Slashdot Mirror


Google Chrome Is Out of Beta

BitZtream writes "This morning Google announced that Chrome is out of Beta, and showing improvements for plugin support, most notably video speed improvements. It also contains an updated javascript engine, claiming that it operates 1.4 times faster than the beta version, and work has begun on an extensions platform to allow easier integration with the browser by third parties."

66 of 444 comments (clear)

  1. Credit where credit is due by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Informative

    I have to give the Chrome team credit. Chrome has been improving in stability and usability almost like magic. From day to day, it seems like problems I had previously just disappear. As it turns out, Chrome has an automatic updater that runs in the background. The browser is constantly and silently upgrading itself as the Chrome team push out new updates. The results are quite impressive.

    If you'd reading this in chrome and want to force the most recent update, just go to the "About" screen. Chrome will tell you if an update is available and allow you to manually run the updater. There's a good chance that most users are already updated, but it doesn't hurt to check.

    The killer feature that I still think is missing is the ability to exit and save tabs. Chrome can Restore after a crash (most of the time), but you can't manually restart the browser without loosing the history you have open. Another issue I wish they'd fix is remembering the last save directory when doing a "Save As...". I realize that keeping a single Downloads directory is userfriendly, but using it as the default location when the user is overriding the download location is annoying. If I need to download 10 files, I need to navigate to the same directory 10 times. That's just ridiculous.

    Otherwise my gripes are mostly minor and have no real bearing on its use in day to day activities. (e.g. I hate that I can't view the properties of an image. Sometimes I need to verify that its under a certain size. Or that there's no easy method of tracking page errors.) Thankfully, most of my gripes are developer-related and are better served by keeping a copy of FireFox around.

    Kudos to Google for working on another alternative to Internet Explorer! If Chrome and Firefox can each grab a significant marketshare, Internet Explorer's hold over the Internet will disappear. Firefox's popularity has already caused it to wane. I look forward to the day when using IE will net you nothing but pages telling you to upgrade your web browser. :-)

    1. Re:Credit where credit is due by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We are also developing an extensions platform along with support for Mac and Linux.

      Bingo. When it reaches the functionality of Firefox I'll be the first to get it. It will give FireFox a run for its money.

    2. Re:Credit where credit is due by Arionhawk · · Score: 5, Informative

      The killer feature that I still think is missing is the ability to exit and save tabs. Chrome can Restore after a crash (most of the time), but you can't manually restart the browser without loosing the history you have open. Another issue I wish they'd fix is remembering the last save directory when doing a "Save As...". I realize that keeping a single Downloads directory is userfriendly, but using it as the default location when the user is overriding the download location is annoying. If I need to download 10 files, I need to navigate to the same directory 10 times. That's just ridiculous.

      That "killer feature" is in there, you just have to turn it on in the options, in the "on start-up" section. You just select the option that says restore the pages that were open last. I agree with you on the saving files thing, that is rather annoying.

      --
      rehab is for quitters
    3. Re:Credit where credit is due by Homr+Zodyssey · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The "Updater" killed it for me. I downloaded/installed Chrome, browsed a little and thought 'ooh isn't this neat.' Then, I killed it and fired up a video game. It was slower. I looked in my Task Manager and there's GoogleUpdater running. I uninstalled Chrome and never looked back.

      I really don't care if they want to run an updater when I'm using Chrome. But I don't want software installing stupid stuff to run in the background when the software isn't being used. Its why I hate iTunes and Tivo Desktop. I'm even a little annoyed at Sun (Java Updater).

      My machine is over 5 years old. I don't have the resources to allow every new piece of software to run some updater in the background, nor do I have the resources to go out and by a new machine right now.

    4. Re:Credit where credit is due by daver00 · · Score: 5, Informative

      (e.g. I hate that I can't view the properties of an image. Sometimes I need to verify that its under a certain size. Or that there's no easy method of tracking page errors.)

      This I don't understand it, but this is the biggest misconception about chrome there is! Chrome has the best and most comprehensive page debugger I have seen, for Javascript, html and css. Right click on your image, and select "inspect element" from the menu. You will get all of your image properties plus all of its surrounding code. Page errors, same deal just right click and select "inspect element" and you can get an extremely good, verbose output of any javascript errors, or track your way through the dom as it highlights elements firebug style.

