Slashdot Mirror
Google Updates Chrome's Terms of Service
centuren writes "In response to the reaction to Chrome's terms of service, Google has truncated the offending Section 11, apologizing for the oversight. The new Section 11 contains only the first sentence included in their Universal Terms of Service, now stating: 'You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services.'"
Its icon looks like an anal bead.
So far we've gotten an apology and a quick amendment that eliminates the offending clause. Now we just need for the group responsible for the oversight to be fired and one or two sacrificial killings and we'll call it even.
I'm a big tall mofo.
Just when I want to start thinking about them as evil, they have an outbreak of common sense and do the right thing.
Oh well. I still think they're too big and have too much of my data stored away, but I'll let go of the paranoia. Until the next time. :-)
relinquish rights to the stuff that may have been created before the update?
This is why I wait a while to download new software. You never know what might be wrong with it.
If you uninstall Chrome, it leaves a few google'isms behind...
Like googleupdate and a few other registry entries... /sigh...
time to reload Winbloze...
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
good thing they can't change their terms of servitude anytime they want.
People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
See.... nobody, not even Google themselves ever reads the freakin' legal boilerplate crap you have to click on to install software.
It's open source. Just remove the terms of service and recompile.
So basically you're saying it doesn't pass Mirosoft application certification procedures?
What a surprise.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Can't we have a legal system that would just dismiss something so rediculous and unreasonable??? You know, something to protect the people?? They could have put "by agreeing, we will assume the deed to your house", and I'm sure the number of downloads wouldn't have changed.
Umm, nice try troll. It was a genuine concern. The clause had the potential to be a huge land grab. It's hard to say whether it was an accident or they really got the message but it's been fixed. It's not the only time it's happened. I seem to remember both Apple and MS trying that sort of thing in the past, it's a bit easier to believe that Google just made a mistake though.
Firefox users are not going to switch to Chrome. It's just inane to suggest that's the case. It doesn't run on anything other than Windows at this point, and it looks like it's going to be a pain to be ported to anything else.
On the resource side of things, they're going to have to make a significant amount of improvement to be competitive with Firefox on performance. Sure web surfing is apparently faster, but that's against the 3.0 release and neglects the impact of memory hogging and the tweaks coming down the pipe in 3.1.
Or to put it another way, it's premature to suggest that Chrome is going to be stealing Firefox users. More likely they'll be stealing IE users away. Might very well slow adoptin of Firefox, but it's unlikely to make a significant impact.
Almost any software program does that, why? Because the Windows registry is an absolute pain. Its like saying that apt-get remove still leaves some files behind. Unfortunately there isn't an apt-get purge function for Windows.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
SpAMmIng every news and discussion boArd on the Net with Fake hysteRIcs over that simple Cut and paste mistaKe was the only thINg The FiRefox fans cOuLd try to do to stop the fLood of people dumping Firefox fOR Chrome?
WHAT they hell are the hardcore Firefox fans going to do now?
We already know, you just keep telling us..
Well that sounds reasonable.
Whenever a company can alter a previous agreement, declare all changes retroactive, and require me visit a webpage constantly as the method of notification, then reasonable is the first word that springs to my mind too.
The explanation is quite simple, actually - this is, plain and simple, what happens when lawyers do anything. They always try to push it farther than fairness would dictate, and in a lot of cases they push it beyond the boundaries of what the company is really willing to stand behind, just because they always err on the side of screwing-over-the-other-guy.
Of course, that's why you hire lawyers. But in this situation, I'm sure whoever was in charge of that section of the agreement is in some hot water, as it's a pretty embarrassing overstepping of bounds for a company that really wants to not be evil.
All this is scaremongering. Your confidential business data, bank account details, personal preferences in pornography, medical records and DNA sequence are strictly a matter between you and Google's marketing department, and no-one else. Remember, they're not evil!
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Did you file a bug?
The thing is, the language itself was not the most offensive part of this.
What is most offensive is the way these bastards write these absurdly one-sided "agreements", assuming the benefit that if anything is unenforceable it will only selectively be struck, and just pass off their standard shit with every single product assuming nobody will ever read it.
Good thing we have the internets to call them on it this time, but shame on them for doing it in the first place. And not just google, but damn near every tech company. The only reason they fixed it was because the high profile of the product. It's still evil.
