Google Chrome

[Kevin Wong]

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

[Van Riper]

On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 1:11 PM, Kevin Wong <kevin.pe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Lovin' chrome: http://www.google.com/chrome

The comic book (no kidding) that describes it gives some really
interesting information about the architecture behind it:

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

-Van

--
| Michael "Van" Riper
| http://weblogs.java.net/blog/van_riper/
| http://www.linkedin.com/in/vanriper
----
| Silicon Valley Web JUG
| mailto:van_...@dev.java.net
| https://sv-web-jug.dev.java.net
----
| Silicon Valley Google Technology User Group
| mailto:van....@gmail.com
| http://sv-gtug.org

[Alexis Moussine-Pouchkine]

Best analysis so far: http://tinyurl.com/6zj5xe :)

[sherod]

Sadly, it doesn't work through a corporate ISA proxy server that uses
NTLM authentication, so I'm left to surf the corporate intranet.

Wow, look at those HR polices.

Anyway, Firefox is the only loser with this browser as I think
browser users fall into two camps

1. Ones who switch to the latest thing (and who may move from Firefox
to Chrome)
2. Those who don't (IE)

I expect to see some affects such as:

1. It should affect Mozilla's revenue stream since Google could be
cutting out their search referrals by cutting them out of the Web
browser story.
2. An increase in the support for WebKit based browsers on web sites
(Ignore my Safari no more you corporate web sites!)
3. The emergence of Chrome specific features in Google docs etc.

A bit of this depends on how Google distributes the software, will
they force it down people throats or not?


On Sep 3, 7:20 am, "Alexis Moussine-Pouchkine" <alexis...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Best analysis so far:http://tinyurl.com/6zj5xe:)
>

> On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 11:18 PM, Van Riper <van.ri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 1:11 PM, Kevin Wong <kevin.peter.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Lovin' chrome:http://www.google.com/chrome
>
> > The comic book (no kidding) that describes it gives some really
> > interesting information about the architecture behind it:
>
> >http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/
>
> > -Van
>
> > --
> > | Michael "Van" Riper
> > |http://weblogs.java.net/blog/van_riper/
> > |http://www.linkedin.com/in/vanriper
> > ----
> > | Silicon Valley Web JUG

> > | mailto:van_ri...@dev.java.net

> > |https://sv-web-jug.dev.java.net
> > ----
> > | Silicon Valley Google Technology User Group

> > | mailto:van.g...@gmail.com
> > |http://sv-gtug.org

[sherod]

I take it back, it does work with NTLM proxy servers.

[Derek Munneke]

sherod wrote:
> Anyway, Firefox is the only loser with this browser as I think
> browser users fall into two camps
>
> 1. Ones who switch to the latest thing (and who may move from Firefox
> to Chrome)
> 2. Those who don't (IE)
>

Interesting that google have not added it to the google pack
http://pack.google.com and hence google updater; if they are trying to
compete with incumbent IE on windows desktop, they still have a few
things to learn (cf. Apple Software Update).

/derek

[Nathan]

Well, it is marked as "Beta". Maybe once it's considered 'stable'
they'll do just that?

My largest concerns have already been mentioned; loss of market share
for FF which doesn't really help anything, and the rise of Chrome-
specific features in the Google products and Google starts forgetting
there are other browsers out there.

On Sep 2, 9:40 pm, Derek Munneke <derek.munn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> sherod wrote:
> > Anyway,  Firefox is the only loser with this browser as I think
> > browser users fall into two camps
>
> > 1. Ones who switch to the latest thing (and who may move from Firefox
> > to Chrome)
> > 2. Those who don't (IE)
>

> Interesting that google have not added it to the google packhttp://pack.google.comand hence google updater; if they are trying to

[Michael Neale]

It also has no java support for applets.

On Sep 3, 1:42 pm, Nathan <nathan.middle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, it is marked as "Beta".  Maybe once it's considered 'stable'
> they'll do just that?
>
> My largest concerns have already been mentioned; loss of market share
> for FF which doesn't really help anything, and the rise of Chrome-
> specific features in the Google products and Google starts forgetting
> there are other browsers out there.
>
> On Sep 2, 9:40 pm, Derek Munneke <derek.munn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > sherod wrote:
> > > Anyway,  Firefox is the only loser with this browser as I think
> > > browser users fall into two camps
>
> > > 1. Ones who switch to the latest thing (and who may move from Firefox
> > > to Chrome)
> > > 2. Those who don't (IE)
>

> > Interesting that google have not added it to the google packhttp://pack.google.comandhence google updater; if they are trying to

[Josh Long]

My biggest gripe has to be the loss (of course, I'd love to be wrong)
of a full screen mode a la F11.

