Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Development, Privacy, and Standards for Chrome

Posted by Soulskill on from the chrome-chrome-chrome-chrome-chrome dept.

Continuing our coverage of Google Chrome, snydeq points out an Infoworld story about looking at the new browser from a developer's perspective, and another about how WebKit should be the focus of development efforts, rather than the browsers that use it. TGdaily notes that Chrome's search box will fetch all types of data, and can be made to display banking information with little effort. ABC and coderrr have slightly more paranoid articles questioning Google's commitment to privacy. NetworkWorld suggests that Chrome's unique process model (explained here) will require the development of new measurement standards.

7 of 114 comments (clear)

  1. Two was bad enough by FloydTheDroid · · Score: 5, Funny

    I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror as their managers noticed that this Webkit browser has a couple of percentage points.

  2. Re:Completely good and noble by David+Gerard · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Even KDE's switching to WebKit, at least as an option. It appears to be sinking into Apple's head that they can 0wn this project, but playing nice with others is more likely to get them something that works well. You know ... open source.

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk
  3. Re:Say "no" to Google spyware by David+Gerard · · Score: 4, Informative

    Direct Google link to standalone installer.

    Note that this doesn't install under Wine - you need the binary Zip file (which I can't find a direct link to) to try it under Wine. And it still doesn't actually work, so find the missing functions and get to work writing them for Wine ;-)

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk
  4. Gears and the storage API by Simon+(S2) · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So google stripped the HTML 5 standard local storage api from Webkit to use their own implementation Google Gears. Why? The api was already there, and it worked, so they had to strip it out to go with google gears, their own, not w3c compliant. I think they are starting to become evil.

    --
    I just don't trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die.
    1. Re:Gears and the storage API by Awptimus+Prime · · Score: 4, Interesting

      After several real-life friends began working for Google, their views on the company have been extreme. It much reminds me of my time at some early mid-90's startups that, no matter what, said company could do no wrong.

      With that in mind, I would not be surprised at all to a lot of the Google hype on /., especially when it comes to blindly justifying possible "evils" of this corporate entity, are simply a bunch of Google employees operating independently in their off-time.

      The drive behind my thoughts on this was one company I worked for ended up having a lot of controversy when multiple employees were doing this, but made the mistake of doing it from the corp lan, and got exposed internally, but when news hit other sites, it was considered some kind of evil campaign funded by said company while actually just frenzied staff operating on their own.

  5. Re:Completely good and noble by kestasjk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't see why a rendering engine can't have security vulnerabilities, just like any other software which processes input from an untrusted source.

    --
    // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
  6. Re:Bug by DancesWithBlowTorch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's only in beta.

    I don't accept this excuse from Google, because they have effectively destroyed the concept of a beta version. Even gmail is still in beta, and it's probably among the world's top three email providers now.

    Google, please do official releases of your products. Or, if you really need to childishly continue to call them development versions, invent a new category. Maybe, call them "gamma" versions. You are spoiling a useful metaphor for everyone else.