Hmmm, let's see...
1. Loudly complain about annoying features in the beta stage
2. Watch as company removes said features because they're in vulnerable position
3. Rinse and repeat on other products
4. Realize why so many corporations fight for control of the media
5. Start your own local newspaper
6. ?
7. Go out of business because nobody reads newspapers anymore, you moron
I may switch when they release a stable Linux version since Firefox tends to grab lots of resources and never release them. By making each tab a separate process it makes freeing up memory much cleaner when a tab is closed. It's also a big plus when plug-ins don't take down the whole browser when things go badly.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
That's not the only thing that prevents Firefox users from using chrome. The other two big things are the lack of add-ons and Windows exclusivity, both subject to change. As soon as Chrome has a decent enough equivalent to Adblock and Noscript, and maybe better keyboard-only navigation, I'll be all over it.
The cynics may say that they only backed down from their powergrab due to the media attention, the optimists may say that they did it because Google always listen to their customers, and the rest of us may not care *why* they did it, either way we finally get a cool new browser to play with, without risking our privacy in the process, and there's one less stupid EULA in this world.
Now, if only Apple would let me use iTunes to develop biological WMDs...
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
while yes, that was implied, I was actually stating that google left major chunks behind, running and collecting information to send to the mothership...
most applications may end up leaving an abandoned entry in the registry - not full paths in your local applications area, with entries in the startup....
ie - and to a poster further down... yes - I submitted a bug report regarding the uninstall that didn't actually uninstall....
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
Spamming every news and discussion board on the Net with fake hysterics over that simple cut and paste mistake was the only thing the Firefox fans could try to do to stop the flood of people dumping Firefox for Chrome?
I still can't picture Chrome actually causing a 'flood' of people instantaneously dumping any browser. It's neat, but not that exciting.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
I lol'd
I'm not very optimistic about Chrome for Linux being much more than a careless port. I haven't tried all of Google's Linux offerings but I've used Earth, and it's pretty clunky (and always way behind the Windows version for features; as I recall, like with Chrome, it was Windows-only at first and they took their sweet time porting it). Furthermore, Chrome (according to the gmail blog... I don't have a Windows installation to test on) doesn't even run on Vista or 64-bit Windows. If they cared about making it a cross-platform app that would have been part of the architecture from the beginning and it should have been downright trivial to get it running on different versions of Windows.
I'd be glad to have a browser keep its various tabs and windows separate. I'd be gladder if we hadn't turned the web into an application platform in the first place.
I've used nothing but Firefox for years.
I switched to Chrome, and I'm not looking back. It's that much better.
So, it's stolen *one* Firefox user.
I'm running xp-64 and run Chrome just fine.
Math is like sex. People who get it are popular in class, people who don't are not.
Chrome works just fine for me on Vista64 and integrates very slickly with Aero Glass. If you look at the build requirements it lists the Vista SDK, so frankly I'd be pretty amused if it didn't work on on Vista.
What are you smoking. I am running Chrome on Vista fine.
Its nice to be important but its more important to be nice
Sure, you get to keep the copyright, but after we use your material for our own purposes you will have to take us to court to prove you own the copyright. This is what happens when you use an over the wire service, be it an ASP model EMR or your cable provider reading your email. It is not private and this TOS proves it.
By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive licence 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.
I like having my data on my hard drives on my backup discs. You can keep you Web 3.0 crap.
Come'on, I don't believe this hype. I think it was perhaps a nice PR stunt to keep the browser name comming up on news sites. Keeping the buzz alive, Apple does it all the time! :) ...Surely as a big corp. like Google, you don't just copy/paste TOS! Specially since they been working on it for a while and obviously pushing it real hard ( the front page of Google ).
Some marketing person is probably laughing all the way to the bank right now. Although I never ever actually seen ANYONE laughing going to or comming from the bank.
Yeah, it doesn't really offer much besides tabs in separate processes and fast JS, neither of which is as important to me as features such as live bookmarks in firefox, and of course extensions. I've gotten to the point where I can't browse without certain extensions such as LiveClick and TabMixPlus. I don't think any browser will be able to match Firefox in its extensibility unless they adopt something similar to XUL, despite what people seem to think Chrome will offer eventually.
All your base are belong to Wii.
Then you apparently didn't make much use of plugins.