      Chrome rules, it is the best browser bar none, especially when it comes to development!

    5. Re:Credit where credit is due by Paul+Slocum · · Score: 3, Informative

      Another issue I wish they'd fix is remembering the last save directory when doing a "Save As..."...

      If you're in Windows, Direct Folders fixes that problem in almost every program. I'm not one to install a lot of add-ons, but since I discovered Direct Folders, I can't live without it.

    6. Re:Credit where credit is due by amRadioHed · · Score: 4, Informative

      Doesn't really work. I disabled the GoogleUpdater service long ago, and yet the process is still running.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    7. Re:Credit where credit is due by Lyrael · · Score: 3, Informative

      Been there since the start, as has the option to change your default download location....it's in the second tab of the options. :)

    8. Re:Credit where credit is due by rantingkitten · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I am fanatic about ditching unneeded services and startup items, so as soon as I noticed that stupid Google Update thing, that's exactly what I did. For some reason, it kept returning. Every single time. I uninstalled Chrome and it was still there. I had to go manually remove the directory to get rid of it.

      Silently installing a retarded updater that's doing who-knows-what is about one-fourth of the reason I loathe Chrome and will never use it again. I'll reserve all the other reasons I hate it for another comment, but I really don't see why getting rid of the dumb updater was such a chore, or why it was there in the first place.

      --
      mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
    9. Re:Credit where credit is due by Vectronic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "That must be why I keep killing that friggin process"

      Indeed, im generally "ok" with an application that has some background nonsense I have to kill, but "GoogleUpdate.exe" refuses to go away until you delete the damn thing, there seems to be no way of disabling it via Chrome itself.

      Pointless comment, but for me its a major reason why I don't use it, the only thing I give them credit for about it, is not naming it some obfuscated nonsense like guu.exe

    10. Re:Credit where credit is due by spyrochaete · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have a few browsers installed for when I need a secondary browser for whatever reason, but thanks to the persistence of GoogleUpdate.exe I uninstalled Chrome a long time ago. Can't the browser update when it's running? Well, of course it can, but Google published Chrome to increase its overall face time with its customers so that's why they'll cram as much down our throats as possible.

  2. Out of beta? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Am I the only one surprised just to hear that Google has taken something out of beta?

    1. Re:Out of beta? by Hordeking · · Score: 5, Funny

      Am I the only one surprised just to hear that Google has taken something out of beta?

      No, and you ain't in Kansas, neither.

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
    2. Re:Out of beta? by Khuffie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I read somewhere a reasoning for this: that google wants OEMs to bundle Chrome with their browser, and OEMs don't want to bundle software marked as 'beta', hence, magically, Chrome comes out of beta!

  3. Addons by kinocho · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am sorry, I can not conceive the internet any more without add-block...

    1. Re:Addons by pushing-robot · · Score: 3, Informative

      Get Privoxy and don't look back.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    2. Re:Addons by rite_m · · Score: 5, Informative

      They are going to support extensions. The list includes content-filtering extensions like ad-block.

    3. Re:Addons by moosesocks · · Score: 5, Funny

      I am sorry, I can not conceive the internet any more without add-block...

      I find that subtraction works well.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    4. Re:Addons by LingNoi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Great, however "going to" isn't "already support".

    5. Re:Addons by windsurfer619 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Please stop telling everyone about it! I want slashdot to remain free.

    6. Re:Addons by fyleow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My experience is the opposite. I discovered adblock and never looked back at Privoxy. The user friendliness differences are just staggering. Adblock is a one click install affair while you have to edit text based configuration files for Privoxy.

    7. Re:Addons by trawg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Weird, why was this moderated Funny?

      I assume all you guys that run AdBlock realise that ads keep these websites free. I'm happy to absorb a few ads in the interests of getting free content.

      Yes, sometimes they slow page loads, yes, sometimes they're annoying, but they keep sites free.

    8. Re:Addons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And why aren't you moderated Insightful?

      I turn off my ABP on sites I frequently visit as a gesture of support, though I'm sure many people kept theirs on all the time. I used to too but my conscience is slowly catching up to me.

    9. Re:Addons by Spit · · Score: 5, Funny

      Slashdot has ads now?

