Google Chrome - Page 4

**Zoopy** · 09-03-2008, 04:57 AM

I have been using Chrome all day today and I got to say it is pretty sleek. The in-browser task manager with the "Stats for Nerds" link is humorous.

**jepzilla** · 09-03-2008, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tybalt

All I know is that Mac OS XXI is horrible. I'm holding out for XXII.

Spoiler alert: Aqua dies.

**Hidus** · 09-03-2008, 08:09 PM

How to adblock for chrome:

http://www.fritscher.ch/blog/2008/09...-with-privoxy/

It uses a local proxy to do the blocking so it's not quite as streamlined as adblock for FF but it does the trick for now anyhow.

**jepzilla** · 09-03-2008, 08:43 PM

I used to use privoxy a few years ago. It's more geared towards privacy (privacy + proxy = privoxy), stripping out cookies and identifying features and such, but it also does a good job against ads. The downside to it though, was that you had to manually add exceptions for a lot of sites. Privoxy by default turns normal cookies into session-only cookies, so unless you like logging into forums every time you use them, you have to manually add a lot of sites to the exception list.

Admuncher also works well. But is shareware, and worse is one of those annoying programs that uses weird interface libraries and so you don't get antialiased fonts. Ugggly.

**jepzilla** · 09-03-2008, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrome Eula

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.

11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above license.

Well crap. Google owns this post.

From Gizmodo

Fortunately, for you Yanks, EULAs have no legal weight in the US (Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117, subsection a, paragraph 1).

**Hidus** · 09-03-2008, 09:11 PM

I'm no lawyer but I think all they are doing is protecting themselves from someone trying to say "google owes me 10 cents for every one of my forums posts 'reproduced' by the chrome browser".

**jepzilla** · 09-03-2008, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hidus

I'm no lawyer but I think all they are doing is protecting themselves from someone trying to say "google owes me 10 cents for every one of my forums posts 'reproduced' by the chrome browser".

That would be ludicrously broad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebecca Ward, Senior Product Counsel for Google Chrome

In order to keep things simple for our users, we try to use the same set of legal terms (our Universal Terms of Service) for many of our products. Sometimes, as in the case of Google Chrome, this means that the legal terms for a specific product may include terms that don't apply well to the use of that product. We are working quickly to remove language from Section 11 of the current Google Chrome terms of service. This change will apply retroactively to all users who have downloaded Google Chrome.

Source

A screwup on their part. That being said, that's still scarily broad for any product of Google's that I can think of.

**Beatnik** · 09-04-2008, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jepzilla

Now that I think about it, I imagine the primary justification is Google Apps and other 'rich' web content. WebKit rendering engine with their own high performance JavaScript implementation, plus Gears... yeah, definitely going to be more for 'web apps on your desktop' than browsing. Looking at what they've published it sounds a lot like they think Firefox is has fundamentally design flaws that make it inappropriate as a serious platform, and I doubt they trust Microsoft. Hence Chrome... the name even sounds like some toolkit layer.

There was a (Gartner?) analyst on the Google campus yesterday during NPR/APM's Marketplace and he said exactly this. Introducing Chrome and it's "rich web" features will provide competition so that IE and FF will more speedily integrate similar features, meaning that even if they don't 'win' the browser wars, they still win because their apps will be more easy to use in all browsers.

Pretty ingenious. I wish their stock price got a bigger bump from the news though.

StaticShock · 09-04-2008, 02:08 AM

Mozilla have released their benchmarks for TraceMonkey and they seem (from Mozilla's point of view) to be faster than V8. And with Safari releasing Squirrelfish the browser wars have a new stat to fight over other than Acid scores.

Fish #641 · 09-04-2008, 04:25 AM

Anyone else not notice any faster browsing? If anything, it's slower than FF3. I feel like I have like a 150 ping while just typing this from Chrome.