Talk:Google Chrome

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)

Seconded, because Chromium is an open-source browser, whereas Google Chrome is a proprietary closed source browser (see item 10.2 from the EULA which explicitly states the closed source status of Google Chrome) that is merely based on Chromium. The EULA under which Google Chrome is distributed is also an important difference between using Chromium and Chrome. Neitram (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I second that, too. Google Chrome is not open source. --91.0.5.83 (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Chrome is the proprietary end-user binary distribution of the Chromium open-source project, just like the end-user Firefox builds is the proprietary end-user binary distribution of the Firefox open-source project. There are proprietary stuff in the end-user Firefox builds just like Chrome. Please read the second paragraph of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Firefox#Licensing Ufopedia (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The difference between Chromium and Chrome is officially explained in details here : http://blog.chromium.org/2008/10/google-chrome-chromium-and-google.html Ufopedia (talk) 05:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

DEV / BETA Channel Discussion regarding Preview / Stable Release Versions

People keep changing the latest preview release to the release given to the Dev Channel (recently 0.2.152.1 and now 0.2.153.1) and I don't think it should be changed to that. The release that you download from the official http://www.google.com/chrome is 0.2.149.30 right now, and I believe that the download there should be the "current" release. jmh010 (talk) 03:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. That's like changing it every time the SVN trunk updates. Not very practical. — ^FatalError 19:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think dev channel releases should be added. The Chromium builds are the SVN trunk updates, the dev channel builds are the preview builds, while the beta builds are the... beta builds. In this sense, the dev channel builds are like the Safari 4 Developer Preview, which are the latest preview releases, while the beta releases are the official releases.Ufopedia (talk) 06:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I advocate the beta releases being the stable releases. Who knows how long Chrome will be in beta, judging from Gmail and Google Docs... Sdornan (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true. I was thinking about doing that myself, but I didn't just because it isn't technically "stable". — ^FatalError 01:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The way Google has structured the Google Chrome project makes Beta the "Stable" release, (as shown in Software_release, it's released public (GA) and conforms to the Stable Guidlines). Their DEV Channel then applies to the Preview Release. I have made these modifications, feel free to revert but leave your comments here to discuss. DEV Channel is not "trunk" nor SVN, so it is an actual Preview Release, as noted in their Google Chrome Release blog. - Sc0ttkclark (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Linux version of Chrome

I believe discussion about the Linux version should reference the Prism project from Mozilla that is remarkably like Chrome and available on Windows, Mac and Linux. I discovered it by accident and love it for much the same reasons i love Chrome. http://labs.mozilla.com/projects/prism/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.147.61 (talk) 02:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it has an article at Mozilla Prism. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I also like Prism a lot, but what does it have to do with the Linux version?? Prism is already mentioned at the right place in this article. Vesal (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I just read this article on ZDNet about the official Linux version of Chrome - http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Chrome-now-works-on-Linux-crudely/0,130061733,339293247,00.htm?ocid=nl_TNB_14112008_fea_l7 - should there be a mention of this in the article? Floorwalker (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The information in the article isn't any better than what we currently have. Saying that it's "in a pretty raw state" is really vague and no different than just saying it's being worked on. This article, on the other hand (summarized by ZDNet here), has a good piece of information: the fact that Chrome will be released on Mac OS X and Linux in the first half of 2009. I think we should include that. — ^FatalError 03:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Latest Preview Version

It says in the article right now that the latest preview version is 0.3.154.3. Yet when I open up my copy of Chrome, it says in its About Google Chrome dialog box that it is up to date with a version number of 0.2.149.30. What is the reference for the preview version number of 0.3.154.3?--Susurrus (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

These are dev-channel releases. See the discussions above about which ones to list. Vesal (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Unofficial builds

