Talk:Google Chrome

Google Chrome Themes

Google Chrome is being liking very much by people but there is one thing which looks awkward to some users and that is it's default blue color theme but the great thing is that there are 3 different color themes are available for Chrome Click Here to Download Google Chrome Themes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.125.70 (talk) 11:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Chromium - open source base of chrome

I vote for a lemma regarding chromium: chromium builds —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.114.62.71 (talk) 07:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Creative Commons dual license

Having (re)created the entire article from scratch, I intend (but do not warrant) that it (or at least this version) also be available under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (or any later version) license. This facilitates the re-use (including commercially) of this content by others, most notably by requiring only a link to the license and attribution (without requiring a copy of the entire GFDL legal code and licensing of the derivative works under a copyleft license).

If you believe you have made a significant contribution to this version and would like to restrict distribution of your modifications to GFDL licensed works, please identify it here so as it can be replaced. samj (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to inform you but you "irrevocably agree[d] to release your contributions under the terms of the GFDL" (it says so below the edit text field). I do not think there is any way you can re-license it to a CC license now that you put it up here. SoWhy 14:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually dual-licensing allows me to both "irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the terms of the GFDL" and under the CC license at the same time - that's essentially what I've done here (but you need not follow my example with your contributions if you don't agree with it). samj (talk) 14:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm, by editing here, you have released all rights, including attribution, of the content provided. This material is copyfree. You will not be getting any attribution what so ever for it. roguegeek (talk·cont) 00:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You can still choose to multilicense anything. --Kjoonlee 04:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback but your comments show a remarkable lack of understanding of copyright issues. Clearly my statement is well considered. That said, I did find reading about this "Copyfree" guff mildly entertaining. samj (talk) 05:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool this off until the software is actually there?

2-Sep-2008, 10am. No trace of Chrome Beta. But a lot of Steve-Jobs-Announcement-Fuzz. Wikipedia, are you falling for a cheap PR campaign? The comic announces a "start from scratch", but then the browser is based on the good old mozilla core? C'mon, let's wait a few days instead of joining into some transcendental Apple-Hype about unverifiable design features! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.116.8.81 (talk) 08:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

As of right now you can downlad the installer, but all it will do is give "Installer download failed. Error code = 0x80042194. Sniper Fox (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

where did you get idea that it's "based on the good old mozilla core"? (whatever your "mozilla core" is). And I think you should read "start from scratch" as the idea "start from scratch", not the code "start from scratch". Ufopedia (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

10am GMT. — Byeitical (talk · contribs) 09:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Are you implying that these features might not actually exist in today's release? I agree that "start from scratch" is difficult to reconcile with use of open source components, but the browser architecture itself is in fact quite innovative even if the rendering engine is not. Be BOLD. samj (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Where did you get that its based off Mozilla? It isn't even using the Mozilla rendering engine (It's using Webkit) even if you chose to ignore all the fancy back end stuff like running each tab as a seperate process. 88.211.96.3 (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• They specifically credit Mozilla and WebKit on pp38, and I never said it was the Mozilla rendering engine. I've added a separate section on the rendering engine to clarify - thnanks for identifying the point of confusion. There are almost certainly other open source projects & libraries involved too. samj (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it supposed to be released at 2 "AM" as indicated on the page or 2 "PM"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.210.162.132 (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There is: "We owe a great debt to other open source browser projects -- especially, Mozilla and Webkit". But it does not mean (especially in a context of a page where it is written) they used Mozilla software when developing this browser. I would remove the note about Mozilla. Miraceti (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Webkit layout engine?

I think this uses webkits layout engine. And when detecting the browser using javascript, for me it identifies as Safari 525.13 on Windows http://www.quirksmode.org/js/detect.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yhulkdsfdd (talk • contribs) 19:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Look at the About Google Chrome on the browser which tells the story. Also the talk page isn't a forum. Bidgee (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Add feature comparison?

