Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => Amiga Software Issues and Discussion => Topic started by: cicero790 on September 02, 2008, 07:41:28 PM
-
Does this have any Amiga implications ??
Saw this at the brother site and thought I post it.
"At Google, we have a saying: “launch early and iterate.” While this approach is usually limited to our engineers, it apparently applies to our mailroom as well! As you may have read in the blogosphere, we hit "send" a bit early on a comic book introducing our new open source browser, Google Chrome. As we believe in access to information for everyone, we've now made the comic publicly available -- you can find it here. We will be launching the beta version of Google Chrome tomorrow in more than 100 countries."
Posted yesterday at: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/, so beta expected today
Explanation of the browser here: http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/#
-
I offer a $1 to the first coder to port it to Amiga ;)
-
I just installed it. Amiga.org works fine. :-)
-
Where does that goddamn {bleep}ing stupid web comic strip end? I mean, jesus, what moron thought that one up? Just a link to download, plz, thx.
-
I installed it also. The browser actually feels quite heavy compared to FF3. To my expereience it is nowhere near as responsive as FF3 is.
Here is a link for you:
http://www.google.com/chrome/?utm_campaign=en&utm_source=en-blog-ogb&utm_medium=blog&brand=CHMP
-
Download link
http://www.google.com/chrome
-
Seems to run quicker than FF3 to me. Renders nice and quick, new tabs load quickly. All round seems great and working dandy! Might just replace FF for me.
-
I have to test run it for I while. I run this on a p4 2600 and it's not that diffrent from ff3 but i only been on two pages yet, more test required.
-
Meh. Feels featureless compared to FF3, to be honest.
But then, I run a bevy of adblockers, image handlers and script blockers so I'm used to a richer featureset.
We'll see what this does.
-
Nice idea, but no Mac version...
-
@Bloodline
Its hard but I hold my toungue.
I say nothing. :-) ;-)
-
Hum, don't support older win than XP...
-
Mac version coming soon, and why would you want to support earlier than WinXP - well, I suppose Win2k would be potentially useful...
I think the comic is a good idea: it tries to explain what's gone into this and also explains why it might be seen as sluggish in some time instances and what unique approaches they've taken.
Amiga implications for classic OS? Sod all. There's no chance on earth anything remotely like this will make it across to classic. How about more modern stuff, or AROS? Dunno. Look at how far Rob got with the AROS browser... This is a lot more on top of webkit. Could it make it to OS4? Dunno, but again I'm doubtful and to me it's an irrelevance as, much is I'd like to run it, I can't buy hardware to run it!
But hats off to Google, this really is trying to innovate in the browser, ultimately for self serving purposes but at least they don't try to hide that!
-
No Amiga OS version(yet)...
:lol:
bloodline wrote:
Nice idea, but no Mac version...
-
Painkiller wrote:
I installed it also. The browser actually feels quite heavy compared to FF3. To my expereience it is nowhere near as responsive as FF3 is.
Can you say multi-process?
It might work better under Linux since it has lighter processes (as in faster context switching than Windoze).
And speaking of multi-process, the title of this thread is wrong. Nothing I read said anything about multi-threaded (even though it will likely also be multi-threaded as well as a multi-process process).
@cicero:
Hold your tongue because in a few short years we (the majority) will be cutting it off. :-p
-
Any new option to the faulty Internet Explorer is very well welcomed. Firefox is the best anyway: estable and with a variety of plug-ins that enhance the browser to the top. I used IE for many years. Beggining to use Firefox and some plug-ins I never return back to the IE.
"New browser, more competition for a better world."
-
Feels featureless compared to FF3, to be honest.
But then, I run a bevy of adblockers, image handlers and script blockers so I'm used to a richer featureset.
Like what?
-
@da9000
Only copied it from AmigaWorld. Thought it was interesting to hear what you guys though of it. This is a great community with massive knowledge.
The rest is silence. Have to sleep now. :-)
-
@cicero:
you're excused then, other than your about-to-be flame bait :-p
-
oh man.. I bet there will be 50 threads on porting this thing.. LOL
-
Man, it's unbelievable fast!
:-D
-
yea,i like it fast! responsive good size frame
-
No Mac version, no incendiary device thrown...
Perhaps it's less a bomb than a molotov {bleep}tail party?
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c149/kiribell/headsplode1.gif)
-
persia wrote:
molotov {bleep}tail
:lol:
(can someone update the censor fucntion?)
-
cicero790 wrote:
@Bloodline
Its hard but I hold my toungue.
I say nothing. :-) ;-)
Are you referring to his new avatar picture? :lol:
-
Dragster wrote:
Man, it's unbelievable fast!
:-D
I do not think it is much faster. I think it adds latency and perhaps composes in the background and so fools you into thinking its faster.
-
Good idea to read the terms of service before installing this browser. Look at this article (http://www.download.com/8301-2007_4-10030522-12.html) for some comments on the matter. Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I don't like the idea of practically giving away my privacy to Google.