Unless they seriously change things it won't be used in any sane corporate environment, it requires JRE6 U10 which isn't even freaking officially release yet! It's beyond bleeding edge, it's just crazy.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
i tried Google chrome for 4 hrs, then i saw that everything was logged !!
uninstalled & they asked why ?!
I typed STOP COLLECTING MY DATA,,
back Firefox. at least i can reduce the amount of data that are being used via gmail or other g services.
ex of Google analytic options:
*** Share my Google Analytics data...
With other Google products only
Enable enhanced ad features and an improved experience with AdWords, AdSense and other Google products
by sharing your website's Google Analytcs data with other Google services.
only Google services (no third parties) will be able to access your data.
*** Anonymously with Google and others
Enable benchmarking by sharing your website data in an anonymous form. Google will remove all identifiable information about your website,
combine the data with hundreds of other anonymous sites in comparable industries and report aggregate trends in the benchmarking service.
I used AdBlock Plus, Pennypacker, and FxIF.
But Chrome is so much better I can live without those for the time being.
So what? If you're going to be anal over left behind registry entries, then you have other, non-computer related issues that require some serious attention.
yea, i really couldn't see google using that part of the agreement to "steal the copyright of users" as everyone seemed to be suggesting. it just seemed like they were trying to protect themselves against liability for their online services, many of which deal with the reproduction, manipulation, and public displaying of user-contributed content. facebook has similar clauses in their user agreements as well--as do i'm sure most social networking sites.
... is why there are legal types out there that continue to slip these clauses or sections into legal agreements in the first place. Are they really that stupid that they think that as many times as these terms have been ferreted out and publicized that anyone is going to think "well, okay, I guess it's all right this time"? They don't understand that there enough people on the Internet that there will never be a time when there's no one looking for and exposing these sort of legal shenanigans.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
I uninstalled chrome for this exact reason and posted it in the "more info" box and said "retaining rights to everything created in the browser violates the 'Do No Evil' policy"
I'm still not interested in installing it because they didn't change the bit about how they can send all usage data to them for monitoring, and that's just a bit too scary when you realize Eric Schmidt regularly meets with the head of the NSA.
Lol, only because this is Google would such a response satisfy. This was done with purpose and the hope that nothing would be noticed.
Read the EULA for Picasa 3.
It contains the very same license.
It also needs to be corrected.
Otherwise Google gains rights to *all* of the pictures you look at it with on your computer, not just the ones you upload to picasa. And what does Picasa3 try to do? Install itself as the default viewer or JPEGs, etc, on your PC.
Firefox users are not going to switch to Chrome. It's just inane to suggest that's the case. It doesn't run on anything other than Windows at this point, and it looks like it's going to be a pain to be ported to anything else.
The vast majority of Firefox users are running Windows. I don't see the lack of other platforms making much difference here.
Or to put it another way, it's premature to suggest that Chrome is going to be stealing Firefox users. More likely they'll be stealing IE users away. Might very well slow adoptin of Firefox, but it's unlikely to make a significant impact.
The factor you seem to be ignoring is that Firefox users are more likely to be early adopters. So I think they are more likely to at least try Chrome.
Vista has no issues. Their response on why there is no native 64-bit: http://dev.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/64-bit-support
Why is there an EULA in the first place? The only difference between Google Chrome and Chromium is a build switch, so anyone can reject the EULA and compile their own versions, even if they can't redistribute the Chrome builds due to trademarks.
The BSD licence includes a disclaimer from liability when using the software, so no EULA is required for this. Google's online services have an EULA when you use them, but this isn't necessary for an open source browser.
Maybe, Google are concerned about their privacy policy, when consent is required for data to be collected on users. And Section 10.2 of the EULA isn't required for an open source browser, so it's possible for Chrome to include closed source code in the future, which the BSD licence permits.
This makes me feel uneasy about using Chrome. I hope that Google don't get so caught up in collecting information on users, that they miss focusing on building a good browser.
Why does Google software send data to General Electric?
Strange...
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
And how can we audit Google?
Being the Google skeptic that I am, the first thing I did was read Google's EULA/TOS, in that convenient 100x100px box, saw the "offensive" clause, and didn't download the product.
The thing is, who knows if the browser is actually "phoning home", or what other similar black magic is baked into there?
