Jump to content

Talk:Google Chrome

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bitbit (talk | contribs) at 03:58, 3 June 2010 (→‎"No way to confirm this"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 3, 2008Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
Did You KnowA fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 7, 2008.

Privacy issues

How come this article does not discuss the privacy issues with google chrome at all? Too many Google developers active on wikipedia? 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 --85.146.181.187 (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly lack of reliable refs - the first one you cite is a blog - see WP:SPS - can't use it. The second is not even on this topic, it is about Google searches, not the Chrome browser. The third might be of some use, but essentially all browsers store numbers, including Firefox and Epiphany, until you clear them, unless you are using an incognito mode or similar, so what? - Ahunt (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so what about this?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10031661-56.html
Found this after about 13 seconds of looking for citeable items. It's not about 'numbers' being stored. You should very well be aware that there is huge widespread criticism of this browser on the privacy front, and I was frankly staggered as I read further and further down the article (which frankly reads like a giant press release with technical info added) and found one tiny little comment about privacy concerns, which doesn't even begin to cover the criticisms levelled at it in the IT press (CNET, Silicon, El Reg etc). I strongly agree with the (sadly) anon user above's slightly sarcastic suggestion that the article was written almost exclusively by Google developers who are blind to these issues. Blitterbug (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That ref is okay, but it dates from September 2008, so it isn't very current. The information passed by the suggestion service is well known, but could perhaps use more coverage here. It is also very easy in current versions of Chrome to turn off. I can use it to add some text to the article, but if you find more specific and current criticism that would be helpful. - Ahunt (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For another blog on this subject (that is also WP:SPS although interesting), see The story of Iron. - Ahunt (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did Google name their browser "Chrome"?

Especially since Firefox already had the "Chrome" name for their UI look and feel. 75.92.7.61 (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because they suck at naming things, and also they don't have to have easy-to-find search terms as names when they control most people's search results. ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that "chrome" is not specific to firefox. Most UI is called chrome. Ever heard of "System chrome"? That would be your operating system's window UI.173.206.143.43 (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chrome because the "chrome" of the browser is not supposed to be noticeable, allowing users to concentrate the web page rather than the browser interface. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV FireFox section?

Parts of this section seem a bit NPOV with wording and little weasels. Also what does this "John Resig, Mozilla's JavaScript evangelist" even mean? What does evangelism have anything to do with this? I realize everyone has their favorites, but it is not our job to be the marketing tank for anyone.71.86.226.39 (talk) 06:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RLZ in Chrome 4.1

If I'm reading this article correctly (along with the attached white paper), Google is now limiting usage of the RLZ identifier to installation procedures, as opposed to every query through its search engine. While the article should obviously be updated to reflect that, maybe we can also take a look at how the remaining "Usage tracking" section still reflects current versions of the browser? – Cyrus XIII (talk) 08:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is more info on the RLZ identifier in the latest release notes on Chrome 5.0.342.7. It says: "We’ve also implemented a new approach to our Google Update technology, which allows us to remove the unique ID from Google Update while still preserving our ability to determine the number of active users and keep everyone up-to-date with the latest security updates and speed improvements." I think this information should be used in the article, but I am not totally sure where to incorporate it. Any help in that regard? - Ahunt (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole usage tracking section should be revised. It still mentions non-optional usage tracking, of which there is none in the current versions of Chrome. 86.108.104.219 (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really happy to see that Google have made changes to their usage tracking habits. When I started that section I hoped to inform people of Chromes' actions. Maybe it also nudged Google in the right direction. I'm gonna call this a win (: --bitbit (pka Nezek) (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

infobox picture mess-up

it says the screenshot demonstrates google chrome window on ubuntu os, while in reality it is a wikipedia page on chrome itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.46.187.155 (talk) 05:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the button system displayed shows that it is Ubuntu 10.04 beta, but other than that it would be hard to tell which OS it is running on. I am not sure that the OS needs to be mentioned in the caption. Anyone who cares can click on the image page which describes it fully. - Ahunt (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted that the picture is of Chromium, not Google Chrome. There is no official Google Chrome release on Linux. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quadomatic (talk • contribs)
Not true - the current release for Linux is Google Chrome 5.0.342.9 beta and I am writing this comment with it on Linux! - Ahunt (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A beta is not an actual release. --Gyrobo (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then why we hear all the time "released as beta" or "beta release"? It is a "release", it's not a "final" or "ready" release. man with one red shoe 15:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I meant by "actual," I was referring to a final release. Should've been more clear. --Gyrobo (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point: User:Quadomatic had said that the image must be a screenshot of Chromium, because there is "no official Google Chrome release on Linux". But there is an official (meaning by Google, not someone else) beta release of Chrome on Linux and that image is of Chrome and not Chromium. - Ahunt (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Browser Feats

No doubt at least some mention should be made of Google Chrome's successful resistance to exploit attempts in the Pwn2Own 2010, where other browsers like IE 8, Mozilla FF and Safari were overcome. News of this has referred to Chrome's sandbox model which has offered better security than competitors. Some critics from Lifehacker etc are describing this as part of the "winning-over of diehard Firefox users by Chrome". Hence I think there is some importance to be attached to this feat. Adrenalin 150% (talk) 07:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It can be included if you have a ref that describes this! - Ahunt (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some ars technica and Lifehacker references about the results and the issue between FF and Chrome are:
[1] IE8 etc. fall on Day 1
[2] Day Two: No-one even attempts hacking Chrome
[3] Which Browser: FIrefox or Chrome
Adrenalin 150% ::(talk) 08:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IT should be mentioned as it is significant. However, in balance it also should be mentioned that google had just released a security fix update just prior to Pwn2Own 2010 which may have had some effect on noone attempting to hack chrome by eliminating some attack vectors that hackers were planning on using. -Tracer9999 (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, I agree with that, although I think the sandbox model that discouraged contestants wasn't really that recent. However, here's a link to demonstrate how important the contest's results were to Firefox:
[4] Firefox Updates to 3.6.3Adrenalin 150% (talk) 07:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File size

