Talk:Google Chrome/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Security Flaw

I added this to the page:

Google Chrome also has issues with memory management. Such issues may be exploited by quickly fill up a computers memory so that the whole computer becomes unresponsive and has to be turned off to resume use[46], causing a loss of data and may cause damage (reversibly or irreversibly) to the operating system (due to not being shut down properly). During the execution of this floor, the page does not display any content, and appears to be loading, and this is the period that the memory is being filled up, this helps exploiters insure that many users will view the page for long enough to crash their system (from thirty seconds to two minuets).

Citing http://swiftspark.net/chrome.php. I tested the test case on my computer and my memory filled up, however, it was removed. Perhaps to do with the reference? Maybe if other people test the test case on the given link, and people think it is a flaw it can go back in the article.

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)

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)

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)

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)

No it isn't. Hello? Are you aware of WP:SYN? We can at best report that Mr. $PUNDIT has called Chrome "malware", provided that Mr. $PUNDIT is notable enough to be featured here. --dab (𒁳) 14:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this important note has to be in the main article. In german wikipedia it is! I think, google is manipulating the english article! Do not forget, how mighty they are! What everyone shoud also now: while installation the contact to google (registration) is not blockable! That is a tool, made for collcting your personal data and behaviour. Even when you can turn of the spionage after installation, I really don't want to use a tool, which has that intention. I am really concerned, that there is no agitation against googles penetration... or is it also filtered here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.64.27 (talk) 23:15, 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)

Does Chrome support "Adblock" and other existing plugins?

I am trying out Chrome and while it is pretty decent, I am missing my standard plugins. Most notably Ad Block Plus, which I love in FireFox. Are any plugins supported by Chrome and if so, how does one go about installing them? If Chrome supports existing plugins and how goes one do about installing them should be noted in this Wikipedia article. New Chrome users want to know. --John Bahrain (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing the article, not the subject. Byeitical (talk · contribs) 16:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Byeitical (talk • contribs)

This is something that is lacking coverage in the article. Thus I ask it here. I have added the following text that covers what I believe is the case:

Currently, the widely adopted Mozilla-compatible *.xpi cross-platform plug-in architecture is not supported by Chrome and thus very popular XPI-based plugins such as AdBlock and GreaseMonkey can not be used by the Chrome userbase.

I don't believe that the citation I am using for the above is appropriate, but it is the best I could find at this moment. Basically, it seems that while Chrome rocks, its plugin support is extremely poorly and all existing plugins are going to have to be written unless they where built as either heavy ActiveX style controls or NPAPI. I mention NPAPI because I just read this:

http://wearechrome.com/index.php?topic=15.0

--John Bahrain (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've started a new section to deal with Chrome's plugin support. This is a big issue and needs to be fully outlined. I initially put something in the plugin subsection of the security section, but I realize now that Chrome's plugin support is actually not really a subset of security. --John Bahrain (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for misunderstanding. Byeitical (talk · contribs) 16:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

According to Google's own FAQ, Chrome does not support ActiveX. Something that seems to contradict other reports I've read. 128.233.85.50 (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Restrictions?

I've removed a section titled "Restrictions" [3], and am only posting here to hopefully avoid conflict. Is this necessary to mention? It has nothing to do with the product being discussed, and even appears to be WP:COATRACK-ish. Also, WP:VUE prefers English sources, and lacking any English sources, if re-added, translations should be provided in the footnote ref. Yngvarr (t) (c) 16:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Google Code project

http://code.google.com/p/chrome/ returns 403 Forbidden but http://code.google.com/p/notchrome/ gives 404 Not Found. No prizes for guessing where the open source code will live. Added link, but commented out. samj (talk) 08:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That's pure speculation – and wrong. The Google Code project is already available at http://code.google.com/p/chromium/. 200.127.223.79 (talk) 01:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That's the code for Chromium, which is not identical with the code for Chrome. If anyone discloses the code of Google Chrome they violate item 10.2 of the EULA. Neitram (talk) 10:16, 4 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)

Google has a blog post about the incident and how they resolved it by removing the offending sections of the EULA, see http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/update-to-google-chromes-terms-of.html -- [Disclaimer: I, Dan Kegel, am a software engineer at Google.] Dankegel (talk) 18:41, 4 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 [4], 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)

Check the part 10.1 what removes the "Software" from "Service" so the 11.1 is not valid for Software like Chrome, only for Services. Since 10.1 the "Software" is not included in "Service" part what was included in 1.1, even "Services" is used later parts like 11.1. This just brought lots problems for Google because many readed the 1.1 and 11.1 without understanding the 10.1 part changed the 11.1 meaning only for services and webpages, not for software. Golftheman (talk) 22:21, 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)

That may be right, but it is a critical issue and not clear to most readers, so it should be described in the article. What does "the open source project behind Google Chrome is known as Chromium" mean? Can you really compile and distribute a modified version in practise or only in theory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.128.42.2 (talk) 22:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you cannot. At this point the claim that Chrome is open source is just a marketing lie. I don't know why Wikipedia repeats it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.7.206 (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks open source to me. Anyone can download the source code and build it themselves, according to this: http://dev.chromium.org/developers/how-tos/getting-started - there is also slow progress on porting to Linux and Mac platforms, see the current progress here: http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/waterfall/ -84user (talk) 02:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Chromium is open source, Chrome is not. That's as brief as you can state it. If you want an open source browser, get Chromium, not Google Chrome. Plus, you get Chromium without the EULA - i.e. you give none of your rights to Google. Looks like Chromium builds are available now at http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/snapshots/chromium-rel-xp/ . Neitram (talk) 06:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

How does Chromium differ from Chrome? This would be an interesting content for article also, not? --81.217.14.229 (talk) 10:02, 4 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)

Update: I have found contradictory evidence regarding whether Google Chrome has been released and if so on what date. However, I am unable to verify the relevant statement on both this page and on the WebKit article from the sources cited and linked. Moreover, the WebKit page gives the release date as September 3 while this page states it was September 2. Finally, the software is not available for download from the URL given for the download on any information source I have found. These issues are discussed in more detail on the Conflicts of Interest page I linked above. Marbux (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What nonsense. I have been using Chrome for the last two days and am posting this comment using it now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.199.146 (talk) 15:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No mention of serious copyright issue raised