      --
      POKE 36879,8
    10. Re:Addons by Dhalka226 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They survive even now, despite the fact that just about everybody blocks ads.

      Citation please? More likely you're simply pulling it out of thin air. Nobody I know blocks in-page (versus popup) advertising, and having worked for a digital advertising agency (I didn't do any banner ads, so I'm not apologizing!) and hearing the kinds of numbers they get I feel pretty safe in calling this out as the nonsense it is. If "just about everybody" is blocking them, then those handful of people who aren't sure interact with the ads an awful lot, and they hit refresh the page an awful lot to download them again.

      You're the same kind of person who claims that watching TV but going to take a whiz during commercials is stealing.

      And you're the kind of person who makes a shitty analogy and then tries to bash somebody with it. Nobody claimed it was stealing. Not on this site. Broadcasting a TV signal costs the same amount of money whether one person tunes it in or one hundred million do. And for that matter, it costs the same whether 0% or 100% of the sets tuned in have anybody watching them. Moreover, the TV stations get paid the same amount of money whether you actually watch the ads or not.

      The Internet doesn't work that way. The get paid based on impression or click-through. Worse, every time you visit a website you cost the person hosting it money either directly or by using a finite resource. Many choose to foot the bill and not use advertisements, you're right about that; I'm one of them. Those who don't are making a clear and conscious choice, one which should be respected. You do not have some inalienable right to view their content. In the case of ads they're making a trade with you, and you're welching on your part of the deal. Do it if that's who you are, I'm not your mother, but don't make bullshit excuses and shitty analogies to try to pretend that blocking their ads and taking their bandwidth doesn't directly affect their wallet line. Twice.

      Of course given the fact that you've already been modded into oblivion so many times your posts start at zero, I'm not sure why I'm taking the time to feed the trolls.

    11. Re:Addons by Clifton+Beach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Viewing the ads won't help keep websites free - You have to actually buy the stuff that's advertised. Even clicking on ads to "pay" for content will only work until the companies who are advertising realise that they're paying for advert flirts.

      --
      42 hidden comments
  4. Still no Mac / Linux support. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'd love to try it, but I'm still waiting for the Mac and Linux ports. But I guess if they take it out of beta before those are out, it's not on the top of their list.

  5. OEM deals by javacowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm sure Google is trying to work out deals with OEM's to bundle Chrome on Windows PC's. Obviously, they can't do this while the browser still carries the "beta" tag, which is akin to a scarlet letter.

    It's interesting they chose to drop out of "beta" before they implemented one of their supposed top features, namely, cross-platform compatibility.

    --
    This space left intentionally blank.
    1. Re:OEM deals by Bashae · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe they'll have separate betas for the Mac and Linux versions.

  6. Re:just what we need by PotatoFarmer · · Score: 5, Funny

    They should look into that advertising thing, I hear there's a market.

  7. Neat - Mac OS X ? Linux? by HaloZero · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Call me when I can get it in .dmg format, or just sudo apt-get install GoogleChrome

    --
    Informatus Technologicus
    1. Re:Neat - Mac OS X ? Linux? by secmartin · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are .dmg's of the current version at http://securityandthe.net/chrome/ if you want to give it a try. These are based on the current SVN tree.

    2. Re:Neat - Mac OS X ? Linux? by jonaskoelker · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, not releasing on all three major platforms seems pretty brain-.dmg'ed.

      I'm seeing a pattern, though. Could it be that developing cross-platform applications is something for which Google doesn't have any aptitude?

    3. Re:Neat - Mac OS X ? Linux? by AdamPee · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd say this is kind of a point. I don't think you should be taking something out of beta before you have reached all of your core beginning announced goals, or announced that you're giving the bugger to it. The point is, that they announced that it is supposed to be cross platform, that it kind of like leaving the tires off your car and calling it close enough.

  8. Don't forget the WebKit team by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The WebKit team and anyone who ever contributed to it should also get praise. Without it Chrome would never have seen the light of day. Google Chrome is essentially Google's chrome around the rendering engine and any tweaks they provided to WebKit.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    1. Re:Don't forget the WebKit team by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Informative

      I agree. The WebKit team has been simply amazing. Though in Google's defense, parts of the browser are customizations over WebKit. e.g. The V8 Javascript engine is quite a bit different from JSKit or Squirrelfish.

