Back to Chromium page
Chromium free download for Mac

Chromium Reviews

78.0.3904.108
20 November 2019

Fast and stable open-source browser.

George6
17 May 2019

Most helpful

Chromium first wants access to my Keychain, then it connects to google without even having any browser window open. So much about Chromium being un-googlefied. No other browser acts like that, constantly trying to snoop and crawl and connect to services which you never wanted or used, trying to find and report anything that can be sold on the market for ads. For me anything google or chrome is just unacceptable. This is only on my harddisk for testing browser compatibility in webdevelopment. Sadly the Chromium people are obviously not able to get the spyware out of the code. Probably because there wouldnt be any code left.
Like (1)
Version 74.0.3729.157

Read 207 Chromium User Reviews

Rate this app:

George6
17 May 2019
Chromium first wants access to my Keychain, then it connects to google without even having any browser window open. So much about Chromium being un-googlefied. No other browser acts like that, constantly trying to snoop and crawl and connect to services which you never wanted or used, trying to find and report anything that can be sold on the market for ads. For me anything google or chrome is just unacceptable. This is only on my harddisk for testing browser compatibility in webdevelopment. Sadly the Chromium people are obviously not able to get the spyware out of the code. Probably because there wouldnt be any code left.
Like (1)
Version 74.0.3729.157
1 answer(s)
Mcr
Mcr
16 July 2019
I saw you posted your same comment on the Chrome page. Completely 'ungoogle-fied' versions of Chromium are available here:
https://chromium.woolyss.com/
Including builds that have all the video codecs included.

Chrome is derived from Chromium, not visa versa.
I've used Chromium, various builds, for years, my builds do not connect to Google unless directed. I can confirm this using Little Snitch. There are extensions that disable the Google Analytics that so many sites have now. Suggest you look at settings, possibly the default site you have selected employs Google Analytics. Browser accesses the site, site requests Google Analytics... Same thing with KeyChain, I suspect the default sites being accessed have a login enabled. You can set Chromium to start with completely blank page, no link, try that.

Again, my config does not access Google unless directed, and that is precisely why many folks like myself use Chromium in the first place, so perhaps it is specific to some configuration or setting on your setup.

Peace.

Like (2)
lzoz
21 November 2018
This is great that FreeSMUG is offering those builds. THANK YOU!
One problem though is that the updater no longer works and is automatically removed and then no longer operational.
The website says "This build hasn't "Check for Updates…" command as building Sparkle update framework at 64 bit fail." Not sure, this should be solvable as sparkle is used in other 64bit applications. Hope they can find a solution for an update mechanism.
Like (3)
Version 70.0.3538.110
2 answer(s)
Mcr
Mcr
06 December 2018
Updates are handled via an updater extension. be sure you are running a more recent version. you have to install an updater extension manually, it's included in the DMG file
http://www.freesmug.org/chromium
scroll down, read the description
Like
harald-14
harald-14
09 January 2019
@Mcr: does that work for you? For me that updater is automatically removed / gone after restarting chromium. I do the manual install, restart and it's gone. So I was surprised to read your comment.
Like (1)
tomtomklub
14 November 2018
Trying to open v. 70.0.3538.102 and getting the "Chromium can’t be opened because it is from an unidentified developer" security alert. :'(
Like
Version 70.0.3538.102
4 answer(s)
Mcr
Mcr
06 December 2018
Chromium is not signed because it is open source and not 'owned' per se by any one particular developer or organization. As a user you can do the following:
In System Preferences/Security & Privacy/General tab, you see options for 'Allow apps downloaded from: Mac App Store, Mac App Store and identified developers, and third Anywhere'. YOu can select 'Anywhere'.

However, this means any unsigned software including possible malware is permitted. Unless you are very sure about the sources of your software, I would not select Anywhere, and for sure, casual users and non techies, should not use 'Anywhere'.

This leads to the other, more recommended option. Locate Chromium in the Applications folder in Finder. Highlight app and RIGHT mouse click on it to bring up Optionss menu, select 'Open'. After a few moments, macOS will respond back with something like 'Are you really sure blah blah', select 'Open' again from that pop up. Chromium should then load. You should only need to do this RIGHT click open ONE TIME for that version of Chromium. As long as you respond Yes to the second prompt, macOS will remember your choice and thereafter you can launch Chromium normally with left mouse click or from the Dock like any other app.

Note, that if you update Chromium to a new version, macOS treats it as a new app, so you have to repeat the RIGHT mouse click, 'open' process again ONE TIME (for that version of Chromium).
Like (3)
tomtomklub
tomtomklub
06 December 2018
The developer who maintains this edition of Chromium had been signing builds prior to v. 70.0.3538.102 with an Apple Developer ID certificate. All subsequent versions, however, have not been signed.

I can't find any documentation noting this change, and I saw that others had reached out to the developer on social media asking about it and there was no reply.

I should have been more specific about my concern. Thanks for the info, Mcr :)
Like (1)
IronProgrammer
IronProgrammer
16 December 2018
The developer decided to not renew their Apple Developer account. Therefore, they no longer have access to an Apple Developer certificate to sign the app with. This information was a little difficult to find, but it is in their forums here:

http://www.freesmug.org/forum/t-8093500/chromium-osx-70-0-3538-67-available
Like (2)
tomtomklub
tomtomklub
22 December 2018
Thanks for the info, IronProgrammer :)
Like
Manofdogz
29 August 2018
don't touch Chromium with a bargepole. Installed itself on my Mac without me having any knowledge and other apps started playing up
Like
Version 68.0.3440.84
1 answer(s)
Big Johnson
Big Johnson
05 November 2018
Were you playing with a Ouija board?
Because that sounds like the work of mischievous spirits to me.

Actually it sounds like BS to me.

Chromium is not malware and it didn’t magically traverse the WWW to infect your computer. Either you or someone with access to your system must have installed it.

I don’t even know what to make of your comment "other apps started playing up."