The article as stands does not mention the very serious issue that has been raised about Google Chrome; namely that the licence agreement attempts to assert rights for Google for *all* content submitted through the browser. This should surely be prominently highlighted in the article. In its current form I can only assume the article has been taken over by Google fanatics and astroturfers. zoney ♣ talk 13:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

...or alternatively, that no one (including you) has bothered to provide a reference backing up this hair-raising allegation. --dab (𒁳) 14:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Google Chrome Privacy Policy Notice http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/privacy.html I don't see any serious issue in that Ufopedia (talk) 14:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

strike the above, there is a problem. Not with privacy, but with licensing. Here is the slashdot item: [5]. It appears that the Chromium source code is available under a BSD license, period. But if you download the executable code, you do not get it under a BSD license but under a specific EULA. Now that EULA is pretty much copied from Google's general terms of service, which is a bad thing, since it includes the "limited license" of

By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive licence 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 licence 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.

this could be a PR disaster for google. The "content" they had in mind in the general terms was probably stuff like search queries, which users "license" to them in order to analyse etc. It appears they neglected to include "Additional Terms" in the Chrome EULA which would override these clearly inappropriate passage for the purposes of a web browser. Now this can in principle be easily circumnavigated by building Chromium from source (licensed under BSD), so there is nothing in it for google except for bad PR. I predict they will just adapt the EULA as soon as they get their lawyers to look things through. Either way, this is an unresolved issue at the moment, and a huge impediment to actually using Chrome. I mean, who is going to use a program that immediately licences any content it touches to its masters... --dab (𒁳) 14:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

More on this: [6] [7]. At Answers to common Google Chrome objections at mattcutts.com doesn't address this. --dab (𒁳) 15:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a retired lawyer. Almost certainly, this is an editing screwup by a legal professional who copied and pasted information from one document to another. Notice that the language in question refers to "services" rather than to "software." I suspect there will be a revised EULA coming very quickly. Lawyers make mistakes too. I've seen some pretty amazing stuff in the middle of legal briefs filed in court. Stuff that wasn't even about the same lawsuit. Often, a lawyer gets behind, has to rush things to meet a deadline, and things go out the door without getting that final proofread. A last minute decision to switch a paragraph to one that's been used before and the wrong paragraph gets clipped or too much gets clipped and it's not noticed. Looks like someone accidentally copied some language from a Google services agreement form rather than from a software license form.

Easy thing to do when you're hustling to meet a deadline and you've got more adrenaline going than grey matter. The proverbial 5 p.m. dash for the court clerk's office. Then you read your brief afterward and wince. I've done it but fortunately never with a screwup that blatant. I suspect that's what happened here. Had to meet a deadline for a product launch, got behind schedule, and missed that final proofread or was so full of adrenaline that the eyes just read past it.

I strongly doubt that there's a scandal here beyond a screwup in work pumped out at the last minute. The lawyer who did it will probably get teased about it for the rest of his life because it was for a produt launch and wound up on Slashdot. Judges are used to that kind of thing and are generally pretty forgiving to the lawyer who has to sheepishly ask for permission to file a substitute brief. But competitors and journalists of the tabloid bent will have a field day with it. It will be interesting to see how Google handles it. Marbux (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree this is likely a mistake. Still, if something like this happened to Microsoft, people would be forming lynch mobs crying "evil empire". You will note that the term "Services" is properly introduced in the EULA under 1.1, as denoting "Google’s products, software, services and web sites" (emphasis mine), so there really is no ambiguity there. --dab (𒁳) 16:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's already been changed. Search the EULA for those words, they are not there. Then again, what are you submitting to Google that they can keep when you use their browser?

um, since "Services" includes "software", you "submit" everything that passes through the browser. Glad to see they changed it. --dab (𒁳) 09:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Google Chrome on Wine

It should be mentioned that even if no official version is available for Linux, it is possible to run Chrome on Wine (even if it is still unstable): http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iId=13635&iTestingId=30852 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.240.125.92 (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's not mentioned by any reliable sources, there's no need to mention it in the article. You can run lots of Windows-only applications on Wine; what makes this special? — ^FatalError 03:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggested reword for readability

existing: "He argued that it could be used by an attacker to trick easily an user into opening a malicious executable file."

change to: "He argued that it could be used by an attacker to easily trick a user into opening a malicious executable file."

or quotes (") on the original if a quote

134.115.228.107 (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Screenshot in Vista

The current screenshot doesn't show the blue background theme and all. What's up? Althepal (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It uses Windows Presentation Foundation on Vista, so it will take the color and transparency that is selected in the Aero interface. In the current screenshot, the default color settings for aero are enabled. --Kindly, Linfocito B | Greetings from Colombia! 14:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Crashing Chrome with one line of code.

Crashing Chrome (since google claimed that it handles crashes well) has become a small internet trend as proving the giant's software was release too prematurely and with too much arrogance. A few blogs have posted the following hack that causes all the chrome windows to crash at the same time (contrary to what Google claimed as possible): [8] has the first of many chrome bugs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenshihan (talk • contribs) 15:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section

A criticism section should be added to this article. I know that this product is in beta stage, but it still have many flaws, that should be described. It is supposed to be a successor of Internet Explorer (especially IE 6.0), yet requires Windows XP service pack 2 to run. It installs an process called googleupdater without asking the user. The process is run every time a computer starts - even if Chrome is not run. There is no option to choose the installation folder. Chrome lacks the ability to be adjusted - there are no ways to edit the menus etc. Perhaps addons such as the firefox "menu editor" will be published.

btw. Is the source code of googleupdater availible? 89.77.118.185 (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider an encyclopedic page the right place to put "things people who visit wikipedia expressed to want, but are not covered by this browser" issues. Its far from objective.... --Jestix (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The article should only have in it what reliable sources have said, not what editors have discovered or think about it. Doug Weller (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Weak review

I think this link to a review (currently in the External Links section) should be deleted:

