Talk:Google Chrome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated B-Class, Mid-importance)
Crystal 128 kcontrol.png
Information technology portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Exquisite-network.png
 This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
WikiProject Free Software (Rated B-Class, Mid-importance)
Crystal Clear device cdrom unmount.png
Free software portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Free Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of free software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Internet (Rated B-Class, Mid-importance)
Crystal Clear app browser.png
Internet portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Updated DYK query.svg A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on September 7, 2008.
September 3, 2008 Articles for deletion Speedily kept
edit · history · watch · refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Google Chrome:
  • Get proper sourcing for this article. Most sources are WP:SPS.
  • Say not synchronizable with "Google bookmarks".
  • Add a section about the dispute around if it's "open-source".
  • Extend the lead section to give a clear overview as per WP:LEAD
  • Build-numbering explaining

Archives
  1. Sep 2008 - Dec 2008
  2. Dec 2008 - ???

Contents

[edit] Chromium license

I've made alterations to the article regarding the licensing of Chromium — in particular, removing the incorrect statement that "the overall program can only be distributed per the terms of the GNU GPL".

This is plainly false — if it were true, Google would not be able to distribute Chrome with its more restrictive EULA. A closer look reveals that the "GPL-licensed" code referred to is actually tri-licensed, Mozilla Public License/GPL/LGPL, thus not obliging its derivatives to be released under GPL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WebDrake (talk • contribs) 15:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Usage tracking section

I've added a table and cleaned up some of the phrasing in the Usage tracking section. I'm wondering if information about what google claims to do with the data, and what it claims it's being used for, is notable enough and should be included. I will appreciate your input. --Nezek (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Additionally the cells marked as "unkown" might simply need a source. --Nezek (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I am wondering why this wiki does not contain any discussion about privacy at all. Also there is not any criticism, like user rights (Google claiming to own the content users are creating) that were all over the press. This is strange. Here are some links: http://coderrr.wordpress.com/2008/09/03/google-chrome-privacy-worse-than-you-think/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13739_3-10038963-46.html?tag=mncol;title http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2008/sep/04/googlechromeprivacyissuesa 128.100.5.136 (talk) 01:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I updated the discussion of autoupdate in this section to provide details about how it works on Mac and Linux, and about how to control autoupdate on Windows and Mac. (Disclaimer: I'm a Chrome developer.) Dankegel (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Reception

It seems odd that the reception section does mention user reception. It seemed like it was split, people either loved chrome or hated it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.190.4.245 (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no reliable sources to show what the "user reception" was like. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit]

I was wondering if anyone could use the logo from the Chrome Thank You page. 98.203.202.34 (talk) 08:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Done --Unapiedra (talk) 09:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I switched to using the official "Google chrome" logo as seen on that Thank You page and elsewhere. Software logos should display the official brand logo as far as possible, and the icon is only used if such is not available. -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 05:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. I undid that since more articles were in favor of the icon (Opera (web browser)), and less in favor of the brand logo (Firefox) -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 05:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be better if we used this logo. Rather just an icon. --Jecshack (talk) 06:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Chromium distinction

Editing SRWare Iron made me realise that there should be a linkable page (separate article OR section in this) that would explain what Google Chromium is. Even better would be a short description highlighting the difference between Chrome and Chromium.

This article at the moment starts of describing two different things. I think this is confusing and also it cannot be linked to Chromium directly. Any thoughts on what to do? --Unapiedra (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. We need a Chromium (browser) article. This article should talk only about Google Chrome, links to other browsers that use Chromium code should be in the new Chromium page. man with one red shoe 22:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added the Chromium (browser) article. I am not entirely sure this is the best way to go but for the moment it will do. Better than nothing at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unapiedra (talk • contribs) 22:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation of distinction

Technically Chrome = Chromium except for a logo , it's the same browser made by the same people, the only significant difference between them is branding. Google use the name 'Chromium' for the development project and unstable builds and reserve the brand name 'Chrome' for the mass market end-user product. This is so a search for 'Chrome' brings brings up only shiny marketing, clean pages and stable, tested releases. They chose to use a different name, 'Chromium' for development so non technical users and the media who aren't familiar with open source development don't download an unstable development build and review it as if it were the shipped product. The Chromium pages are there for the developers at Google and other hackers, the bug tracker and commit log are resources that wouldn't be exposed for a closed source product.

Mozilla had the problem that eager but non-experienced end users would download pre release versions of Firefox and then review it as if it were the final product. This is why Mozilla now unbrand their alpha builds, removing the Firefox logo and replacing it with names like 'Deer Park' and 'Shiretoko'. But still, it's the same browser, same people. Do we have a separate article for 'development of Mozilla Firefox'? matt me (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This is what the distinction means. The articles should make this clearer.