You may want to consult an exorcist.
Like (9)
Bipou
14 August 2018
Your may not visit developer’s website which is not secure according to Chromium, huh.
Like (1)
Version 68.0.3440.84
Bento de Espinosa
08 August 2018
Version 68.0.3440.84 says OS X 10.9 or later. I am on OS X 10.9, and it does not open! I even downloaded it twice, wasting 180 MB of mobile internet for — nothing!
Like
Version 68.0.3440.84
3 answer(s)
Aargl
Aargl
09 August 2018
See my comments below: no Chromium 68 based browsers won't work on Mavericks.
There's only one version 68 that will run on Mavericks, and frankly I don't understand why it does, beware that it's a dev version: https://github.com/macchrome/chromium/releases/tag/v68.0.3398.0-r550900-macOS
I'm using it with no issue. Note that there's not much difference with v67...
Opera and Vivaldi are still using pre 68 Chromium and are not planned to switch to 68 right now, as far as I know, may be you can give them a try. ;-)
Like
Aargl
Aargl
09 August 2018
Hmmm... I must amend myself: I've just read the release notes of Opera Beta and the next version (55) will ship Chromium 68.
That leaves us with Vivaldi, which release pace is slower: its snapshots of the soon-to-be-released version 1.16 are still shipping Chromium 67...
Like
Aargl
Aargl
19 September 2018
... Now, even the latest Vivaldi 1.15 has switched to Chromium 68.
Snapshot 1.16.1259.3 is the last to run on Mavericks, then they jumped to snapshot 2.x and Chromium 69!
So, you know what? We either have to stick to an outdated version of our Chromium based browsers or use some Fox (Fire- or Water- ;-) ).
Like
Aargl
29 July 2018
Chromium v68 won't run on OS 10.9, even if FreeSMUG's site still says "OS X 10.9 or late". Other Chromium based browsers (such as Vivaldi) still run on 10.9, just because they're still using Chromium v67. ;-)
Like
Version 68.0.3440.75
1 answer(s)
Aargl
Aargl
29 July 2018
Chrome itself has dropped Mavericks: https://support.google.com/chrome/a/answer/7100626?hl=en
Like (1)
Brun0
07 June 2018
Hi,
Where can we download The FreeSMUG updater extension now ?
I have manually unpacked and installed it, but it disappear after next chromium launch ... What's that ?? ?
Like (4)
Version 67.0.3396.79
WebSanity
04 June 2018
It seems impossible to have both Chromium and SRWare Iron in my set of browsers. If I download one, it replaces the other. Can I only have one? If so, which is the better choice?
Like
Version 67.0.3396.62
1 answer(s)
czgv
czgv
07 June 2018
Clearly Chromium is the better choice.
Like (1)
Winco
24 May 2018
The FreeSMUG 1.1.5 updater extension has to be manually unpacked and installed and no longer auto-updates and is no longer available to install from the Chrome Store. Shame. This was excellent for helping me keep Chromium up-to-date.
Like (6)
Version 66.0.3359.181
Dogbert1
16 May 2018
This does not appear to be coming from FreeSMUG. The version that they have on their site is Chromium_OSX_66.0.3359.181
Like
Version 68.0.3430.0
1 answer(s)
BryanatMU
BryanatMU
16 May 2018
Hi there, we did indeed grab a dev build yesterday. I fixed that as we do prefer to post the stable build. Sorry for the confusion, and thanks for the note.
Like
Saneman1
27 February 2018
Your download link gave me a 404 error.
Like (1)
Version 64.0.3282.186
2 answer(s)
Brun0
Brun0
28 March 2018
Same here but now it goes to the new source forge page, but no link to chromium
Like
Aargl
Aargl
15 May 2018
Check the links I gave in my former reviews/comments, you'll find URLs for all the "good" builds of Chromium, including this build from FreeSMUG.
Like
mariemorton
26 February 2018
Who can explain me what is the difference between Chrome and Chromium?
Like
Version 64.0.3282.186
1 answer(s)
Aargl
Aargl
11 March 2018
Hi!
Basically Chromium is the heart of Chrome: Google adds a few things, mainly audio/video codecs, some of their services and telemetry.
There are plenty of other apps or builds that use Chromium (Opera, Vivaldi, Brave amongst the most famous), each dev adding things and organizing the menus in his own way, but the heart remains the same.
Read some of my former comments here on some other Chromium builds that include codecs — indeed, this build of Chromium is pretty frustrating because it's without codecs, so you have 2 choices: use this build without codecs and some other browser when you need audio/video or use another build including codecs. :-)
(as I wrote a lot of comments here, I must say that I'm not linked in any way with any dev, I'm just a happy user! :-D)
Like (2)
yungparkloo88
12 February 2018
PuP in a nutshell
Like
Version 64.0.3282.119
2 answer(s)
Lvdoc
Lvdoc
21 February 2018
Okay, I've looked everywhere to figure this out. Please, what is PuP?
Like
sjk
sjk
21 February 2018
With the 1-star rating, I'd guess https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentially_unwanted_program
Like (1)
Aargl
30 January 2018
As I mentioned in a former comment, you can find various builds of Chromium, including the one on this page — from FreeSMUG) there:
https://chromium.woolyss.com/#mac-64-bit
You'll find a build with all the codecs to play video and audio, made by a dev identified as "Marmaduke": he now provides a "stable" version — which I use — following the same build number as FreeSMUG's and another "lkcr" dev version (currently 66.0.3330.0) for the bold. ;-)
I'm absolutely satisfied with this browser! It's Chrome without Google telemetry and stuff, running all extensions without any issue.
Actually, this browser together with uBlock Origin, uMatrix and Decentraleyes is lightning fast, even on an "old" machine!
I still use Firefox 52 ESR but Chromium has become my main browser.
The only thing I don't like are the trapezoid tabs, but Chrome has got the same and Firefox Quantum's interface is even worse.
Like (1)
Version 64.0.3282.119
Aargl
28 November 2017
I've been using Chromium quite intensely since last summer and I must say it's mainly the interesting conversation I had with Mcr (see posts below) that prevented me from using it as my main browser. I'm actually not using FreeSMUG's build (because of the lack of audio/video codecs) but Marmaduke's build that you can find elsewhere — a developer build that includes codecs. A recent conversation I had with the devs at https://chromium.woolyss.com/#comment-2694 convinced me that there's no "safe" build of Chromium (not even Google's Chrome itself ;-) ) and that internet security on its whole is a big concern, no matter what browser you use. Basically, it's up to the end user to trust or not a particular browser (on what criteria can you say that Firefox, Safari or else is reliable enough to give it the "keys" to your bank account?) The cascade of security patches that pours on our OSes and software, year after year says it all... I'm still to find a 100% safe browser, but in the meantime, one thing is pretty certain: Chromium is a good one and, based on my 4 months experience, I'd say that I'm not feeling more at risk using Marmaduke's build (with codecs "No sync • No WebRTC • No Widevine" — i.e. Google's useless crap ;-) ) than FreeSMUG's — yet, I'm still using Firefox for my bank account, maybe out of some superstition... ;-)
Like
Version 62.0.3202.94
1 answer(s)
Aargl
Aargl
27 December 2017
Yet, you now can find a Marmaduke's build (with codecs, etc.) identified as "stable" following the same build number as FreeSMUG's (currently 63.0.3239.108) — together with its usual "lkcr" dev build (currently 65.0.3292.0).
Like
Dana-Sutton
22 September 2017
If I could watch videos (including Netflix) in Chromium it would be a perfect browser. As matters are, I have to use Chrome to do too much stuff Chromium ought to be able to handle but can't.
Like
Version 61.0.3163.91
1 answer(s)
Mcr
Mcr
08 November 2017
Chromium is the open source 'parent' for Chrome. Anyone is free to take the code and compile and modify, which is what Google does to create Chrome. Video codecs are licensed and require licensed fees to be paid. Google pays these fees for Chrome, MS pays for IE and Edge, Apple pays for Safari, Mozilla pays for Firefox, and so on. Google will likely never pay these fees for Chromium...why should they, they want you to use Chrome. Since Chromium belongs to the open source community, there is no 'person' or 'company' to pay these license fees, or afford it (millions of $$).

If you were a developer and wanted to, you and anyone else could take the source code and compile your own build of Chromium, and enable all the video codecs, and use it for your personal use. As long as you don't distribute your build, you would not be required to pay any license fees for using the codecs.
Like (1)
Big Johnson
29 August 2017
I gave it a try but quickly discovered I wasn't able to login to a single site due to 1Password being incompatible with Chromium.

I'm not about to use one browser for general surfing and another for sites where I need access to my accounts.

1Password's dev. says:
"The Chromium team has no plans to begin signing Chromium. That means 1Password has no way of knowing if your Chromium installation is safe. Switch to a browser that has been signed, like Chrome, Safari, Firefox, or Opera.

Chromium is not code signed, so the only way for 1Password to work in Chromium is to disable code signature verification (which is there for your protection), and thereby lower your security."



Sorry Chromium - although we were just getting to know each other, we must part. I think it's for the best.

It's not me, it's YOU.
You lack the security I look for in a browser, so I just don't feel safe when I'm with you.

Don't feel bad, you'll find other users.
There are literally thousands of people out there willing to overlook your flaws in order to spend time with you.

And remember - it's their fault, not yours, if they should get blindsided by a hacker as the two of you are wandering amongst the Interwebs; After all, it's a dangerous place.

That's why the other major browsers protect their users with code signing.
No, no - don't be jealous. That doesn't mean you're not as pretty as Chrome, just...different.

So long Chromium, I'll never forget you.
And maybe one day our paths will cross again.
Like (1)
Version 60.0.3112.113
3 answer(s)
cig0
cig0
06 September 2017
How hard could it be to manually enter your credentials only the first time you access the site?
Like (2)
Big Johnson
Big Johnson
08 September 2017
Is Chromium going to sync saved passwords with my other browsers and phone? Uh-uh

Is Chromium going to display a password generator to create secure passwords? Nope.

Is Chromium going to fill in credit card information? No way.

Will Chromium fill in alternate identities? Negative

Is Chromium going to protect my passwords with 256-bit AES encryption? Absolutely not.


Browsers leak information and have vulnerabilities which can be exploited to reveal personal information. Therefore I don't allow browsers to save passwords.


FYI Chromium may not be as safe as you think it is.
Have you actually researched its weak points, or do you blindly
(and falsely) believe that it's a completely safe browser?


On June 20, 2017, a security website said this:
"Multiple vulnerabilities have been found in the Chromium web browser, the worst of which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code.

A remote attacker could possibly execute arbitrary code with the privileges of the process, cause a Denial of Service condition, obtain sensitive information, bypass security restrictions or spoof content.

There is no known workaround at this time."

That was for v59, just three months ago.


So if you want to trust Chromium to keep your data safe, you go right on ahead.
As for me, I'll continue keeping them under lock and key in 1Password.