• Review of Google Chrome (SoftReview.co.cc) September 3, 2008

It's not a very interesting, notable, well-written or authoritative review. BreakfastTime (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, when it has been reviewed by Walt Mossberg and David Pogue, I don't think there is a need to link to a review by sujith84. I'm removing all non-notable external link reviews. Vesal (talk) 21:23, 4 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)

I found that it didn't worked here because it's not a exploit. It's a social engineering method, so it's not automatic. Anyway, attributing the "flaw" to WebKit and Java is completely inaccurate. WebKit and Java have nothing to do with the "flaw". Since it's a social engineering method that could leave the user to click over an executable file to run it, it's only related to a Google Chrome GUI concept and default setting. The statement that the "flaw" is WebKit-related is unverifiable and should be removed. The text should be rewritten to clarify this is a social engineering method, too. --189.35.31.187 (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't work for me at all. Even if I click on the download tab, it just opens the .jar file in IZarc (my compression program). So not sure there is much to this "flaw". --SmilingBoy (talk) 09:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As there were no complains, I'm editing this section. I'm adding a new verified vulnerability to the article, too. --Thotypous (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone please help to get a source stating the "automatic download" flaw was not WebKit-related. It's obvious, but we need sources to keep the section impartial. In the meanwhile, I've edited it to clear it's a peoples opinion, not the absolute truth. --Thotypous (talk) 03:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We need reliable sources, too. Read Write Web is hardly a reliable source, and thus I've removed that sentence. — ^FatalError 03:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Great. I agree it's better that way. --Thotypous (talk) 04:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Its not one process per tab

A bit of OR I'm afraid, but I've just noticed that does not always start a new process for each tab. Currently I've got 10 tabs open 6 of which are wikipedia tabs, but there are only 5 process running. Googles task manager confirm this as does windows task manager. Don't know if there a reference to this. --Salix alba (talk) 07:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... what if you go to this crash page with Chrome... How does it handle it? What about when you have many tabs open? More importantly, someone should try to do visit that crash page with Opera, because this article makes the uncited assertion that Opera had this technology back in 1994. If opera crashes on that page, there is good reason to believe the statement is false. Vesal (talk) 21:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Chrome seems to stop the crash page after a short while, so there's no problem whatsever with it. Opera just gets pretty slow, but there's no problem with closing the window, either. --Conti|✉ 21:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed NOT one process per tab like what the comics claim, but more like IE8's Loosely Coupled IE, in that it groups some related tabs together in one process. Ufopedia (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Also if one tab crashes then all tabs and windows get taken down with it.--Heruur (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Negative selection of reviews ...

I added a meta-review to the article to balance the negativity. But this might still not reflect fairly on the reaction outside Wikipedia. According to a subsequent meta-review, most reviews have been positive, and "there was one outright pan: The Associated Press' Peter Svensson" — which was the review used here. Vesal (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

now the EULA thing is out of the way (and Google greatly re-affirmed my trust in them by addressing this so quickly and unbureaucratically), the "criticism" section is really just nitpicking. Google presents a great piece of free (as in freedom) software, that basically places a decent OS on top of a broken one (viz, fixing stuff for Microsoft that they had failed to fix for about a decade now), and we present a "criticism" section desperately wringing the web for comments like "lacks polish"? Ok, so this article is still rapidly evolving, but I am sure that Chrome's release will stand as a heroic feat in retrospect: even if Chrome itself doesn't get any significant market share, it is literally viral, i.e. its innovations will find their way into Firefox et al. sooner rathern than later. --dab (𒁳) 09:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

While I do somewhat agree with you, just take a look at the articles for Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox; both have some kind of "Criticism" section, similar to the one we have in this article. I think it's perfectly fine, although I'll admit I don't see the point of still having the "Terms of service" section even after the passage was fixed. — ^FatalError 03:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Java Support

Please add a section in the article about Java Support. Java Applets are not working on Chrome. But I also read that by installing the latest version of JRE, we can run Java Applets, but I havent yet verified it. Does someone have information on this? Higanesh2003 (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have the latest JAVA JRE installed and Chrome doesn't load applets -- it says that "No plugin available to display this content." --John Bahrain (talk) 13:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a fix, you need

<plugin> <mime>application/x-java-applet</mime> <lang>en-us</lang> <name>Java</name> <url>http://javadl.sun.com/webapps/download/GetFile/1.6.0_10-rc-b28/windows-i586/jre-6u10-rc-windows-i586-p-iftw.exe</url> </plugin> in your chrome_plugins_file.xml file.--Salix alba (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Why there's Yahoo links on default?

I didn't heard about google-yahoo merging yet, and article about Google don't give any answers here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.156.58 (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you import your bookmarks from your other browser when you installed Chrome? I don't see any default Yahoo links. --John Bahrain (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Only Windows XP and Vista?

Does it only work in Windows XP and Vista? How about Windows 95, 98, 98SE or ME? It should be mentioned on the article. Urvabara (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Google says it "is for Windows XP or Vista", so the other OSes are probably not officially supported... SF007 (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Urvabara (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Grammar fix needed.

Evidently this page is locked from editing? There's a grammar mistake in the privacy section. The line with the error begins, "A Google representative said that that about 2% of the data..." The repetition of the word "that" needs fixed.

Thanks.

Fixed. Mindmatrix 22:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Blog links

I've taken out

• Extensive review
• Google Chrome Review - Google Chrome Review

because we don't usually allow unofficial links in the links section. But if these are WP:RS worthy, they can be used as citations. --w^{L<speak·check>} 05:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There are few more blog and other unreliable sources (e.g. Slashdot) in the article, that should be removed I guess.--Kozuch (talk) 10:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

People owning articles?

