PDA

View Full Version : Google Chrome Browser


rcers
09-03-2008, 01:26 AM
Anyone tried it besides me? I have been using it about 30 minutes now and I am very impressed - VERY impressed.

Mike

gfdengine204
09-03-2008, 01:38 AM
What is it?

Biplane Murphy
09-03-2008, 01:43 AM
What is it?

New web browser.

Figure.N9ne
09-03-2008, 02:04 AM
i'm a big fan of fire fox for the plug ins, but i'm going to wait a few weeks and try out chrome since i'm a big fan of google in general.

rcers
09-03-2008, 02:07 AM
Have not gone to many sites for plug-ins but it is SUPER fast....faster than firefox.....

Mike

simibill
09-03-2008, 02:33 AM
Anyone tried it besides me? I have been using it about 30 minutes now and I am very impressed - VERY impressed.

Mike

Yeah, it looks pretty good.

firemanbill
09-03-2008, 02:40 AM
where do you get it?

SkunkyMagoo
09-03-2008, 02:40 AM
It is not any faster than FF3 on my 64 bit system. It is nice, but not an end all. I like the most visited thumbnails when you start it up.

Also my scroll pad and/or track wheel only scrolls down not up. Beta bugs...

Firestem4
09-03-2008, 04:11 AM
hmm i didnt know google was making a browser?

enjoy the silence as i....

*dissapears on the search for the download button)

Sparky Paul
09-03-2008, 04:51 AM
I got mine from here... there's a learning curve...
http://www.google.com/support/chrome/bin/topic.py?topic=14658

Firestem4
09-03-2008, 05:05 AM
I like it so far. Although i kind of miss the taskbar at the top i'll see how i get along without it. it is fast. i like it. Clean, efficient. I like the multi-threading and separate processes.

firemanbill
09-03-2008, 01:05 PM
I got mine from here... there's a learning curve...
http://www.google.com/support/chrome/bin/topic.py?topic=14658


Thanks Paul, I'll download it when I get home tonight.

groundrushesup
09-03-2008, 03:28 PM
Anyone tried it besides me? I have been using it about 30 minutes now and I am very impressed - VERY impressed.

Mike

I lurb it, but I am a big fan of Google, so its not objective.

Not likely to part with my FF though, I must have at LEAST 15 add-ons running. As a web guy though I am putting it through its paces to see how it renders some more difficult content.

So far, though, it is tight. The auto-import of all passwords and bookmark data is a master stroke.

gru

Firestem4
09-03-2008, 03:45 PM
Im in the exact same scenario as you you groundrushup. Firefox is my favorite, i have a lot of add-on's already and things i must have. I can't easily part with them. But i really do like Chrome so far. so its going to be a battle of wits lol

SkunkyMagoo
09-03-2008, 04:28 PM
Be aware...

http://tapthehive.com/discuss/This_Post_Not_Made_In_Chrome_Google_s_EULA_Sucks

Firestem4
09-03-2008, 05:20 PM
Wow...That is ridiculous...What is up their a**es that makes them think they can do that? That is complete and utter bull.

Thanks for the heads up Marc...

Figure.N9ne
09-03-2008, 05:24 PM
Be aware...

http://tapthehive.com/discuss/This_Post_Not_Made_In_Chrome_Google_s_EULA_Sucks


so much for do no evil

Firestem4
09-03-2008, 05:25 PM
Seriously...I dont think i'll be using Chrome now.

fr4nk1yn
09-03-2008, 06:51 PM
When I first heard about the browser I figured they'd be up to something considering it's basically an advertising company.
I installed and went straingt to the settings to check the privacy. I totally missed that. I just figurerd they'd be collecting information on every ones browsing habits which would be bad but the truth is even worst.

I really must stop using all Google services.

Sparky Paul
09-03-2008, 07:39 PM
Back to Firefox.
Chrome wouldn't go to this site...
http://tapthehive.com/discuss/This_Post_Not_Made_In_Chrome_Google_s_EULA_Sucks

Figure.N9ne
09-03-2008, 08:21 PM
Back to Firefox.
Chrome wouldn't go to this site...
http://tapthehive.com/discuss/This_Post_Not_Made_In_Chrome_Google_s_EULA_Sucks


apparently something happened to the site because firefox wouldnt either. you need to follow the redirect and it works.

SkunkyMagoo
09-03-2008, 08:28 PM
I will just quote it.