Why's isn't Chrome's source readily available? Instead, "Chromium", the OSS project that Chrome is "based off of", is open. That's a distinct difference to me. Is no one else skeptical?
Worse yet, if Google does indeed have some "Evil" in their product, what's stopping them?
Best of all, my captcha was "utopians". How ironic.
The OP was me. I thought I was signed in. Can a mod kindly associate that post w/me?
And I just gift wrapped my first born child to send to Google after using Chrome, never mind Im testing Silverlight tomorrow so I don't have to unwrap him again.
To be honest, Google Earth is in no way comparable to a browser. Earth is more of a toy, while a Chrome is, as a browser, a daily tool. I feel pretty safe saying that Chrome will be kept fairly up-to-date across various platforms.
its just an "outbreak"... saying a sudden outbreak is redundant.
...as, of course, are all of these "fixed that for ya" posts.
There seems to have been a rash of these lately, to the extent that when I have the points, I have found myself automatically modding them -1 redundant. They are rarely funny any more.
It runs on Vista, I am writing this via chrome on Vista right now.
I am a Firefox fanboy, I even visit the mozilla store from time to time to buy stuff, but chrome is looking very tempting right now.
I'm a firefox user, and I'll switch to chrome as soon as there's an ad blocker for it.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
google is evil now
I was actually stating that google left major chunks behind, running and collecting information to send to the mothership...
This is the main thing that bothers me about Chrome. Nobody has yet (to my knowledge) supplied any details of what the program sends back to Google. I really don't want to participate in marketing exercises, and Adblock and Flashblock are the only extensions I insist on using with FF3, and by now they have become pretty much essential to how I like to work.
I know Chrome is meant to be open-source, but I wonder how practicable it is do disable its less welcome aspects without interfering with the usefulness of the software.
Although, as yet, it is not yet available on any of the platforms that I run, I find myself wondering if most of the attraction of it is the fact that it is new.
I run it on Vista Just Fine. Wake up!
I'm here for the experience, not the Hyperbole.
Chrome runs fine on 64-bit Vista. I'm posting with it in Vista right now.
it does run on Vista, mine is 32bit. runs well, haven't had a chance to try in properly though.
posting this from Chrome on 32bit XP
Sorry Google - You just joined the cyborgs at M$.
Google - all those PhDs and then "Oops".
Fuck You Google.
1. i'm running chrome on 64 bit windows. seems ok.
2. web as application platform is on the whole a good thing imo. remember when all nearly everything was a windows app? now at least if it's a web app, you got a good chance of it working on your os of choice.
If you use Privoxy you can have Chrome with ad blocking as well. Works like a charm for me. Credit to this blog for pointing me in the right direction.
Denny
Erecting the wall of separation between church and state is absolutely essential in a free society. - Thomas Jefferson
windows has dare I say it an "EXCELLENT" installer system. Where if app devs just follow the well documented standards for installing there app then the cleanup of the app is incredibly easy on uninstalling. Unfortunately google is one of the companies that thinks everything must be always done there way and hence the inevitable mess they left behind.
Why is it that Chrome is close sourced?
Why is it on Windows, and NOT Linux, and Mac's?
What was on the minds of the people that said, "OK", about this Copy Write nonsense?
What was on the minds of the people that said, lets rip off some person of their digital image?
I'm just not getting this logic; Can anyone explain?
They just want Google employees to use Chrome at work (instead of firefox, or whatever). That way the employees have agreed on that clause, and whatever they post or send through email (port 25 closed) will most likely be sent through Chrome and belongs to Google (which most likely already did anyway).
This reply has been written using Chrome on Vista 64.
The Chrome browser binary you can download is *based* on the Chromium source code, which is free (see http://dev.chromium.org/developers/how-tos/build-instructions-windows on instructions how to compile). The Chrome browser itself is NOT under the BSD license. I was quite disappointed when I realized that. - Just because they say "open source" somewhere doesn't make the Chrome browser itself open source.
;)
And what's this "installer" program to download the browser for you, why not just give us a download link to the browser itself? Furthermore, the browser will also *update* anytime it feels like it. Afaik there's no way to deactivate this *feature*.