Looks like there are people who thinks they owns Wikipedia. There should not be a pecking order in Wikipedia. Of course, removing vandalism is imporant, but removing facts just isn't. I think I am out of here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urvabara (talk • contribs) 09:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Unique ID for every Browser tied to Google Account

Every Copy of Chrome has a unique ID, that can be used to identify and track it (and possibly its user). This is not really a feature, but a privacy risk. Basically it is a built-in Tracking Cookie, something all Spyware protection programs will adress as a security risk. There is a way to disable this, but it is rather complicated and most users will not be able to do it. It involves editing the configuration files. This should definitely be part of the articles Privacy Section! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.13.225.234 (talk) 11:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

More information here:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.lawblog.de/index.php/archives/2008/09/03/chrome-nr-und-google-id/&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result

It appears to be somewhat true. There is also a thread on Slashdot here:

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=952157&cid=24858839

More research into this needs to be done. --John Bahrain (talk) 20:19, 6 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)

I've updated the links in my previous comment, and here's a version with larger pages embedded. Google Chrome (comic book text, full size) --merriam (talk) 11:18, 7 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)

what nonsense. It's a press release, and as such perfectly authoritative as a statement by Google. How can a press release contain "conjecture by users"? It can contain corporate misinformation, aka lies, but the very WP:SYN guideline you wave around says that the burden is on you to provide evidence before making such an allegation. Really, what is going on on this talkpage? Microsoft must be really worried. dab (𒁳) 14:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS states Primary sources — writings on or about a topic by key figures of the topic — may be allowable, but should be restricted to purely descriptive explanations of the subject or its core concepts. There is no interpretation, but just a statement of fact, and is suitable for use. Yngvarr (t) (c) 14:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yngvarr is right. Please read WP:SPS carefully, actually WP:SELFPUB is the applicable policy on the issue, and using the comic in limited amounts is perfectly acceptable. hateless 05:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Multiple processes, multiprocessing, and multiprogramming

Chrome's use of multiple processes for individual tabs is not multiprocessing, nor is it multiprogramming. I think people should differentiate between them. Also there's no evidence saying Opera developed this technique in their browser.

Another thing is that it seems Chrome can actually switching its Process Model with a command line parameter. I think this should be mentioned. http://osnews.com/story/20253/Process_Model_Explained Ufopedia (talk) 03:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Portable version

Hi people, just wanted to say that I found a portable version of Google Chrome:

http://hacktolive.org/wiki/Portable_Applications You might want to add that info to the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.4.192 (talk) 01:26, 8 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)

Confirmation of standars complient is fairly self edvident, any one can verifiy it them selves or view the screen shot sets I have taken.

--70.126.237.225 (talk) 04:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can create an acid at home as well, but that's irrelevant. See WP:V. We can talk about what the source provided above says, though. — ^FatalError 05:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

--We have one right here- http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10030962-2.html Opera still beats in ACID 3. --70.126.237.225 (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

--Hi I'm new to editing wikipedia.. but I found a bug in Google Chrome's rendering engine with Acid2 test. http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/5051/bugreportju7.png All you have to do is go to the page and select everything while moving your mouse up towards the top of your screen.--JonBasniak (talk) 12:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added text with Opera comparison concerning Acid3, for article objectivity. Nevermorestr (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

new version is available

0.2.152.0 (build 1736) --Zacatecnik (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have just downloaded and installed it and the version is still 0.2.149.29 (build 1798). --Dima1 (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Crash Chrome with one line

There seems to be a bug in Chrome, that will crash the browser if one types "about:%" in the search line. This was experienced while trying to disable the unique ID privacy risk of Chrome on a Windows XP desktop. It will crash the whole browser, not just one tab. The status of this possible bug is yet unconfirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.13.225.234 (talk) 11:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for that? It would be great imformation to add, but without a reliable source we can't add it. — ^FatalError 18:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/39170/108/ is one of many websites describing this "one-liner" way to crash Chrome. - Bevo (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It works immediately. You don't even have to press enter. I just restarted after a crash. --John Bahrain (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, looks like it's already in the article. I've added the source, thanks. — ^FatalError 20:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be fixed in the latest version of Chrome... At least I can't get it to crash. But I'm confused, is this the Chrome issue tracker or an encyclopaedia article? For the latter, it would suffice to note that the early release had many wrinkles that were ironed out in subsequent releases. Vesal (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. You just convinced me to crash my browser... I can vouch that the bug is for real. —  X  S  G  00:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I updated. Bug go bye bye. —  X  S  G  00:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

How the heck does one update Chrome? I can't figure it out. No "check for updates" menu item. --99.241.54.97 (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Click on the spanner, go to about. It'll tell you there its out of date. —Reedy 22:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Mine says it is build 1583, I didn't think I'd updated it and I got it on the 2nd... Doug Weller (talk) 06:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it is updated without asking or telling --132.230.77.176 (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Unprotect

I think it's been five days now since the article got semi-protected. Can we try unprotecting it for a bit?--217.171.129.69 (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd advise you go to WP:RFPP and request unprotection. It will be faster than waiting for an admin to see this thread. Regards SoWhy 23:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection lasts until 9th. I'm inclined to leave it protected until then. --Salix alba (talk) 00:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I think it's OK to wait another day.--85.158.139.99 (talk) 07:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC) (formerly 217.171.129.69)

Browser size: 475kb is clearly incorrect

The 475kb is an _installer_. Compare other browser articles, it seems fine with zipped size -- and the original release does come as a 11MiB zip "signed" by google here: http://code.google.com/p/gears/source/browse/trunk/third_party/#third_party/chrome/bin (Some places, like http://www.snapfiles.com/get/googlechrome.html mistakenly beleives it's 7MiB, but to that comes 1-2 more files). 193.77.156.40 (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image Display Quality

Anyone else notice that photos don't look quite as good in Chrome? When loading the same image side-by-side in both Chrome and Firefox, the Chrome-rendered image has fewer color gradients in large, mostly monochrome areas (such as the sky).

Everlong (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless your Firefox 3 installation has been tweaked for gamma support, I'd say it's most likely just "placebo." --Kjoonlee 02:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Image deletion

I just want to warn anyone that the... "extremists" at Wikimedia commons WILL delete the screenshot of Google Chrome as soon as they spot it, they will shoot on sight either claiming:

• "contains non-free content"
• "no fair-use allowed here!"
• "policy violation"
• or even "copyright violation!!!"

just because the screenshot has parts of Windows Vista interface.... yeah, it blows... but they are radicals, nothing to do about that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.240.127.16 (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a bit harsh. But either way, the screenshot should fall under the fair use policy. — ^FatalError 04:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

External links

I don't think we need links to reviews in the External links section. Those need to go into the article as sources. If we listed every review of Google Chrome, we'd have a page-long External links section, which doesn't make sense. — ^FatalError 04:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Chrome Cannot Stream Audio?