Also, has anyone gotten Google notebook working?

I am encouraged by the docs at least pointing to the (as yet broken)
builds of the Mac and Linux versions. I've been known to have a
Gmail/firefox uptime in the range of months and the only issue is
having to shut down Firefox because it eventually starts slowing down
Gnome (or there's a new Firefox version)

-Josh

Thanks,
Josh
http://www.joshlong.com

--
Joshua Long
Sun Certified Java Programmer
http://www.joshlong.com/

[Caley]

Did anyone else notice the references to the Javascript engine as a
JVM?

Excerpt from http://reviews.cnet.com/browsers/chrome-beta/4505-3514_7-33238322.html?tag=box

"Chrome includes its own Javascript Virtual Machine called V8. Google
says that existing JVMs were designed to run tiny applets on Web
pages, not full applications of the kind that Google makes today.
Among the changes within V8, Chrome combines similar Javascript
classes for better optimization, and it doesn't interpret Javascript
but converts it to machine code to execute on the CPU, which speeds up
the process. V8 is also open source and will be available to
developers wanting to use it in the future."

On Sep 2, 9:42 pm, Nathan <nathan.middle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, it is marked as "Beta".  Maybe once it's considered 'stable'
> they'll do just that?
>
> My largest concerns have already been mentioned; loss of market share
> for FF which doesn't really help anything, and the rise of Chrome-
> specific features in the Google products and Google starts forgetting
> there are other browsers out there.
>
> On Sep 2, 9:40 pm, Derek Munneke <derek.munn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > sherod wrote:
> > > Anyway,  Firefox is the only loser with this browser as I think
> > > browser users fall into two camps
>
> > > 1. Ones who switch to the latest thing (and who may move from Firefox
> > > to Chrome)
> > > 2. Those who don't (IE)
>

> > Interesting that google have not added it to the google packhttp://pack.google.comandhence google updater; if they are trying to

[TBT]

It did not work on my XP box. Kept getting the "aw, snap!" message
when I went to a few sites.

Im over in Germany and everything else I DL and install works fine
(IE, Firefox, Skype, etc).

Ill keep trying to DL until they get things fixed. Im sure the issues
will get fixed soon.

-TBT

[TBT]

It seems I was not the only one:

http://groups.google.com/group/google-chrome-help-troubleshooting/browse_frm/thread/96a12b80dab6df6a/0a9d4e2a88de5f9a?tvc=1&q=aw+snap#0a9d4e2a88de5f9a

Im confident they will get it fixed soon.

-TBT

> > Lovin' chrome:http://www.google.com/chrome- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Jess Holle]

Google is now promising a browser to out-Firefox Firefox -- and bundle Gears in the picture.  On the one hand, that's great.  On the other hand, we're back to the same old issues.  If applications in it do not run in other browsers, i.e. Internet Explorer, that customers insist on using, then they are at worst non-starters and at best, no longer portable, run (most) anywhere web apps.  I thought it was interesting was the opening punchline of Google's treatise:

"Today, most of what we use the web for on a day-to-day basis aren't just web pages. They're applications."

Google goes on to describe what could be an interesting application platform but that will certainly be less portable than most existing web application technologies for some time to come.  They never really justify why the application platform should be a browser at all.  In fact they make a special point to note that your applications can hide the fact that they have any relation to the browser whatsoever (which has raised some security concerns...). The between the lines message seems to be that they don't want the application platform to be anything (Flash/AIR/Silverlight/JavaFX/whatever) that won't have Google advertising right in the center of the experience -- and seem to be afraid that this might occur if someone does not greatly improve web application client technology.

In the end I have to applaud Google if they succeed in moving client technology as a whole forward.  The jury won't weigh in on this for a while yet -- it still hasn't for Android after all.

--
Jess Holle

[Amarjeet Singh]

GWT, Gears and may be, an "Android Portable Runtime". Looks like steps towards domination...

Regards

--
Amarjeet Singh
Phone: +91-98712-76661

[Vince O'Sullivan]

Terms and Conditions

from condition 11.1:

"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 that you submit,
post or display on or through the Services."

Is this a standard condition for all browsers?

[Kevin Wong]

I've heard Update 10 applets work on Chrome.