If you're like every other geek, you were one of the many people who downloaded Google Chrome within minutes of it's 3:00PM EST release today. There's no doubt about it -- Chrome is ridiculously faster than Firefox and IE. But you, like virtually every computer user out there, probably didn't even bother to gloss over the Chrome Terms of Service (http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html).

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. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license 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. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.

11.2 You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services.

11.3 You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this license shall permit Google to take these actions.

11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above license.

In other words, by posting anything (via Chrome) to your blog(s), any forum, video site, myspace, itunes, or any other site that might happen to be supporting you, Google can use your work without paying you a dime. They can go and edit it all they want. Even further, you're claiming that you have the power to grant these rights. So the people who work for Conde Nast (Wired, Arstechnica), TechCrunch, Gawker, any of the other big web publishers, or a university where the employee is performing research probably can't agree to the Chrome ToS because these people most likely don't have the right to give a license to the intellectual property (IP) they produce.

Most likely your employee or student agreement requires that your employer/university exclusively owns all IP that you make during your time there. Many employment contracts require that the employee signs away exclusive rights to all IP they create during work hours and anything created off hours related to their employer's business. Students get their class credits and the university typically gets copyrights to any writings and exclusive patent rights to any research and inventions. In essence, many content creators (news writers, song writers, artists, copy editors, musicians, students) cannot legally agree to these ToS because they'd be in breach of their employment/student contracts. Now, this does change slightly based on jurisdiction; under German IP law, there are a number of IP rights that content creators simply cannot give up contractually.

Further, you probably can't use your company or school email with Chrome, because your company probably exclusively owns your email, and you can't give away a license to something you don't own. You also can't make representations to Google that you have the power to license this IP if you don't.

For those of you who are thinking this applies only to Google sites like blogger and gmail, read section 1.1
Your use of Google's products, software, services and web sites (referred to collectively as the "Services" in this document and excluding any services provided to you by Google under a separate written agreement) is subject to the terms of a legal agreement between you and Google.

Since Chrome is a Google product/software, then it is part of the "Services". The content you post to any site is thus subject to Section 11 licensing because the content you post is something "which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services".

And for the record, Microsoft tried this years ago with MSN messenger, where MS got an irrevocable perpetual license to all IP that passed through MSN messenger, and the net basically revolted. AOL did this too (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/11/2359226&tid=120&tid=158&tid=17) with AIM.

There are some people who have claimed that this is standard legal jargon for every piece of software. Not only is that simply not true, no clause even close to that is in the Firefox terms of service (http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/legal/eula/firefox2-en.html).

And unlike all these people who "are not a lawyer", I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this post does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. If you're like me, you use your browser for a lot more than just web browsing. The web browser is an entire application platform (isn't that the idea behind web apps?). Google simply cannot have a license to all of the IP that goes through my browser. I, as an attorney, cannot give that up, especially because some of it is confidential. The Rules of Professional Responsiblity (which all lawyers must abide by) easily prohibit this exact kind of thing. Until Google scales this back, I will NOT be using Chrome.

A number of other people have argued along the lines of "who cares about my forum/aggregator comments". This post is not aimed in regards to your web comments. Most aggregators, forums, and blogs already make these posts public domain (which means Google, or anyone else, generally, can do whatever they want with them). This is cause for concern when some band posts their audio to itunes, myspace, or amie street; Google could use that music as promotional material for Chrome. With more and more apps being shifted into web browsers, this is almost like MS claiming that it gets a license to any document in MS Word, Powerpoint, or Excel. What if MS got a license to patents, trademarks and copyrights of any software created with Visio or Visual Studio? What if Maya got a license to everything 3d model you made? What if Adobe got a license to everything made in Photoshop? We have to stand up and stop accepting these ridiculous EULAs. Others have pointed out that certain social networking services have very similar clauses in their ToS. The difference is that when you're using a content host that systematically provides open access to your content, it's reasonable that they get a license to use/modify your content. But Chrome's ToS doesn't extend only to one site. It covers everything you pass throught the browser.

Apparently, some people have misconstrued this to be saying that Google owns everything you pass through Chrome. That's incorrect. 11.1 clearly states that you keep all your rights to everything passing through Chrome. But, Google does get permission to use anything you do pass through Chrome. The end part of 11.1 limits your permission to use your content for promotional reasons, but then 11.2 and 11.3 extend that (or "clarify," take your pick) to mean that as long as Google or one of Google's affiliates use your IP in connection with Chrome, they can do whatever they want.