Feature comparison to other major browsers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.173.101 (talk) 04:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Not yet, just put what we know from the comic until we can do more, and we have list articles for that. I'm slowly converting that feature list into a paragraph or two, any help is appreciated. — Byeitical (talk · contribs) 05:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see a comparision of:

• certificate security & key management
• compatibility of cryptographic functions, including mail
• The privacy approach (cookies, session IDs, HTML headers with personal information, user-friendly privacy settings interface, TOR proxy support) - check the feature list that states "An 'incognito' mode that lets you browse the web in complete privacy because it doesn’t record any of your activity" - so what exactly happens in 'cognito' mode, esp. concerning Google's databases?
• support for disability-related special output equipment (screen readers, braille, ...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.116.8.81 (talk)

We can't do that until we have the beta. — Byeitical (talk · contribs) 08:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, let's just wait until it is released, before trying to write such comparisons or requesting features to compare to. SoWhy 08:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You can't do that even when you have the beta; it would be original research. You have to wait until the beta is out and somebody else does the comparison. 200.127.223.79 (talk) 00:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Chrome's Tabs and Opera

The Tabs part is incorrect, since Opera also puts tabs at the top of window by default, under the menu bar though. However AFAIK there's no screenshot showing where Chrome's menu bar might be (or even if there will be one), so I'll just remove the mention of Opera from it for now. Ufopedia (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I put it back in, rewriting it to "similar to Opera". According to the comic (see link in article), it will be above the nav bar. SoWhy 08:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

nav bar ≠ menu bar  ;) Ufopedia (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That's why I used the word "similar" ;-) SoWhy 13:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Reads like a marketing text

Repeating bloomy design goals and talking about how it is catered to the users, reads like an advertisement. Could we get some NPOV here, please? 88.217.192.121 (talk) 10:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. The headings "Speed" and "Stability" seem like they are pulled from marketing copy. User:JoshuaMostafa 02:05 3 September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Mostafa (talk • contribs) 01:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted "Speed improvements are a primary design goal" or the speed improvments sections. While essential, previous information was to POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.130.244 (talk) 10:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks but this was a placeholder for future subsections so I've reverted your edit and fleshed it out. samj (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"Chrome uses the WebKit rendering engine on advice from the Android team because it is simple, memory efficient, useful on embedded devices and easy to learn for new developers.[5]" If the second part is not marketing! text!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.250.209.82 (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• How would you prefer to say simple, memory efficient, useful on embedded devices and easy to learn for new developers without actually saying it? samj (talk) 11:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• The whole article is just a summary of that comic that everyone can read instead. :D But I think thats fine, like how the country articles came from the CIA originally, this article can be seen as a decent layout for a better article written when we actually know anything about chrome. --Eean (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. This page shouldn't be a summarization or a derivative of the comic. The comic is a marketing tool which fails WP:NOTE, but that doesn't matter at this point b/c of media attention. If the comic had no attention, it would be just as notable any other of Google's works of art like the Google's banner sketches. WP isn't going to have an article dedicated to google banners, just a small appropriately weighed reference [1]. All the features and things mentioned by the comic must be WP:V by a source other than Google. The comic isn't the help file/user manual for the browser. Regarding the "simple, memory efficient, useful on embedded devices and easy to learn for new developers", thats 100% WP:PEACOCK. I removed it at some point recently, if some developers agree and they can be WP:RS we can add that back in. Patcat88 (talk) 09:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Safari's Private Browsing

Safari's Private Browsing is a very ill-conceived feature that doesn't clean cache nor cookies, thus mostly meaningless and defeats the purpose of "private browsing". Therefore I think Safari's Private Browsing doesn't exactly represent the "private browsing" concept well, and is a rather poor reference. To say Google Chrome's incognito mode is similar to Safari's Private Browsing can be misleading in this case, since they have fundamental design differences, so I propose we use IE8's InPrivate Browsing as the reference, if such a reference is really needed Ufopedia (talk) 14:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's useful to credit the other browsers where credit is due. Safari were there first, even if they did a shitty job of it (I don't know - I haven't researched it). samj (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Testing