    2. Re:Don't forget the WebKit team by Enderandrew · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Except Chrome is light-years better than any other Webkit browser out there. They had some truly innovative and necessary ideas when it came to a multi-process, sandboxed browswer with a virtualized javascript engine. Saying that Webkit deserves all the praise isn't remotely fair. If Webkit alone was enough to light the world on fire, we'd be using Safari. And despite the benchmarks of nightly builds of pure Webkit running like a speed demon, Safari sure doesn't.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    3. Re:Don't forget the WebKit team by chrysalis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Before anyone else, thanks to the KDE team. It looks like Apple and Google names shadow the developpers behind KHTML, but WebKit would probably never have existed as it is now without KHTML.

      --
      {{.sig}}
    4. Re:Don't forget the WebKit team by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      WebKit would probably never have existed as it is now without KHTML

      ...and for that matter, lets all thank Adam and Eve. Because none of this would be possible if the first two Humans didn't procreate!

    5. Re:Don't forget the WebKit team by onefriedrice · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nobody said WebKit should get all the praise...

      --
      This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
    6. Re:Don't forget the WebKit team by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Funny

      Chrome is light-years better

      Yeah, but is mo better ?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    7. Re:Don't forget the WebKit team by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Aaaah, I see what you did there. You sneaky creationist you.

    8. Re:Don't forget the WebKit team by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What about KHTML team who did all the original work? Everyone forgot them already? :)

    9. Re:Don't forget the WebKit team by kestasjk · · Score: 4, Informative

      How about giving the KHTML team some credit for writing WebKit? It seems like only yesterday that Apple forked KHTML from Konqueror.

      It's definitely the most impressive thing about KDE that they wrote such a good rendering engine that both Apple and Google ended up using it, but you always hear Apple getting praise for WebKit but never the KHTML team. (A bit like OS X and BSD I suppose, but more so)

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    10. Re:Don't forget the WebKit team by moosesocks · · Score: 4, Funny

      WebKit would probably never have existed as it is now without KHTML

      ...and for that matter, lets all thank Adam and Eve. Because none of this would be possible if the first two Humans didn't procreate!

      Man, that must have been awkward for the first few generations....

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
  9. No Linux support? by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sorry Google, but if you're looking to finish what Netscape started -- namely, making the Internet an application delivery platform that does an end-run around Microsoft's monopoly -- you had damn well better make Linux, Macintosh, and appliance-embeddable versions available before you remove the "beta" label.

    --
    Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
  10. Everyone except Microsoft welcomes Chrome by David+Gerard · · Score: 5, Funny

    "We absolutely promise that we only want to completely screw over Microsoft with this, and certainly not Mozilla Firefox," said Google's Sundar Pichai. "That we put a pile of our sponsored Mozilla developers on the project is completely irrelevant. We're not evil, remember."

    "We are so, so happy with Google Chrome," mumbled Mozilla CEO John Lilly through gritted teeth. "That most of our income is from Google has no bearing on me making this statement."

    Microsoft was unfazed. "Browsers don't need to be integrated with online apps," said marketing developer Ian Moulster. "Certainly not like the operating system ... I'll just get back to you."

    Google's new browser will give you their web and email services, photo processing, mapping, office applications that will run in said browser and will make you a cup of tea. This is all paid for by personally-directed text ads in your tea leaves, based on analysing a DNA sample taken when you sip the tea and sending your genetic code back to Google for future targeting.

    Pichai stressed that Google would maintain complete confidentiality within the marketing department of whatever the browser accessed concerning your confidential business data, bank account details, medical information and personal preferences in pornography. "We're Google. We know where you live. In a completely not evil way. Sponsored link: Get Chrome Browsers on google.com. Or we'll make you use Windows Live."

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk
  11. Re:But does it run Linux? by LMacG · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > b) I can easily correct my error if I accidentally close a tab

    When you open a new tab, a list of recently closed tabs is available.

    Aside from that, and it's been covered all over this post, they've publicly stated that they are working on Mac and Linux versions, as well as an add-on framework.

    Most importantly, nobody is forcing you to use Chrome. If your list of requirements is absolute, then just don't use it. Simple.