Edit: Just noticed someone else already mentioned this in another thread. (http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=37960)
-
This is just another hyped up product by Google. Some bugs have already been reported when using Google web application such as google groups and also facebook ... so basically you people are just testing their product ... good job ;-)
-
tonyyeb wrote:
Seems to run quicker than FF3 to me. Renders nice and quick, new tabs load quickly. All round seems great and working dandy! Might just replace FF for me.
And then you'll be supporting another corporate monolith (Google) at the expense of the Firefox developers. Most of the innovation in web browsers that has happened in recent times has been due to firefox, not MS and IE. If the google browser gets a hold- and everyone know "Google" these days, so that won't be too hard to do as opposed to far fewr knowing about firefox- it will follow the same path as MS with IE ie they'll create their own HTML "standards", eventually REQUIRING you to use the internet the way THEY want you to, and if that means putting up with pop advertising you can' stop or banner ads you can't stop, or incorrectly rendering pages of competitor search engines or companies they don't like, well what are you gonna do about it?
We all should support open source as much as possible.
-
TheMagicM wrote:
oh man.. I bet there will be 50 threads on porting this thing.. LOL
*Snort*
Either that, or we'll find a CDRom torrent of a version that boots on a MacMini, only to fail at load time.
:lol:
-
I think i sucks... I like playing onslaught (http://onslaught.playr.co.uk/?map=HG%20Hammer2) and i never got past wave 100 on chrome... FF3 bogs out at wave 600 something...
And i do not want to talk about IE...
Other than playing onslaught i did not like the browser.
-
Oh dear ... sorry Goggle but only 4/10 for effort
-
There are plenty of reasons to stay away from Chrome. To name a few:
1.) It is Windows only.
2.) It is made by a company that is financed by internet adverts.
3.) It is made by a company that disrespects people's privacy.
4.) It is insecure. http://raffon.net/research/google/chrome/carpet.html
http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/2008-September/064203.html
5.) Read the EULA.
6.) Read the EULA again.
No, thanks...
-
Feels featureless compared to FF3, to be honest.
But then, I run a bevy of adblockers, image handlers and script blockers so I'm used to a richer featureset.
Like what?
Well, if Alexh is like me, he'd notice that Gestures, NoScript, TinEye, and, ironically, Cache View (which can use Google Cache or Wayback to read Slashdotted or lost websites by right-clicking on the broken link) are missing.
Less importantly, ForecastFox, also MIA... User Agent Switcher, and Web Developer toolbar (useful for shutting off annoying CSS templates) aren't nearly as convenient, either.
And, as stated, a user-friendly license agreement is also missing. (The "All your base are belong to Google" License... Not so friendly, actually.)
I'll stick with Firefox. :-)
-
@ Coloni1200
couldnt have said it better myself :-D :pint:
-
I find SeaMonkey quite useful,especially since there are Mac,Windows, and Linux versions.Running the same browser on all my machines is nice.
Of course I kind of liked Cyberdog.
Those of us working with dial-up can hardly use any of the flashing,dancing,singing, page apps-if they would really let you cache the darn videos,maybe.......
Rooting for the little guy and privacy.
-
stefcep2 wrote:
And then you'll be supporting another corporate monolith (Google) at the expense of the Firefox developers.
We all should support open source as much as possible.
Chrome is open source too... :-?
@All
Remember it's a beta. For a first public release it's not bad. (And not nearly as horrible as the first release version of Safari for Windows). They say on the developer page that Mac and Linux versions are coming. It makes sense for them to pilot on the largest platform.
-
adolescent wrote:
Chrome is open source too... :-?
Where can you download the source?
-
Colani1200 wrote:
Where can you download the source?
From Google Code of course. :roll:
Here's a direct link to the project page.
http://code.google.com/chromium/
-
Colani1200 wrote:
Where can you download the source?
Google it (sorry) :laughing:
-
DUDES!! THIS IS BETA!!!!it can only get better!
-
"We're hard at work building versions for Mac and Linux too, and we'll continue to make it even faster and more robust."
Mac guys, be happy.
I´m still searching for the part where they say "Amiga version soon" :boohoo:
-
Howzit, brah? The surf was epic today, fully macking double overhead corduroy to the horizon. Now it's all buggery. Think I'll jet to the food hut and grab a burrito and some sweet nectar. Latronic, dude.
zyphoid wrote:
DUDES!! THIS IS BETA!!!!it can only get better!
(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w165/GrrrlyX/SurfingSmiley.gif)
-
-Bookmarks in weird position (right).
-Optional home button (why? doesnt everyone use home button always?)
-No fast scroll, press middle button down and scroll in any way (or maybe you have to enable it?)
-Too much information about browsing habbits, not easy to remove unwanted information on the startpage (or I did not look close enough).
-No new tab by double clicking on the top bar (you have to click on new tab area)
-Statusbar dissapears when not loading pages, dont know if that is good or bad, right now I prefer a static status bar.