The methods used for testing chrome aren't called Unit-testing. It's functional testing.--suls (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

See page 10 of comic. samj (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I realize that Testing is an unfamiliar concept to most non-developers (and even a lot of developers) and it's something that's mentioned in the comic, but it doesn't really deserve mentioning in wikipedia's article. Do you think FireFox was not unit/functional/integration tested? Do you think IE7 was not tested? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.96.128.8 (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's interesting to capture this information; it doesn't take up much space and could help to raise the bar for automated testing efforts. If we have similar information for other browsers we should list it there too, and the whole subject probably deserves a dedicated article. Google felt it important enough to include in the comic and I felt it important enough to replicate here. If you want to propose its removal then you're welcome to make your argument here and we'll see what consensus says. samj (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Rewrote the Testing section to remove the implication that this sort of testing is unique to Chrome. Testing is not even unique to browsers or software, it's a core engineering principle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.96.128.8 (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Should there be a current bugs section?--92.19.60.149 (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say only if they are sufficiently notable to warrant external coverage (eg security) - we're not an issue tracker. samj (talk) 06:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There have been multiple attempts to remove the testing section for various reasons. This information is interesting and can only serve to raise the bar for testing which is good for everyone (except those not doing enough!). Other browsers are talking about similar testing efforts in Wikipedia so we need not make an exception for Chrome. samj (talk) 06:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Open Source?

Technically its not open source because we can't download or view the source yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.119.92 (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically it's opensource as long as source is under an opensource license, which will force the source to be available as soon as a binary version is available. You can't say it's not opensource unless, when you got a binary version, you get denied access to sources from the published. MagicalTux (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

My point is what source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.119.92 (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

As long as source is provided upon request according to the license agreement, I suppose it's OK and open source. Is there anything saying Google is actually denying access to it if asked for? Does it really have to be available explicitly as a public web download? — Northgrove 22:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and the end users licence agreement is fun to read too. There are few things i haven't found in any BSD licence yet, like:

That's not BSD license, it's EULA. The binary is distributed with a EULA doesn't mean the source is not open-source. Firefox binary is also distributed under EULA. Ufopedia (talk) 05:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

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.

Donutti (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Acid 2 & Acid3 test results are incorrect

Acid3 test results are incorrect. I just ran it under Google Chrome and received a 79/100. Please update accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlswiss (talk • contribs) 00:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hum, when I test Official Build 1583 I get 78/100, the page states 77 and Carlswiss gets 79! Why does the test give different results for different people?? I run Vista SP1. --Stefan ^talk 01:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Guess it is a very dynamic test, I get from 75 to 78 when running the test, I guess 77 is a reasonably correct value, let the article be. --Stefan ^talk 01:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think when the result fluctuates after page refresh, it should be the highest one that count as the official score. Since even for the latest webkit, it can fail randomly at times. And a screenshot of the highest value reached should accompany the article. Ufopedia (talk) 05:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I get 79/100 or 77/100 running build 1583 in win xp, depending if chrome is feeling lucky or not. Plus Acid2 test gives a happy smile every time, no error whatsoever. 190.21.46.181 (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's randomly failing test 26, which is likely due to garbage collection problems. This then seems to be the direct cause of it also failing test 27. --Lachlan Hunt (talk) 01:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It makes sense because the WebKit from Apple is likely to be the stable build, not the night update version which passed Acid3 with 100%. --218.102.133.96 (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Your work is appreciated, but it would be better to find a 3rd party source that talks about the Acid test issues with Chrome. You might want to read the relevant policy which is WP:NOR. Patcat88 (talk) 03:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the section because it is original research. Please do not add it back in unless a reliable source is found. Thanks. — ^FatalError 05:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW I agree that analysis of test results (except perhaps binary pass/fail like Acid2) is not our job - you wouldn't consider it appropriate to analyse acid titrations in a chemistry article, so why try the same here? samj (talk) 06:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a 3rd party report: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10030962-2.html KieferFL (talk) 06:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wired article

