Google concerns me...

Talez · Post by **Talez** » 03 Sep 2008 05:45 pm

Sunspider benchmarks are in:

Wow. Chrome is giving them a fucking trouncing. Firefox 3.0 is barely scraping ahead of Safari 3.1 and getting owned by Webkit nightly (Squirrelfish enabled) in multiple tests.

Talez · Post by **Talez** » 03 Sep 2008 05:50 pm

70 tabs open, 424M of physical memory used:

And 146M of that is Flash.

Looks like the smaller footprint of Webkit is giving Chrome an advantage even with the overhead of having to use individual processes for each window.

Twiztid Elf · Post by **Twiztid Elf** » 03 Sep 2008 06:23 pm

Talez wrote:Uhhh.... It's saying any screenshots of Chrome you post are automatically allowed to be used by Google for any purpose they see fit.

OH NOES ITS BIG BROTHER AND HE LOOKS PISSED!

I wish idiot conspiracy theorists would learn to fucking read but they consider it yet another form of government mind control.

Your apathy towards forgoing your property in order to shave fractions of a second off your web browsing is far more concerning than any cautious questioning.

Talez · Post by **Talez** » 03 Sep 2008 06:30 pm

Because screenshots are such a huge piece of intellectual property that I need to protect.

unfnknblvbl · Post by **unfnknblvbl** » 03 Sep 2008 09:36 pm

lestat wrote:http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/0 ... rs-yo.html

So, you missed the bit a few days later where Google asked to anonymise the data before handing it over then?

unfnknblvbl · Post by **unfnknblvbl** » 03 Sep 2008 09:43 pm

Twit wrote:For the worried conspiracy folk:

CNET: Be sure to read Chrome's fine print

http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/privacy.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

unfnknblvbl · Post by **unfnknblvbl** » 03 Sep 2008 09:57 pm

http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-ch" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... unication/

Texas · Post by **Texas** » 03 Sep 2008 10:25 pm

Thanks, Unfunk. Was waiting for that guy to post about it, he makes a habit of debunking Google Tinfoil Hat Hype with common sense. I especially liked David Pogue's comment.

unfnknblvbl · Post by **unfnknblvbl** » 03 Sep 2008 10:36 pm

OK, things that bug me about Chrome

The bizarre (seeming) lack of bookmark management
No extensions (Adblock and BBCode, how I love thee!)
No "Live Bookmarks" support - I miss knowing when a site has updated just by rolling over the Live Bookmark in Firefox

It's basically Safari with a different skin. Not necessarily a bad thing, but those things about Safari shit me right to tears. Thankfully there's enough going on under the hood to redeem it from the fate of being a Safari clone.

Texas · Post by **Texas** » 03 Sep 2008 10:48 pm

As lestat (I think) said - if they allow extensions on it it will kick arse.
I can't live without (home) Live Bookmarks and (work) Firebug, Live HTTP Headers etc

unfnknblvbl · Post by **unfnknblvbl** » 03 Sep 2008 10:49 pm

hahaha, I just got a "Sad Tab"

unfnknblvbl · Post by **unfnknblvbl** » 04 Sep 2008 12:35 am

Pointy Cat wrote:Also I noticed no difference in page load speeds between Chrome and Firefox.

The speed kicks in as soon as anything with Javascript is requested. Facebook, for example is shitloads faster in Chrome than Firefox.

On the other hand, I've found a weird bug with how it deals with the reply box I'm typing in... it looks like I'm overwriting text, but when I select the text, it's all there like it should be.
Odd.

Twit · Post by **Twit** » 04 Sep 2008 08:30 am

Apparently Mile Pinkerton (one of the founders of Camino) is now part of the Chrome project for Google:
http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.a" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... camino-dev

I always wanted Camino to do well, but never wanted to use it myself. Although it was supposed to be Firefox with Mac style, it never really felt that stylish compared to Safari on the Mac. And then you had to put up with being the neglected sibling of Firefox - always a step or two behind the curve. May as well just pick between Firefox and Safari. Still, some Mac users obviously liked it, but if it continues to fall behind Firefox and we see a decent Mac version of Chrome in the future then this will probably be another small means by which Chrome will eat into Firefox's (well...Gecko's) market.

Twit · Post by **Twit** » 04 Sep 2008 09:17 am

Talez wrote:It should since CSS falls under WebCore.

I can't really confirm this or anything, but just from having a quick look around at some sites it seems to me that Chrome's support for the -webkit- CSS extensions is a bit...well, dodgey. Which is a worry - why wouldn't it render the same?

Plus I find the whole thing pretty hit 'n miss in general. It sometimes just gives up and says fuckit - no web for you. Obviously it's a first beta so you'd expect some of that.

Edit - here's an example:
http://www.css3.info/preview/box-shadow/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Look at that in Safari for PC and then in Chrome. They are different (particularly rounded box edges).

Texas · Post by **Texas** » 04 Sep 2008 09:42 am

Whoops... Nice work, google, releasing a browser based on an old version of webkit with a massive security flaw... Sauce

lestat · Post by **lestat** » 04 Sep 2008 09:45 am

Talez · Post by **Talez** » 04 Sep 2008 10:33 am

Good old lestat. Run out of logic and he starts with the argument ad hominem. Good to see some things never change around here.

Twit wrote:
Talez wrote:It should since CSS falls under WebCore.
I can't really confirm this or anything, but just from having a quick look around at some sites it seems to me that Chrome's support for the -webkit- CSS extensions is a bit...well, dodgey. Which is a worry - why wouldn't it render the same?

As Tex pointed out, looks like an older version of Webkit. Chrome is currently using 525.13 which is from months ago (Feb/March). The Webkit CSS extentions are a fairly recent additions and have been in the nightly builds since mid-April and released with 525.21 which is the current release of Safari.