Hey dude, surfs up - go catch that sick wave, brah!
Like (1)
Lumac52
Lumac52
04 January 2018
I had the same issue and I'm happy to report that Opera now allows a full Chromium experience, including the ability to use Chrome add-ons, while also working with 1Password.
Like
Aargl
08 August 2017
I've been intensely trying Chromium for a few days, now, and I must say it's one of the best browsers I've tried so far. Compared to Firefox, it has some good points and some drawbacks. - you can find equivalent extensions (except NoScript), or even have the work done by Chromium itself (zoom levels for each site) - until FF fires multiprocess for everybody, Chromium deals a lot better with a lot of tabs open, as each one is an independent process - old Bookmacster 1 works with Chromium while it doesn't work with FF 52 (forcing me to stay at v45.9 — and being stuck at OS 10.9.5 for various reasons, it means a lot to me!) - but 1Password extension doesn't recognize Chromium's signature and that won't be fixed in the near future (there's a workaround, though, but it opens a — theoretical — breach in 1P's security) - at this point, the reasons keeping me from switching from FF to Chromium are very few, but having to deal with various languages everyday, the dictionaries in FF win the day, for the time being. - Oh, I was forgetting an important drawback: it doesn't support H264 videos (some of Youtube's), mp3 or aac! :-o So a lot of music players won't work. :-( - though I've got Flash PPAPI installed, it doesn't seem to be recognized by every site. In the end, I'll stick to FF, but instead, as I was using old Safari 9.1.3 as a secondary browser for certain sites, that role will probably be good for Chromium until it resolves incompatibilities and lacks.
Like
Version 60.0.3112.90
5 answer(s)
Aargl
Aargl
14 August 2017
After a while, I've realized that there's a build including all the missing codecs, available on this page: https://chromium.woolyss.com/ (the blue pane, "Marmaduke edition")
Of course, nobody knows who is this Marmaduke, it's up to you to trust him or not. ;-)
I'm using the "No sync" version, had no crash, and could connect (and stay connected) to the services I use (the search engine, Gmail and Translate).
Depending on each site, some work with or without Flash or not at all, Marmaduke or not...
Like
Mcr
Mcr
16 August 2017
Regards Flash, there is a trick to installing PPAPI for Chromium Mac, even if you install the plugin using Adobe's installer, Chromium may not always find the plugin in the default Library/Internet plug ins/PepperFlashPlayer folder, even site by site. Use this Terminal command :
do shell script "/Applications/Chromium.app/Contents/MacOS/Chromium --ppapi-flash-path=/Library/Internet\\ Plug-Ins/PepperFlashPlayer/PepperFlashPlayer.plugin --ppapi-flash-version=23.0.0.185 &"

Replace the version number (23.0 etc) at the very end with the correct version number of the plugin you have installed, keep the double quotes around everything, very important. You can also use this command in an AppleScript or Automator app, to simply using it. In some cases I have found you only need to do this once and thereafter Chromium 'remembers' for lack of a better word where to find the plug in; other systems, i hAVe had to always launch Chromium with this script. I haven't found a rhyme or reason. This command in the address bar will report back if Chromium has loaded the plugin: chrome://flash/

Regards codecs, Chromium OTB (Out of the Box) and otherwise distributed versions does not have the codecs enabled for H.264 and several other media types; it is not a 'bug' or oversight, it is intentional, the reasons are mainly legal and political,
1) legal - many codecs, in particular h.264, but also applies to other popular codecs (mp3 audio, AAC audio) are covered by patents/licenses which require fees to be paid to the licensing or governing body. Google pays the fee to be able to distribute h.264 codec in Chrome, but not Chromium. (no surprise). On firefox, Cisco initially came out several years ago with a h.264 video extension and paid the licensing for everyone, currently I believe (could be wrong) Mozilla picks up the bill because you no longer need the Cisco add on to play h.264 video. Microsoft obviously has agreements in place to include on IE and Edge, and Apple pays the fees so it can include in Safari. All of these folks can afford it, and these fees can be very expensive, in the millions yearly. But Chromium builds are distributed by regularly folks willing to compile the code, these folks would be liable for violating licensing if they distribute their builds with the codecs turned on. Since these folks are for the most doing these builds as a public service, I venture most don't even come close to having the deep pockets or inclination to pay any fees. Understand, if you have the know how, inclination and tools, anyone can compile their own Chromium build; it is open source. If you compile for your own use alone, you can enable the codecs and be happy as a lark. BUT if you distribute your build, you then fall under the requirement to pay the licensing fee.

2) Political - Chromium does actual have h.264 capability in its code, but is turned OFF by default (or should be turned off by anyone compiling Chromium with intent to distribute); one to avoid the licensing as mentioned already, but two because Google essentially dictates much of the direction to the development project, and for obvious reasons they don't want people using Chromium, they want you to use Chrome so they can benefit financial (ads, data mining, etc) so Google has zero incentive to encourage use of Chromium over Chrome. so one of the 'enticements' is, by applying pressure to keep certain media support out of generally available releases of Chromium, if you want media support, you are "encouraged" wink wink to have switch to Chrome. The 99% non-technical people who can't be bothered and just want everything to 'work' will be guided towards using Chrome, because it's so readily available and pushed down your throat everywhere you turn; pre-loaded on many Windows PCs, or included with so many other apps as part of the installer (especially Windows world).

It's possible the situation could change, but most people don't anticipate it anytime soon, so much money is made on the licensing. so if anyone is expecting to wait until Chromium resolves this deficiency or whatever you want to call it, I wouldn't wait around. Switch to Chrome and accept all that comes with that (Google privacy concerns, 'spy ware' etc, ).

So how does Marmaduke and his build get around this and include the codecs? I don't know the specific, but if I had to guess its because the build is positioned as a "developer" build, this is not for general public distribution. Of course, anyone can download it, if you know where to find it. BUT THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND to anyone thinking of using the Marmaduke builds; it IS a developer build; it will have bugs, both known and undiscovered. And it's not just a developer build, but NIGHTLY builds, fresh off the presses every evening so to speak, untested for the most part. However unlikely, it is possible that any particular nightly build could have serious issues; by definition, this is work in progress code. Extensions might not run that do run fine on 'stable' builds. User beware! Personally, I would not use nightly builds for anything important, such as work or personal related or any situation where you must be assured there are no privacy loopholes or data leaks; your online banking for example, accessing cloud storage is another, sites where you are entering personal information.. Only if you are testing, in which case you would (should) be using dummy data, not your own personal data. this is just my opinion, YMMV.
Like
Aargl
Aargl
16 August 2017
Yes, you're right! :-)
I've also read that you can activate h.264 but haven't found how.
Is it only when compiling the source or is there any trick to do it afterwards?
Like
Mcr
Mcr
16 August 2017
AArgl, the PC answer is that it must be enabled during compile. and that it is only for personal use, no (re)distribution. Whether it can be enabled later, a Google search on that may prove useful ;-)
Like
Aargl
Aargl
16 August 2017
Ok, I'll have to search more... ;-)
Like
Penguirl
30 May 2017
Chromium works well for me, however I only use it for YouTube or if I need to look up price comparisons with Google search. Since using either of these is going to send your information to Google anyway, using a Google browser avoids sharing this information with a browser from another company such as Apple or Mozilla (I use Firefox for day to day use).
Like
Version 58.0.3029.110
10 answer(s)
Mcr
Mcr
06 June 2017
It is important to distinguish Chromium from Chrome. Chromium is the open source from which Google's Chrome is derived; and for the most part Chromium is free of the tracking that Google inserts into Chrome.

Allthough Google contributes bug fixes and such back to the Chromium project, the overseers of the project and the licensing of Chromium is supposed to keep Chromium free of any company specific features, including telemetry.

Secondly, there are search engines that do NOT track or send any info, for example duckduckgo.com. Of course, the search results may differ from using duckduckgo vs google, but 90% of the time I found the results comparable, and only fall back to Google search for the remaining 10%.

Also, be aware that Mozilla later this year will drop support for Firefox Addons (target is version 57 in November 2017) With version 57 Firefox will only support Web Extensions which are essentially the same as Chromium / Chrome extensions. This is not making the majority of Firefox users happy; see this blog
https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2017/02/16/the-road-to-firefox-57-compatibility-milestones/
All the addons like Classic Theme Restorer, etc that modify the UI, will no longer work. DowtloadThemAll, my favorite download manager, will no longer work, The majority of these addons can not be rewritten or migrated.

The main reason I have stuck with Firefox as my day to day is precisely because of the addons that are available. Once that goes away, and I can't modify FF the way I want, I will have to ask myself, what will FF offer that is unique over Chromium?