At least, it doesn't appear to be able to stream audio from Sirius.com, while ie and firefox can. I'm surprised there's no mention of this. tharsaile (talk) 13:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Easter Eggs

Is it worth adding a section on Easter Eggs in Chrome. For example typing 'about:internets' (without apostrophes) in the address bar brings up the 3D Pipes screen saver within the tab. (Eyehawk78 (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC))

Someone added an =Easter eggs= section, and then someone deleted it. Here's what it said at last edit before delete

There are a few easter eggs in Google Chrome's "about:" pages. For example, typing about:internets [sic] in the address bar on Windows XP presents the user with a series of tubes (implemented by loading Microsoft's 3D Pipes screensaver "sspipes.scr"). The text displayed in the tab is set to "Don't Clog the Tubes!". Google Chrome's Full List of Special about: Pages

- Bevo (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the Easter eggs section is notable at all. All it does is present some trivial information. So no, I don't see why we need that section. Artichoker[talk] 16:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It might have security implications (like the current dependence on the code that renders sspipes.scr). But this tie-in could be placed in a section on security instead of in a separate section. - Bevo (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

But unless it is explicitly stated that it involves security, that would just be original research. Artichoker[talk] 16:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, citations would need to be in place, as always. - Bevo (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

How about this Easter Eggs: It was discovered that when "about:internets" is typed into the address bar it goes to the Microsoft Windows 3D Pipes screensaver. The plural form "internets" references President George W. Bush's misue of the word on several occasions. The title of the tab is "Don't Clog the Tubes!" which makes reference to Senator Ted Stevens stance on net neutrality. Both of these references poke fun at politicians misuderstanding and incorrecert terminolgy of technology and the Internet.

I don't know how to source any of this, but I do think it should be part of the article. I specifically came here to find out about the Easter Eggs thinking "wikipedia will have a section" but I was wrong. I then typed this up and came here to see anything about this, unfortunately I learned there was already a section and it had been deleted. I strongly believe what I typed, or some other section about Easter Eggs should be included. - Fanman904 (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is that there is no reason to mention it unless there are sources talking about it. I haven't seen a single reliable website talk about it, so it should not be added. It's not important, and really doesn't contribute to the article at all. — ^FatalError 03:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but I do come to Wikipedia to find out about those odd things, that seem to have been collectively added here. I came to see if they have got all the references correct in the Easter Egg. It is my understanding that this article is about Google Chrome, not just the tech aspects and reception, but rather about Google Chrome entirely. So not knowing how this fits in is odd. This is the page for Google Chrome right? Google Chrome does contain this Eater Eggs right? why shouldn't it be added? Just because it doesn't add to the browser portions of the discussion, doesn't mean it's irrelevant.

If Google released a crappy program that was more Easter Eggs than functional, we would definitely include all those Easter Eggs. It wouldn't be a short blob about nothing, we would include all aspects of the program. In addition, no credible source is ever going to mention this. No one with a career will write an article about anything like this, it is to specific and technical. So since this is a page about Google Chrome entirely, not just large topics, it should be added. - Fanman904 (talk) 21:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because you come to read these things doesn't mean we should add them. This is an encyclopedia, not a "fun facts" book. We simply can't add "all aspects of the program". We add the important and notable information; there is no need to add any more. The average reader doesn't care about the "Easter eggs," they just want to know what the hell Google Chrome is in the first place. Little facts like that are for bloggers to post about, not Wikipedia. — ^FatalError 02:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is it that we "simply" can't add "all aspects of the program"? Is it technologically impossible? because I'm pretty sure I could do it. An Easter Eggs section at the end of the article wouldn't interfere with "the average reader" (Who you claim is on your side) because it doesn't take away from the article, it adds to it. The reading of the first paragraph wouldn't change at all to find out what the program is. You are correct Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a dictionary, which you would want to make it as short as, therefore it contains information about the topic. Many other pages for programs include "Myths" and "Easter Egg" sections that "don't add to the discussion" but are included regardless because it involves the program

Your making is sound like this section would confuse people or mislead them. I don't see how since Wikipedia organizes articles into sections to keep it clean. There also seems to be more urgency in your comments that I can't identify. I don't know why this is a such a problem when it is done everywhere else in Wikipedia, especially to include other facts. - Fanman904 (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that other articles do it is not a valid argument. See WP:TRIVIA; miscellaneous information should be avoided. This isn't just my opinion, it's a Wikipedia-wide policy. I don't know what more there is to say. — ^FatalError 01:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Give up, Fanman904. Wikipedia takes itself too seriously. In the beginning I used to add trivia sections to old DOS game pages and they were all purged eventually on the great WPTRIVIA drive. The only solution is to leave this stuff on the talk pages, that's what I see people who like trivia-facts have been doing. And often the talk pages are more interesting than the official page anyways. 200.96.88.35 (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Programming language?

What language is used for the Chrome source code? I think this is worth mentioning in the article. Perhaps it's also worth mentioning that the language is not listed anywhere on any of the official Google pages, including the developer site. You can download the source tarball, but you don't get to know what language it is until after... 69.111.176.183 (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. — ^FatalError 01:59, 13 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)

Back to topic, Chrome in its current state is not open source. They distribute an application without its source code. Chromium and Chrome are two different things. You can't build the Chrome executable from Chromium source. A promise to open the source at some point in the future is irrelevant. As long as Chrome is not open source, this article should not suggest that it somehow is.--87.162.7.206 (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, unless you can reconstruct, identically byte for byte, the executable from the distributed source code, it cannot be verified that the distributed source code matches the distributed executable. Given the fact that Google explicitly bans any attempt to decompile the distributed binary, the only logical conclusion is that additional, proprietary code has been added. Even if this proprietary material is only by the compiler that Google chooses to use for distribution, it is nevertheless proprietary, and therefore, the whole distribution cannot be said to be open source (which is why the technical portions of the Google website state that it is build with open source).