    --
    Slightly disreputable, albeit gregarious
  12. Re:But does it run Linux? by Bashae · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I prefer Firefox (3) and am a Firefox user, but as a web developer, I have observed that Chrome is faster and more efficient. You can see it more clearly in certain, more complex rendering situations - For example, text scrolling on top of a fixed background image.

    Personally, what I miss in Chrome (more than the menu bar) is the status bar. I like hovering the mouse pointer above links and quickly seeing what they all do before I actually click them. I also can't understand the absence of the stop button. I know I can press escape, but it's not exactly a feature that should be that hidden.

  13. Re:just what we need by Anthony_Cargile · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I still don't understand why Google and Sun are offering the same software under different names. Google is backing the Mozilla Foundation while supporting their own Chrome (read: they didn't write Firefox, just back it), and Sun is distributing both OpenOffice and StarOffice. Can somebody please tell me why and how companies can do this?

    I would have expected somebody to stand up at a meeting and go "Hey, lets merge the products and save money!" at some point, especially in this growing economic hole (didn't Sun just do a huge layoff, too?)

  14. Meanwhile Gmail is still in beta by genner · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Someone had to say it.

  15. I know its unpopular to bag on the Mighty Google by Phizzle · · Score: 5, Interesting

    But... Have they removed that "Big Brotherly" unique ID "feature", that each of the Chrome Beta installations came with, that loudly identified you on the web?

    --
    I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
  16. Re:What Chrome still needs by ducomputergeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm sure that someone will make a plug-in to block the advertising, but considering that Google is an advertising company that sells web ads as their life blood, I can't see them offering ad-blocking in their own product out of the box. Unless it blocks all ads save for the ones from Google.

    It isn't going to replace Opera on my desktop anytime soon, but then again, they'd have to release versions for Mac, Linux, and FreeBSD for it even to run on any of my desktops.

    --
    "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
  17. Re:Attn: Network admins Security issue by rtfa-troll · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If your security policy relies on users not being able to install software but the users can install software, you have a problem; not Google.

    --
    =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
  18. Re:just what we need by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Funny

    I still don't understand why Google and Sun are offering the same software under different names.

    I would try an explain it with a car industry analogy, but there isn't one.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  19. Re:Attn: Network admins Security issue by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Informative

    (Please note, I say this as the IT guy who locks stuff down)

    Chrome's behavior is shared with many other newer programs(usually if you install them with the "just for me" rather than "for all users" option) and is a good thing. Programs that break unnecessarily because of lack of permissions they don't need are a bad thing. This is all part of the move away from legacy single-user design crap, where virtually everything requires arbitrary rights, programs die if they aren't in C:/Program Files, and there is poor or no separation between immutable system files and commonly modified user files.

    If tightly controlling installed applications is necessary, you can use signature or hash based execution restrictions, and solve the problem the right way, rather than relying on the behavior of third parties.

  20. Re:just what we need by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Then let me explain: GM is one company, but releases two virtually identical yet differently-branded trucks with similar names. For example, the Chevy Silverado 1500 and the GMC Sierra 1500.

    But, as your parent stated, that is very redundant and dosen't make much sense, especially as the companies are clearly suffering(Sun's layoffs vs. GM's bailout).

  21. Re:Attn: Network admins Security issue by BitZtream · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, you mean, it was written properly and doesn't require admin rights. So assuming you've properly configured your PC and network this software is not a major threat since it never needs to elevate itself to admin status. It can still damage files and network resources your user has access to, but thats generally far less damaging than taking over the entire PC and effective any user that logs into it or any network resource it has access to.

    Your comment is extremely ignorant and indicates that you have no clue about being a network or systems admin. You can run firefox on any windows machine that has a writable directory on it, same for almost all properly written software. Good luck running a windows PC without a writable directory some where, you'll break to many legitimate apps.

    So if your idea of 'security' is because the 'installer' doesnt write to any other directory than the 'program files' directory, then you have no security at all. What do you do about the people who install software on their own PC at home then just copy the files to a USB drive, bring it to your network and copy those files to the %TEMP% directory, or their %USERPROFILE% or %APPDATA% directories, all of which you will typically have write access to?