I'd love to see a site dedicated to compiling daily builds of the Chromium source code, maybe through in some forks by private fiddlers, because right now following the instructions from the link requires you to use a non open source tool "gclient" to download about 500MB of source and then compile it using M$ Visual Studio - and then hope it produces a working binary (oh, and have the time for this). So far I couldn't find anyone doing this and putting the binaries online yet - not even using google
And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
Just reinstalling Chrome and noticed that although section 11 has been updated, the revision date hasn't been updated, and the EULA is dated August 15th 2008. So the the update seems to apply to before the ELUA was actually written.
Any /. IANALawyers want to have a think about that one?
I'm running xp-64 and run Chrome just fine.
I'm running Vista-64 and run Chrome just fine. Grandparent is clueless even by Slashdot standards.
For now it only works on Windows. The main thing that is not available is plugins. No plugins and this browser is a dead horse. IE users will not jump on it. Those who would already use Firefox.
The rest won't change anything that is not pre-installed by default.
The fact that it is released only for Windows might be seen as a direct attack on IE, because that way they will not steal any Mac or Linux users (unless they run it under wine)
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
come back when your running it with flash on Linux AMD64, thats kinda what the OP was pushing at.
>Firefox users are not going to switch to Chrome. It's just inane to suggest that's the case.
Why wouldn't they? Remember that a huge percentage of FF users use it on Windows, so they could if they wanted, I've already switched from FF2 to Opera because I wasn't happy that in FF2:
1) when one website use 100% of CPU it's hard to find the one who does it, so it's often sluggish
2) a crash takes down the whole browser
this happen also in Opera but far less often that FF2 did, and now with Chrome both of these concern are (finally) solved!
So I'm trying currently Chrome and I like what I see (too bad it cannot: resize page the way Opera does it, spellcheck in several languages and that its bookmark manager isn't very good), sure it doesn't have FF extensions but I don't care about these.
Given that I've already switched from FF, I don't know if this count but I'm definitely thinking about switching to Chrome and users of browsers other than IE are more likely to switch to another browser as they've already switched from the mainstream so they can do it again more easily..
Because the Windows registry is an absolute pain.
Huh, what? It's no harder for an installer to remove registry entries than it is for either an installer or application to add them.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Give it some time, the plugins will come eventually.
This is the sig that says NI (again)
Same here, for now I love the speed though :)
This is the sig that says NI (again)
Urgh. You may be using a different Windows to me. Let me describe my last 24 hours in 5 sentences:
- Uninstalled Visual Studio 2005.
- Installed Visual Studio 2008 overnight.
- Launch VS2008 to start a C# project; this fails, and VS2008 tells me I need to install it *again*.
- Open the add/remove programs control panel, and click "Uninstall/change" on VS2008.
- VS2008's update program crashes before giving me any options.
I'm now wedged without a development environment, losing time and money, because of this "EXCELLENT" installer system. If I have to reinstall Vista to get past this, I'll be *most* displeased.
Unfortunately google is one of the companies that thinks everything must be always done there way and hence the inevitable mess they left behind.
Using this statement to defend Microsoft is unbelievably ironic.
Reality is the ultimate Rorschach.
Except, you know, anybody with even an ounce of common sense could see this was just a mistake right from the start.
yea, i really couldn't see google using that part of the agreement to "steal the copyright of users" as everyone seemed to be suggesting.
It makes no difference what you see. What's in writing and accepted is what counts.
It's far too easy for sleazeballs to say, "Oh, that's just there because some lawyer was being over-cautious -- we'd never enforce that on you."
The only correct answer to this situation is to say, "Then before we go any farther, you'll have someone with sufficient authority come over here, strike it out and sign off with an authoritative signature."
If they won't, that funny feeling below your belt is someone tightening their grasp on your balls.
Huh, what? It's no harder for an installer to remove registry entries than it is for either an installer or application to add them.
It most certainly is. When you have multiple applications sharing a single registry key, you can easily add-if-not-exist, but on removal, you will have to check somehow if any other application might still be using it
That is what the GP and I would call an absolute pain
This is the main thing that bothers me about Chrome. Nobody has yet (to my knowledge) supplied any details of what the program sends back to Google.
Check the privacy policy for details: http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en-GB/privacy.html
Google Chrome Terms of Service are still an EULA for a service and not a software license. Why has a browser software an EULA about the services by Google? I understand that you may want a service EULA for Google Suggests -- the address bar -- but this is opt out.
