Google Chrome, is it a good thing?

[deanjo]

So with the beta out of Google's Chrome, I was able to take it for a test drive. That being said, it is still very young and crash prone so far. Now from a technical view, I see alot of potential in Chrome, but there are some things that bug me about the idea of Google putting out a browser.

It's with mixed feelings that I accept Chrome, on the plus side, it's open source and it embracing HTML5, and threading and memory management is a needed improvement to todays solutions.

But....

There is something about a company that specializes in data harvesting that really really bugs me. I'm not keen on the idea of the #1 data resource on the net having a browser solution for their services. This does remind me a lot of how Hotmail used to be browser agnostic and over time would up being so tightly hooked into MS's products that using their online services became very dependent on running their software to make the most of it.

Then there is also the fact that this might give too much leverage to google as well for current and presents standards. HTML5 for example still does not have a set codec solution that all supporters can agree on. Now I can really see Googles service such as YouTube becoming the bully on the block and forcing others to use what Google decides should be. for example. the codec standard.

It just feels to me like we could be trading a bunch of monkeys for one 1000kg gorrilla.


What are your guys thoughts?

[Aradreth]

The EULA is just slightly worrying (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10030522-56.html) when coming from a company that excels in data mining. Although with the browser being open source you could just remove any pieces of code that report back to google but I'd hope it would never reach that stage.

As for the codec's with HTML5 I hadn't really though about it, but yes you are right I could see google forcing the codec they want if Chrome ends up being a success.

[Vighy]

The EULA is just slightly worrying (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10030522-56.html) when coming from a company that excels in data mining. Although with the browser being open source you could just remove any pieces of code that report back to google but I'd hope it would never reach that stage.

As for the codec's with HTML5 I hadn't really though about it, but yes you are right I could see google forcing the codec they want if Chrome ends up being a success.

Ok, I read the eula... firefox will remain my browser.

[_txf_]

The best thing about chrome is javascript. I hope others will take the code from the v8 javascript engine. Apparently it is light years ahead of all the others.

[d2kx]

I'd like to see a V8 vs. SquirrelFish comparison... and is it true that it uses Qt? If WebKit + Qt then = epic win.

[grantek]

There is something about a company that specializes in data harvesting that really really bugs me.
Yeah, I agree - I haven't had a good feeling from Google for a while, but they've consistently proven they're happy to follow standards, and being an open-source browser I'd hope someone has the resources to run a "centos"/"iceweasel"-type fork that removes all the googlisms. Either way, I'd expect there's user options to prevent autodownloading of blacklists/autocompletes, to at least stop the data flow to them if one wishes.

Google really does seem to "get it", in terms of helping open software and open standards, and they seem to understand that that's how they'll thrive. Being as large a corporation as they are, I'm not placing any long-term trust in them, but the fact that they're acknowledging that their browser is "just" chrome on top of WebKit goes a long way to position them as nothing but a Microsoft killer, which to me is a good thing :p

And wtf are people complaining about the eula for? The code's available under the BSD license fer goodness' sake!

[deanjo]

If WebKit + Qt then = epic win.

Wouldn't that be called Konqueror? You have been able to use webkit as an engine on it for a while now.

[Kano]

Well you can use safari too - even for Win ;)

[Thetargos]

I insist, being it OSS, wouldn't it mean that Mozilla could base Firefox 4 on a design like it? And who knows? Maybe even incorporate V8 on FF 3.5, or further tweak TraceMonkey.

Here (http://waynepan.com/2008/09/02/v8-tracemonkey-squirrelfish-ie8-benchmarks/) is a comparison of V8, TraceMonkey, SquirrelFish (WebKit) and IE8.

I have to wonder if the advantage of V8 on Chrome are due to the modular design of the browser and because it runs under its own process, rather than under the bigger, bulkier process of the browser, add threading there, and that process might even receive a dedicated CPU to it on multi-core systems.

[Zhick]

I'm pretty excited about Chrome, especially if it uses qt. I'll definately give it a try. And since it's FOSS, I'm pretty sure somebodys gonna rip out all the parts you wont want, if there realy are such parts, and call it IceChrome or something ;).
Also I actually do trust google and their "don't be evil" philosophie quite a bit. And after all they've been veeery good to us (the FOSS/GNU/Linux community).
Wouldn't that be called Konqueror? You have been able to use webkit as an engine on it for a while now.
Konqueror still uses KHTML and afaik there's no way of telling it to use webkit instead.

[deanjo]

Konqueror still uses KHTML and afaik there's no way of telling it to use webkit instead.


There has been webkit enabled Konq builds for quite a while now.

http://liquidat.wordpress.com/2007/12/20/kubuntus-kde-4-livecd-comes-with-webkit-enabled-konqueror/
As well as opensuse. kde4-webkitpart WebKit render engine for Konqueror



Once installed Systemsettings -> Advanced -> File Associations -> text/html -> Embedding -> Select Webkit -> Move Up (as often as needed) -> Apply.