For future instances of this, the effective way to kill these arguements is to add the reference to the material in the text of the article instead of on the talk page, where it takes more than a glance to locate. Zaphraud (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you heard of the Firefox? Like those proprietary TalkBack code in Firefox 2, and the proprietary logo and trademarks in all versions of Firefox. And the EULA that you cannot modify the distributed binary? Yes Firefox the end-user build is NOT open-source, but proprietary software, it's the Firefox project that's the open-source project. Like-wise, Chrome the name of the proprietary end-user build of the open-source Chromium project, simple as that. And yup Chrome surely contains proprietary stuff, like the logo, the trademarks, and the updater. Chrome is just an end-user build, a binary distribution, of course it's not open-source, just like the en-user build of Firefox is not open-source. 221.217.201.40 (talk) 02:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

See this Firefox EULA controversy, Chrome is similar : http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=2615 Ufopedia (talk) 11:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Google chrome vs. Chromium

Can anybody please shed some light how far these really differ? This can be anything from Google chrome just be a closed trademarked version of Chromium (mostly just like firefox) (so they are the only one that legally may call the compiled Chromium "Google Chrome") to to something like Chromium just be a reduced library and never produce any useable executable by itself. If its anything in between, what exactly does Google Chrome have where the source is missing for in Chromium? --131.130.37.195 (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Chromium is essentially the source code, while Google Chrome is the version compiled by Google. Google Chrome is compiled behind the scenes, so it may or may not be entirely built on the Chromium code. While they claim to use the Chromium code, since their license prohibits users to decompile or reverse engineer the program, we can't actually know for sure. Basically, the difference is that one is an open source project (Chromium) and the other is a proprietary application, even if they are both built on the same code base. So if you compile Chromium yourself, you're using Chromium, not Google Chrome. You're only using the latter if you directly download it from Google. — ^FatalError 21:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Different question, is Chromium feature complete to Google Chrome? Or are there any obvious differences? --81.217.14.229 (talk) 02:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Exact same thing. — ^FatalError 04:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The obvious differences include the automatic updater GoogleUpdate.exe, the Chrome logo, and the google trademarks, which are not part of Chromium. Basically Chrome to Chromium is just like the Firefox end-user build to the Firefox open-source project. Mozilla's end-user build of Firefox distributed under EULA is a proprietary application, while the Firefox project is an open-source project.Ufopedia (talk) 05:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I added some material about the difference and so on. I added it all to the lead, but I'm not sure it fits there. Please edit aggressively! Thanks, Vesal (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Dev channel

It's now possible to get new builds of Chrome that have not yet been released as an beta - http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/0,1000000097,39489330,00.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.74.176.98 (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

CrossOver Chromium

http://www.codeweavers.com/services/ports/chromium/

I think we should mention there are now running releases of Chromium for Mac and Linux, even though it appears they just packaged Chromium for Windows and Wine. --dab (𒁳) 10:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. That'd be pretty important to add to the Wine page. It's not important here. —  X  S  G  23:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Reception

I think we need to remove both the "Privacy" and "Security flaws" subsections of the current "Reception" section. As someone said earlier, they're just nitpicking at Chrome. The download feature mentioned under Security flaws is not a security hole, but rather a valid design decision. The DoS attack was fixed, so I don't know why it's still there. The privacy concerns are so small they aren't even worth mentioning (not to mention the whole "unique ID" thing is synthesis of published material). That said, I'm removing the sections for now. As Chrome grows, there might be some bigger security holes or privacy issues that will be worth mentioning, but the current ones are just desperately trying to find some weakness in the browser. I feel the don't belong in an encyclopedia. Feel free to argue your opinion here if you'd like, but please don't revert my edit without reaching a consensus; I really don't want to get in an edit war because of this. Thanks. — ^FatalError 01:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I think an encyclopedia must not only show the feautres of something but also has the responsibility to inform about risks and privacy issues. An encyclopedia is not a promotion platform to praise something - it also has the duty to show the shadows of that item. Stripping proven dangers or appropriate critisism is biasing. Biasing could also be interpreted as manipulative or as censorship. I see no reasons why the passages Privacy and Security Flaws has been removed. It is, however, true that passages about bugs that have been resolved in the meantime should be annotaded as resolved, but not completely removed. I compared the english wiki article to articles in other languages and I was outright astonished how "clean washed" this article was, and disturbed. --84.58.240.61 (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You missed my point. The particular issues that were talked about in those section were not worth mentioning, IMO. There are no big problems with Chrome at the moment. The bugs were fixed and the privacy concerns are only potential privacy concerns, and again, not big enough to warrant a mention. If something "big" gets mentioned, I have no problem with adding it in, but there is absolutely no need to list bugs that were already fixed. This is an encyclopedia, not a bug tracker. — ^FatalError 23:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The BSI ([Federal Office for Information Security]) stated: "While even private individuals should refrain from using this browser seriously (testing is maybe o.k.), an application in companies is definitely unjustifyable: by default, all terms entered into the URL field (as HTTP passwords and company-internal adresses) are sent to Google." If a *national department* makes such a statement, this is IMHO something to be very concerned about. Again, YMMV but I think your "everything is aaaaalright" is not a reason to hide these facts from the majority of information-seekers, which seek *full* information, nothing you have filtered with your personal gut-feeling. Again, if a *national department* sends out a warning with this sharpness, this maybe has more weight than your opinion. Also, it seems to me that many wikipedia-users and authors have raised this concern but have been wiped out from both the article and this discussion page, which makes me wonder why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.221.20 (talk) 07:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Dou you have a references for that? --Salix alba (talk) 07:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem in removing mentions of security flaws that have been corrected in newer releases, as they're no longer applicable criticisms; however, please do not remove referenced material pertaining to ongoing concerns with the software. That is very much POV. 74.242.120.107 (talk) 05:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not remove mention of when it was released too then? We should also remove any mention of anything beyond the current build because all the chrome cheerleaders don't want anyone to mention the problems people had with it. After all this is a marketing campaign instead of a encyclopedic article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.6.18 (talk) 14:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounded a bit hostile. First of all, let me just mention that I'm not a "Chrome cheerleader"; I hardly even use it. With that said, you're taking this farther than I originally meant. What I meant was there is no need to mention small [unimportant] bugs that have already been fixed. If, say, there was some kind of huge exploit that was talked about everywhere, then it would be okay to have that in. I'm just saying that there is no need to mention little bugs that aren't talked about outside of the blogosphere, such as the lack of support for various mice. I also don't think the thing with transmission of information to Google is really that big of a deal, but that's my opinion and I'm not going to argue about that since it's well sourced and highly criticized information. I think it looks fine now. — ^FatalError 22:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Privacy Policy