[edit] Chrome for Mac and Linux

Google has released an alpha release of chrome for Mac and Linux, mentioned by macworld, pcworld, the NY Times Telegraph, see linked:http://www.macworld.com/article/140998/2009/06/chromemac.html,http://www.pcworld.com/article/166185/google_chrome_for_mac_hands_on.html,http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/google/5454080/Google-Chrome-comes-to-the-Apple-Mac.html. Also, I have the download sites for both mac and linux: mac download site: http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/eula_dev.html?dl=mac, Linux i386 download:http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/eula_dev.html?dl=unstable_i386_deb, Linux AMD 64 download site: http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/eula_dev.html?dl=unstable_amd64_deb --Austinbparker (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

That seems worth noting at the bottom of the Releases section , I'll give it a shot. Disclaimer: I'm a Chrome developer. Dankegel (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Windows 2000

It is Notable that Chrome/Chromium does not support Windows 2000, even though it is very similar to XP -- this seems like a somewhat artificial limitation. There is some discussion of ways to trick Chrome into trying to run under 2000, with perhaps some reported success. If the program is really open source, is there a fork that does run on 2000? There seem to be many portable versions floating around, some of which claim to run under even Win9x, which is probably not true. Do any portable versions run well under Win2000? -71.174.188.171 (talk) 12:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Features para

Can the "Development" header be changed to a more appropriate "Features"? I also want to include in a section about the development tools built-in to the browser. May I proceed? -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 09:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, development information can be moved into the history section. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Done the "Features" rewrite, and I integrated anything that could be considered purely historical and of no value within the "current features" para, into the "History" section. -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 01:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Chromium