I don't understand why were are listing off every Chromium build/workaround/mod available on the internet. None of the current items mentioned are notable except for CrossOver Chromium, which was released by a fairly well-known company. Out of the others, one of them is by some random guy, another is by an unnotable company, and the third was a workaround mentioned on a discussion forum for crying out loud. I think the others should be removed, and the information about CrossOver merged into the article text. Thoughts? — ^FatalError 03:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about the others, but considering that the privacy concerns raised over Chrome were quite significant, the fact that Iron has all of that phoning-home stuff disabled and/or removed makes it very notable in my book. And that's also not the only thing that sets Iron notably apart from Chrome or other Chromium builds (Iron is readily available in a portable no-installation ZIP packed version, which I think Chrome isn't; unlike Chrome it has a basic content blocker losely compatible with Firefox's AdBlock plugin and Opera's urlfilter syntax; it is built using the very latest Webkit version, which as they say Chrome isn't). 91.33.200.240 (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not my point; how do these unofficial builds, such as Iron, meet Wikipedia's policies on notability? Being notable in your book does not make them notable on Wikipedia. This isn't the place to list every unofficial workaround that exists on the Internet. Unless there are reliable, third-party sources mentioning something about these, they should be removed. — ^FatalError 20:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Since no one seems to be having any objections, I'm removing the section. Feel free to add the info about CrossOver Chromium somewhere else in the article body, but please don't revert the edit without giving a good reason. Thanks. — ^FatalError 20:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hrmmm, that's odd, could've sworn I saw my response to this. Anyways, I object, for reasons already stated, but: Google (and others) being able to run whatever they want on a user's computer is a big deal, and countless other software articles list related softare and 3rd party builds. ¦ Reisio (talk) 06:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Google Chrome, I don't think that unofficial build fit the bill, if they are WP:NOTABLE then yes, add info about them in their own article. man with one red shoe 07:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It's already been said why some of us think they're notable, and for the second time, if you have not decided whether they're notable or not, then you should not be involved in this. ¦ Reisio (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

More people are against keeping that info in the page, it's not only me. As for my right of opinion I have as much right on Wikipedia as you do (or the other way round). Again, this page is about Google Chrome, those unofficial builds are not Google Chrome, this is a simple fact. man with one red shoe 19:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

To me it looks like two against two. Yes, you have a right to your opinion, but from your repeated comments ("if they are WP:NOTABLE"), it sounds like you haven't even formed an opinion. As for the basic question, again, I can link you countless articles that do the same thing — for starters: Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox. ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I said "if they are notable" because I doubt they deserve their own article, but I don't to discuss that here, the point I was making here is that they are not "Google Chrome" which the article is about. man with one red shoe 20:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

They use much of the same code, which makes them at least partly Google Chrome. We cover Chromium here, too, even though it does not use the exact same code. ¦ Reisio (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I find that pretty irrelevant, this article is about "Google Chrome" not about code. FWIW, I think Chromium and Google Chrome should be treated in different pages, is awkward to have two introduction paragraphs. man with one red shoe 21:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Google Chrome and its codebase are inextricably linked, but I agree the two paragraphs at the beginning we have now are a little odd, and personally wouldn't mind if someone spun off a stub for Chromium. ¦ Reisio (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this would be a perfect legitimate solution. Then we could have all the unofficial builds listed in the Chromium project page since they are related to the code not to the Google browser, even better solution would be to have a separate page for each notable build (as we for for Songbird for example). man with one red shoe 03:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Creating a separate article for Chromium is a good idea, if enough third-party sources can be found about it. But for now, we need to decide what to do with these unofficial builds in this article. It seems that out of all 4 of them, Iron is the only one that is even marginally notable because it is (currently) the only one that has been mentioned by reliable sources. Out of the others, one is a hack that someone posted on a forum (not at all notable), another is some random guy's bugfix (doesn't establish notability), and the third has not gotten any notice by third-party sources (or the article simply doesn't reference them, which can be fixed). I don't see what you're talking about when you say that the articles for Internet Explore and Mozilla Firefox do the same thing; neither of them have an "unofficial builds" section. Give me one valid reason why we should mention a hack from a forum post on a Wikipedia article. — ^FatalError 08:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

