 bit machine the download page default to 32-bit.  Will that change sooner?

By default are you referring to the radio button defaulting to a 32-bit .deb package (out of the 4 choices)?

If so, that'll certainly change when we stop offering the 32-bit download, but changing that to default to 

64-bit even before then is a good suggestion. I've filed crbug.com/564194 for this.

 

If you've installed 32 bit on a 64 bit capable OS will it transition automagically to a 64 bit Chrome at EOL?

That is not currently implemented. I've filed crbug.com/564198 for the suggestion, but it's not immediately

obvious that that's a good idea (there's a risk that we might break something locally in the upgrade, and

users might be surprised by the change more than they are by a normal version upgrade). 

We will notify users on startup that the browser is stale and they should switch, so hopefully that's good

enough.

Thanks,

-- Dirk

Thanks!

Bryan

[1] https://www.google.com/chrome/browser/desktop/index.html

On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 6:19:37 PM UTC-5, Dirk Pranke wrote:

Hi Everyone,

To provide the best experience for the most-used Linux versions, we will end support for Google Chrome on 32-bit Linux, Ubuntu Precise (12.04), and Debian 7 (wheezy) in early March, 2016.  Chrome will continue to function on these platforms but will no longer receive updates and security fixes.

We intend to continue supporting the 32-bit build configurations on Linux to support building Chromium. If you are using Precise, we’d recommend that you to upgrade to Trusty.

Kind Regards,

-- Dirk

[ bcc: chromi...@chromium.org ]

--

[Bryan Quigley]

> By default are you referring to the radio button defaulting to a 32-bit .deb
> package (out of the 4 choices)?

Yup.

Thanks for filling bugs on both issues. I'm following them.

As for percentages I'm mostly curious about the ratio of 32 bit users
to 64 bit. I'm hoping the data could help give Linux distros another
data point on when they might be able to drop 32 bit.

Thanks again,
Bryan

[Mike Frysinger]

i feel like, in most cases where people are running 32bit chrome, it's not possible to "upgrade" it to 64bit because they're running a 32bit userland, not a 64bit one.  you can't just drop the 64bit chrome into such an environment and expect it to run ... you'd need to include all the other 64bit packages.  i'm not sure how many distros even support 64bit multilib with the default being 32bit.

-mike

[Jeff Dewe]

What is wrong with google??? It just doesn't make sense to close the official doors on 32bit pc's/laptops, Its not like they stopped making them years ago, hell they still make them, I will not change my pc and laptops to 64 bit just because google decides to drop support. Sad day for for Linux and google and who ever decided this should be Fired!!. Really its not like your compiling them every day of the week, for a new release. Its just the guy who compiles it, just being a lazy bastard. Distro's like puppy Linux is like 90% 32bit users. So basically your wiping the whole distro away.

[Craig Millsap]

Can someone please clarify that this is an end to ALL 32-bit x86 Linux distributions?

The last sentence is confusing. I manage a lot of 32-bit Trusty netbooks.  Did you mean to say we recommend you upgrade to 64-bit Trusty?

Thanks,

Craig

[Peter Kasting]

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Jeff Dewe <jeff...@gmail.com> wrote:

What is wrong with google??? It just doesn't make sense to close the official doors on 32bit pc's/laptops,

Chromium will still support these for a long time, we're simply not releasing Chrome builds; many distros didn't use Chrome builds anyway but built their own versions of Chromium, in which case this won't even have a visible effect.

 

I will not change my pc and laptops to 64 bit just because google decides to drop support.

OK.  We weren't asking you to.

 

Sad day for for Linux and google and who ever decided this should be Fired!!

Please keep criticism constructive.  This list is not for angry venting, it's a professional development list.  If you want to object, do so in a professional manner.

 

Really its not like your compiling them every day of the week, for a new release. Its just the guy who compiles it, just being a lazy bastard.

You should avoid asserting things about areas where you're not well informed.  There is no "guy who compiles it" to be "lazy", and we do in fact have a set of official builders that compiles these sorts of builds constantly.  Inventing a reason why you think this is happening and then criticizing it is simply attacking a strawman.

 

Distro's like puppy Linux is like 90% 32bit users. So basically your wiping the whole distro away.

As mentioned above and repeatedly in this thread, Chromium continues to support 32-bit builds and will for quite some time to come.

PK 

[Ilja Friedel]

Please take a deep breath before calling people "bastards". It takes a lot of human effort to release tested binaries. This effort could be better spent on projects with more users. (Fyi the build infrastructure compiles and stores binaries hundreds of times a day.)

In your case you will be able to switch to

http://puppylinux.org/wikka/Chromium

instead of

http://puppylinux.org/wikka/Chrome

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Jeff Dewe <jeff...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

--
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromi...@chromium.org
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-dev

[Dirk Pranke]

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Craig Millsap <cmil...@gentrypioneers.com> wrote:

Can someone please clarify that this is an end to ALL 32-bit x86 Linux distributions?

That is correct, we will no longer be distributing any official Google Chrome 32-bit 

x86 builds, regardless of distro or version of distro.

Separately, we are dropping support for Precise and wheezy for the 64-bit x86-64 builds as well.