The entire Chromium article is a duplicate of the "chromium" section in this article, a little more info in the article header perhaps, but all that can easily be merged into this one. -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a sign we need to remove much of the chromium section from Google Chrome. They need to be separate articles because are separate things. man with one red shoe 18:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Are they really separate things? Firefox has similar alpha builds (called "Minefield") but still there is no separate article for them. The layout engines warrant separate articles but WebKit has already an article (as has Gecko (layout engine)). I think a separate article for Chromium is not really warranted as it is just an alpha version of the same product we have here. Regards SoWhy 20:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know, but look at the content of Chromium section, it talks about different browsers based on Chromium that are not released by Google, those are clearly different products than Google Chrome since they are released by other entities. man with one red shoe 20:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
The difference is Chromium isn't merely the trunk of Google Chrome, it's a separate distribution, like SeaMonkey, K-Meleon, and others are of Mozilla Firefox. ¦ Reisio (talk) 06:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
But unlike those Chromium is explicitely a project that is not for release and distribution but only for testing of new features. Yes, unofficial builds are released using that code but there are also Firefox derivatives using the same code (see Iceweasel for example) without the code itself having a separate article. Regards SoWhy 08:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Says who? | You just linked to a separate article. ¦ Reisio (talk) 10:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but that's the point. To take my example, if we compare Firefox with Chrome, then Iceweasel's counterpart would be for example SRWare Iron, not Chromium. Both Iceweasel and Iron are different products (to a degree) that build on the Firefox / Chrome code. But there is no article Firefox alpha releases which would be the equivalent to Chromium because there is no separate notability for those. Instead, it's in the main article at Mozilla Firefox#Future developments. If you read the Chromium article, you will notice that there are no third-party references that cover Chromium itself outside Chrome or one of the third-party applications built upon it and thus I do not see how it warrants a separate article. Regards SoWhy 14:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Correct; and its not notable enough since it is (or was) based upon the Chrome codebase (even if its not the exact same trunk). And besides, "Chromium" is not a public/production browser (like SeaMonkey or K-Meleon) its only a codename for testing purposes.. much like Windows 7 was codenamed Windows "Vienna". -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
If it has multiple reliable sources giving it significant coverage, then it is notable. Otherwise, it is not notable. --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
This discussion is not about notability, since notability does not warrant separation. Even related issues that are very significant independently, are merged into a single article if they contain duplicate/overlapping content. Since Chromium is essentially Chrome with a difference and therefore much of the Chrome article could apply to Chromium, (eg. Features or Reception), merging ensures that readers will find information related to both. -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
We have links and redirects for that. ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Your comments are so casual that it appears you want to argue without even trying to understand. Why do you wish to keep these two articles separate when they're based upon the same product? -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 05:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The Chromium article's lead states: "It should be noted that the project is called 'Chromium', but the application under development is still Chrome, (if not specifically Google Chrome), with the developers stressing that the name 'Chromium' should not appear throughout the application code." -- I believe that this fact alone warrants merging. -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 05:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
That ship has sailed. Utterly. Article updated. ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Whatever you mean by that Google Search link, the official project documentation explicitly states: "Chromium" is the name of the project, not the product, and should never appear in code in variable names, API names etc. Use "chrome" instead.
Don't delete content only to bend the article to fit your viewpoints. You're not the "owner" of the Chrome project either. -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 11:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
It has something to do with the Chromium devs contradicting their own style guidelines, assuming that bit even means what you think it does. Regardless, we don't work for Google, and have our own naming policy. ¦ Reisio (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
What has the statement ""Chromium" is the name of the project, not the product" to do with style guidelines? This is an official remark and you are nobody to dismiss it at false. If you cannot explain yourself I'm proceeding with the merging, since I already have the support of a respected admin (SoWhy). -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
As I said, we don't work for Google — their guidelines are not ours; it being an official remark from them has little bearing on our policy. You've no consensus for merging. In fact if we went by a tally, so far it would be 4 to 2 against merging. No amount of last-wording is going to make this happen for you. ¦ Reisio (talk) 06:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with guidelines, simply to do with very related issues. Wikipedia is not a tug-of-war where the greater population rules. Its about simplicity and quality. Last-wording or not, the two articles are so related that they have duplicate content. What say about condensing the duplicated Chromium content (1 vs 2) from the Chrome article, deleting details irrelevant to the Chrome product? -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 08:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not a tug-of-war where the greater population rules." Yes, it is. A little redundancy that is relevant to both articles (and it is), won't hurt anything. ¦ Reisio (talk) 09:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
A little redundancy? Practically the whole Chromium article is a dup ... so I'm going to begin rewriting it (and the related parts in the Chrome article) keeping the relavent issues. And you can't stop me because I'm only improving the article, not doing anything that requires general agreement. -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
If that's all you do, there's no reason I'll want to stop you. ¦ Reisio (talk) 08:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Exactly; And since Chromium is NOT Google Chrome I would never want to merge the articles anyways. Thank you for your cooperation. -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 09:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The two articles should remain separate. To start off with there was the previous discussion which came to the conclusion that the two articles should be distinctly separate, please refer to that. To revert that would be going back on previously reached consensus. Secondly, to cover Chromium within the Google Chrome article would create a large amount of bloat in the article, filling it with what would be mostly irrelevant information, and would serve only to confuse the uninformed reader. Regarding notability, remember that many articles have sections within them which are later expanded into independent articles. --P.Marlow (talk) 08:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"going back on previously reached consensus" Immaterial. ¦ Reisio (talk) 09:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
"previously reached consensus"? That was just 3 chats between two people, including the "red shoe man" who confesses to understanding little about the issue ("I don't know, but look at..."). Don't simply link to a past discussion to justify your own viewpoints. Note how the flaw that initiated the separation has still not been fixed. (Chromium discussed in lead of Chrome)
"Bloat"? Good point. Should I condense the "Unofficial Chromium releases" section in the Google Chrome article? Because its a complete duplicate of the Chromium article (with exception to the lead) -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Why not just follow what Google said, according to this article in the Developer Documentation: ""'Chromium' is the name of the project, not the product, and should never appear in code in variable names, API names etc. Use 'chrome' instead." That means two distinct things. There should be two articles. -- Haxwell (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] SRWare Iron

Another issue is that some other browsers (like SRWare Iron) are based on Chromium but shouldn't really be discussed on Google Chrome page because they have no direct connection with either Google or Chrome. man with one red shoe 23:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
You've said this before too, and its not related to the Chrome/Chromium discussion above. Its about another change you wish for the article. -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
It's certainly related, SRWare Iron is something that has nothing to do on this page, but it should be in a page about Chromium, if you want to merge the articles you'll have to lose this content because is not related to "Google Chrome" it's related to Chromium. man with one red shoe 23:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Also if SRWare Iron and other similar browsers find a place in Chromium and not a place on this page you can't argue successfully that the Chromium article is a dupe. man with one red shoe 18:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Name change urgent

With the announcement of Google's other "Chrome" product, the Chrome Operating System, we urgently need to change the name of this article to include the word "browser". --Lester 10:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Nah. The blog announcement consistently appends ' OS' for the "OS", and uses 'Google Chrome' for the browser. At the very least we can wait until the OS exists, and probably even until people actually become confused about what "Google Chrome" is (a browser or an OS), which should be some time. ¦ Reisio (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Because the new Google Chrome OS has hit the headlines, a lot of people will be searching for Google Chrome. I think it's better to clear it up sooner than later. For web browsers that have ambiguous names (that have other uses), there is already a precedent: Opera (web browser) and Safari (web browser). Chrome (web browser)? The Google Chrome page could either be a redirect, or better still a disambiguation page.--Lester 11:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