The worst part is the software guys over at Google (http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/common-google-chrome-objections/) saying that it's no big deal. Well, if it's no big deal, and they're not going to enforce it, then why is it in this contract? Take it out, and don't put it back in. "Do no evil," remember? I'd like to think that this is just the software guys moving faster than the legal guys and they boilerplate copied/pasted from the other ToS, but Google has an army of lawyers. Someone should have seen this.

As this topic has ended up on slashdot (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/03/0247205), some others have recommended rebuilding the Chromium source (http://code.google.com/chromium/) and associated packages which are mostly (http://code.google.com/chromium/terms.html) under the BSD license (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php). I have not looked into how easy it is to build Chromium under Windows. Of the Linux guys I've talked to about it, they either said it wouldn't compile, or that it compiled but immediately crashed. There is nothing which leads me to believe that the present day 3-term BSD license requires anyone to use Chrome's license, so this notion that we can recompile to avoid the EULA may actually have some merit.

gzsfrk
09-03-2008, 09:36 PM
It's a nice enough browser with some pretty neat features that I've already run across, but nothing ground shaking. Maybe it's because I'm running on a fast laptop, but the speed difference versus IE7 isn't really noticeable to me. So I'll probably stick with IE7 for compatibility reasons for now, but I might switch at some point in the future if there's enough incentive to do so. For now, it's going into the same category as Safari for Windows--installed, but rarely used.

Oh, and I couldn't seem to get the Flash plugin to install correctly for some reason. Go figure....

groundrushesup
09-03-2008, 10:25 PM
It's a nice enough browser with some pretty neat features that I've already run across, but nothing ground shaking. Maybe it's because I'm running on a fast laptop, but the speed difference versus IE7 isn't really noticeable to me. So I'll probably stick with IE7 for compatibility reasons for now, but I might switch at some point in the future if there's enough incentive to do so. For now, it's going into the same category as Safari for Windows--installed, but rarely used.

Oh, and I couldn't seem to get the Flash plugin to install correctly for some reason. Go figure....


Odd, I didnt have to bother, flash content came right up.

SkunkyMagoo
09-03-2008, 10:27 PM
Flash worked out of the box for me as well.

gzsfrk
09-03-2008, 10:30 PM
Weird... I went to view a YouTube video embedded in a thread here on WF, and it said I needed Flash installed. Then, when I went to adobe.com to install it, the Flash installer downloaded and showed as an EXE in the status bar, and when I clicked on it, it said that it installed. But then when I went to view a page with a flash component again, it still said that I needed Flash. Odd....

groundrushesup
09-03-2008, 10:35 PM
Weird... I went to view a YouTube video embedded in a thread here on WF, and it said I needed Flash installed. Then, when I went to adobe.com to install it, the Flash installer downloaded and showed as an EXE in the status bar, and when I clicked on it, it said that it installed. But then when I went to view a page with a flash component again, it still said that I needed Flash. Odd....

Do you have FF installed with the flash plugin active? I have a hunch that Chrome reuses that code. I know for sure that it reuses Better Gmail scripting.

gzsfrk
09-03-2008, 11:28 PM
Do you have FF installed with the flash plugin active? I have a hunch that Chrome reuses that code. I know for sure that it reuses Better Gmail scripting.

Nope--I don't have FireFox installed on this computer. Maybe that's the issue.

SkunkyMagoo
09-03-2008, 11:40 PM
As long as you have adobe flash installed it should be no problem. You use youtube etc etc on IE right?

rcers
09-04-2008, 12:38 AM
Yea - an interesting user agreement. Adobe did similar with their "on-line" photo upload site. They could use YOUR photos royalty free.....

They QUICKLY revised that when it hit the press. I suspect Google will do the same, but that is a bit issue.

Chrome didn't work well at all at my work - with a proxy.

Lets see how fast they back pedal on that agreement.

Mike

jksecunda
09-04-2008, 12:43 AM
Seriously...I dont think i'll be using Chrome now.

Me either. I tried it for about an hour(not alot of time) and did not like it. I like simplicity. I dont want my browser to save this and do that. I have no trouble browsing now.

my motto is "KISS".

Firestem4
09-04-2008, 01:25 AM
Me either. I tried it for about an hour(not alot of time) and did not like it. I like simplicity. I dont want my browser to save this and do that. I have no trouble browsing now.

my motto is "KISS".