Opera, is also migrating towards using Chromium as its base. So Mac users pretty soon will basically have two mainstream choices, Safari or Chromium (or one of its derivatives). The former CEO of Mozilla, started up a new company "Brave" and developing a new browser with privacy protection and ad blocking built in , not relying on addons or extension or 3rd parties. Only in beta still but you can try the Mac beta now, brave.com
Like (3)
RavenNevermore
RavenNevermore
22 June 2017
"using a Google browser avoids sharing this information with a browser from another company such as Apple or Mozilla"

Huh? If you are searching in Google, or using gmail, Google, knows what you were looking up, even if you are using Safari, Apple NEVER tracks that stuff.
Like
Aargl
Aargl
04 August 2017
Mcr> do you know why Chromium's version featured here is v60 while at https://chromium.woolyss.com/download/fr/#mac (which seems to be the official repository), it's 62.0.3177.0 ???
In fact, freesmug.org doesn't seem to be the developer of Chromium, rather a repository for Open Source Software.
Or is it that the other website is for Betas?
Like
Mcr
Mcr
05 August 2017
@aargl woolyss.com is not the official repository, in fact it says right on the home page it has no affiliation with the chromium authors. The project is hosted at https://www.chromium.org/developers. It is up to other parties to take the code and compile it into working binaries (aka "apps").

The hosters of woolyss.com are providing a service by providing a 'one stop' location to access the various builds (compiled apps) of Chromium on the various operating platforms; Windows, Mac, 'Nix, etc. It's very helpful to developers who have to test that their sites work correctly on all flavors of Chrome/Chromium, on all OS's, to be able to go to one site and find the latest stable and development builds.

Like many development projects, Chromium is compiled constantly, often every day/night, each compile is called a build. There are 'nightly' builds which are really meant for developers and testers to test bug fixes and new features in progress, and so on. These nightly developers builds are not ready for prime time. Every so often, the groups will determine that one build is stable enough to be released as a 'stable version', intended for use by the general public (non developers). The stable build version number will always lag behind the current build number, so as of this date v60 is the stable version that most people should use. v62 is the most current 'nightly' build or development build. You can think of a stable release of Chromium as like the latest release macOS Sierra 10.12.x, and nightly builds of Chromium would be like the beta releases of macOS High Sierra 10.13.

Unless you develop for Chromium, or develop web apps and sites and need to test for compatibility with the latest Chromium, you should stick with stable releases.

Freesmug is a site whose developers have taken the responsibility to compile and or provide links to the most current STABLE Mac versions of Chromium, as well as other open source apps. It is a safe and dependable location to always find the most recent STABLE build of Chromium for the Mac. Be careful what you download from woolyss.com; developer builds are by definition 'works in progress', they can / WILL have bugs, and some extensions may have issues. If you wish to play, suggest you create a different Mac user account and run nightly builds there, so you don't risk any data, or overwrite your current 'good' Chromium profile in your every day account.
Like (1)
Aargl
Aargl
05 August 2017
Thanks a lot for such a thorough explanation! :-)
In fact, what brought me to woolyss.com is that I was searching for a pc version to advise a friend and it sounded like something official... Googling doesn't bring anywhere with stable versions, so it's a bit misleading.
Even worse, this page (https://www.chromium.org/getting-involved/dev-channel) points only to Google Chrome versions!
Like
Mcr
Mcr
05 August 2017
@aargl The Chromium project publishes the source code, but the project typically doesn't get involved in providing compiled versions for public use. it is up to other people to compile it. Google obviously has no incentive to provide any builds of Chromium, just Chrome. Anyone is free to compile the code. By all means, use woolyss.com, at this link http://chromium.woolyss.com/
It is a RELIABLE and SAFE site to retrieve builds of both betas and stable. The site owner retrieves the source direct from github and soundforge. Scroll down on that page and you will see latest stable builds for Windows, in both installer and portable versions.

So what determines what is 'stable'. That is not a simple answer. The project does at times earmark a particular build number as 'stable'. Periodically, Google will decide, using whatever criteria it uses, that a specific Chromium release of code will be used to generate a new public release of Chrome; it may follow the recommendation of the project, and often does, but not necessarily. Usually the criteria is pretty reasonable; the build fixes some major bugs, plugs security holes, implements a new feature etc. And, most important, has been tested enough that Google feels comfortable that nothing has broken. So lets say Google decides that the 60.0.3112.90 build of Chromium will be used to create the next PUBLIC release of Chrome.

That usually signals the other folks who use Chromium on Mac and Unix that the same build number 60.0.3112.90 is probably a good candidate for a public release on those platforms, so they compile and release it, and all platforms, Chromium and Chrome, are in sync. So, you can say that Google kind of drives the trains, when a new release of Chrome is issued, everybody kind of follows suit. That's why typically when you see Google issues a new release of Chrome, within a day or two, you will see the same version number come out on Chromium for Mac and Unix.

http://chromium.woolyss.com/ is safe, you should use it, you can also at that site sign up for RSS feeds that will ping you when a new stable or nightly is available.
Like (1)
Aargl
Aargl
05 August 2017
Thanks again! You enlightened my knowledge! :-D
Like
Aargl
Aargl
08 October 2017
Hi Mcr! Perhaps you can enlighten my knowledge a little more... ;-)
I was searching for an old build running on a 32 bit Mac and found in various places including Freesmug that this should be 38.0.2125.122 (which is confirmed looking for the las 38.x here: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+refs)
Then I followed the advice here for finding an old build: https://www.chromium.org/getting-involved/download-chromium
The commit for said version should be 290379 but the nearer version (290368) once downloaded is 39.0.2128.0!
So I empirically searched and found that the last commit running on 32 bits is 305034 (41.0.2226.0)!!!
You'll probably say that these are dev and they were not supposed to become release, but I can't see the point of developing software which you know will not be released... :-o
And it's also pretty strange that 290368 being inferior to 290379, its version is 39 and not 38...
Like
Mcr
Mcr
08 October 2017
@Aargl
" I can't see the point of developing software which you know will not be released"

The Chromium project is in constant development, being open source, the code is available to anyone at any given time. In development, builds are done constantly, not just for release. Builds are done to make sure the current code can 1) compile, 2) so that people can test features and fixes. If you only do a build when you think you are going to release, then you may/will release into the public software that has not been tested thoroughly.

What constitutes a 'release' with regards to Chromium is grey area. I could compile the current code image today, put it on a server and call it a release. With respect to Mac, the guys at FreeSMUG compile and release a Mac build more or less along the lines of whenever Google decides to release an update to Chrome. This keeps the bug fixes that the public sees more or less in sync. So as far as what is the 'real' last 32-bit version, go with whatever FreeSMUG has issued. Even though there may be 'commits' that are more recent, a 'commit' doesn't necessarily mean that it was clean build, or 'better' than previous commits.

A commit just means a code image submitted to the archive, it may not even have a build made from it. You can't run a commit, it's just a snapshot of programming code; it has to be compiled into a build, which people can then actually execute. That's what FreeSMUG does, and as mentioned, usually only when Google issues a new release of Chrome. Don't assume that later commits or builds with higher numbers are always 'better' or more stable than earlier or lower numbered builds. Also a commit doesn't mean that it was actually compiled into a working build, do you know for sure that those later commits (compared to Freesmug) are actually available as a Mac build, and more importantly, WHO built them? If it wasn't FreeSMUG that did the build, then IMO you should think twice about using. There are a lot of 'alternative' Chromium builds out there by many groups (Iron, Canary). They don't always tell you what 'changes' they may have made with the code in their builds. I would stick with what FreeSMUG issued as the last 32bit build for Mac 38.0.2125.122.
Like
Aargl
Aargl
08 October 2017
Thanks a lot for your explanations! :-)
Like
Retrobuff
20 April 2017
The download links provided for recent versions fail to download anything. Get yourself the FreeSMUG Updater extension and be happy.
Like (1)
Version 58.0.3029.81
1 answer(s)
Holgorio
Holgorio
20 April 2017
Retrobuff is quite right. Although the link provided below works fine, it's probably easier to use the nice updater extension in the long run.
Like
Holgorio
20 April 2017
Version 58.0.3029.81 is available and contains security fixes: https://sourceforge.net/projects/osxportableapps/files/Chromium/Chromium_OSX_58.0.3029.81.dmg/download
Like
Version 57.0.2987.133
Spudfry
05 November 2016
This version still has issues playing video on multiple web sites that both Safari & Firefox have no problem with, (Flash NOT installed on my system) . Dropping Chromium until a fix is issued.
Like
Version 54.0.2840.87
2 answer(s)
Mcr
Mcr
11 November 2016
Spudfry, I suspect you are trying to play H.264 encoded videos. Chromium will not play H.264 videos (out of the box). This is not a 'bug' per se, as the code is there, it's just not turned on.