It will be possible for distros to continue to build and publish their own versions of Chromium

for either 32-bit or 64-bit as long as they wish to do so.

The last sentence is confusing. I manage a lot of 32-bit Trusty netbooks.  Did you mean to say we recommend you upgrade to 64-bit Trusty?

You will either need to upgrade to 64-bit Trusty (if your hardware is capable of it) and 64-bit Google Chrome,

or use a 32-bit distro-provided version of Chromium.

I hope that clarifies things.

-- Dirk

Thanks,

Craig

On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 5:19:37 PM UTC-6, Dirk Pranke wrote:

Hi Everyone,

To provide the best experience for the most-used Linux versions, we will end support for Google Chrome on 32-bit Linux, Ubuntu Precise (12.04), and Debian 7 (wheezy) in early March, 2016.  Chrome will continue to function on these platforms but will no longer receive updates and security fixes.

We intend to continue supporting the 32-bit build configurations on Linux to support building Chromium. If you are using Precise, we’d recommend that you to upgrade to Trusty.

Kind Regards,

-- Dirk

[ bcc: chromi...@chromium.org ]

--

[Jeff Dewe]

Listen I've compiled hundreds and hundreds of apps for people and its not that hard, but when you get apps with very large backends like chrome it only makes sense for Chrome to release 32bit, It takes so much resources for each distro times say 400 linux distro to compile there own 32bit. or Get one guy from chrome or 400 guys around the world. Really at the end of the day who wants to waste hrs and hrs compiling 1 app in a 1gb+ directory. I don't think anyone on puppy linux every compiled chrome, It just takes too long, takes too much space and a lot of added deps. Usually we just get the ubuntu releases, We tend to compile Firefox and seamonkey and a few QT based browsers, but Chrome has always been over blown. Would be nice if you came out with a smaller version?? Chrome is usually double or tripple the size of FF or Opera. Smaller based distros like having smaller browsers. Really a basic browser with flash block, ad-block and youTube downloader is what most people want and need. Oh yeah and being able to move the tabs under the URL bar is a common want. Anyways Chrome is your baby, how you raise it, will define your success or lack of it.

[Jason Gray]

AFAIK you couldn't compile Chrome if you wanted to. It's got propriety "Chrome only" bits, that's what separates it from Chromium. You could always, and still can compile Chromium. As far as your "400" distros goes they will continue to do what they always have for Chromium, compile their own version in whatever architecture or use their parent distro's package. Distros AFAIK have never compiled their own versions of Chrome. All this means is that Google will stop releasing 32bit versions of Chrome for Linux. It changes very little to nothing for Chromium. 

[SYSTEMA CORE]

 Thanks Google, I've just acquired a bunch of cheap (even refurbished and 2nd hand) x86 Chromebooks with the explicit purpose of making them lubuntu+chrome machines... These are 2 gigs systems with low end CPU's like celeron's, they will never handle a 64 bit distro+64 bit chrome well and they were functioning just fine with 32 bit lubuntu+32 bit chrome, in fact MUCH BETTER than 32 bit firefox.

 Canonical never keeps the chromium in the repos updated not to mention the fact the overall CHROME it's a much better experience.

 Being a company with so much money this is a nasty move to pull and you are clearly doing this because you are seeing a lot of chromebooks being repurposed as linux distro machines...  I had a project with 50+ machines for a charity for the IT illiterate, disavantaged, unemployed people, anyone who needed a laptop really... you should see their faces when they hold a cheap chromebook like it's the most precious thing they have ever seen.

 So the next time you think  "why are we bothering with XXXX ? who uses this? linux geeks right? fuck them " you should clearly consider all the ramifications of your decision to save a few dollars.

 reckless at best, malicious if you ask me.

 thanks for nothing

[SYSTEMA CORE]

... and one more thing, just to really convey the disapointment and perplexity I'm feeling now: CHROME's performance has been stellar in Linux, it is by far the best browser one can use in linux (32 or 64). This is, of course, hardly due to the kindness of Google but simply because they are optimizing chrome to work well under their own gentoo based Chrome OS system.

 And this is what is really obscene: Google made millions (billions?) on the back of the linux kernel (Chrome OS, Android, all the services etc) and this is how they give back? No one is no longer asking for native drive clients or anything of the sort but now they want to take away from linux their most core software (a browser)

 
  SHAME

[Igor Kovalchuk]

How about the Pepper Flash Player? Will it be available on 32-bit Linux systems?

[Igor K.]

Will be there security updates for 32-bit Linux Pepper Flash Player somehow?

[Michael Pardee]

I support public libraries with hundreds of 32-bit computers - now they only have 3 months to buy new hardware?    Chrome provides the only decent Flash implementation for Linux these days, so chromium won't help.  I know flash stinks, but a lot of web sites still require it.   I can understand a change like this but organizations need more than 3 months to adapt to major changes - does Google publish a roadmap of hardware/software support?  If not, I guess organizations cannot rely on Google for any critical function.