See, i like Clean browsers that are efficient and easy to use. Accessability is a big thing for me because I dont like what i use on a regular basis to be a hassle. (Operating systems aside. there is no getting around that one. lol)

What is unfortunate is I was already really enjoying Chrome but I will not use it so long as that EULA is in place.

groundrushesup
09-04-2008, 02:11 AM
See, i like Clean browsers that are efficient and easy to use. Accessability is a big thing for me because I dont like what i use on a regular basis to be a hassle. (Operating systems aside. there is no getting around that one. lol)

What is unfortunate is I was already really enjoying Chrome but I will not use it so long as that EULA is in place.

Enh, I won't use it. I have Opera and Safari on my computers for the purpose of testing layouts, but I never open them otherwise. I'f been using firefox since before it was a whole number (0.97 I think) and there's no turning back now. My company uses Outlook Web Access which pretty much necessitates use of IE7, but FF is king where I work. Very few people use IE as a primary browser.

Tat being said, I think that on balance, it is a good thing. Anything that pushes IE8+ towards full compliance with CSS2.1 and the eventual CSS3 spec is a good thing. Heard today that the rendering is based on the WebKit (http://webkit.org/) engine, which is also good news for interoperability on the web. But I've just spiraled into a geek hole.

Pardon me.

SkunkyMagoo
09-04-2008, 02:19 AM
Really? IE8 on webkit? Interesting.....MS going open source.....

Chrome is on webkit also.

Firestem4
09-04-2008, 02:22 AM
Really? IE8 on webkit? Interesting.....MS going open source.....

Chrome is on webkit also.

:<:....has anyone seen any flying pigs yet?

groundrushesup
09-04-2008, 02:23 AM
Really? IE8 on webkit? Interesting.....MS going open source.....

Chrome is on webkit also.


No No... if only. ;-) Since IE7 they have seen the light about standards compliance, but they are not there yet. I was saying that Chrome uses Webkit. IE8 is being heralded as CSS2.1 compliant but I'll believe that when I see it.

SkunkyMagoo
09-04-2008, 02:24 AM
Oh ok hehehe.

Firestem4
09-04-2008, 02:28 AM
GAH...way to spoil my fun. lol

Figure.N9ne
09-04-2008, 05:31 AM
Oh ok hehehe.

oh phew, i was a bit shocked too

fr4nk1yn
09-04-2008, 06:23 AM
The EuLA has been changed.

SkunkyMagoo
09-04-2008, 06:41 AM
The EuLA has been changed.

That didnt take long :D:D

The internet is VERY powerful, most do not realize just how powerful.

Firestem4
09-04-2008, 08:01 AM
Hahaha. That was faster than I expected to be honest. Good. now im going to redownload it.

Firestem4
09-04-2008, 08:35 AM
Ahh...speed =D. IS GOOOOOD

ministeve2003
09-04-2008, 08:38 AM
Kevin just let me know about the Browser... I like it... but I never Liked FF... Personal preferences with Tabbed browsing... But the tabs on this are completely at the top... so it doesn't bother me...

SK

Firestem4
09-04-2008, 08:58 AM
Marcy, I think he likes it! =P

rcers
09-04-2008, 03:43 PM
The EuLA has been changed.

Just as I figured......they tried and got slapped (as they should have...). Others like Adobe have tried that hard line before and it didn't work for them either! :)

http://gizmodo.com/5045050/google-updating-chrome-eula-to-be-less-creepy

Mike

groundrushesup
09-04-2008, 05:27 PM
Just as I figured......they tried and got slapped (as they should have...). Others like Adobe have tried that hard line before and it didn't work for them either! :)

http://gizmodo.com/5045050/google-updating-chrome-eula-to-be-less-creepy

Mike


Its a little bizarre - almost makes me think it was an error from the outset. Google is definitely a company that knows what bad press on /. can do to developer-centric software like theirs... Maybe they were too busy riding scooters around the office and playing foosball to remember to update the EULA :Q

EDIT: Apparently I am right lol (http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/09/03/2130233.shtml)

rcers
09-04-2008, 05:48 PM
I guarantee it was on purpose. Well at least I think it is. But amazing to me...that anyone would have the guts to try that.......

Who knows - I would still work there in a minute.... :)

fr4nk1yn
09-04-2008, 05:50 PM
Not sure if the posted link has the "official story".
Supposedly it's a "universal" EULA, that should've been modified beforehand to fit the product.

BTW. you dou know tabbed browsing in FF can be tirned off all together(?).

If the stories I read are correct Google has released software with that clause before and it got no press, Okrut whatever that is, perhaps it was a true error perhaps a try.

Actually like about it, conspiracy theory warning: In the brief period before the news of the EULA made it's rounds Chrome beat Opera's market share according two sources.
Unless the new EULA is retroactive, doubtful, think of all that Google now owns outright (:

rcers
09-04-2008, 06:01 PM
Actually they said it would be retro........

