Google Chrome, Google’s Browser Project
Supposedly it is built off Mozilla source code and will be free and I imagine also open source.
I cannot imagine Mozilla is terribly psyched about this.
Printable View
Google Chrome, Google’s Browser Project
Supposedly it is built off Mozilla source code and will be free and I imagine also open source.
I cannot imagine Mozilla is terribly psyched about this.
Finally it has been "released":
Google Chrome
A fresh take on the browser - press release
This "comic book" explains a lot of their goals behind Chrome. Honestly, it sounds pretty cool.
Quote:
Originally posted by Aristotle
Finally it has been "released":
Google Chrome
A fresh take on the browser - press release
This "comic book" explains a lot of their goals behind Chrome. Honestly, it sounds pretty cool.
It freaking ROCKS. And is fast as crap due to doing the DNS lookups while you are typing the url among other things.
It's been really hard to not talk about this thing over the past few months :)
My immediate impressions on reading what you've typed and reading the links you've presented are as follows...
Why are they using Webkit? Webkit is not gecko, it is a derivative of KHTML (Safari uses Webkit since Webkit is Apple's project). Why wouldn't they use gecko? Ah, they seem to be using a marriage of Gecko and Webkit (still odd, in my opinion, but whatever).
I don't see why the Mozilla Foundation would have a problem with Google Chrome. There are plenty of browser based on Gecko already, plus Google will likely push their modifications upstream according to the mozilla public license. Also, open source by definition promotes re-using code in new projects- the idea is to provide choice. Which I'm sure you know, and which also confuses me about your statement that Mozilla wouldn't be impressed by it.
My only concern with Google Chrome is whether they'll bring it to Linux in Wine as they have with their other applications which are available on "windows first".
I'll watch with interest, but I doubt I'd switch. As it is, I only use Firefox in Windows when IE has trouble with a site. On Linux I use Firefox first, only because websites are prejudicial with their User Agent testing and dump konqueror (KHTML) as "unsupported" [despite the fact that it renders just as well, and much faster than firefox].
Interesting. Just as Netscape goes kapoot.
I use FF primarily, but I have a large variety of browsers to test in... I don't see myself switching any time soon.
Because regardless of the core principles of the open source movement, people still pick their sides and like seeing "their" version of something succeed. I mean look at how there are miniature holy wars over linux distros and GUI shells.Quote:
Originally posted by karahd
Which I'm sure you know, and which also confuses me about your statement that Mozilla wouldn't be impressed by it.
I've just installed it, and here's my first thoughts, in no particular order. (This will probably go to my blog too.)
* BAD: First you download an installer stub, then you run that and it goes and fetches the rest of the code. That's fine, but it just has an activity indicator, not a progress indicator. If all the code is put into the base installer, then my download manager will tell me how much longer it'll take to get it.
* BAD but turned out minor: I got a worrying experience when the settings dialog didn't respond to ThinkPad scroll. I was afraid that this, like Opera, would not be able to be scrolled using a ThinkPad's special middle-button scroll (it's more intuitive than a scroll wheel, and that's saying something). Fortunately it was only the settings dialog - the main page scrolls just fine.
* MINOR BAD: As you type into the "omnibar", sometimes the primary result is to go to the site, sometimes it's to google for it. Somewhat confusing. It'd be nice to have a keystroke like Shift-Enter that will _always_ take you to that site. (Maybe there is one. I don't know.)
* MAJOR GOOD: Pressing Ctrl-Tab repeatedly will cycle you through the tabs in order. This is the same as Firefox, but NOT Opera. (In Opera, tabs are listed sequentially, but Ctrl-Tab is more like Alt-Tab between top-level windows - it switches among the most recently used / top of Z-order.)
* GOOD: It uses a Firefox 3 style of saving passwords - lets you see if you got your pw right before saving it. Also, it eliminates the confusing duplication in Ff 3: what's the difference between clicking "Not this time" and closing the bar?
* GOOD but ought to go without saying: I can edit large (32KB+) Wiki pages with it. MediaWiki gives a warning that some browsers have trouble with textareas having large amounts of data. (And yes - an important part of what I do involves editing a huge page.)
* BAD? Where's form-fillout saving? Can't seem to recall my previous form contents. I use this as a sort of pseudo-addressbook for webmail.
* ODD: Seems MediaWiki produced strange HTML code - [table border="border"] instead of [table border=1] - and while Firefox happily puts a border around it, Chrome didn't. Hunting down the thing inside Wiki and forcing it to say "border=1" worked though.
* GOOD: Where Firefox has "View selection source", Chrome has "Inspect element". It shows you the source, but also shows more information. Handy!
* VERY GOOD: Find (at the top of the screen, not the bottom, but I can get used to that) tells me how many results it found.
* GOOD: Javascript performance looks good. I've tried it on RoundCube webmail and a few other js-heavy sites, and it seems to work. Obviously the main advantage is that you can leave this running for longer without getting problems, so a quick test won't show it, but it seems good so far.
Overall: I think this is good, but it's new and needs work. It's not at the point of making me ditch Firefox as my primary, but it's more than ready to ditch Opera as my backup.
