Google Chrome

[nrc]

Google has it's own browser called Chrome now in Beta test. Looks like there some interesting new concepts. Not sure why nobody had already given some thought to keeping one site from crashing your whole browser. :/

Gonna try it? No Linux version yet so I'll have to wait.


http://www.google.com/chrome/

[dando]

Google has it's own browser called Chrome now in Beta test. Looks like there some interesting new concepts. Not sure why nobody had already given some thought to keeping one site from crashing your whole browser. :/

Gonna try it? No Linux version yet so I'll have to wait.


http://www.google.com/chrome/

Come on....do IE 8, you know you want to. ;)

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10027345-83.html?tag=mncol;txt

This has been long rumored and frankly I think it's a stupid idea. :saywhat: Just skin FF like Flock instead for chrissakes. :irked: I'll probably try it since I need to understand how it impacts our users, but it'll take something awesome to switch me from FF.

-Kevin

[nrc]

This has been long rumored and frankly I think it's a stupid idea. :saywhat: Just skin FF like Flock instead for chrissakes. :irked: I'll probably try it since I need to understand how it impacts our users, but it'll take something awesome to switch me from FF.

Agreed, but this is what open source is all about. Building on the work of others with new ideas. They're actually using webkit (Safari) rather than gecko (FF) and have some cool ideas about improving speed and stability.

This will ultimately improve FF, Safari, and even IE. The only reason IE has improved at all has been competition from Firefox.

[Insomniac]

I'll switch if Google makes a version of flash that doesn't run like crap. :) Otherwise, I'm perfectly OK with telling our users to use Firefox or IE until someone increases our budget.

Tabs above the address bar seems odd.

[cameraman]

So do they have a Mac version? OSX has always been a very distant second in Google's eyes.

[Sean Malone]

I tried downloading it this AM and it was yanked. Haven't checked if it's available yet. Ok, just checked and I'm downloading now.

[JoeBob]

There's no way I'm installing software from a company whose business model revolves around data mining every bit of information they can out about me.

[Elmo T]

There's no way I'm installing software from a company whose business model revolves around data mining every bit of information they can out about me.


Don't be evil?

[Sean Malone]

I played with it for 20 minutes. Nothing that won't sway me away from FF.

[TravelGal]

There's no way I'm installing software from a company whose business model revolves around data mining every bit of information they can out about me.

Yeah, eerie. I have a gmail address for a travel organization and magically I'm seeing ads for cruises on the top of the page.

Thanks for the info, dudes. I was interested but not tempted. Now I'm not even interested.

[FTG]

Porn. Porn. Porn. It's always about porn. (http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/02/technology/Microsoft-chromed.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008090216)

[Methanolandbrats]

I downloaded it, it sucks. Just more spyware from those dildos. Instead of them going after browsing, it would be nice if somebody else went after search :thumbup:

[Insomniac]

Does it spawn new processes for each tab/window or new threads for each tab/window?

[nrc]

"Google Chrome is partly a defensive move as Microsoft is incorporating functionality in new browsers that may block the collection of ad targeting information," Stifel Nicolaus analyst George Askew writes in a note Tuesday.
The "porn" mode included in IE or some other browsers (including Chrome) aren't going to be terribly useful for day-to-day browsing. Most people want their favorite web sites to remember their preferences the next time they visit. As they stand now, these modes are no threat to Google's revenue stream.

[nrc]

I downloaded it, it sucks. Just more spyware from those dildos. Instead of them going after browsing, it would be nice if somebody else went after search :thumbup:

Lots of people are going after search. People like that bastion of privacy and information security, Microsoft. They just suck at it.

Of course, they suck a browsers (http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,1000000567,10009139o-2000331777b,00.htm?new_comment) too. :D
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/i/z5/rv/2008/09/chrome_benchmarks.jpg

[Methanolandbrats]

Lots of people are going after search. People like that bastion of privacy and information security, Microsoft. They just suck at it.

Of course, they suck a browsers (http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,1000000567,10009139o-2000331777b,00.htm?new_comment) too. :D
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/i/z5/rv/2008/09/chrome_benchmarks.jpg

Well, sweet Jeebus, them 600 ms is a deal breaker :D

[Insomniac]

On Wednesday, researchers announced a flaw in how the Google Chrome browser behaves with undefined handlers. An exploit provided as a demonstration crashes the new browser.

...

And on Tuesday, mere hours after Chrome was released, researcher Aviv Raff concocted a proof-of-concept demo to show how the Google browser could be made vulnerable to a carpet-bombing flaw and thus open a window for ill-intentioned hackers.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10031250-83.html

Good thing this will be in Beta for 2 years. :D

[ChampcarShark]

Tried it today, deleted today.
Not impressed at all.

I will not be changing browsers anytime soon.

No direct access to bookmarks. Lots of advertisement, then again what do you expect from a company whose purpose is to harvest info and sell it to advertisers.

I'll consider chrome when they allow me to use adblock plus add on..

I'll stick to FF3 and beyond.

[Sean Malone]

Be Sure To Read Chrome's Fine Print... (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10030522-56.html?tag=rtcol;pop)


2. Although you retain any copyrights to content you own and use in the browser, Google says it has a right to display some of your content, in conjunction with promoting its services. Here's their exact wording.