I think file sizes should be removed. They are file sizes of archived files and serve little purpose. When actually installed, Google Chrome takes more room on your HDD. Mentioning these file sizes of the archived Google Chrome install files is pretty much irrelevant. Also: this irrelevancy would need to be updated for each new release. We also got rid of the file sizes on the Mozilla Firefox page btw. GoldRenet (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. No other browser has this data.  Done --Gyrobo (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the difference in the file sizes are as I never looked.. but if your running a 56k modem and have no access to broadband, each megabyte difference is like 7 minutes download time. so even a small difference of 2 mbs between browsers is like 14 min download time.. from a world view.. id assume alot of people are still stuck on modems.. So I wouldn't say its totally irrelevant...unless your on broadband. just something to consider -Tracer9999 (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were removed from the other browsers because they vary with each small release and they are pretty much irrelevant (pretty much the definition of "non-encyclopedic" info). man with one red shoe 21:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acid Test

I don't know if this is entirely picky of me, but by the standards given on the acid3 test's page, Chrome 4 does not pass completely. The animation isn't smooth. I run chrome and tests 0, 26 and 69 seemed to cause problems (they still passed, but either took multiple tries or took too long). Should a note be made or does it not matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavrisa (talk • contribs) 02:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"No way to confirm this"

I removed the claim that there is no way to tell what is in the encoded string Google uses. There was certainly ways to tell what is in an encoded string. That's what cryptanalysis is all about! If there is a reliable source that states that no one has determined what is in the encoded string, we can cite that as a reliable source. Until a source is found, it looks like just speculation, and an editor's personal conclusion. -- Schapel (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this really sounds like WP:OR or personal opinion and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. - Ahunt (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to remove that couple of times and it popped back up. It's a very bad example of promoting speculations and FUD on Wikipedia. man with one red shoe 14:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added that comment (although the phrasing has been changed), and it's there to balance out the claim by Google that the string is harmless, which we can not verify because Google is not a third-party source.

A third-party source is one that is independent of the subject being covered, and can provide a critical but fair evaluation of the subject. -- Wikipedia:Third-party sources

And like it says in my comment, this is not OR, speculation, "fear mongering", or an opinion, this is a stating of a fact. If you have a better solution to how we can keep this article neutral I'd love to hear it.
Personally I'd go with removing both what Google claims the string is and what the string might contain. Just call it an encoded string and link the text to Encryption --bitbit (pka Nezek) (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to critique Google claims. As long as we say "according to Google" it's enough to put a distance and make it clear that it's not Wikipedia or a third party source that claims that. So we actually present the fact that Google claims that, not the fact that the string is harmless or not. Google promise is encyclopedic and verifiable, our doubts are not. man with one red shoe 00:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen others also try to claim that Wikipedia:Third-party sources says that we should include only information from third-party sources. This is not what the guideline says at all! It says that articles should be based upon third-party sources. In other words, you should not create an article about Google Chrome and use only or primarily sources from Google. It doesn't say you should not use Google as a source. Please use a neutral point of view when editing. Do not go into an article with an intention of making or removing a particular edit, and finding a poor excuse to do so. -- Schapel (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:man with one red shoe on this - there is no problem quoting Google claims on the subject as long as we make it clear that this is what Google says and not a third party. - Ahunt (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please, I have no hidden agenda or intent to harm the article, I'm trying to keep it balanced. The average user doesn't know how harmful an "ecoded string" may be. At the very least, those words should be linked to encryption. And like Wikipedia:These are not original research#Compiling facts and information wisely suggests: "Let the readers draw their own conclusions after seeing related facts in juxtaposition." --bitbit (pka Nezek) (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Be cautious not to juxtapose related facts in a manner to suggest an unsourced conclusion; WP:SYNTHESIS.
--Gyrobo (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems as though you do have an agenda. You are trying to claim or imply that the encoded string is harmful, although no source seems to say so. On your talk page, you say you use Google products only as a last resort, showing you are biased against Google products. These don't add up to the likelihood of your making neutral edits about this matter. Please do not inject your own personal bias into the article. -- Schapel (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Schapel, I created and maintained the whole section about usage tracking on this article, and haven't added a single biased edit to it. My intention is to keep things balanced and neatural -- Sourced by outlets other than Google and edited by Wikipadians other than Google "fan-boys". You, I assume, do use Google products, and not only as a last resort; By the logic you're using, I could say that you're biased. In fact, most people use Google on a daily basis, I could say they're also biased. By that logic I could also claim that whoever added "According to Google, the string is safe" is trying to divert attention from the fact it is encrypted. Don't try to argue that kind of logic here, because as you can see it won't hold up.
Either way, Gyrobo is correct, I have no source that brings up the possiblity the string might have something other than what Google claims it has, and therefore it shouldn't be included. But when I find one, I'm adding it back up (: --bitbit (pka Nezek) (talk) 03:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Google_Chrome&oldid=365766976"