I hate downloading an installer to then run a program and have it fetch stuff. I'd much rather download an installer that has everything. That also allows me to copy the full installer to another PC instead of doing a whole download every time.
Admittedly, there are fanboys everywhere regardless of topic, but I think the Mozilla foundation is a little more mature than that. :)Quote:
Originally posted by Aristotle
Because regardless of the core principles of the open source movement, people still pick their sides and like seeing "their" version of something succeed. I mean look at how there are miniature holy wars over linux distros and GUI shells.
I'm not sure what Rosuav did, but when I went to http://www.google.com/chrome and clicked the link to install, it opened immediately in an installer, I didn't have to save anything, first. Then when it was done downloading, it installed automatically, finally it opened the new Chrome.Quote:
Originally posted by Aristotle
I hate downloading an installer to then run a program and have it fetch stuff. I'd much rather download an installer that has everything. That also allows me to copy the full installer to another PC instead of doing a whole download every time.
All I did was click and it took 1 minute to do it all.
The download portion was a progress indicator as opposed to a "busy light", however the install was more a "busy light" than a progress indicator.
OMG i love how I have WAAAAAY more visible real estate in Chrome. way way way.... ok, <3 Chrome.
also, it seems way faster than Firefox or IE.
Also, make sure you check out "Application Shortcuts"
goto http://tools.google.com/chrome/intl/en-US/welcome.html# and click on that link on the left
I've just installed it a second time now, and I better understand it. The installation is in several phases:Quote:
Originally posted by karahd
I'm not sure what Rosuav did, but when I went to http://www.google.com/chrome and clicked the link to install, it opened immediately in an installer, I didn't have to save anything, first. Then when it was done downloading, it installed automatically, finally it opened the new Chrome.
All I did was click and it took 1 minute to do it all.
The download portion was a progress indicator as opposed to a "busy light", however the install was more a "busy light" than a progress indicator.
1) Download the half-meg installer. Very quick (unless you're on an appallingly slow connection).
2) "Initializing". No progress indicator.
3) "Downloading". Progress indicator as expected.
4) "Installing". No progress indicator.
Steps 2 and 4 massively dwarfed step 3, which is why I didn't even notice the time spent downloading.
I like the Developer Tools, Javascript Debugger, and the enhanced source that shows the CSS files seperately.
Considering you only have to click a link to have it download, install, I think the simplicity of the whole ordeal dwarfs the non-issue of progress indicators especially in light of the fact that progress indicators are by nature misleading.
Gecko, from my understanding of it, is tied into Firefox very tightly, to the point where it is very difficult to yank it out and build a separate browser around it. Webkit, on the other hand, is designed from the ground up to be modular.Quote:
Originally posted by karahd
Why are they using Webkit? Webkit is not gecko, it is a derivative of KHTML (Safari uses Webkit since Webkit is Apple's project). Why wouldn't they use gecko? Ah, they seem to be using a marriage of Gecko and Webkit (still odd, in my opinion, but whatever).
Holy shit.Quote:
So much for don't be evil.Quote:
Users who downloaded the free browser yesterday were asked to agree to a clause that gave Google a "perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly, perform, publicly display and distribute" any information they typed into a website.
I <3 me some WebKit because it is derived from code from my very favourite open source project: http://www.kde.comQuote:
Originally posted by Grantref
Gecko, from my understanding of it, is tied into Firefox very tightly, to the point where it is very difficult to yank it out and build a separate browser around it. Webkit, on the other hand, is designed from the ground up to be modular.
Just stop and think for a brief second about it though. It has been stated already that it was a copy & paste of the EULA from elsewhere. Mistake was admitted and corrected. I actually discussed this with some other people and even we didn't like that EULA, but we understand (least in our eyes) why it happened, and that it was a mistake. To us, the devs were just trying to save a bit of time and get it pushed out for you all to use Apparently, as has been stated, it was normal for that to be the case, but obviously in this case it was not acceptable.. period.Quote:
Originally posted by Aristotle
Holy shit.
So much for don't be evil.
The point is, mistakes happen and it was fixed/is being fixed. Hopefully the new one is better, I've not read it so I can't sa.
I'm not sure about Ari or anyone else who runs a vbulletin forum, but my AdminCP wont function in Chrome. The links on the left hand side aren't links they just appear as text.
I've been using Chrome for a couple of days now, and while it runs absolutely faster, it is also very buggy.
* In Hebrew sites (the alphabet is from right to left and not from left to right), it sometimes messes up the text completely.
* On youtube I had the shockwave plugin crash the browser.
* Rather often the browser freezes for a short amount of time for no apparent reason. I hate this thing the most.
Found this, thought it would be interesting, though I can't check until I get home:
Happy Easter
For you non-programmers, there's an Easter egg, too: type "about:internets" into the Omnibox. I'm not going to be a spoilsport by revealing what happens, but here's a hint: Ted Stevens.
Oh, I found these additional "about" syntax..es?
- about:memory shows how much memory the browser--and any other Web browser--is using. Conveniently for Web developers, it also shows how much each Web site in a browser tab is using.