If you have the time I added an external link to a Wired article about the browser; someone should really incorporate it into the text. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Portable version

Has anyone tried to make a portable version of this with VMware ThinApp? is it possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.122.222 (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it doesn't work yet as a portable version: http://hacktolive.org/wiki/Software_compatibility_with_VMware_ThinApp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.122.222 (talk) 03:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This talk page is not a forum. 200.68.94.105 (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor punctuation error

I'm not autoconfirmed, but I noticed that under the 'user interface section', it reads "The minimize, maximize and close window buttons are based on Windows Vista". There needs to be a period behind Vista. --Leaf Jonin (talk) 03:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. King Rhyono (talk) 03:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Citing the Comic Book Press Release

I've gone through and replaced most of the "citation needed" tags with a reference the the press release comic (since that's where most of the information was likely pulled anyway -- that's where I read it first at any rate). For any other facts that were mentioned in there (and need citation) please use:

<ref name="chrome-comic"/>

Ve4cib (talk) 04:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put the comic book into accessible plain text here: Google Chrome (comic book text). It has targets for each page (page 3) and links to each page image of Google's original document. --merriam (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The comic is nothing more than a press release or viral marketing tool by Google. Please do not use it as a source except for itself (the comic). The comic is not a WP:RS. Please read WP:SPS and WP:SYNTH. We need independent sources to verify what the comic says if what the comic says is correct and not conjecture by users of the browser. Patcat88 (talk) 08:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The term "Press Release" appears in the heading above your comment. Let's not have a media studies lesson here. Aren't you an independent source? What are you waiting for? (That was an interesting approach.) --merriam (talk) 10:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Design

Multiprocessing - This term is incorrect. It should be "multiprogramming". Also, it needs to be explained what the problem with single-threaded browsers and what issues multiprogramming is trying to solve. It sounds like one tab hanging or crashing the others is the sole issue addressed (which could already be solved by launching separate browser processes in browsers that supported this modality, such as IE), and not necessarily javascript hanging the page UI or the like (if not, this should be clarified). Also, "This strategy exacts a fixed per-process cost up front but results in less memory bloat overall as fragmentation is confined to each process and no longer results in further memory allocations.[citation needed]" makes no sense. If a citation cannot be found, or if the claim cannot be clarified, it should be removed immediately. My best guess is that it is referring to growth in heap space that can theoretically occur with reuse of the same process for repeated browsing. This *might* be cured if you only opened new sites in new tabs and closed old tabs, or if Chrome reinstantiates processes when navigating away from a site (an interesting design if true), but otherwise it probably doesn't actually impact real users and is marketing hyperbole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.26.4.40 (talk) 06:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC) (eightyfiv)

of course it's not multiprocessing, but it's not multiprogramming neither. Most of the citations can be found in the official google chrome comics here : http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/ you should read through that first, since that's one of the few available official "documentation" about Chrome that we can find and cite out there. Ufopedia (talk) 06:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Full-Disclosure[2] points out that the propagated strict separation of all tags and plugins is not true as the whole browser crashes if a preparated page is loaded in a single tab. Therefore the claim of having a "rock solid" engine with sandboxed tabs that can't affect each other is, simply spoken, a lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.169.16.18 (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