Needless to say that the service conditions still are scary especially for privacy reasons. And all of this just for using a browser? No thanks.
Slashdot doctrine is that Microsoft did a HORRIBLE thing by removing the menu bar from IE7. So Google, in copying Microsoft's move, did a horrible thing too, right slashdotters? Or is it "brilliant" now to do without the menu bar? Which is it? I get confused by the shifting slashdot doctrine.
BTW, not only did Google copy MS by removing the menu bar, they also copied Microsoft by adding to the right of the tabs, a Tools dropdown menu, a Page dropdown menu, and a "New Tab" button. Why have slashdotters not condemned Google for copying?
Slashdotters = the most hypocritical bunch on the web.
Cool, I'd mod you up if i could! - Now we need just somebody to whip up a patch for chrome that blocks all superfluous ads and submit it to that site :D
Thanks for the info.
And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
It's my understanding that Chrome's one process per tab functionality depends on Windows' ability to have windows from multiple processes exist within the same window hierarchy, an ability that neither OS X nor Linux has. I don't expect Mac or Linux versions of Chrome any time soon (unless they remove the one process per tab feature for those platforms).
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
suddenoutbreakofcommonsense?
I know that it is cliche tag slapped on every "common sense" act of a big corporation or government or some other thing we love to hate, but Google so far mostly has been commonsensical enough to rubber stamp it's actions "sudden".
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Who cares ... they don't even have a mac version anyway.
I find myself wondering if most of the attraction of it is the fact that it is new.
Nail. Head. That and it's Google. People love to love Google.
Who cares ... they don't even have a linux version anyway.
Meh.
How's that Aero skin treating ya?
Good job Google, now I will actually give your browser a whirl.
There is a war going on for your mind.
Granted this is anecdotal, but on my home PC I've been using Google Chrome exclusively for a couple of days now and I really like it. It doesn't take several seconds to boot like Firefox has for a while now.
Performancewise, I compared my current Firefox window with ten tabs open (Slashdot, Kotaku, Penny Arcade, Google, Yahoo, CNN, Craigslist, Pokemon.com, Newegg, The Tech Report as test tabs) to Google Chrome with the same ten tabs. Firefox came out to 123MB, Chrome was 179 BUT Firefox was chugging as the 10 pages were loading (this was on an old single-core Athlon 64 with 512MB ram), while there was no slowdown whatsoever on Chrome on the same machine. Sure, don't use it if you only have 128MB of RAM, but at that point I don't think you should be using Firefox or Windows XP anyway.
The Javascript performance in both are pretty good, but Chrome's is slightly better. On Celtic Kane's Javascript speed test, Firefox 3 usually gets around 380ms and Chrome gets around 80-100 less.
http://celtickane.com/webdesign/jsspeed.php
Google Chrome lacks some of the polish and features that Firefox does (no built-in RSS reader is noticeable), but I really like the responsiveness and speed. For now I'll stick with Chrome and see what Firefox 3.1 and the new Chrome has to offer.
Unfortunately, there's nothing "common" about "common sense".
Yeah, like there is *any other* browser that has working flash on Linux x64. I'm writing this in FF on x64, and flash "works" once or twice before it just dies and I have to restart the browser.
Firefox users are not going to switch to Chrome. It's just inane to suggest that's the case.
Inane? Hardly. Chrome is quite clearly the superior browser right now, it's not unreasonable to think that people will switch to it. Linux Firefox users won't be switching, but then again, they aren't equal to the set of all Firefox users.
On the resource side of things, they're going to have to make a significant amount of improvement to be competitive with Firefox on performance.
Considering it renders faster than Firefox (which ain't hard)... I fail to see where you're getting this from. Its performance is already better. If you mean resource consumption, well, that may go down (it is beta, after all, which implies they have quite a bit of tweaking to do yet), but quite frankly, even if it doesn't, it's well worth it to have tabs which don't crash your entire browser. Hopefully one day the Firefox developers will pull their heads out of their asses and realize that single-threaded tabs are simply unacceptable, but until then, Chrome's extra resource usage is well worth it.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Wherever you read is completely wrong. Chrome runs beautifully on Vista.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
It's "hard to say" if Google really intended to swipe a licence for everything that passed through their *web browser*?