- about:stats shows a wide range of internal measurements such as the time taken to initialize Chrome, load Gears, or perform various operations while running JavaScript programs with Chrome's V8 engine. The page also carries the amusing note, "Shhh! This page is secret!"
- Typing about:histogram into Chrome's address bar shows many performance details.
- about:network tracks the detailed network activity of using a Web site.
- about:version shows details of what version of Chrome is running, along with the user-agent text that the browser reports when identifying itself to Web sites. Why "Mozilla" is in this string is a mystery to me, though perhaps it has to do with the way Chrome can use Firefox plug-ins; why "Mozilla" is apparently in the iPhone's user-agent text is even more a mystery.
- about:histograms graphs various performance measurements such as the time taken to autocomplete text users type into the browser.
- about:crash crashes the active browser tab.
Also, I just read on the Google blog the changes they have made to the license.
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/...-terms-of.html
I won't repaste the text here, but it's worth a read.
Is there any kind of ad blocking or "remove this object" functionality in the default?
If not, and with no extensions, I don't see how I can possibly manage a switch.
It blocks pop ups and puts the link to them in a separate window. Not sure if thats what you were referring to or not.
I've been using Google Chrome now for the last two days and I think that I am going to switch back to IE. Chrome seems to get really, really, really bogged down on certain webpages - si.com, espn.com, westlaw.com.
Im not sure why this is, but it makes using Chrome pointless to me!
Yep. Exactly why I returned to Firefox/IE.Quote:
Originally posted by Joreth
I've been using Google Chrome now for the last two days and I think that I am going to switch back to IE. Chrome seems to get really, really, really bogged down on certain webpages - si.com, espn.com, westlaw.com.
Im not sure why this is, but it makes using Chrome pointless to me!
not at all unexpectedly, but, chrome works really quickly with gmail!
Of course one would expect it to work well with Google's own services, but I'm not sure which is cause and which is effect: a) Chrome has an excellent Javascript engine, and b) Chrome works well with Google's services, which are Js-heavy. It may well be that Google's strong emphasis on Javascript was a major factor in them deciding that they needed a really GOOD Js engine in their browser.Quote:
Originally posted by karahd
not at all unexpectedly, but, chrome works really quickly with gmail!
Oh for sure, their high reliance on javascript was a major defining reason for their javascript engine, and I personally think that this will be for the better for all of us as we move to bigger and better webapps.
Presently, and I haven't tested this yet but you can be sure that I will, in Google Reader I follow some 60 RSS feeds. It is basically two frames (i'm only concentrating on a specific two, at any rate): the left frame shows the navigation of the different threads and folders I have them set up in and the right hand is basically one really long webpage in a frame that keeps getting appended to as I scroll down, reading through my posts. Much like how mudclients work as they scroll and continually add text to the bottom of the screen (although I control the flow by going from post to post).
What would happen, normally, is that as the page gets longer it starts to take a really long time to navigate, so I end up having to click the link for the current folder I'm in to refresh it, causing it to reload but without anything I've already read.
Sometimes this fails and I have to close and reopen my browser, but I'd lose whatever I was presently reading. sadface.
I hope this dramatically improves it, however, as I normally read my feeds at work, I doubt this will impact me. :(
An article comparing three upcoming browser offerings: Firefox 3.1, Internet Explorer 8, and Chrome.
http://www.networkworld.com/news/200...fox-31-vs.html
By the way, picking this up from a while back:
This dates back to some Microsoft shenanigans ages ago. Or even further back, to some webmaster stupidities shortly before the MS shenanigans.Quote:
Originally posted by karahd
- about:version shows details of what version of Chrome is running, along with the user-agent text that the browser reports when identifying itself to Web sites. Why "Mozilla" is in this string is a mystery to me, though perhaps it has to do with the way Chrome can use Firefox plug-ins; why "Mozilla" is apparently in the iPhone's user-agent text is even more a mystery.
There was a time when the only browser that announced its User Agent as "Mozilla" was Mozilla (well, that broad branch - Moz, Netscape, etc). This browser had features that other browsers didn't, so web designers went "Is the string 'Mozilla' in the UA? If so, put this code out, if not, just emit something simple". And then Microsoft bring out their own browser. It supports a whole lot of stuff that used to be Mozilla-only. Oh dear, all these web sites don't send that lovely impressive content... I know! Let's announce ourselves as Mozilla "compatible", and then they will!
Of course, nowadays it's the other way around. Webmasters put in IE-only code... and so Mozilla browsers like Firefox are left behind. What's the solution? A UA-switcher!
I think things would have been amusingly interesting if the Mozilla name had been completely dropped from modern browsers, but left in the user agent string as an orphan. Because it's much much easier to rename a browser than to make drastic changes to things that depend on UA. Of course... nobody SHOULD depend on the UA. It should be a point of curiosity only, with the possible exception that spiders/bots could announce themselves, and be given a simpler version of a page (eg a set of navigation links rather than a drop-down list and a Go button). But, the world's not likely to change any time soon.
I should have mentioned that was pulled directly from a webpage, and wasn't necessarily -my- question. My mistake!
I happen to know why companies do wonky things with UA reporting.
(UA switching is a pain)