License agreement

It is not our place to go through Google's license agreement with a fine toothed comb and point out every possible privacy flaw. I previously reverted the section but it was re-added as "extremely important". It has some pretty bad NPOV issues, and I don't believe it even belongs in an encylopedic article. Can we get some consensus on this? — Byeitical (talk · contribs) 06:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree also can be seen as original research. Bidgee (talk) 06:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's uncited NPOV, stating that Chrome is a trojan virus. It definetly needs to go. --w^{L<speak·check>} 06:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done — It has been removed. — Byeitical (talk · contribs) 06:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The major issues pertaining to this topic have been mentioned in the press. I'm including the section below in a scroll box, so that it can be fixed and added back to the article. --AB (talk) 07:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If you could prehaps provide some references and put it into the form of a "Controversy" section, that'd be great, but it's not our job to quote the license agreement and point out flaws one by one. — Byeitical (talk · contribs) 08:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The binary version (but not the source code) of Chrome was issued with a license [3], which is a bit unusual for a web browser and contains some alarming provisions.

At first, the license defines the term "the Services" which means "Google’s products, software, services and web sites [...] and excluding any services provided to you by Google under a separate written agreement". It seems clear that binary version of Google Chrome is a part of "the Services". Then it says (emphasis added):

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.

This can be interpreted as a right for Google to access any information any user posts to any site via Google Chrome. Technically, such "right" could be implemented by incorporating into Google Chrome some functions for sending the content to Google. If the binary distribution does not have them, they could be introduced later via the update mechanism. Google's EULA allows Google to update its products without user's knowledge or permission:

12. Software updates 12.1 The Software which you use may automatically download and install updates from time to time from Google. These updates are designed to improve, enhance and further develop the Services and may take the form of bug fixes, enhanced functions, new software modules and completely new versions. You agree to receive such updates (and permit Google to deliver these to you) as part of your use of the Services.

Similar provisions can be found in EULAs of another vendors; for example, ICQ has the following provision:

You agree that by posting any material or information anywhere on the ICQ Services and Information you surrender your copyright and any other proprietary right in the posted material or information. You further agree that ICQ Inc. is entitled to use at its own discretion any of the posted material or information in any manner it deems fit, including, but not limited to, publishing the material or distributing it.

It is unclear if the passage is meant to include messages sent among the users or just information that is meant to be publicly available, like the user profiles.

A user who doesn't want to be bound by this EULA, can bypass it by downloading the source code, which is available under a set of other licenses (mostly BSD), none of which grant Google any rights on user-generated content. Building from the source code, although, requires Microsoft Visual Studio 2005.

Another thing is that Google prohibits using of its browser to anyone below 18:

2.3 You may not use the Services and may not accept the Terms if (a) you are not of legal age to form a binding contract with Google [...]

Google clearly stated in 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." In other words, 11.1 refers to 'Services' as Google's products, Google's software, Google's services, Google's web sites. I vote for its removal. --- Laibcoms (talk | Contribs) 11:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, there is an issue, the word "through" was used and Chrome is a product of Google. --- Laibcoms (talk | Contribs) 11:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

remove unneeded mentions of Opera?

This article is about the encyclopedic information of Google Chrome, not who came up with what browser ideas first. And I don't see any mention of Opera in Firefox's "undo closed tab" feature, or the mention of Safari in IE8's InPrivate Browsing feature. Also by this time it's quite clear that Google Chrome's tab bar idea is not similar to Opera, as Opera still has menu bar, personal bar and Main bar placed over tab bar, while in Chrome the tabs are at the top-most level, everything is organized in tabs from the multiple processes design philosophy, which is not from Opera. And although the New Tab Page's thumbnails cause it to have a similar appearance to Speed Dial, they are completely different in terms of design and functionality, where Speed Dial are manually customized shortcuts, New Tab Page is an automatically generated collection of most visited sites and stuff, which are functionally different.

