Google builds a better browser

Quoting:Their comic consists of 1 page, and it explains nothing, there ia a next link at the bottom of the page but it takes me to this message

You have to allow scripts for the next/previous to work. Just like lots those news sites that use some odd scripting for their article pages.

Quoting:You have to allow scripts for the next/previous to work.

I know. I script and adblock google by default, and also regularly remove their cookies, and actually have no pressing need to allow them, not even to read a comic.

Quoting:@Sander & others: How do I code the hyperlink to get it to display like the others?

Just post the URL. The forum will make the hyperlink for you.

Quoting:I value my privacy, and I also value being able to surf without ads. Google make their money from advertising, they are not to be trusted.

The thing is 100% open source. The native linux and mac version is their #1 priority now. When they arrive you can bet it won;t take long for packages to appear in $DISTRO repository. Get it from there. No backdoors. No EULA. Plus, you can bet that AdBlock wll be among the first 10 plugins ported from Firefox to Chrome.

Do yourself a favour and read the comic so you know what it's all about. Here's a mirror that doesn't use JavaScript: http://blogoscoped.com/google-chrome/

Google's aim with Chrome is not advertising. It's breaking IE so that MS can play funny with Google though IE's browser dominance.

Quoting:Do yourself a favour and read the comic so you know what it's all about.

I have. They are all wonderful ideas that implemented in another browser, not controlled by google will be wonderful. I still have no use for Google Chrome, Google live and breath by advertising.

Quoting:Plus, you can bet that AdBlock wll be among the first 10 plugins ported from Firefox to Chrome.

Unless Google make it available, in the way Mozilla does, it won't be available to most of the people who end up using Chrome, and I can't imagine Google doing something that is inimical to their revenue stream, even if they "do no evil".

Quoting:When they arrive you can bet it won;t take long for packages to appear in $DISTRO repository. Get it from there. No backdoors. No EULA.

[

I don't give a rats, it won't find it's way onto my desktop, and will be removed smartly if it's there by default, I still have no use for Chrome. Many of the ideas presented, will be great in a browser not controlled by Google.

> Their comic consists of 1 page, and it explains nothing...

It didn't work for me under Firefox (Windows, no scripts or ads blocked) either, but worked fine under IE. I read the first dozen pages or so.

So if Chrome is supposed to be open source why does it include this in the EULA:

Quoting:10.2 You may not (and you may not permit anyone else to) copy, modify, create a derivative work of, reverse engineer, decompile or otherwise attempt to extract the source code of the Software or any part thereof, unless this is expressly permitted or required by law, or unless you have been specifically told that you may do so by Google, in writing.

Though it looks like they have removed the offending section that has got everyone up in arms.

> ...or unless you have been specifically told that you may do so by Google, in writing.

Don't their written statements stating that it is open source (I believe the BSD license) constitute being "specifically told that you may do so by Google, in writing"?

So if Chrome is supposed to be open source why does it have a EULA at all, what's wrong with referring the the BSD license it's supposed to be released under.

@Sander: Kewl - thx!

> So if Chrome is supposed to be open source why does it have a EULA at all...

Well, that's the key question, isn't it? And why wasn't it caught by someone before it got this far? The EULA should never have made it out the door without getting caught by someone. Google has dropped the ball big time on this one.

I guess that is why the picked the BSD license, so they can relicense the binary and throw in a scary EULA like windows users are accustomed to clicking through.

It also makes me wonder what proprietary bits they threw into the windows version that is not included in the source code.

It has some cool features, and it will be cool when they are implemented into a real open source browser.

jdixon and boomboom:

That is why they used the BSD license in the first place: so they could copyright what they want to, whenever they want too. They could change their minds and back again, that's the soulless joy of using the BSD license. I am not trying to start a flame war, just saying how I feel. I don't like the BSD license because it lets humans be selfish and petty if they so choose, which of course they almost always do.

That aside; I downloaded Chrome and used it for most of the day on the desktop I run XP on and its pretty cool. I get the concept of the separate tabs and I like being able to do all the cool drag to create, recombine, etc. tab fun but I wish I could right click inside the browser and have my bookmarks. Kind of like the menu system in DSL where I can right click anywhere on the desktop and have my menu tree. That would be cool.

It would take some getting used to though, I am very very comfortable with my FF setup right now.

Quoting:So if Chrome is supposed to be open source why does it have a EULA at all, what's wrong with referring the the BSD license it's supposed to be released under.

Corporation-itis. It's FOSS. Download source. Remove EULA. Remove Google Suggest and other bits you don't like. Build. Run.

Which is exactly what's going to be done by Linux packagers all around when the Linux version hits the street. Keep an eye on Debian Experimental. I am.

Quoting:The native linux and mac version is their #1 priority now.

From http://www.monroe.nu/archives/138-Not-Holding-Breath-for-Chr... :

Quoting:So after poking at the code for a bit, it comes to no great surprise that crossplatform wasn't a big concern from the start.

#1 priority, yeah, right.

Quoting:They could change their minds and back again, that's the soulless joy of using the BSD license.

They *own* the code (I suppose) -- they can relicense it to GPL and to totally proprietary and back again, and be perfectly fine. But the code already released will stay that way.

And re the comic:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/02/google_chrome_comic_... :)

Quoting:So after poking at the code for a bit, it comes to no great surprise that crossplatform wasn't a big concern from the start.

Uh. Yeah. So Chrome isn't coming to Linux because it uses Android's Skia (which already runs on Linux since Android is Linux) and uses Chromium Views instead of Qt (Firefox ships with 3 widget back-ends and also uses it's own UI toolkit - Xulrunner). Because eh, you know, like the UI is 90% of the code in a browser.

</sarcasm>

Hey!

I'm writing this using chrome, in Windows xp, running on virtualbox ose, running on Xubuntu 7.10.

(windows xp installs easily in virtual box. Much easier than on raw hardware.)

Quoting:windows xp installs easily in virtual box. Much easier than on raw hardware.

That's sad, hilarious and oh so very true at the same time :-)

Quoting:windows xp installs easily in virtual box. Much easier than on raw hardware.

I can vouch for that.

>> (windows xp installs easily in virtual box. Much easier than on raw hardware.)

> I can vouch for that.

Ditto. Though I'm using VMware Server. I can't get Virtual Box (either OSE or commercial) to boot from the CD on my Slackware box (though it boots fine from an iso image). I couldn't get the commercial version's USB support working either. So I gave up and went back to using VMware, where both CD's and USB work. :(