Seriously, Slashdot should try to get a bulk discount deal for Clozaril (or any other drugs that help against serious paranoia).
Not really. I haven't used a great many browsers out there, just IE and Firefox, but Chrome easily bests both of those. I think it's significant if Google puts out a browser that beats both of the major browsers by a large margin, but that's just me.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Mods don't have the power it sounds like you think they have. I would read the FAQ section on moderation for more information on how the moderation system here works.
Oh, and, you must be new here. ;)
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
> Except, you know, anybody with even an ounce of common sense could see this was just a mistake right from the start.
A legally binding ``mistake''. Try that in court.
Contract law is not like code releases. Sometimes bad code gets out to the field because it wasn't reviewed. Legal documents are always reviewed and it takes WEEKS.
The big problem of Firefox is that big heap of cruft that impedes innovation. Chrome does some things right: downloads handling, popups handling, multiprocessing (esp plugin isolation). Mozilla can't be bothered to even consider the major rewrites those would involve. And to judge by all those bugs in Firefox that have been around for years without even being assigned, they just don't have the manpower for major rewrites.
But I still don't think many Firefox users will completely switch to Chrome. If they wanted a slim, barebones, non-extensible, non-customizable browser, why would they be using Firefox now and not Safari? Chrome might appeal to Firefox users in UI and basic architecture/design choices, but not in functionality.
For me, Chrome might become a "second browser" to fire up whenever I need to look something up fast, or for Google apps. (Still I think I'll only use it on a regular basis once it has adblocking.) For everything else, it can't replace Firefox.
The factor you seem to be ignoring is that Firefox users are more likely to be early adopters. So I think they are more likely to at least try Chrome.
And you may be right. While this isn't a scientific survey, according to Statcounter, Chrome gained about 1% of the market share, at the expense of Firefox.
Use Chromium, it doesn't need an installer. And you can unpack it in %programfiles% where it belongs, not that userspace abomination.
Is it just me, or does Chrome slip past anti-virus software? If I surf using IE or FF, my anti-virus (AVAST) can see what is going on. In Chrome, nothing :(
Robin
Google wants to keep its advertising model healthy since its the core of its business and our gov't here in US is full of one-party republi-Crats who are happy to embrace opt-out Phorm/NebuAD type session meddling -- I predict just after the election an un-fettered connection to any web site will become a thing of the past.
... Senate vote on July 9 sealed it (sans McCain who did not vote for this, and Hillary who voted NO).
Microsoft has illustrated a complete failure to break into this market (advertising) it needs to survive and other companies will use our gov't to force open the HTTP stream between web-sites and you to display ads on the page just like Google does based on the nifty databases about you and I they are now building thanks to the ILLEGAL SPYING ON AMERICANS which the republi-Crats led by Pelosi enshrined into law on
Interesting..
I tried several big name applications under chrome... failed... miserably...
One in particular, CA Unicenter, blew chunks -
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
IMO this is evidence that Google has not developed any kind of interesting OS, otherwise the Linux version would have been out first. WHY?
Any OS developed by Google would surely be non-windows based and likely linux-based with their intimate development expertise on that platform.
With independent processes running each tab, and a lightning fast JS execution engine, the logical approach for OS development would be an active-desktopesque interface for KDE or Enlightenment or Gnome etc.
Instead of having multiple desktops (which hardly anyone uses these days when u factor in mainstream use) you could have a multiple tabbed interface as default. Eg. user logs into OS and default is online javascript enriched interface on the default tab (which could be a static tab)
Instead of other desktops - other tabs - all this WOULD be the desktop in JavaScript form, and it could access all OS features, eg. xterm, etc. but it wouldn't need to access the browser as this desktop would effectively be the browser - some form of Chrome.
Moreover, the initial desktop would be highly customizable. A user could log in and immediately have a JavaScript enriched desktop tab with a google earth FRAME ebbedded in it, a google map FRAME embedded in it and a conventional HTTP FRAME embedded in it.
The HTTP frame would be smaller than a conventional window and could be zoomed in and dragged around like in the ipod. This together with a Chrome version of Mozilla labs' Ubiquity (Ubiquity allows for streamlined net use -ie easily embedding a google map in a email and having it sent to your address book etc.) would provide a really excellent OS experience.