BTW, if we are to mention who came up with what browser ideas first, maybe we should mention IE8 for the multiple processes design philosophy, since it's basically the same basic concept from Loosely Coupled IE

I propose we remove the unneeded mentions of Opera from this article Ufopedia (talk) 07:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove and add links to our browser comparison articles. — Byeitical (talk · contribs) 07:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Omnibox privacy issue

I haven't seen this mentioned so far, so I'd like to draw attention to the following privacy issue that is related to Google Chrome's "omnibox": any URL you enter in there is sent to Google (as a side-effect of the intelligent features of the "omnibox"). And every copy of the Google Chrome browser has a unique ID. I am not aware of any way to turn the "omnibox" off into a normal URL bar that doesn't send the URLs you enter to the browser's company. Neitram (talk) 09:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: Google says there is a way to turn off the query/URL suggestion feature. Neitram (talk) 12:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this fact should be made prominent in the article as this behavious is dramatically impacting the user's privacy rights. Maybe this is already sufficient for calling Chrome right out spyware or malware. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.169.16.18 (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"open source web browser developed by Google" -- isn't that a contradiction?

Also: why has this page been locked? comment added by Coolaborations (talk • contribs) 10:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. There is no reason why a company cannot develop an OSS project. Most OSS projects have lead developers, see Mozilla Firefox for example, but still are open source. The page is locked, because many IPs and new users continued adding 1.) vandalism or 2.) unsourced statements to the article. SoWhy 10:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It might be better to describe it as a browser developed by Google based on the open source project chromium, or as google put it: "Google Chrome is built with open source code from Chromium." The question is, does google add any proprietary code to Chromium to build Google Chrome? Or, they only add minor artwork related to branding it as a google browser. In any case, most commercial open source applications make this distinction clear. Vesal (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as the comic states it, Google says all the code is open source, which would make only the branding proprietary, as for example Firefox does it as well. SoWhy 11:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

From the EULA: "10.2 You may not (and you may not permit anyone else to) copy, modify, create a derivative work of, reverse engineer, decompile or otherwise attempt to extract the source code of the Software or any part thereof, unless this is expressly permitted or required by law, or unless you have been specifically told that you may do so by Google, in writing." Doesn't this clearly say that the executable code version of Google Chrome is not Open Source, and differs in unknown ways from the Open Source project Chromium on which it is based, but not identical with? Neitram (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, the binary distribution is EULA-based has nothing to do with the source code being open-source. For example, Mozilla Firefox is open-source, but the binary distribution is also EULA-based. And I'm pretty sure there are some proprietary stuff in Chrome just like they are in Firefox. For example the logo, the word "google" in the About dialog box, etc. etc. So for all we know, Chrome can be as open-source as Firefox and still distribute with EULA and some proprietary stuff. That's why Debian has to rebrand Firefox to IceWeasel to include in its repo. Ufopedia (talk) 13:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Security flaws

Has anyone tested the PoC exploit linked in the reference in this article? It simply doesn't work here. --189.35.31.187 (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Since Chrome already has a "prompt every time before download" option, like Safari 3.1.2, the carpet bombing exploit is basically already fixed in Chrome Ufopedia (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Synaptics problems

OK, I understand why this section was deleted previously. This is not a forum, but here is a forum http://digg.com/software/Download_Google_Chrome and you can see the same problem related by many. Could you spare my humble remarks? thanks 201.10.21.148 (talk) 12:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Advertising, conflict of interest, and innacuracy here?

Google Chrome and Webkit pages.

Events should not be described in Wikipedia articles as having occurred before they do. People are blatantly jumping the gun here. Please control your enthusiasm for Chrome until it is released and respect the Wikipedia policy of accuracy.

I also suggest that people consider whether they have a conflict of interest before editing the page. Chrome may in fact be the latest and greatest thing to happen to web browsers. But Wikipedia pages should not read like an advertisement. This page does and the appearance is that the article is being abused as part of a product launch. The article has claimed since yesterday that Chrome Beta for Windows has already been released and points to this site as the relevant referencing link. But the product download still is not available at that site and there is no information on that site stating that it has been released.

Wikipedia Policy requires that information be verifiable. The date of release and the claimed fact of release are not verifiable. You do not assist the Chrome project by leaving the appearance that this page is being abused as part of a product launch. You only threaten Chrome with scandal. Marbux (talk) 13:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)