The H.264 video format and codec is licensed and patented, it is not "free" to incorporate the code or codec without paying license fees. The governing body that administers the patent requires a licensing fee to be paid for incorporating the code into any application. Most of the big companies (Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc) pay the license fee, that is why Chrome, Safari, Internet Explorer, and Edge can support H.264/AVC. Remember, Chrome is Google's custom version built on top of Chromium, but the license fee Google pays only covers Chrome.

Chromium is the open source base for Chrome, and includes the code to play H.264, but it is 'turned off' in the 'normal' Chromium builds because if it was left enabled, and distributed, a licensing fee would be required which of course FreeSMUG and the open source community which contributes to Chromium, is not capable of supporting. If a developer complied their own Chromium build from source and enabled H.264, and distributed it, that developer would be required to pay the licensing fee.

On Firefox, Mozilla initially refused to pay the licensing fee in protest, and for the longest Firefox would not play H.264. Cisco stepped in, (yes, that Cisco), and built a H.264 extension for Firefox (works on Windows, Linux and MAc platforms), and announced to the world, that it would pay the licensing fee for 'everyone'. That's right, you have Cisco to thank for being able to play H.264 on Firefox. If you look In your Firefox add ons (about:addons), you should see "OpenH264 Video Codec provided by Cisco Systems, Inc.". that is what enables Firefox to play H.264 videos, courtesy of Cisco.

I don't foresee a change in the near future unless the governing body that owns the H.264 license and patents decides to eliminate licensing fees, which is doubtful as the revenue from the fees is SIGNIFICANT. I've read articles stating the revenue is tens of millions a year, perhaps even triple digit.
Like (5)
tomtomklub
tomtomklub
03 June 2017
That Cisco plug-in is unnecessary* so it can be disabled. Firefox for some time has been able to decode H.264 content using Mac-native APIs, thereby bypassing any licensing fee requirements that would have fallen upon on Mozilla. It is kind of nice to see an empty area when clicking on the 'Plugins' tab on the 'Add-ons' page. :)

Would be nice to see this implemented in Chromium, but I would imagine, being a Google project, that they are more interested in continuing to push Google's own browser-based open-source codecs, for world domination and such ; ). Which is a shame. Chromium is a nice browser, but not nice enough that I am going to trade up to that mess Chrome just to be able to watch H.264 content.

*although it is still required for WebRTC functionality
Like
Mcr
03 November 2016
Here's what I did. Download the PPAPI Flash plugin for Chromium at https://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/kb/flash-player-chromium.html Use Pacifist to unpack the actual plugin file 'PepperFlashPlayer.plugin', don't run the installer as it will install the Flash preference pane in System Prefs (or if that doesn't bother you, then do it). Place the manifest.json file and plugin file into /Library/INternet Plug-Ins/PepperFlash/ Chromium should be able to find it automatically. If not, go to http://chromium.woolyss.com/ and search on that page for instructions on installing your own Pepper Flash and the script to launch Chromium via Terminal, including the command line args that tell Chromium where to find the plugin.
Like
Version 54.0.2840.87
5 answer(s)
Freesmug
Freesmug
11 November 2016
Thanks Mcr. I've installed the Pepper player from https://fpdownload.adobe.com/pub/flashplayer/latest/help/install_flash_player_osx_ppapi.dmg (Flash + Prefs Pane) and Chromium load it automatically (no terminal script needed).
Like (1)
Mcr
Mcr
11 November 2016
Yes, the link you provided is correct, readers disregard my earlier link which is I think just downloads an installer but is not the actual install itself. . Also, for users who don't want the pref pane installed, you can run the installer in a macOS virtual machine or scratch boot partition, then just copy off the manifest and plugin files, copy into your working boot partition.
Like
Freesmug
Freesmug
11 November 2016
I think you can also ctrl+click on Flash Player pref pane and remove it.

With NPAPI Flash player installed (the default installer) you can open Flash Player preference pane, open "Update" tab and "Install now" PPAPI plug in.
Like
Freesmug
Freesmug
13 November 2016
How to install PPAPI Flash Player on Chromium: http://freesmug.wikidot.com/tutorial:ppapi-flash-on-chromium
Like
stew-1
stew-1
17 November 2016
This works much better if you don't trust Adobe with it's system-wide installer that needs admin password: https://gist.github.com/tamasprezi/33722077f49f024518f1
Freesmug , if pepperflash can't be distributed with chromium, can you implement something similar to this script from within chromium?
Like
Michaelthegeek
25 October 2016
I just noticed that the flash player is gone, I was thinking a bug at first until I read the replies here.
Like
Version 54.0.2840.71
Freesmug
23 October 2016
Sorry, first build was bad signed (first 100 downloads). New build available if Gatekeeper give you an error that app can't be opened because it is from an unidentified developer.

Note that no flash plugin in this build and in the future.
Like
Version 54.0.2840.71
3 answer(s)
Mcr
Mcr
23 October 2016
What is the reason that pepper flash is no longer included?
Like
Freesmug
Freesmug
23 October 2016
Pevious version got Pepper Flash from Chrome, now it is no more available and there is no way to build Flash from source.
Try this:
https://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/kb/flash-player-chromium.html
not sure it works.
Like (1)
stew-1
stew-1
26 October 2016
from https://forums.adobe.com/thread/2221587 google is now using Component Updater to download the flash plugin.
Like
Uncle-Bill
09 June 2016
Anybody else having a problem, when you go to watch any video, Chromium Version 51.0.2704.84 (64-bit) says "couldn't load plug in"??? running iMac OS X 10.11.5 Any suggestions??? Thank you.
Like
Version 51.0.2704.84
2 answer(s)
LawrenceH2356
LawrenceH2356
12 June 2016
yup having issues too with flash player video.
Like
John-Sawyer-CJS
John-Sawyer-CJS
15 July 2016
Same problems here too--the latest versions of Chromium (including today's latest, 51.0.2704.106) can't play most videos. Chromium has been getting increasingly unable to play video over several releases. Chrome can play the same videos. I turned off all extensions, but that didn't help.
Like
Mcr
26 May 2016
Issue with the Chromium updater extension version 0.1.1.2
Press the 'Visit Website' button from the Updater icon drop down. It attempts to connect using https secure protocol to https://freesmug.org/chromium. This results in an error because freesmug.org site is hosted by www.wikidot.com with subdomain freesmug.wikidot.com, so it fails the site certification. Chromium will issue 'Privacy error' and will not connect. The Updater should be using the plain http://freesmug.org/chromium (not https but http). To duplicate, press Chromium Updater icon, in the drop down are two buttons "Visit Website' and "Download Update". Press "Visit Website".

So, we have a situation where the browser itself is incapable of checking for newer versions of itself, because the Sparkle framework for some 'reason' won't compile in Chromium 64-bit mode. This Sparkle issue has been going on for how long now? I have at least a dozen other apps on my Mac now that use Sparkle for updating, most of them 64-bit. Don't get me wrong, I am grateful for the Mac Chromium builds, but you would think by now there would be some communication between the folks that build Chromium and the folks that build Sparkle, and the issue would be uncovered and resolved. But all of that can be forgiven as long as there is an alternative that works

Okay, so the 'solution' is to rely on an extension for updating, okay cool, that's fine. Except the extension, for the LONGEST TIME (8-10 months?) didn't even work, it would never connect to the server site. The developer of the extension 'stullig', either didn't know about the error, or knew but didn't bother to fix. Either way, what does it say when that goes unresolved for 8-10 months.

Then a supposed fix to the extension (version 0.1.1.2) is released about two months ago which technically works (it will identify if there is a newer Chromium version, it will connect, and will allow you to download it), but if you attempt to go to freesmug.org directly from the extension, fails, because of a security error.

A security error which a simple TEST before release would/should have caught. It's now been 2 months, and the updater hasn't been updated, for what should be a very simple fix (change https to http). Granted, the main function of the extension works, I get it.