By "a lot of people" you mean the fraction that follow online tech news and aren't already aware of the distinction? ¦ Reisio (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
No. Google Chrome is the perfect name for this page. When and if the OS arrive we'll name that page according to the official name, till then it's only a blog announcement and vaporware till it's proven otherwise, it also doesn't conflict with the name of this article. man with one red shoe 14:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The disambiguation note at the top of the page handles the problem of anyone coming here looking for the OS. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Chrome Build Information

Do you think it would be worth creating a section that gives a breakdown of features added/removed in each version (Only stable builds)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckerr15 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Outdated

In the history section, it's stated:

However, the current stable version (2.0) scores 100 out of 100 while still failing the link test.

The current version is 3.0. I would update this, but I don't know if 'the link test' still fails. 58.168.72.78 (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I updated this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTechFan (talk • contribs) 21:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Latest Stable/Preview Build

I don't see the need to have a subpage template for just the latest stable/preview build. I see no benefit in having it that way. IMO it creates more work & edit history stretched across two pages instead of just one. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢  20:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

  • That template is used in other pages as well, the stable one is used in three different articles, and the preview release one is used in two articles. Not using the template means we'd need to manually update two or three articles depending on the version update, the template is much more convenient. 187.67.4.85 (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
    Link to articles that use this template? 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢  22:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
    For example Firefox, Opera (browser) and I would assume any other software that gets updated fast should use this template, it's actually a great idea, you click on the link and change only that instead of editing the entire page and finding the number to change in an entire page -- also there are less edit conflicts and it's easier to revert vandals in the main page (you don't have to backport numbers that were added after vandalism) man with one red shoe 22:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
    Those are all separate articles using separate build numbers, so I don't see how that argue is relevant to Google Chrome's latest build info. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢  22:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
    Not sure what you mean, both in Firefox and Opera we have the exactly same arrangement, a link to a template instead of having the version number put in the main page (both for current and testing versions) man with one red shoe 22:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
    Not a valid argument per WP:OSE. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢  23:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
    It's what you asked: " Link to articles that use this template? " or I didn't understood that right? I'm getting tired of this discussion, see if you find somebody else who supports your point of view. man with one red shoe 01:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
    I was talking about any articles that use the Google Chrome latest stable/preview build? If not, I see no reasoning to use it. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢  01:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
    From the "what links here": stable one and preview release one. Other than userpages, stable one is used in Comparison of web browsers, Google Chrome and Privacy mode. Preview one is used in these Google Chrome and Comparison of web browsers. I don't know why you had to ask us to show where they're used, it's very easy to find that out. 187.67.4.85 (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Chrome Preview Edits

I use the Chromium Dev link and download the latest version frequently. Then, I take the version in the About Chromium dialog box, and post it here. An example: Version Example —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saiarcot895 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Built up the release history of Google Chrome

Color Meaning
Red Old release
Green Current stable release
Purple Current test release
Blue Future release
Major version Release date WebKit[1]/
V8[2]engine version		 Operating system support Significant changes
0.2 2008-09-08 522
0.3		 Windows First release
0.3 2008-10-29 522
0.3
0.4 2008-11-24 525
0.3
1.0 2008-12-11 528
0.3		 First stable release
2.0 2009-05-24 530
0.4
3.0.195.27 2009-10-12 532
1.2
3.0.195.27 2009-10-12 532
1.2
4.0.222.12 2009-10-16 532
1.3		 Windows
Mac
Linux
5.0

I have make a release history,but I didn't know how to write the Significant changes part,can anyone help me???

Lkt1126 (talk) 10:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

0.3 — Improved plugin (Flash, QuickTime, Windows Media, Silverlight, etc) performance and reliability. Spell checking for input fields. Improved web proxy performance and reliability. Tab and window management updates. 0.4 — Bookmark manager with import and export support. Privacy section added to the application options. New blocked popup notification. Security fixes. 2.0 — 35% faster Javascript on the Sunspider benchmark. Mouse wheel support. Full-screen mode. Full-page zoom. Form autofill. Sort bookmarks by title. Tab docking to browser and desktop edges. Basic Greasemonkey support. 3.0 — New "new tab" page for improved customization. 25% faster Javascript. HTML 5 video and audio tag support. — Northgrove 10:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
4.0 Extensions and bookmark sync Mark (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Google_Chrome"