But, if I thought of this then I'd say google labs did too, and there IS NO Linux version of Chrome yet so I must assume they are not far along in their desire to develop and OS, or at least an OS interface like KDE etc.
IF, Chrome had been delivered first as an alternative to KDE, Gnome etc, I'd be excited but I don't think their utilizing / want to utilize it in this manner as yet.
Paul
You can always develop on a Linux worstation. Oh, wait! Sorry ;-)
-- dnl
More likely they'll be stealing IE users away.
Wasn't that the intention?
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
2.3 You may not use the Services and may not accept the Terms if (a) you are not of legal age to form a binding contract with Google, or (b) you are a person barred from receiving the Services under the laws of the United States or other countries including the country in which you are resident or from which you use the Services.
;)
Sorry kids, no Chrome for you!
You don't need to waste two lines writing your name in the comment field. We already have your name and contact information in the "by" line.
One in particular, CA Unicenter, blew chunks
;-)
Who is Chunks?
OMG - never watched the Goonies????
Sorry - Baited, struck, set....
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
Section 11 was unworkable if not even embarrassing for Google. There's no way it was going to stay for long.
This firefox lover and supporter certainly tried and likes Chrome, and will not unlikely switch if Chrome evolves enough.
It's nice to see Google can make changes based on user feedback. So many companies today ignore their consumers feedback and do what they feel is right. By Google making this change it shows they remember why they are so massive because of us. I wrote about this as one of the negatives to the new browser on my blog review of Chrome at http://www.toddwolfe.info/ , I can go update that now.
If adblock plus was a big deal for you, then just use the MVP hosts file (google it) for your own. It's essentially a list of advertising/malware domain names you can plunk into your hosts file to redirect 'em all to 127.0.0.1 . It works for any browser, and essentially filters advertising to just what comes from the site itself. Worst case, your local TV station website may still be ugly, but everything else is quite tolerable.
What's really interesting is reviewing your Apache/IIS logs later to see just how many ads get blocked.
Bah, I forgot to add the rest of the point I wanted to make, even with preview.
I wanted to add that I've switched over to Chrome, and really like it. It's fast, and seems to be slimmer than the FF 3.0.1 I've been using. All I really miss so far (given my method above, I haven't had adblock since 1.0 or so) are IE tab and Firebug. For the next couple of weeks, though, I don't need to inspect any page DOMs, so I'm good.
Cheap way to retain the media's attention and grab share really quick. Bravo google, at least they're the gogli, they'll stick around...
Little Horn
What exactly am I "wasting"? Are you concerned about the extra 20 or so bytes of bandwidth that you needed to read that? Nice of you to "waste" about 10 times that much in an anonymous reply no less. LOL. Shut up.
Denny
Erecting the wall of separation between church and state is absolutely essential in a free society. - Thomas Jefferson
From the Chrome and IE compare site chromevsie.com's vote result,the Security is chrome's Biggest problem!just 40.87% people think IE is more security than throme.
1. OK, I guess the gmail blog was wrong.
2. It's a good thing if you like having no choice of client for what have traditionally been client-server apps. It's a good thing if you like UI decisions made on the basis of what will yield the most ad impressions. It's a good choice if you hate responsiveness. It's a good choice if you don't like having control of your damn data. And if you think it's great security policy to just let websites send you scripts and programs every time you want to read the news.
And have you ever really tried to use the web's variety of applications on many OSes? This isn't even about my weird Plan 9 fixation; tons of web sites rely on Flash or Silverlight, which give you pretty limited options. Those sites won't even work on the JesusPhone yet; think of what the odds are they'll ever work on less hyped devices and platforms. If your email is just IMAP you can get it anywhere anyone has bothered to write a client; ditto IRC, ditto NNTP. Many more OSes have programs to play back video in standard formats than can run Flash player for YouTube or *insert-web-site-with-unnecessary-custom-video-player-here*. In fact, if you write your web site to output simple HTML with Just The Facts, Ma'am, instead of some fancy-pants Web-2.0 shit, even the assholes that do run Plan 9 can probably use it.
The web's killer-app is the hyperlink. The ability to have links between different sites that just work (as long as they're maintained) is cool. I can't, however, think of any reason for full programming ability and full linking ability to be together that's more important than controlling the code that runs on my box, and controlling my own data.