Comments on: Is Google Chrome going to be the Firefox killer?

By: TigerTom

TigerTom — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 10:59:41 +0000

Add-ons are FireFox’s main advantage. Chrome will have to develop really fast to beat them.

By: DanGTD

DanGTD — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 05:49:06 +0000

Well wait and see.

At first glance it doesn’t offer anything new.

Maybe the thing with a separate Windows process for each tab, but I’m not sure if people really care about such technical details.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:31:35 +0000

Well, that license is not enforceable, anyway.
Many reasons I like Opera. M2, the mail client, is fast; better than gmail, and integrated in the browser. Memory consumption is good; smooth scroll, keyboard shortcuts, etc make Opera a great browser.

It sucks as soon as you enter the web 2.0 realm; since people test their sites against IE and FF, not Opera, they normally don’t work well in Opera. Opera is the most standards compliant browser, but the web is not made for it . So your bank, google sites, and that fancy AJAX sites would all be broken in subtle ways, from non-working to missing functionality.

And Opera is legendary at not listening to their users when they ask for fixes

I have a love-hate relationship with Opera.

By: David Freitag the computer doc

David Freitag the computer doc — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:26:59 +0000

They effectively say that anything that you post through them, they own. That will never work.

Why do you like Opera?

By: jose

jose — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 14:57:02 +0000

Yep; note that google has retracted that license, will fix it with retroactive effects.

I think I’m sticking with Opera though, for other reasons.

By: dario

dario — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 18:50:20 +0000

Ars Technica - Google on Chrome EULA controversy: our bad, we'll change it The interesting bit is the following:

It's worth noting that the EULA is largely unenforceable because the source code of Chrome is distributed under an open license. Users could simply download the source code, compile it themselves, and use it without having to agree to Google's EULA. The terms of the BSD license under which the source code is distributed are highly permissive and impose virtually no conditions or requirements on end users.

By: jose

jose — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 15:52:44 +0000

I’m using it now and it looks great.
Note that there seems to be a lot of talk about the EULA:
For example:
“I do not use any Google services. And I recommend everyone to start doing the same thing. Google has become a massive data mining company. It is not a search service company anymore.

We are living in “digital dark ages” where people have no rights to their privacy and personal information. Only thing that is left out to us is to stop using internet.”

(from http://lifehacker.com/5044803/chrome-probably-doesnt-hijack-your-data#viewcomments)

I’m a bit worried about this.

By: dario

dario — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:50:48 +0000

Sorry, I just realized that the LH post was not about extracting usage stats (what my previous comment was referring to) but about ownership of rights on content accessed via Chrome, which sounds to me like a ridiculous (and really secondary) issue, compared to the other one.

Still, the guy you cite is onto something when he says that “using any google service is crime against humanity”

[edited]
Here’s the coverage of the EULA issue by The Register and ZDnet.

By: dario

dario — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:38:47 +0000

Jose, are you worried about people being worried about their privacy? I know your feelings about this issue, but like it or not, I think this is a legitimate concern in the case of Google (whose own CEO Eric Schmidt once candidly declared that what he envisions as the future of the company is a service that people will use to learn what job they should apply for, what products they should buy etc.).

The fact that Chrome is open source, however, should be to some extent a guarantee that the browser is not playing tricks behind your back, or is it?