No discussion on the shady Chrome privacy policy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.75.18.148 (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? If you've got a source, be bold! —  X  S  G  23:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Development Status

Is Google Chrome really still in Beta? I thought it had progressed to Web Release. Gforce20 (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It's presently in a Public Beta phase. —  X  S  G  23:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind Google uses 'beta' as a way to keep people from complaining, or a way to shut them up if they do. Gmail, for example, is still "beta" after what...four years? You'll notice there is not beta software template atop the Gmail article, and for good reason — I don't think we need one here or for any article on any Google product or service, but whatever. :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Version 0.2.152.1?

I have downloaded google chrome from here and its version is 0.2.152.1 build UnKonwn (I looked it up in Settings -> About Google Chrome option in my google chrome software)So, is it v0.2.152.1 or not? Should we update the article or not? N.samimi island (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

already there is 0.2.153.1. These are releases from developer release channel, which can be selected by channel switcher tool (by default end user beta channel is used) --Ilya K (talk) 13:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

My version is giving me version 0.2.149.30, just like it is in the article... then how did you get a 0.2.152.1 version? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devrit (talk • contribs) 01:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

By Downloading it directly from developers !!! and, replacing it with original google chrome. (Google chrome must be closed before this) N.samimi island (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Then why doesn't Google post this on their website? Devrit 19:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well,maybe they think those are not ready for regular users and those are only for professionals.Although, I didn't have any problems with it till now... N.samimi island (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Or simply Google is too lazy to update their website, which I suspect is the case. Devrit 00:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that`s a good reason... LOL :)N.samimi island (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Huge Google Chrome hacking scandal erupts!

Very much tongue-in-cheek reporting, journalist do not dare to speak up for fear of Google legals:

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39492220,00.htm

Google reverse engineered Vista SP1 to steal advanced protection methods and backport them to Windows XP and 2003 for exclusive Chrome use. This is against the DCMA and hurts M$ financially for lost Vista sales. I think Microsoft will grill Google a lot and settle for a lot of money out of Brin's pocket and a public apology.

(Those good old times of taiwanese clone-makers reversing the IBM PC XT/AT BIOS and copying it shamelessly with not a word of caution from US authorities are long gone! Google is not a little island who needs market possibilities for strong economy to be able to stand up against communist China invasion.)

Google is trying some very lame excuses, like we were not there, we did not do it, we just talked about it (yeah in source ode comments, where else...). Google mantra "Do no evil" has lost any credibility! 82.131.210.162 (talk) 11:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If you are talking about how Chrome enables DEP (and I believe you are), then that’s neither breaking news, nor really a scandal. That was reported more than a week ago and has been more or less addressed. What they did is not hurting Microsoft financially at all, and they are not “hacking” it. They used a coding trick to enable DEP. See this article on the details: http://www.hanselman.com/blog/TheWeeklySourceCode33MicrosoftOpenSourceInsideGoogleChrome.aspx Synetech (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The =Reverse engineering controversy= section needs to be removed. Bloggers' claims alone (or even reports of bloggers' claims) cannot be the basis for material in Wikipedia. - Bevo (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, not to mention this is not a scandal. All they did was enable DEP on Windows XP/2003; it was already there. They didn't disassemble or "backport" anything. I'm removing the section. — ^FatalError 23:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that contrary to what our anonymous friend above says, they're not using a feature unavailable to XP users. In fact XP SP3 users don't need the undocumented method since they support the documented method also available in Vista SP1 Nil Einne (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Further, their mantra is not "Do no evil" (which is impossible), it's "Don't be evil." Tanath (talk) 09:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

V8 Performance

WebKit has recently released a new version of their JavaScript engine (SquirrelFish) which is faster than Chrome’s V8. There is a part in the article that says that Chrome is faster (and V8 in particular) that is no longer accurate. Synetech (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to back that up? Maybe a benchmark done by a third party? (Not a blog, please.) Because otherwise it's pretty meaningless. — ^FatalError 23:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Have one on me? No, I only read the article and moved on, then mentioned it here later—I don’t tend to write down the where and when of everything I read and hear. Check Google News and you’ll find all kinds of posts about it. I don’t know what you would consider reliable since corporations are moving towards blogs for news and communication, so if all blogs are out, then I don’t know what counts. You’d trust CNN over a company/person’s own blog? If not, then WebKit’s blog has a good post on it: http://webkit.org/blog/214/introducing-squirrelfish-extreme/. (It doesn’t specifically mention V8, but others have done benchmarks.) Synetech (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, and the current source is actually a blog, so demanding a more reliable source for a the (as far as I can tell accurate) counter-claim seems unfair. I suggest avoiding statements about the relative speed of these rapidly developing pre-released engines altogether. Vesal (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with Vesal. And Synetech, don't accuse me of writing Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and reliable sources. I'm not going by my opinions here. But yeah, if it's not important enough for a news organization like CNet to mention then it's probably not worth mentioning, especially since these things can change in the blink of an eye. — ^FatalError 22:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms and privacy concerns

I went ahead and started a small stub section to outline ongoing concerns with Chrome's privacy policies. I plan to expand it somewhat in the near-future to include more specific detail about what sort of data is transmitted, salvage some of the information from previous revisions, and bring the references in-line with further web citations. Any thoughts or suggestions?