They both mention 3rd party repackagings. I don't care if it's not in its own section, and I don't care if you widdle it down, but don't just delete it. ¦ Reisio (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Where? The only thing I see is the MultipleIE program, which has received quite a bit of recognition by third-party publications. I see no reason to keep the "official workaround" and "unofficial patch". Even if I don't bring up WP:Notability, a forum post and a random website do not deserve to be mentioned here. We can keep the other two, no problem, but those ones need to go. I'm removing them. If someone could please take that info and spread it into the body of the article instead of having it in its own section, it would be greatly appreciated. — ^FatalError 02:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If unofficial builds are listed, how about including the Chromium project's own builds (http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/waterfall/) and/or the Mac builds (http://securityandthe.net/chrome/) ? Mavink (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither of those are notable. Like I said before, this isn't the place to list every unofficial branch of Chromium. If it hasn't received any attention from the press, it shouldn't be listed here. If you can find some reliable sources, though, then feel free to add them in. — ^FatalError 03:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Google Chrome, StarOffice, open source

So Google Chrome, based on open source Chromium is free (open source) while StarOffice which is based on OpenOffice.org is proprietary? --Joshua Issac (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The Firefox binary download is technically "proprietary", because you cannot modify or reverse engineer it, but it is an open source application and listed as such. Same with Chrome. StarOffice is different because it is a commercial (not open source) application based on the OpenOffice source code. It would be same thing if someone took the Mozilla source code, made their own browser out of it, and released it as a closed binary. The new browser would be proprietary, even though it's based off the Mozilla code. Does that make sense? — ^FatalError 20:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry about the late reply; this seems to have slipped through my watch list. --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

In a nut shell, people should use this because...?

Better protection?

Firefox for games and movies and Chrome for unsafe sites?

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.254.250 (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Because they like it? Why do you think that Firefox is better for games and movies, and Chrome for unsafe sites? (Why would you visit unsafe sites if you knew they are unsafe?) This is probably unencyclopaedic. Moved to bottom.--Joshua Issac (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Folks, this is not a Discussion Board. Please take questions like this somewhere outside of Wikipedia. —  X  S  G  19:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me restate the question. Why doesn't the article make clear why Google decided to develop another browser? They have explained this, and there are many news sources explaining their motives. (To achieve a general performance and stability improvement in browsers so that Google Docs could compete more effectively with desktop apps.) In fact, I added something about that to this article, but it was removed due to my bad prose. Vesal (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

IMO that information belongs somewhere in the development section. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Skulduggery?

• Why does Hotmail (owned by Microsoft) only allow me to read emails when I use Chrome? I can't write them at all - yet no other browser (Firefox, IE...) has this problem. Is this intentional by Microsoft (not unlikely IMO)? Anyone know of any sources that discuss this? Malick78 (talk) 10:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

If it works in Firefox, which is currently the biggest threat to Internet Explorer, then why would they make it not work in Chrome? According to the source you added, they even have Apple Safari on the list. --Joshua Issac (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually Google as a company has its fingers in many pies and is a big threat to Microsoft in general, so it would make sense to scupper their new venture. Firefox will only be involved in browsers, so is less of an overall threat. IMHO. Malick78 (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Chrome has lots of JavaScript bugs. There are problems like this on websites like Facebook as well. I'm not sure if this is the reason, because it could be that Microsoft is just being stupid and doing browser detection or something (which I wouldn't be surprised about). — ^FatalError 20:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It could also be Google doing it then, since they would want to convert Hotmail users to Google Mail users. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a conspiracy is here. Ufopedia (talk) 12:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Google Update

IMO there should be information about hidden update service, installed with Chrome without any notification 83.26.218.238 (talk) 10:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed — we just need some decent texts to cite (I've seen a couple). ¦ Reisio (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That should be fine as long as we get some sources. — ^FatalError 08:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Google (search) said this (Google + Chrome + updater + asking). --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Userbox!

This User contributes using Google Chrome

{{User:Wyatt915/Userboxes/Gchrome}}
For all of us who love userboxen --Wyatt915✍ 23:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)