On Sep 3, 1:26 am, Michael Neale <michael.ne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It also has no java support for applets.
>
> On Sep 3, 1:42 pm, Nathan <nathan.middle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, it is marked as "Beta".  Maybe once it's considered 'stable'
> > they'll do just that?
>
> > My largest concerns have already been mentioned; loss of market share
> > for FF which doesn't really help anything, and the rise of Chrome-
> > specific features in the Google products and Google starts forgetting
> > there are other browsers out there.
>
> > On Sep 2, 9:40 pm, Derek Munneke <derek.munn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > sherod wrote:
> > > > Anyway,  Firefox is the only loser with this browser as I think
> > > > browser users fall into two camps
>
> > > > 1. Ones who switch to the latest thing (and who may move from Firefox
> > > > to Chrome)
> > > > 2. Those who don't (IE)
>

> > > Interesting that google have not added it to the google packhttp://pack.google.comandhencegoogle updater; if they are trying to

[Robert Casto]

Are you saying that they now want to own all the data that we actually submit through a browser, not just the data we choose to store in say Google Docs or Gmail? That is a bit too inclusive as many of us do web banking, stock trading, etc. If they want ownership of all that data, then I'll be uninstalling this spyware.

--
Robert Casto
www.robertcasto.com
casto....@gmail.com

[Vince O'Sullivan]

On Sep 3, 3:56 pm, "Robert Casto" <casto.rob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are you saying that they now want to own all the data that we actually
> submit through a browser, not just the data we choose to store in say Google
> Docs or Gmail?

It appears to include anything that you so much as look at, not just
what you submit.

[Robert Casto]

Why does Google want this?

My guess is that if they can see everything you look at, they can put ads on the page themselves. They won't need to have people put the ads on their website, they will just do it themselves. This could change how ads are placed/shown on websites in a major way.

[DAemon]

It wouldn't include anything that you look at, because you can't grant
Google licenses for stuff that you don't own. That said, anything that
you own and then either look at, edit, upload, etc., they can use
however they like

I do wonder what happens if you use Chrome to access services that
also have a similar clause, such as Adobe Photoshop Express. Licences
to all, I guess.

- DAemon

[Van Riper]

On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Michael Neale <michae...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It also has no java support for applets.

Actually, it does. However, they require Java version 6, update 10:

http://tinyurl.com/6hv89n

As others have blogged, this might be the best thing for Java in the
browser because users of Chrome will have the enhanced support for
Java in the browser that this version of Java provides.

-Van

--
| Michael "Van" Riper
| http://weblogs.java.net/blog/van_riper/
| http://www.linkedin.com/in/vanriper
----
| Silicon Valley Web JUG

| mailto:van_...@dev.java.net

| https://sv-web-jug.dev.java.net
----
| Silicon Valley Google Technology User Group

| mailto:van....@gmail.com
| http://sv-gtug.org

[mbien]

On Sep 3, 7:26 am, Michael Neale <michael.ne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It also has no java support for applets.

works for me... and for others too
http://forums.java.net/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=296822&tstart=0#296822

>
> On Sep 3, 1:42 pm, Nathan <nathan.middle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, it is marked as "Beta".  Maybe once it's considered 'stable'
> > they'll do just that?
>
> > My largest concerns have already been mentioned; loss of market share
> > for FF which doesn't really help anything, and the rise of Chrome-
> > specific features in the Google products and Google starts forgetting
> > there are other browsers out there.
>
> > On Sep 2, 9:40 pm, Derek Munneke <derek.munn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > sherod wrote:
> > > > Anyway,  Firefox is the only loser with this browser as I think
> > > > browser users fall into two camps
>
> > > > 1. Ones who switch to the latest thing (and who may move from Firefox
> > > > to Chrome)
> > > > 2. Those who don't (IE)
>

> > > Interesting that google have not added it to the google packhttp://pack.google.comandhencegoogle updater; if they are trying to

[Van Riper]

On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 11:16 PM, mbien <mb...@fh-landshut.de> wrote:
> On Sep 3, 7:26 am, Michael Neale <michael.ne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It also has no java support for applets.
> works for me... and for others too
> http://forums.java.net/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=296822&tstart=0#296822

The reason it works for some and not others is that it carries over
plugin support (at least when installing on machine with Firefox as
default browser) from your default browser to your new installation of
the Google Chrome browser. However, it requires Java 6 Update 10 for
java plugin support. So, users already living on the edge with beta
release of that are working from the get go with Chrome. You can too
by upgrading to Java 6 Update 10 too:

http://tinyurl.com/6hv89n

--
| Michael "Van" Riper
| http://weblogs.java.net/blog/van_riper/
| http://www.linkedin.com/in/vanriper
----
| Silicon Valley Web JUG

| mailto:van_...@dev.java.net

| https://sv-web-jug.dev.java.net
----
| Silicon Valley Google Technology User Group

| mailto:van....@gmail.com
| http://sv-gtug.org

[luis.cornejo]

@Sherod,

I was testing it out can you gives us the lowdown on how you enabled
ntlm?

