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)

Version History

The Version History section, particularly the chart of releases, rings of WP:OR and doesn't seem to belong in Wikipedia. I'd like to discuss before I just go and delete it, however. —  X  S  G  04:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't the reference from the Official Google Chrome Release blog count towards something? I agree about the version history though.. not really a need for it to be here and it'll just get long. If it does stay then it should just show when it was released to beta, and then the stable versions released here-in. No beta versions should be listed. Sc0ttkclark (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

IMO the number beta and stable releases is short enough to include all of them in the table for now. We can trim off most of the bete releases once the table gets too large. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to revisit this, I think this should be the new version history chart because we shouldn't be tracking each release of Google Chrome here, only major x.x versions, or x.0 versions. See below:

Date	Version
September 2, 2008	0.2.149.27
October 29, 2008	0.3.154.9
November 24, 2008	0.4.154.25
December 11, 2008	1.0.154.36

This makes the chart much easier to manage. If they want to see a complete version history, they can always click on the reference link in the text section of this area. Does anyone disagree with me in that we need to list EVERY version on this page? It seems way too redundant to track Beta and Public releases of this thing if we're not tracking it on other software. --Sc0ttkclark (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd personally go another step further and say just delete the entire thing, but if anything, have it like above. I just don't think it's needed. You don't see this kind of table in any other software article, and it makes even less sense for Chrome, because there are hardly any differences between the versions (not to mention...just look at the version numbers). My two cents. — ^FatalError 07:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with you FatalError, I've removed this table from the article and renamed the section title from "Version History" to "Stable, Beta, and Dev Releases". --Sc0ttkclark (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, looks good. — ^FatalError 01:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I vote to bring this table back. I agree with Sc0ttkclark & FatalError that because there tend to be a lot of releases of Chrome (especially in the Beta & Dev release channels) we shouldn't list them all. Maybe this table should only show a history of the Stable channel and the most recent Beta & Dev releases. On another note, there are several other software packages that include version history tables including Firefox, Safari, and Others. I find it very helpful to see the other browsers' history in a table format, especially the Gecko/Webkit versions and notable changes. Metavida (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I second the motion to return a Version History table, however probably not the same one that removed by Sc0ttkclark. The claim of WP:OR seems mis-guided; if it were the case, shouldn't the Safari & Firefox version history tables be removed as well? Metavida's suggestion on only showing the Stable channel with latest beta/dev releases is on point. I think it's very wise to model this after the Safari version history table, especially including the webkit version. The webkit versions in this official Chrome blog post gives a good start on that. --Effoveks (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Assembly language

Where are the assembly bits in chrome source code? As I understand it most of it is chromium code. I searched the source for .asm and .[sS] files and I found nothing. Even greping for "movl" and "eax" I got nothing. So I suspect there's no assembly bits, at least not in chromium. Maybe on the code they add on chrome? That seems unlikely, though. Aflag (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing too. I suspect whoever put that up was referring to the use of assembly in V8 (for the JIT engine). I don't think that belongs here though... Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. — ^FatalError 06:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"Beta versions (automatically upgraded)" is wrong now?

I think this part of the "Version History" section is wrong now. when Chrome was in beta, beta versions are automatically upgraded. But now Chrome has come out of beta, I think it will no longer be the case. Ufopedia (talk) 10:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the statement. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Spammish content and links

This article is about Google Chrome, is not about other products based on Chromium code made by various other companies and individuals. Having POV description like "without any problems at privacy and security" doesn't help either. I suggest we limit links to other products. man with one red shoe 03:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

IMO as long as we don't have other Chromium-related articles, all notable unofficial chromium builds should be within the scope of this article, however I don't think it should cover unofficial builds for which notability has not been established. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

SRWare Iron is already mentioned in the article — if it weren't notable, one might wonder why it's there. ¦ Reisio (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

As we discussed before Iron and any other browsers that use Chromium code should be discussed separately, possible in a Chromium page, otherwise there's no connection between Iron and Google Chrome, they are separate products made by separate entities. man with one red shoe 15:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

There isn't a separate Chromium page. ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Iron is a Chrome copy, with the exception of privacy related functions that were removed. it has a very strong connection to Chrome and is indeed notable --Nezek (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

In addition "without any problems at privacy and security" is bad English and advertisement that should be removed man with one red shoe 15:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

(crossposted) All Your Personal World Wide Websites belong to CADIE

Blogger mentions, in http://cadiesingularity.blogspot.com/, "All Your Personal World Wide Websites belong to CADIE" which is possibly making fun of "All your base are belong to us" as well as the well-publicised ToS snafu regarding Google Chrome. Does it deserve a mention here in this article? Kushal (talk) 07:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Not today--Salix (talk): 08:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

3D

Should we mention the new 3D edition? 92.80.42.6 (talk) 05:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 08:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I knew that, but this actually works, it's not like Gmail Custom Time last year, for example, where it was just a hoax webpage, this is real coding. Xammer (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

it is really producing an anaglyph image bu it was an April fools joke, and all it does it make a flat page appear a bit above the screen, not really 3d :P.