"By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any content which you submit, post or display on or through, the services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the services and may be revoked for certain services as defined in the additional terms of those services."

[Sean Malone]

And security concerns have arisen in the early review returns. Ryan Naraine and Dancho Danchev made this observation in their Zero Day blog on ZDNet:

Just hours after the release of Google Chrome, researcher Aviv Raff discovered that he could combine two vulnerabilities--a flaw in Apple Safari (WebKit) and a Java bug discussed at this year's Black Hat conference--to trick users into launching executables direct from the new browser.

Reviewing the reviews of Google's Chrome (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10031411-93.html)

[ChampcarShark]

Since chrome is based on Safari, any experience with the Safari browser???

[Dirk Diggler]

I won't be using it, but maybe the competition will motivate the other companies to let me out of Flickr Hell whenever I do an image search.:mad:

[TravelGal]

Be Sure To Read Chrome's Fine Print... (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10030522-56.html?tag=rtcol;pop)

Holy cow. I have my doubts if that broad a statement would stand up in court. Nevertheless, I couldn't resist putting on my blog under "Beware the Chrome Horn."

[dando]

I couldn't resist putting on my blog under "Beware the Chrome Horn."

Sorry, but PT already has that copyrighted. :gomer:

-Kevin

[eiregosod]

Be Sure To Read Chrome's Fine Print... (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10030522-56.html?tag=rtcol;pop)

It just means that google has the right to transfer your postings to a governemnt of their choosing.

[Insomniac]

Holy cow. I have my doubts if that broad a statement would stand up in court. Nevertheless, I couldn't resist putting on my blog under "Beware the Chrome Horn."


Google said on Wednesday that it plans to alter contract terms that gave the search provider broad rights to use anything entered into its new Chrome browser.

"In order to keep things simple for our users, we try to use the same set of legal terms (our Universal Terms of Service) for many of our products," Google said in a statement provided to CNET News. "Sometimes, as in the case of Google Chrome, this means that the legal terms for a specific product may include terms that don't apply well to the use of that product. We are working quickly to remove language from Section 11 of the current Google Chrome terms of service."


As of 2 p.m. PT, it looks like the terms have changed. Section 11 now reads simply: "11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10031703-56.html

[Sean Malone]

It just means that google has the right to transfer your postings to a governemnt of their choosing.

No doubt! I just used Googles Picassa's new face recognition utility on their photo page. If you type a name in for the person, it matches it to your contact. So they essentially can have a persons name, email, location and oh yeah, their face to match. Nice. :(

[eiregosod]

No doubt! I just used Googles Picassa's new face recognition utility on their photo page. If you type a name in for the person, it matches it to your contact. So they essentially can have a persons name, email, location and oh yeah, their face to match. Nice. :(

Not only are the sheeple providing the content for free, google no doubt is making serious coinage by matching it up with governments of targetted marketeers.

[JoeBob]

If they can match it to a contact, they're probably also able to match it to that person's "google cookie" - especially if that person is a gmail user.

Given the number of websites using Ads by Google and/or Google Metrics, they're matching the photo to the contact information, all of their email, their google search history, and their list of all the websites that person has visited. (Not to mention anything that person has stored with google docs, etc.)

[TravelGal]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10031703-56.html

Thanks dude. My blog will be updated forthwith. I couldn't imagine how that could be enforceable. It does make me wonder what OTHER products it DOES apply to, however.

[Insomniac]

Thanks dude. My blog will be updated forthwith. I couldn't imagine how that could be enforceable. It does make me wonder what OTHER products it DOES apply to, however.

I'm sure it applies to Google docs and such. I don't think the intention of that clause is to literally display everything to the public. You can make things available to other users or everyone in many of their services. Also keep in mind they have a privacy policy that protects much of what you send them.

Also, companies reserve rights or make claims to rights that they simply don't have.

[pchall]

Since chrome is based on Safari, any experience with the Safari browser???

Safari 1.0 was a nice little minimalist browser that was great to use on my laptop. 2.0 got more complicated and I used it less than 1.0 and eventually just put FF 2.0 on the laptop. Don't know what 3.0 is like since I will stay where I am until my computers are so old I can't do anything anymore. Probably in 2 years the way things go. I just wish that the idea a minimalist browser would be corrupted every time by other peoples' apparent needs for all the bells, whistles, and toys.

BTW, I won't mess with Chrome because, like JoeBob, I am very leery of Google controlling the search engine and coding the browser...

[indyfan31]

Safari 1.0 was a nice little minimalist browser that was great to use on my laptop. 2.0 got more complicated and I used it less than 1.0 and eventually just put FF 2.0 on the laptop. Don't know what 3.0 is like since I will stay where I am until my computers are so old I can't do anything anymore. Probably in 2 years the way things go. I just wish that the idea a minimalist browser would be corrupted every time by other peoples' apparent needs for all the bells, whistles, and toys.

BTW, I won't mess with Chrome because, like JoeBob, I am very leery of Google controlling the search engine and coding the browser...

Strangely enough, FF 3.0 now looks EXACTLY like Safari. :rofl:

[cameraman]

Safari 3 is a huge improvement over Safari 2. Never the less I use Firefox 3 on the both the OS 10.5 and XP pro sides of this machine.