[Ralph Bromley]

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 11:00:22 AM UTC-5, Michael Pardee wrote:

I support public libraries with hundreds of 32-bit computers - now they only have 3 months to buy new hardware?    Chrome provides the only decent Flash implementation for Linux these days, so chromium won't help.  I know flash stinks, but a lot of web sites still require it.   I can understand a change like this but organizations need more than 3 months to adapt to major changes - does Google publish a roadmap of hardware/software support?  If not, I guess organizations cannot rely on Google for any critical function.

Actually there is the seperate chromium-pepperflash package in Ubuntu and I dont think that will go away as long as chromium is still around.

As for this decision,I still think its a dumb one as there are a lot of people who use linux on old hardware but at the same time there is still chromium.

The only sucky thing about chromium is there is no drm html5 so no netflix

[Ralph Bromley]

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 9:26:14 AM UTC-5, Igor K. wrote:

Will be there security updates for 32-bit Linux Pepper Flash Player somehow?

Actually pepperflash itself is 32bit only due to adobe ditching the 64bit version of flash 

[Ralph Bromley]

Still I think anger is justfied, if I were still using 32bit hardware I would use so much foul language it would look like George Carlin was on Tomas the Tank Engine his entire career 

[Anthony LaForge]

It's worth noting that Ubuntu provides an official Flash Player plugin package for Chromium called adobe-flashplugin.  You can find instructions, on how to install it, here.

Big kudos to both Adobe and Canonical for making that available!

Kind Regards,

Anthony Laforge
Technical Program Manager
Mountain View, CA

--

[Michael Pardee]

Actually there is the seperate chromium-pepperflash package in Ubuntu and I dont think that will go away as long as chromium is still around.

I am having trouble finding out exactly what differences there are between the flash version built into chrome and the chromium pepper flash plugin available for Ubuntu.  If Google is dropping 32-bit chrome support, how long until they drop 32-bit flash plugin support?  Where is the roadmap?  If the flash plugin functionality is similar to the current plugin for firefox that is only getting security updates, its not really viable.  Many ( poorly programmed ) sites won't work with the firefox flash plugin anymore.

 

[Anthony LaForge]

Adobe provides the same builds to both Google and Canonical, so they should be identical.

I'm not sure what their deployment timing/ hand-off policies might be, nor what Adobe's plans are for 32-bit support of Linux... but I can say with confidence that they should mirror what we are deploying with Chrome.

Kind Regards,

Anthony Laforge
Technical Program Manager
Mountain View, CA

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Michael Pardee <opensense...@gmail.com> wrote:

Actually there is the seperate chromium-pepperflash package in Ubuntu and I dont think that will go away as long as chromium is still around.

I am having trouble finding out exactly what differences there are between the flash version built into chrome and the chromium pepper flash plugin available for Ubuntu.  If Google is dropping 32-bit chrome support, how long until they drop 32-bit flash plugin support?  Where is the roadmap?  If the flash plugin functionality is similar to the current plugin for firefox that is only getting security updates, its not really viable.  Many ( poorly programmed ) sites won't work with the firefox flash plugin anymore.

 

--

[Michael Pardee]

Adobe provides the same builds to both Google and Canonical, so they should be identical.

At first glance it does appear that the flash built into chrome is the same as libpepflashplayer.so for chromium, which makes chromium + pepper flash a viable alternative to chrome. ( except for netflix and a few other things )

 However:

I'm not sure what their deployment timing/ hand-off policies might be, nor what Adobe's plans are for 32-bit support of Linux... but I can say with confidence that they should mirror what we are deploying with Chrome.

That is exactly what I am worried about - if flash support mirrors chrome's abandonment of 32-bit.  Right now chromium gets the flash plugin for "free" since it was already developed for Chrome, but once the 32 bit version is no longer made for Chrome I doubt they'll still make it just for use with Chromium.  Will there be any advance warning or will it just be discontinued in 3 months?    I had assumed google was developing the flash plugin themselves, or at least paying Adobe to do it (otherwise why wouldn't Firefox get an updated version too?)   - if this is completely up to Adobe I'm not very optimistic.

How can we get an official answer about the future of the 32-bit flash plugin for chromium?

On another note, if anyone from Google cares anything about public relations, they should be explaining this move more.  There are probably some better reasons than "To provide the best experience for the most-used Linux versions" - like specific library dependencies.  If it was a simple matter of development time/money I wonder if we could crowdfund another year of 32-bit development to buy some time for new hardware purchases.  Linux users are pretty technical people and some vague marketing statement is just going to make them angry.

[Mike Frysinger]

as mentioned earlier in the thread, Chrome OS x86 32-bit support is sticking around until at least July 2016.

-mike

[PhistucK]

Actually, unless I am blind or GMail missed some posts on the thread, this is not mentioned anywhere in the thread (at least when I search for "July" or "2016").

☆PhistucK

[Mike Frysinger]

CrOS devices have at least 5 years of life, so when you look up the last 32bit x86 device and see it was released in July 2011, the logical computation gets you July 2016.

-mike

[Michael Pardee]

I found this that talks about the 5 year policy: https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/eol.html

But I don't see any specifics about what is guaranteed for 5 years - possibly it is just the operating system.  I could see them excluding third party software/plugins like flash.