In theory you could just grab the latest nightly code from webkit.org and replace the WebCore stuff inside Chrome. It'd be fun to try but I don't have a copy of Visual Studio 2005. Perhaps mech would like to give it a shot?

General Chaos · Post by **General Chaos** » 04 Sep 2008 11:30 am

Jesus fucking christ! it is a browser. With a critical flaw that should never have been released but thats ok cause the shiney gadget brigade will whip up a new core and slap it in so they will be fine!!!

WOOOO!

unfnknblvbl · Post by **unfnknblvbl** » 04 Sep 2008 11:46 am

General Chaos wrote:Jesus fucking christ! it is a browser. With a critical flaw that should never have been released but thats ok cause the shiney gadget brigade will whip up a new core and slap it in so they will be fine!!!

WOOOO!

I'm on my phone, so I cbf clicking that earlier link, but if that's in relation to that 'carpet bombing' exploit, well.. it doesn't seem to work. I went to the demo site for it, and a big fat load of nothing happened..

Pariah · Post by **Pariah** » 04 Sep 2008 12:49 pm

lestat wrote:http://www.news.com.au/technology/story ... 39,00.html

Android OS and now a browser, looks like google are looking to take over the desktop, but I'm not sure if a company with the wealth of information like google should be also entrenched in your machine. Potentially a way for them to further mine more personal information about people.

Anyone else concerned about this? Or am I just overreacting.

as long as they are kept in check then im fine with them...but MSs ruling with an iron hand seem to me are coming to a close..

google is the big bulldog thats younger strong smarter and more loved it seems..so they have the seeds to overthrown one of the biggest giants..time for ms to stop wanking its balls and win back its customers..

im not on any side...but this is a fight that i will be looking forward to unfold..

GameHED · Post by **GameHED** » 04 Sep 2008 03:06 pm

#
Travis Lane Said,

September 3, 2008 @ 5:43 pm

>> Either Company X clarifies with a statement or changes the Terms of >> Service to make it clear--that wasn’t the intent.

Matt, I’m a huge Google fan and for the most part I defend Google as one of the most well intentioned companies out there.

However, I think your dismissive attitude in this case only serves to hurt your cause.

ToS and contracts don’t really care about “intentions” and they are almost always written with one purpose--the worst case scenario. When everyone’s happy, they are an afterthought, but should something end up in court, that happy-go-lucky attitude means squat and what’s in writing is all that matters.

You expect people to just shrug it off because Google (supposedly) put ultra encompassing, over-arching terms in their legalese and assume it’s not *really* what you meant? That’s an assumption only a fool would make.

If Google really believes everyone should just ignore the terms of service and assume the best, then why have them at all? Why don’t they write ToS that drop the menacing legaleze and say “just use our products and respect your fellow man”?
Ha! Because your lawyers don’t share this happy-go-lucky attitude you seem to think the world should adopt (except Google).
Lawyers will always default to asking for the moon and negotiate from there.

And that’s just what happened, isn’t it? Google asked for the moon (supposedly out of laziness, but who can be sure) and got caught. There was an uproar, so now they’re looking into softening their position.

Sorry Matt, I love what you’ve done with Chrome, I respect you and your work, and I want to defend you when I can, but in this case you’re either drunk on the kool-aid or very, very naive.

http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-ch" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... ent-132795
This guy made a good comment about pointing out mistakes. Even if they never intended any harm, it's important for the paranoid conspiracy theorist to help point out all those little things they are concerned about and help improve it. Just like how you might be concerned about bugs or security in a piece of software. Your intention isn't to harm their reputation or make fun of them, but to hope they improve it, and once the change is made they will leave you alone.

The way it was done was "you are all paranoid conspiracy theorists and have nothing to worry about I assure you so STFU" kinda pisses off the people with real genuine concern, (not the guys trolling for attention) I think that is what angers some of the more serious people who don't appreciate being labelled like that in a negative way.

Now that the change is made and there is nothing to worry about, you should thank them for pointing out these concerns to get google to change whatever people were worried about regarding privacy issues.
'Concern' doesn't automatically mean bashing. Just listen and see what they have to say without being insulting. The squeky wheel gets the oil. If nobody pointed it out, would anything get done?

And this is an interesting topic:

#
Dave (original) Said,

September 3, 2008 @ 7:32 pm

Matt, can you explain to me why Google has implemented a stealth mode that leaves no trace on the Machine of the sites that have been visited?

I saw in Google comic book story on Chrome that is for uses such as buying a surprise Birthday gift etc. Do you really think that paedophiles will NOT use this to prevent being caught by a Family members and friends etc?

Is it just me that believes; having a right to do something does not make one right in doing so?

Is it just me that believes; 1 million+ Birthday surprises ruined is much better than one child’s life ruined?

I think nintendo should start making their own web browsing program for pc. Only computers who shared their friend codes can connect..

Every single site you visit must have your friend code.

unfnknblvbl · Post by **unfnknblvbl** » 04 Sep 2008 07:35 pm

lestat wrote:

Well, would you look at that:

http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-ch" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... agreement/

Google Chrome's EULA now wrote: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.

That better?

Talez · Post by **Talez** » 20 Sep 2008 10:17 am

Dear Google,

It's on!

Luv,
The WebKit Team

Fucking. Trounced.

Here are some SunSpider numbers on my 2.16 GHz MacBook Pro, using 50 runs with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.1%:

SquirrelFish Extreme: 943.3 ms
V8: 1280.6 ms
TraceMonkey: 1464.6 ms

pilonv1 · Post by **pilonv1** » 20 Sep 2008 10:54 am

what does this mean

The Games Ranch

Google concerns me...

Re: Google concerns me...