TIA
-luis-

[Christian Catchpole]

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

Google backtracks on Chrome license terms. 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.

On Sep 4, 1:07 am, "Robert Casto" <casto.rob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why does Google want this?
> My guess is that if they can see everything you look at, they can put ads on
> the page themselves. They won't need to have people put the ads on their
> website, they will just do it themselves. This could change how ads are
> placed/shown on websites in a major way.
>

> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Vince O'Sullivan <vjosulli...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 3, 3:56 pm, "Robert Casto" <casto.rob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Are you saying that they now want to own all the data that we actually
> > > submit through a browser, not just the data we choose to store in say
> > Google
> > > Docs or Gmail?
>
> > It appears to include anything that you so much as look at, not just
> > what you submit.
>
> --
> Robert Castowww.robertcasto.com

> casto.rob...@gmail.com

[Robert Casto]

If you look at Google Chrome for Windows - Terms and Conditions Agreement it looks like they have already made the change. Section 9 states that they are not going to do anything "bad" in relation to section 11. Section 11 now just says this.

               11. Content license from you

               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.

I guess they got the message. They made a bunch of other changes and I am guessing there might be more before this is all over.

[sherod]

Um.

Turns out I was wrong. A momentary issue with our proxy server at
work meant that it started working, but since then I've not had it
work again - and no-one at work can get it going through the proxy
either.

I just didn't want to clutter the group with a third post about it not
working again :)

[Vince O'Sullivan]

No nothing has changed that I can see. Condition 11.1 does
acknowledge that you retain the copyright to your stuff (which is
nice). Nevertheless, it still gives them the perpetual right to do
anything they want (modify, publish, sell, etc.) with anything (of
yours) that you post or look at. The sentence I quoted above is still
right there.

In that vein, clause 2.3 explitly excludes anyone not in a position to
grant them such rights from using the software. Children, therefore,
may not use this software.

On Sep 4, 2:09 am, "Robert Casto" <casto.rob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you look at Google Chrome for Windows - Terms and Conditions

> Agreement<http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html>it looks like they

> have already made the change. Section 9 states that they
> are not going to do anything "bad" in relation to section 11. Section 11 now
> just says this.
>

> *               11. Content license from you*

>
>                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.
>
> I guess they got the message. They made a bunch of other changes and I am
> guessing there might be more before this is all over.
>

> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 8:12 PM, Christian Catchpole <christ...@catchpole.net

> casto.rob...@gmail.com- Hide quoted text -

[Robert Casto]

This is true and it would be nice if we could opt out of sending the data like you can in most other programs.

[Todd Costella]

I don’t really have a strong opinion about this announcement. We’ll see I guess.

 

There has been some clarification of the license. A bit of commentary can be found on Matt Cutts blog. He works for Google and tends to have his head screwed on pretty well from my perspective.

 

http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-chrome-license-agreement/

 

 

---

[Van Riper]

On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Todd Costella <Todd.C...@entero.com> wrote:
> There has been some clarification of the license. A bit of commentary can be
> found on Matt Cutts blog. He works for Google and tends to have his head
> screwed on pretty well from my perspective.
>
> http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-chrome-license-agreement/

Thanks for this pointer. I followed it to an even more comprehensive
post by this guy about Chrome:

http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/common-google-chrome-objections/

It is definitely worth a read for anyone following this thread.

-Van

--
| Michael "Van" Riper
| http://weblogs.java.net/blog/van_riper/
| http://www.linkedin.com/in/vanriper
----
| Silicon Valley Web JUG

| mailto:van_...@dev.java.net

| https://sv-web-jug.dev.java.net
----
| Silicon Valley Google Technology User Group

| mailto:van....@gmail.com
| http://sv-gtug.org

[Vince O'Sullivan]

On Sep 4, 9:25 am, "Vince O'Sullivan" <vjosulli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No nothing has changed that I can see.

Sep 7. Finally, I can see that the clause has changed. (Odd that it
seemed to take so long for me to see it though.)