Overall, the whole situation just doesn't give you that warm fuzzy feeling, or inspire confidence. Yes, I still use Chromium, because I use it the few oddball times that I need Adobe Flash, and I'm not quite ready to install Google Chrome (I think I would rather live without Flash completely before I install Chrome).
Like (1)
Version 51.0.2704.63
2 answer(s)
Mcr
Mcr
27 May 2016
If you want to fix the above mentioned https bug in the updater, find the extension in ~/Library/Application\ Support/Chromium/Default/Extensions/ccgjmadhdidfloacagcnnodbkedkjedg
Edit the file popup.js in the js folder. Use TextWrangler, BBedit or TextEdit.

Third line down, change
var website = "https://freesmug.org/chromium";
to
var website = "http://freesmug.org/chromium";
Like (1)
Crgand
Crgand
06 June 2016
Thanks Mcr, it works also with:

var website = "https://freesmug.wikidot.com/chromium";
Like
acaigm
24 May 2016
it`s good
Like
Version 50.0.2661.102
Prologos
03 April 2016
How to wreck a Browser: - Delete a Updater - Let People install a "FreeSMUGs update checker" witch does not work. - Make FreeSMUGs Homepage, as complicated as you can, to find a download.
Like
Version 49.0.2623.110
5 answer(s)
MikeChip
MikeChip
08 April 2016
update checker has been update and is working fine. find 0.1.1.2 here: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/chromium-updater/ccgjmadhdidfloacagcnnodbkedkjedg
Like (2)
Freesmug
Freesmug
20 April 2016
Thanks Prologos, I put big download buttons on FreeSMUG site pages.
Like (1)
Mcr
Mcr
20 April 2016
to @Freesmug (Developer)
When I attempt to go Freesmug now, using Chromium 49.0.2623.112 (64-bit) I get this security certificate error:
Your connection is not private

Attackers might be trying to steal your information from freesmug.org (for example, passwords, messages, or credit cards). NET::ERR_CERT_COMMON_NAME_INVALID

This server could not prove that it is freesmug.org; its security certificate is from *.wikidot.com. This may be caused by a misconfiguration or an attacker intercepting your connection.

Proceed to freesmug.org (unsafe)

Firefox v45 also gives me this error now:
Your connection is not secure
The owner of freesmug.org has configured their website improperly. To protect your information from being stolen, Firefox has not connected to this website.
freesmug.org uses an invalid security certificate. The certificate is only valid for the following names: *.wikidot.com, wikidot.com Error code: SSL_ERROR_BAD_CERT_DOMAIN

As Prologos says, you guys really go out of your way to make it hard.
Like (1)
Freesmug
Freesmug
29 April 2016
@Mcr
Sorry, freesmug.org site is hosted by www.wikidot.com with subdomain freesmug.wikidot.com.
Next Chromium Updater extension release will fix it.
Like (1)
Prologos
Prologos
30 April 2016
@ Freesmug (Developer)
Thank You for the big download bottom.
It helps all my "no nerd friend´s" :-)
Like
George6
29 March 2016
(as chrome) chromium also tries to connect to google without any reason. starting up without a home page set should result in an idle browser, not in an app wanting to log me in to all the google services i dont want anyway.
Like
Version 49.0.2623.110
Spudfry
12 March 2016
Latest version breaks Adblock Plus on my Machine.
Like
Version 49.0.2623.87
1 answer(s)
SmurfTurf
SmurfTurf
25 March 2016
Switch to uBlock: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock#chromium
Like (3)
badbadger
03 March 2016
It has enabled Flash Player. It is comfortable. But... Due to the fact that it is open source does not contain a proprietary H.264 decoder, which is Chrome. Some movies do not play. If you want to have the decoder you have a compile Chromium yourself. It takes a little more RAM memory than Chrome.
Like
Version 49.0.2623.75
3 answer(s)
Scion777
Scion777
26 March 2016
give a URL of a movie that Chrome won't play out-of-the-box please
Like
badbadger
badbadger
26 March 2016
I wrote about Chromium, not Chrome. Chrome playing everything. Chromium can not play certain videos (H264 videos) Here you have a test, check yourself: http://www.quirksmode.org/html5/tests/video.html
Like
Mcr
Mcr
30 April 2016
An explanation of what @badbadger is talking about, so people won't think this is a 'bug' per se in Chromium (although it is certainly an inconvenience).

The H.264 code is licensed and patented. The governing body that administers the patent requires a licensing fee to be paid for incorporating the code into any application. Most of the big companies (Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc) pay the license, that is why Chrome, Safari, Internet Explorer can support H.264/AVC.

Chromium is the open source base for Chrome, and includes the code to play H.264, but it is 'turned off' in Chromium in the FreeSmug builds because if it was left enabled, and distributed, a licensing fee would be required which of course FreeSMUG is not capable of supporting. If a developer complied their own Chromium build from source and enabled H.264, that developer would be required to pay the licensing fee.

On Firefox, Mozilla refused to pay the licensing fee, and for the longest Firefox would not play H.264. Cisco stepped in, (yes, that Cisco), built a H.264 extension for Firefox (works on Windows and MAc platforms), and announced to the world, that it would pay the licensing fee for 'everyone'. That's right, you have Cisco to thank for being able to play H.264 on Firefox. Cisco did this as part of plan to support realtime video playback on the web (WebRTC), so there was a self serving reason for doing this. More online and real time video (in H.264 format) means increased need for network bandwidth, routers, etc, and guess who would be there ready to sell and upgrade all the network infrastructure? Yep, Cisco. Still it was nice of them. At the time, the licensing fee was capped. After Cisco did this, the governing body got wise and subsequently removed the cap; not sure if Cisco negotiated a deal or what

Google, keeps trying to convince the world that VP8 and VP9 is the way of the future for online video, they have tried several times to derail H.264 which was supported by Apple, their rival. The horse has left the barn on that one; iOS and the iPhone juggernaught made H.264 support a must. It's all about the content. More and more end user created content is being posted every second, the majority of it in H.264. Chrome would die overnight if H.264 support were dropped. So disregard Google propoganda about how VP9 is what you really need; the format war, for now is 'over'. As long as the H.264 governing body doesn't do something stupid (like increase the fee beyond what the market can support,

The solution, as most people have found, is even in the year 2016 it is almost a necessity to still have multiple browsers on one's system. No one browser meets every need. I use Chromium to play Flash for the few times I need Flash, since Chromium has the sand boxed Pepper Flash plug in. (I have not installed the NNAPI system wide version of Adobe Flash in YEARS). I use Firefox for the majority of the time, which supports H.264, and for the huge library of extensions available. But since Chromium and Firefox are not native Mac apps. printing still is very problematic; half the time what you see on the screen is not what you get when you print from FF or Chromium.

That's where Safari comes in; printing is pretty WYSIWYG. also reader mode in Safari renders very well, whereas rendering reader view on FF and Chromium is hit and miss, for me.

For the non techies in my life, if I have to recommend just one browser (on a Mac) to simplify their life, it has to be Safari. If they go to a site that requires Flash, basically 'too bad', find it somewhere else or stop using that site. Printing is always accurate (can't say that about FF or Chromium).

It is still unclear to me, and I welcome someone to comment; but it would appear that projects like ffmpeg which include H.264 decoder code and products built on them AND include in the distribution (like VLC) are required to legally pay the license fee? iFFMPEG does not distribute the ffmpeg libraries, so it gets around that problem. VLC though does, so I'm not clear how the ffmpeg libraries get around not paying the licensing fee, and VLC being a derivative product which uses those libraries.
Like
Beautifulred1
24 August 2015
I think this browser sucks. So disappointing. I tried it because I switched from google Chrome to Torch, which I loved until that stupid flash problem, the Torch people had a fix for Windows but not for Mac, so then I tried this one. It's slow, it staggers, if there's more than two tabs open at a time, I feel like I'm driving a steam engine. I know that's not computer tech language, but that's what it's like. I don't know why there's no update button, I guess I am supposed to go searching for it. I am installing the latest version and I'll see if that's better, but I'm ready to give up. Running 10.6.8 on MacBook. I know it's free but.....
Like (2)
Version 44.0.2403.157
5 answer(s)
Cunamara
Cunamara
24 August 2015
I can't help wondering if the issue isn't an old, outdated operating system and possibly hardware limitations rather than the browser. I don't have the experience you report with a mid-2010 MBP nor a 2013 MBA running the current OS, both running 10.10.5. I use the 64-bit version of Chromium.
Like (3)
Aeschylus
Aeschylus
02 September 2015
It runs fine on Yosemite, so it may be due to your running 10.6.8. Sorry, but newer software often requires newer hardware and operating system. There actually is an auto update available, and it's listed in the description above. See the "Chromium Updater from the Google Store" link above. Works well.
Like (3)
Mcr
Mcr
16 September 2015
10.6.8 defaults to 32-bit mode operation. Chromium builds after version 38 have been 64-bit. Although Snow Leopard (10.6.8) is capable of running 64-bit apps in 32-bit mode, there is a significant performance penalty.