[StringCheesian]

The EULA is just slightly worrying (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10030522-56.html) when coming from a company that excels in data mining. Although with the browser being open source you could just remove any pieces of code that report back to google but I'd hope it would never reach that stage.

Google fixed Chrome's EULA (http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Google-EULA-Service-Agreement,news-2541.html). Apparently it was just an oversight.

[energyman]

Chrome is horrible. Fat! And google wants all the rights of all your stuff. Are they insanse?

EDIT: ok, they corrected it. The new eula looks fine. Still - the memory consumption is horrible.

[deanjo]

Still - the memory consumption is horrible.

That's odd, that's the exact opposite of what all the other sites are saying.

1) close all browsers
2) open all of your browsers and navigate to the same web page in all of them
3) open a new tab in Chrome and type about:memory for the url it will display all the browsers that are opened and how much memory they are consuming.

[energyman]

http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/

[deanjo]

http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/

I realize that with multiple tabs and sites open that chrome will take more memory, that is the price of running a multiprocess solution. The flip side however is that if one of those processes hit a snag and crash/hang, you can simply close the offending tab without crashing the complete browser. This is not possible on other current browsers.

[energyman]

you know, I prefer non-crashing browsers. And the only thing that makes 'tabs' lockup is bad java-script. Luckily konqueror detects javascript gone bad and gives you the option to kill the script. Now that is userfriendly.

[deanjo]

you know, I prefer non-crashing browsers. And the only thing that makes 'tabs' lockup is bad java-script. Luckily konqueror detects javascript gone bad and gives you the option to kill the script. Now that is userfriendly.

Plugins such as flash and others can also lead to crashing browsers as well.

[energyman]

nspluginwrapper. Flash goes down. Browser stays up.

[deanjo]

nspluginwrapper. Flash goes down. Browser stays up.

Unfortunately nspluginwrapper is just as buggy and causes just as many browser crashes as many other plugins.

[energyman]

not for me ;)

[jeffro-tull]

I'll sit this out and wait for "Polished Aluminum"

(...which will be to Chrome as Iceweasel is to Firefox)

[karthikrg]

I find chrome faster for loading Gmail, facebook and all these Web 2.0/AJAX powered sites as compared to Firefox/Opera. But right now it lacks too many features provided by firefox for me. Plus one thing is very crappy.. wtf does it have to share it's proxy settings with IE???

[AinsleyKath]

Yes:), Google Chromo is a good thing to use as a search engine since Google Chrome is attractive, fast and has some impressive new features present in it.

[jill_alcher]

I haven't tried google chrome yet.

[niniendowarrior]

I presume all of you are using the Windows version for testing this thing.

As in all things Google, Chrome will also be permanently in Beta.

[deanjo]

Looks like google has a staggering team of 3 peeps working on the Chrome Linux port.

http://www.aaronboodman.com/2008/11/gmail-in-chromium-test-shell-on-linux.html

[Thetargos]

Hmmm... Interesting. When the port is done, I'll certainly give it a try.

[jeffro-tull]

wow. Gotta say, even with the few people (which doesn't surprise me), I expected it to be a little farther along that that.

[StringCheesian]

Looks like google has a staggering team of 3 peeps working on the Chrome Linux port.

http://www.aaronboodman.com/2008/11/gmail-in-chromium-test-shell-on-linux.html

"The other three guys" besides himself. That makes 4. Still a pretty small team, granted.

[deanjo]

"The other three guys" besides himself. That makes 4. Still a pretty small team, granted.

Well he's to busy blogging :p

[deanjo]

Then there is also the fact that this might give too much leverage to google as well for current and presents standards. HTML5 for example still does not have a set codec solution that all supporters can agree on. Now I can really see Googles service such as YouTube becoming the bully on the block and forcing others to use what Google decides should be. for example. the codec standard.

It just feels to me like we could be trading a bunch of monkeys for one 1000kg gorrilla.



Well it looks like the first shots have been fired, straight at adobe and ms.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/09/google_native_desktop/print.html

[deanjo]

and now this....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122929270127905065.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Google = wolf in sheeps clothing

[susikala]

Even if you're not a conspiracy theorist, there's no reason to use Chrome if you mainly relay on Google as your search engine. It's worrying enough that Google gives money to the Mozilla Foundation, ensuring even more people use their search engine. I mean, what's the next thing, the Google Operating System?

IceCat isn't all too bad, though.

All in all, I don't think speed was ever Firefox's greater appeal. If you're looking for speed, there are plenty of excellent browsers that deliver information quickly (e.g. elinks). But if you want to use Adblock, Flashblock, and numerous extensions that make browsing comfortable, nothing beats Firefox.

[energyman]

google chrome sucks as does safari:
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/030/1050030/chrome-and-safari-security-is-pants-bloke-reckons

btw, people on the heise.de forums tried the test with konqueror - which had the best results....