She says that Google is

"working quickly to remove language from Section 11 of the current Google Chrome terms of service. This change will apply retroactively to all users who have downloaded Google Chrome."

SkunkyMagoo
09-04-2008, 06:02 PM
Actually they said it would be retro........

She says that Google is
"working quickly to remove language from Section 11 of the current Google Chrome terms of service. This change will apply retroactively to all users who have downloaded Google Chrome."




Oh well, uninstalled anyways. I NEED MY SCROLL!

fr4nk1yn
09-04-2008, 06:28 PM
oh. I missed that. Ruins my GREAT theory ):
Google will own the internet one day. I wonder when they're going to start a DNS service the clicks they could track then, oh wait...

gzsfrk
09-04-2008, 06:49 PM
Due to this thread, the combined levels of RC plane nerditry and computer geekiness are on the verge of reaching critical mass. WF is suddenly beginning to resemble an illegitimate love child of RCG and Slashdot. ;)

Firestem4
09-04-2008, 08:42 PM
Due to this thread, the combined levels of RC plane nerditry and computer geekiness are on the verge of reaching critical mass. WF is suddenly beginning to resemble an illegitimate love child of RCG and Slashdot. ;)


LMFAO!!!!! Damnit Gzsrk, You gave me another quote! hahahhaha

Firestem4
09-04-2008, 08:44 PM
Oh well, uninstalled anyways. I NEED MY SCROLL!
well my Scroll works, but i cant use click-mouse button 3 scroll where i drag my mouse...If its called the Universal Scroll then thats what i mean lol.

Firestem4
09-04-2008, 08:55 PM
Lets make it a threesome. Who here likes Star Wars? =P

SkunkyMagoo
09-04-2008, 09:19 PM
well my Scroll works, but i cant use click-mouse button 3 scroll where i drag my mouse...If its called the Universal Scroll then thats what i mean lol.

Oh it scrolls....just not both directions :)

Also my scroll pad and/or track wheel only scrolls down not up. Beta bugs...

Firestem4
09-04-2008, 09:41 PM
lol. Well mine is working fine. It wasn't the day before.

Figure.N9ne
09-04-2008, 10:24 PM
Oh it scrolls....just not both directions :)

mine scrolls fine on the wheel but when i click the wheel it doesnt go to quick scroll which is pretty annoying.

Firestem4
09-05-2008, 12:17 AM
Same for me Yaniel. I reported it to them, and im sure others have so we'll see how long it takes.

Figure.N9ne
09-05-2008, 06:36 AM
also cant set it to be my default browser

Firestem4
09-05-2008, 06:39 AM
Really? It's in the options, or does it just not work?

Figure.N9ne
09-05-2008, 06:56 AM
Really? It's in the options, or does it just not work?

no, i see the option, and click it, but nothing happens. i've tried restarting the browser and nothing. restarting the box and nothing. made sure everything firefox related was closed and nothing. probably just a bug, i'll report it and see what happens. not that big of a deal as i still prefer firefox for now.

fr4nk1yn
09-07-2008, 06:39 AM
Picasa 3.0 beta was just released. I went straight for "#11" in the EULA and it's word for word the way the original Chrome EULA read.

Firestem4
09-07-2008, 07:57 AM
haha. Wow. Are they seriously trying that?

gfdengine204
09-07-2008, 02:08 PM
Due to this thread, the combined levels of RC plane nerditry and computer geekiness are on the verge of reaching critical mass. WF is suddenly beginning to resemble an illegitimate love child of RCG and Slashdot. ;)

Now come on, there is no need to be nasty and call names like that!



;) :Q

ministeve2003
10-22-2008, 07:48 PM
OK, this browser sucks... I've found so many problems with it that I have to give up...

First Problems began with my hobbycity orders, when I log in, and go to orders, It takes forever... Not a big deal, but annoying... then when I go to checkout. it always kicks me out when Its trys to switch to paypals website, or prettymuch anytime I try to go through Paypal's checkout...

It has issues with ebay/paypal

It has Checkout issues with credit card ccv numbers and dates on amazon.com and walmart.com

It sometimes won't show videos that have used flash for them on websites, even though If I go to that same site with IE it works fine...

Just too many hassles for me, same thing when I originally tryed firefox...

SK

Firestem4
10-22-2008, 09:10 PM
lately my only problems with Chrome is that Any flash, web media like Videos freezes the entire browsers, and same with PDF's.