There were a few Mac models that were capable of running Snow Leopard in 64 bit mode, they had have a 64-bit EFI BIOS and a 64-bit capable CPU. Generally speaking if your system is capable of running Mavericks or Yosemite, has a Core 2 Duo chip or better (not Core Duo, Core TWO Duo) it's POSSIBLE that Snow Leopard may run in 64-bit mode. It doesn't happen though by itself, you have to force it to boot into 64-bit. Search the web for how. If you are able and choose to boot 64 bit mode, however, that will likely cause other problems with other apps and drivers. Honestly, I wouldn't go there; just trading a solution for other problems.

The last 32-bit version of Chromium was 38.0.2125.122. Of course the Pepper Flash that came with that will be seriously out dated. You may be able to pull the latest Pepper Flash from the latest Chrome or Chromium and plug it back in to the Chromium v 38
Like (7)
Uncoy
Uncoy
28 October 2015
Oh if it's not the operating system police again. While you've been dicking around and troubleshooting your crappy five recent systems Cunamara, Beautiful Red and I have been enjoying getting productive work done on the best OS Apple ever released, Snow Leopard.

I'm sure God will bless and thank you for your prompt use of 64 bits when you arrive before the pearly gates.
Like (1)
Cunamara
Cunamara
29 October 2015
Hmm, snark and offended sarcasm on the interwebs! How can this be? A nerve must have been inadvertently struck. I apologize to Beautifulred1 and Uncoy for pointing out they the are contributing to their own problems and have the power to fix them. Maybe it's more fun to pretend that their problems are someone else's fault and to sit around to wait for someone else to fix it.

My installations of everything up to 10.11 have been trouble free, so thank you for your concern which is unnecessary. I used 10.6 in all its incarnations and since I don't think back fondly on it I must not have found it to be the best OS ever.

BTW, you are completely wrong about the best Apple OS ever released. The best was MacOS 7. OS 8 was bad, OS 9 was a partial recovery but nowhere near as good as 7 and then there is NeXT... I mean OS X. OS X is great in comparison to 8 and 9. 7 rocked.

If you're going to stay with an OS that has been left behind like 10.6.8 has, you will need to be very discriminating about the upgrades to your applications. Since times have moved on while you haven't, more and more stuff is going to be broken for you. Just the way it works. Stop updating your apps and they'll still run. If you want to update your apps... well, you know what you'l need to do.
Like (4)
MikeChip
31 July 2015
Latest Chromium 44.0.2403.125 on
http://www.freesmug.org/chromium

Install FreeSMUGs update checker to ensure you are notified about new versions, now that sparkle is no longer usable with chromium.

Thanks for offering those builds!
Like (8)
Version 43.0.2357.130
Spudfry
23 July 2015
Have now trashed chromium & gone back to Firefox. Seems to me chromium has been getting a little more flakey with each release & this latest issue in combination with some web sites' continued use of Adobe's problem child (flash), and the multiple chromium helper issue hogging memory resource (still) makes it unuseable to me. That plus the update cycle is a little too slow for my liking.
Like (1)
Version 43.0.2357.130
3 answer(s)
Crgand
Crgand
26 July 2015
Sourceforge.net uplad is down since 17 July, refer to FreeSMUG Chromium web page to get last build.
Like
John-Sawyer-CJS
John-Sawyer-CJS
09 September 2015
The reason multiple instances of "Chromium Helper" appear in Activity Monitor, is that each page that Chromium opens spawns its own Chromium Helper. This has been the preferred way of managing windows in web browsers for a while, since it allows each window to release its memory back to the operating system when a window is closed, and if a specific web page crashes, it doesn't take down the whole browser. Until relatively recently, Safari used the older method of grabbing more memory every time a new browser window was opened, and it didn't relinquish most or any of that window's memory back to the OS when a window was closed. This caused Safari to eat progressively more RAM the longer you left it running, even when you closed all of its windows, forcing you to quit from Safari every now and then to get back that memory.
Like
Uncoy
Uncoy
28 October 2015
The last version with built-in Flash player which ran reliably and quickly for me was Chromium 38 (I am using 64 bit Snow Leopard). I have Chromium 45 here in parallel so it's not just imagination. Chromium 43 crashed most of my Macs.
Like
Crgand
22 July 2015
Chromium 44.0.2403.89 with Flash v. 18.0.0.209 is ready. As Sourcefoge.net upload is down get it here https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2-BVXbmeRD1ZS1lT0hiYXgxVms/view
Like (2)
Version 43.0.2357.130
1 answer(s)
M85
M85
24 July 2015
43.xx were mostly dogs, but 44.0.240389 is running like a champ for me, especially solving flash and page load issues.
Like
Hkim
22 July 2015
Chrome seems to have the highest number of insecurities of any browser out here: www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/26/chrome_trumps_all_in_reported_vulnerabilities/ Chromium may be just as bad, if it is a mere fork.
Like (1)
Version 43.0.2357.130
1 answer(s)
Web-Jive
Web-Jive
17 September 2015
Link is bad, here's an updated version. http://secunia.com/resources/vulnerability-review/browser-security/
Like
John-Sawyer-CJS
18 July 2015
I just downloaded tonight's build of Chromium, 46.0.2460.0, hoping that maybe the developers had snuck in an updated Pepper Flash, but there's actually no sign of any kind of Flash Player plugin/extension in the latest build at all. So the only solution at the moment seems to be to keep using the current stable build of Chromium, and when an alert appears at the top of a web page saying Flash Player is out of date and asks if we want to run it this one time, click the button to let it, though you'll find yourself doing this a lot, depending on the websites you visit.
Like
Version 43.0.2357.130
2 answer(s)
John-Sawyer-CJS
John-Sawyer-CJS
18 July 2015
Actually I guess another option is to use the latest version of Chrome until Chromium's Pepper Flash Player is updated, but I've found that the latest Chrome's (43.0.2357.134) ability to display Flash Player content varies, from full to not at all, displaying blank white web pages instead., at least on my Mid-2007 MacBook running OS 10.8.5.
Like
Mcr
Mcr
19 July 2015
There are several other options:
1) install the NAPI Flash player plugin (the one that installs system wide for all browsers.) I would do that before installing Chrome, which comes with other baggage. Lesser of two evils? :-)

2) the pepper flash plugin for OSX is not tied to any browser, by definition it wouldn't be, it's a PPAPI plugin that conforms to the spec. You could install it to any OSX browser and have that browser use it (provided you follow the correct process for that browser to install PPAPI plugins) . So if the pepper flash plugin that ships with Chrome is up to date (I believe it is) you can copy that plugin and install into Chromium. I read a blurb somewhere a long time ago on doing this, start here http://chromium.woolyss.com/#flash
You would need to find where the PPAPI plugin on Chrome is located (what folder, etc), copy that file, and install to Chromium. They use the same code base, so i ASSUME they store in the same respective location. I"m just passing this on, I've not done this, just read about it. YMMV.