On a further note, I've been going over the page's history and there seems to be an awful lot of reverting on sections which outline Chrome's privacy policy, as well as other controversies. I hope I'm not invoking a conflict by trying to re-introduce this information to the article, but I don't believe the removal (or future disclusion) of this information was at all justifiable within Wiki policy. It more or less seems like a personal disagreement. 74.242.120.107 (talk) 04:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I subscribe to the belief that Criticism sections are inherently POV. Criticism, per se is not POV, however; it just needs to be integrated into the appropriate parts of the article, and I encourage you to continue documenting it. As such, I hope you don't mind if I take your criticisms and integrate them into the article. —  X  S  G  05:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This looks good, but I did plan to expand that section somewhat in the future. I think criticisms sections are perfectly fine, if you consider that the subject is the target of frequent criticism. I do agree with you in cases where criticisms seem to be added to every article just for the sake of novelty, but this isn't the case; Chrome has been subject to a lot of critical reception because of its licensing and usage-statistics features. There have been other concerns and criticisms with security flaws, though these have already been patched in recent versions, so I see no need to include them now. (although, maybe a short mention under "Reception" would be appropriate, along with a line stating that these flaws / bugs have been addressed with newer releases) 74.242.121.166 (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and added this mention under the Security section. The original was short enough, so I didn't worry too much about truncating it down. Let me know what you think. 74.242.121.166 (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

My point is that critical reception is reception nonetheless, so negative reception belongs in the reception section just as equally as does positive reception. Having a special section for negative reception seems counter-intuitive to NPOV. I think you've alluded to this. —  X  S  G  20:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess that makes sense. I don't have any problem with the current sectioning. 74.242.121.166 (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I've combined two areas of privacy concerns into a single Privacy Concerns section and intend to expand it. Were there separate sections on privacy or criticism of Chrome in the past? If there were valid criticisms that were removed, I would like to see what they are. --Theorize (talk) 11:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there was a separate section on privacy in the past. Criticism sections and, for that matter, articles, are discouraged in Wikipedia because some people (myself included) contend that they are inherently WP:POV. Special cases can be made, of course, but I don't think this article warrants one. All of the privacy concerns can easily add value to other sections of this article. No cited criticism were removed in the process of getting rid of the previous criticism section, as that, too, would be a violation of WP:NPOV. Criticism has value. Drawing undue attention to them has a negative value. —  X  S  G  16:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The privacy concerns are now mentioned in three places:

• Public release. There were subsequent concerns about the browser's use of an unusual tracking feature that sends information about visited websites back to Google.
• Unofficial Chromium releases. Several security issues, which had given rise to privacy concerns (such as the transmission of usage information to Google).
• Transmission of usage information to Google.

That is really taking it too far. Vesal (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I hope I've sufficiently addressed this concern by re-focusing the Unofiical Chromium rekeases and Public Reception blurbs back on the sections's subject. —  X  S  G  07:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Free?

Does it need to be titled as a "free web browser". IE is free, opera is free, firefox is free, avast is free, safari is free. The norm now is that browsers are free. It would better to state when a browser must be paid for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.65.63 (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The additional five bytes it takes to clarify that a browser is free still seems worth it to me. Ultimately, it doesn't matter, but it strikes me as a bit pedantic. —  X  S  G  16:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's not free software, than it's not free. --w^{L<speak·check>} 08:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced "free" and the link to free software with the less ambiguous freeware and added the article to the proprietary software category. IMO the free web browsers category is also appropriate, as Chromium is free software, and this article covers both Chromium and Google Chrome. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Chrome is just the brand, put around open-source code. It is similar to Mozilla Firefox in that respect, yet no-one would put Firefox into a "proprietary software" category. SoWhy 10:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree, I removed it from Proprietary Software. Unless Firefox is put into Proprietary Software category too, Chrome should not be put there neither. Ufopedia (talk) 04:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Development milestones before public release

Hi, All!

I just read Wired today and it has a pretty long and good article on Chrome. There is a wealth of information. In particular it has a lot of information how the project went before Google released Chrome. This is something for me difficult to find elsewhere. I added a link to it to "External references".

Levy, Steven (2008-09-02). "Inside Chrome: The Secret Project to Crush IE and Remake the Web". Wired: Issue 16.10. pp. 144–152. Retrieved 2008-09-29. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessdaymonth=, |accessyear=, |accessmonthday=, and |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

-- BaldPark (talk) 04:56, 30 September 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)

Sounds sketchy. Chrome and Chromium are open source, Hotmail is not. I think someone would have noticed by now if Google decided to block Hotmail on Chrome. Plus, why Hotmail and not other services like Yahoo! Mail and AOL? I think the most likely answer is that it's a bug within Hotmail (which CNET seems to agree with). — ^FatalError 02:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

User interface

This article doesn't mention the fact that Google Chrome in its initial inception (I don't know about the latest version though) does not respect default user interface. It uses its own interface which is a UI-design flaw. Unless of course they changed it, or unless somebody changed the UI design guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.100.29 (talk) 23:27, 9 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)

http://blog.chromium.org/2008/10/google-chrome-chromium-and-google.html this article from Google mentioned about it too Ufopedia (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes absolutely it should be listed as malware! Updater is not a part of chrome and user is not given a choice to install or uninstall it - so it should be classified as malware! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.50.212.23 (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Umm, no. It doesn't do ANYTHING other than update all your Google Programs. Who cares if you didn't want it? Just uninstall it. I do agree that they should tell you/give you a choice, but that does not in any way classify it as malware. You get it with Google Earth and Sketchup as well, but in those instances it tells you your getting the updater, so maybe they just forgot to add that to the installer? StarfoxRoy^(guestbook) 23:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Userbox!

❤️‍🩹this user's comfort character is Tara Carpenter

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

Extensions

The Chromium-team is actively working on an extension-system, see: http://dev.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/extensions/ Should be in the article somewhere 87.212.16.222 (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Initial release

The initial release must be the first stable release, or I'm wrong? --Sotcr Excuse my English (talk me) 23:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right according to the template documentation, which is, IMO, counterintuitive, as the infobox clearly states "initial release" rather than "initial stable releas". I've brought up the issue at Template talk:Infobox Software#Released parameter. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)