    Google isn't going to 'fix' this 'issue' because the 'issue' is with the person who thinks a flaw, no amount of complaining to anyone is going to help you, all the people you would be complaining to have about a billtion times more of a clue than you do about the 'issue'.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  22. Re:I know its unpopular to bag on the Mighty Googl by Enderandrew · · Score: 3, Informative

    I only used Chrome for a day before going back to Adblock Plus and Firefox, but I swore there was an option to turn this off.

    Then again Google already has tons of my private data via email and I'm not overtly paranoid. If you want a version of Chrome that doesn't phone home at all, check out Iron.

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
  23. Re:just what we need by Tokerat · · Score: 5, Funny

    God dammit there IS always a car analogy! You're a genius!

    --
    CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
  24. Re:just what we need by glittalogik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Vauxhall Astra
    Opel Astra
    Chevy Astra
    Saturn Astra
    Holden Astra

    QED

  25. Re:just what we need by markkezner · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They never planned to make money directly from the browser, or to dominate the browser market.

    They use it as a vehicle to implement web standards, under a license that allows any other browsers to adopt the improvements. Thus the web improves, which directly benefits Google (as well as others)

    --
    Dangerous, sexy, turing complete: Femme Bots
  26. Re:just what we need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    A car industry or an analogy?

  27. Re:just what we need by lysergic.acid · · Score: 3, Informative

    Google also offers a variety of other web services besides search. and most Google Apps services have complex enough interfaces to make cross-browser compatibility a major hassle, i imagine.

    as for StarOffice/OpenOffice, i think it's important to first understand why Sun purchased StarOffice:

    The number one reason why Sun bought StarDivision in 1999 was because, at the time, Sun had something approaching forty-two thousand employees. Pretty much every one of them had to have both a Unix workstation and a Windows laptop. And it was cheaper to go buy a company that could make a Solaris and Linux desktop productivity suite than it was to buy forty-two thousand licenses from Microsoft. (Simon Phipps, Sun, LUGradio podcast.)

    offering StarOffice as a free download (for personal use) was a great way to promote their office suite and did not conflict with their original goal. then perhaps following in the footsteps of Netscape with Mozilla, Sun opened the source code for StarOffice, creating OpenOffice. this further boosted the popularity of StarOffice/OpenOffice (which /. no doubt had a hand in) and also accelerated the development of the StarOffice code base by enlisting the help of the open source community.

    Sun then adds proprietary components to snapshots of the OpenOffice code base to develop StarOffice. these proprietary components include:

    • Several font metric compatible Unicode TrueType fonts containing bitmap representations for better appearance at smaller font sizes
    • Twelve Western fonts (including Andale Sans, Arial Narrow, Arial Black, Broadway, Garamond, Imprint MT Shadow, Kidprint, Palace Script, Sheffield) and seven Asian language fonts (including support for the Hong Kong Supplementary character set)
    • Adabas D database
    • StarOffice-only templates and sample documents
    • A large clip art gallery
    • Sorting functionality for Asian versions
    • File import filters for additional older word-processing formats (including EBCDIC, DisplayWrite, MultiMate, PFS Write, WordStar, WordStar 2000, and XyWrite (conversion filters licensed from MasterSoft))
    • A different spell checker (note that OpenOffice.org includes a spell checker as well) and thesaurus
    • StarOffice Configuration Manager
    • Macro Converter for converting Microsoft Office VBA macros to StarOffice Basic

    so by contributing to OpenOffice, Sun is still just contributing to StarOffice. funding both projects allows them to have the best of both worlds, and doesn't really cost them anything extra. they gain the benefits of an active open source development community, and they also get to keep a proprietary office suite to sell, in which they can include components they're unable to include in OO.org.

  28. Re:just what we need by lgw · · Score: 4, Funny

    So what you're saying is

    1) Release two virtually indentical products under different names for twice the development cost.
    2) ???
    3) Bailout!

    How much longer until Sun gets a bailout?

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  29. Re:just what we need by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Think about the Monty Hall paradox. It's a loose comparison, but work with me. If your customers are just comparing between Ford and Chevy, and your products are equal, you get 50% of the market, all things equal. If you introduce a new brand, let's call it GMC, some of the customers who might have chosen Ford might choose GMC. Since all you have to change is the 1 dollar name plate, it's a good deal.

    This is how GM has run their business for 75 years.

    --
    I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.