Oh, BTW, the daily Chromium builds don't have Pepper Flash installed, only the periodic 'releases' at FreeSMUG. There really is no 'official' release versions for the Mac (as dictated by Google), typically the folks at FreeSMUG do a release whenever there is a Chrome release, just to try to keep in sync with bug fixes etc. On Windows, the latest flash version is 18.0.0.209, so I believe this is the version that fixes all the security bugs (TO DATE) and does not get blocked (as of now, but see how long that lasts).
Like
Jpwgibson
15 July 2015
Suddenly began receiving an "Adobe Flash Player was blocked because it is out of date" notice on Chromium, even though AFP is up to date. Any ideas how to rectify?
Like (1)
Version 43.0.2357.130
3 answer(s)
Ochre
Ochre
15 July 2015
I don't know the answer, but this is as far as I've got:
In Chromium, go to Settings > Show Advanced Settings > Privacy > Content Settings > Plugins > Manage Individual Plugins.
You'll see that Adobe Flash Player is shown as version 18.0.0.194, and that there's an option to, "Download Critical Security Update". By following that link, we're told that Chromium users have to update Pepper Flash manually. But, there're no instructions on that page.
If you go to Adobe's Flash webpage, https://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/, and choose, "Need Flash Player for a different computer?" and follow the drop-down menus, you get the option of a 16MB PPAPI download for Opera and Chromium. I haven't yet installed it, though, as it sounds as though it'll be a system-wide plugin, and not just an update of Chromium's built-in Flash.
We may have to wait for Chromium to be updated.
Like
Mcr
Mcr
15 July 2015
@Ochre
By definition PPAPI plugins are sand boxed, i.e. not system wide. NAPI plugins are system wide.
http://blog.chromium.org/2012/08/the-road-to-safer-more-stable-and.html

@Jpwgibson
I understand your frustration (3 star review) but IMO your anger is misplaced. A new Flash update came out today. The issue is not with Chromium, it is Flash, which is being updated so often in order to correct KNOWN security issues that can be used to breach your system, simply by going to a site that automatically starts playing flash video before you can prevent it, so Chromium is just trying to protect you. Now, you can argue that Chromium with updated versions of Flash should be released more often, but it is hard to keep up with all the Flash updates. Understand, the only reason there is a Mac version of Chromium at all is because of a handful of dedicated developers who take the time to compile a Mac version; they do this on their own time, without being compensated. It's a lot to ask every time Flash puts out an update that they have to recompile a new Chromium build.

As of Monday, July 13, Mozilla announced that all versions of Firefox (not just Mac, ALL versions of Firefox) immediately would block Flash, all Flash, period, until Adobe fixed all known security holes, some of which have been known and open for years. Mozilla publicly went on record and asked Adobe to kill Flash once and for all and declare and end of life date.

Because of the pressure, Adobe released a new Flash version 18.0.0.209 Tuesday, July 14 , the very next day,, that Firefox is not blocking, that SUPPOSEDLY fixes all known security holes to date, so even 18.0.0.194 is already out of date.

http://gizmodo.com/firefox-now-blocks-flash-by-default-1717664482

If you haven't already done so (I assume you have) , try the websites you use without Flash, most sites now serve up HTML5/x.264. If they aren't, they should. A lot of sites CLAIM you need Flash to view, but if you access the site on an iOS device, they work fine, which means if they really wanted to, Flash is not required at all.

You are welcome to try installing your own Pepper Flash into Chromium, as noted by Ochre. It's a bit technical, but if there is no other option other than waiting for Chromium to be updated, you may want to consider it.

Peace.
Like
John-Sawyer-CJS
John-Sawyer-CJS
18 July 2015
Ochre: I installed the PPAPI version of Flash Player for Chromium, using the method you describe, and it made no difference--websites are still complaining that Flash Player is out of date. I did a Get Info on the downloaded PPAPI version of the "Install Adobe Flash Player" app, and it's dated June 4 2015, so Adobe isn't offering a more recent version for some reason.
Like
Mikael-B
26 June 2015
"Google eavesdropping tool installed on computers without permission" http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/23/google-eavesdropping-tool-installed-computers-without-permission
Like (1)
Version 43.0.2357.130
2 answer(s)
Mikael-B
Mikael-B
26 June 2015
"Google pulls listening software from Chromium"
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/25/google-pulls-listening-software-chromium

The harm is already done as I see it.
Like (1)
Mr-Zark
Mr-Zark
28 June 2015
Yeah, I was thinking about removing Chrome and replacing it with this, but now I'm not to sure. :/
Like
Fyreflye
13 June 2015
A new extension available at FreeSMUG that restores auto update capacity to Chromium. http://tinyurl.com/q3yx7g9
Like (2)
Version 43.0.2357.124
1 answer(s)
Cowicide
Cowicide
19 June 2015
I just tested it with the latest update and it works perfectly. Thank you for the tip! :)
Like (1)
Robio
28 May 2015
No longer auto-updates. Downloaded Version 43.0.2357.81 directly, and it's WILDLY unstable on 10.6.8. Has bombed 6 times in the last hour while doing things as simple as clicking a link. Going back to v38.
Like
Version 43.0.2357.81
3 answer(s)
bb553
bb553
29 May 2015
Yes, version 43.0.2357.81 is very unstable - including crashing while opening a second window of https://www.google.com; Crashing while installing extensions... Now, Google Chrome version 43.0.2357.81 (64-bit) is quite stable on my computer, so I'm rather puzzled as to why Chromium version 43.0.2357.81 isn't.
Like
Cunamara
Cunamara
11 June 2015
Huh. No instability at all- zero crashes- on my machine but I am running 10.10.3. The version (10.6.8) that you are running is really old now and that may be the problem. Hmm, you my want a 32-bit instead of 64-bit version of this and possibly all other applications, depending on the Mac you are running it on. Good luck!
Like
bb553
bb553
24 June 2015
Re: Cunamara - Jun 11, 2015 message: No, this is on a 64-bit machine - Other 64-bit applications are running just fine - including Google Chrome Version 43.0.2357.124 (64-bit). The issue seems to be with Chromium Version 43.0.2357.81; Version 43.0.2357.130 (64-bit) (that I just downloaded) thus far appears to be more stable (fingers crossed)...
Like
Ratgt
28 April 2015
I am currently using Chromium for 'flash-only'/no-Safari-compatible web pages, avoiding the installation of Flash itself, in order to preserve as much CPU/RAM as possible for heavier tasks. Up to the previous version, everything was working relatively ok. Since version 42.0.2311.90, Chromium (and in particular "Chromium Helper") is hammering the CPU with percentages above 60, if anything more a couple of simultaneous tabs are open. As soon as I close the application, it feels like an airplane has finally landed (because of the fans being in constant 'turbo mode' while Chromium is open). Please try to optimizing it/fixing whatever 'leak' causes this unnatural draining of system resources and whenever possible (promise to return a rating-star whenever fixed) and restore Sparkle update framework or any other solution for automatic updates.
Like
Version 42.0.2311.90
Jcherian
15 April 2015
FYI: Starting in version 42, Chromium (and any Chrome variations) have disabled NPAPI plugins (so no Java, Google Talk, Facebook Chat, Silverlight, etc.) unless you enable NPAPI support by visiting: chrome://flags/#enable-npapi and relaunching the app. Not sure how I am going to continue to use this app when they totally and completely remove NPAPI support in a few months.
Like (2)
Version 42.0.2311.90
1 answer(s)
emitex
emitex
28 May 2015
Version 43 crashes my Google Talk extension even with NPAPI enabled. That is too useful an extension for me to do without. Nothing that is actually useful can ever be left alone. Sticking with v42 for now.
Like
Mdewakanton
08 April 2015
This version and the previous one (41.0.2272.101) crash very often on 10.6.8 (e.g., when adding a bookmark, clicking on Ghostery button etc.). I'm not going to contact developer team as they weren't that friendly in the past. SL users steer clear of these two releases. 41.0.2272.89 is the last version working fine on SL.
Like (1)
Version 41.0.2272.118
badbadger
20 March 2015
Without additives from Google, but takes up more RAM. Will not play some movies in HTML5, because there is no non-free codecs (which contains the Chrome). You need to use the Flash. There is no automatic update since version 64 bit. Nothing special.
Like
Version 41.0.2272.101
Tomeg
20 March 2015
Thank heaven, a Chrome Browser with a minimum of Google's interferences with doing day to day browsing and normal use. Mac-centric I've heard but if not it's ok. Three stars and a half. Happiness! :)
Like
Version 41.0.2272.101
Namadany
11 March 2015
This version doesn't work with TimeWarner Cable. You have to reinstall the older version
Like
Version 41.0.2272.89
bb553
05 March 2015
Loading FREAKAttack test [ https://freakattack.com/ ] URL with either Chromium v38.0.2125.12213 (32-bit) and Chromium v40.0.2214.111 (64-bit) gives: Warning! Your browser is vulnerable to the FREAK attack. It can be tricked into using weak encryption if you visit a vulnerable website. We encourage you to update your browser right away. Reference: arstechnica "FREAK" flaw in Android and Apple devices cripples HTTPS crypto protection Bug forces millions of sites to use easily breakable key once thought to be dead. by Dan Goodin [ http://arstechnica.com/author/dan-goodin/ ] - Mar 3, 2015 9:07 pm UTC [ http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/03/freak-flaw-in-android-and-apple-devices-cripples-https-crypto-protection/ ]
Like (2)
Version 38.0.2125.122
1 answer(s)
Crgand
Crgand
11 March 2015
Last build pass the test.
Like