-To surf anonymouse you have to run pron-mode. They should have developed a middle road instead of extreme and minimal privacy. You can only guess what Google is going to do with all this information that they are going to mine.
At least its fast. But I am going to stick with IE7 right now I dont like FF's interface and scrolling.
-
by Colani1200 on 2008/9/3 16:33:32
There are plenty of reasons to stay away from Chrome. To name a few:
1.) It is Windows only.
2.) It is made by a company that is financed by internet adverts.
3.) It is made by a company that disrespects people's privacy.
4.) It is insecure. http://raffon.net/research/google/chrome/carpet.html http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/2008-September/064203.html
5.) Read the EULA.
6.) Read the EULA again.
Yes... the #3 says everything.
-
stefcep2 wrote:
tonyyeb wrote:
Seems to run quicker than FF3 to me. Renders nice and quick, new tabs load quickly. All round seems great and working dandy! Might just replace FF for me.
And then you'll be supporting another corporate monolith (Google) at the expense of the Firefox developers. Most of the innovation in web browsers that has happened in recent times has been due to firefox, not MS and IE. If the google browser gets a hold- and everyone know "Google" these days, so that won't be too hard to do as opposed to far fewr knowing about firefox- it will follow the same path as MS with IE ie they'll create their own HTML "standards", eventually REQUIRING you to use the internet the way THEY want you to, and if that means putting up with pop advertising you can' stop or banner ads you can't stop, or incorrectly rendering pages of competitor search engines or companies they don't like, well what are you gonna do about it?
We all should support open source as much as possible.
Chrome uses WebKit, is open source, and should probably push a fair bit upstream to WebKit.
Interestingly, some other "also-ran" projects (like GNOME Epiphany, which was pretty good circa 2003*) are also switching to WebKit, and of course even the few released modern Amiga browsers have been based on it.
That's fairly good news for the Web, since it prevents the Mozilla Foundation from having an "open" monopoly on the introduction of new features/"standards."
Gears, and "browser as runtime" special treatment of Google properties, look iffy, but you do need that sort of thing if you want the browser to be a runtime. I think some of us who were drawn to the "DE" concept (or Java, or REBOL, or..) hoped that the "browser" would stay a browser and the "executable Internet" would become something else (so we'd have more consistent control over using it).
That didn't happen, and people (both Google and others) want to deploy "rich" "web services" (for, y'know, things like mapping and all that), so making AJAX less of a hack and more of a stable runtime is of great importance to them. It's a strange world, but we do have to live in it, and the profiling/"task manager" feature at least acknowledges it.
Finally: Google is spooky, I agree, but it's spooky for having become as successful as Ma Bell in an unregulated environment. The EULA is clearly a major and awful oversight (unless, in fact, they stick by it rather than rewrite it); however, the fact is, they get so much value out of seeing your searches that they don't actually need to snoop more, and so don't need to turn people off with new intrusions on privacy. They (when being sane to their business interests) mostly want everyone to be comfortable so they'll conduct more searches and see more ads. Part of that is by doing the "obvious" of making computers and smartphones less costly or crappy, so people will actually use them more.
(What's spooky again is that the cost of "doing the obvious" is almost nothing against the investment they've received based on their potential ad revenue. Stuff people have waited a decade for, projects that've killed smaller companies, keep getting realized as employee side-projects at the Googleplex. Mandatory side-projects, of course.)
===
* Footnote, almost forgotten: If you could bear to install the whole GNOME stack, Epiphany was pretty cool during the pre- and immediately-post Phoenix/Firefox churnover. It did "obvious" metaphor-complete things like draggable tabs long before anything else, AFAIK. But since Ubuntu and everyone else went with official Firefox, few people noticed how decent it was, and now, if you look, tab-dragging has been broken for at least a year due to outstanding Mozilla.org bugs. Which themselves demonstrate why, despite the early promise, embedded Mozilla implementations remain few and far between; WebKit has certainly proved itself much more practically portable in practice. :crazy:
-
Yup that is my feel. And time wise launch and homepage about twice as fast.
Once security issues are addressed and we find out exactly what information goes to google from our browsing we will see.
-
Another note: If you want to be creeped out by the "bad sites" blacklist, Firefox has also subscribed to Google's blacklist for quite a while now, I think even by default.
The preference in FF3 is something vague like "Block sites that might harm my computer!" -- sounds like a no-brainer, right? -- so y'all might not have noticed how much you're trusting the mothership already.
-
arstechnica: Google on chrome eula controversy (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080903-google-on-chrome-eula-controversy-our-bad-well-change-it.html)
-
It wouldn't have been enforceable anyway, consdering users don't typically own the content they're viewing and therefore can't grant a license to it. Worst case, sites would have started blocking Chrome (to the best of their ability, anyway). If such clauses were enforceable, every open source media player produced would grant the world an irrevocable right to distribute the media processed by the player, regardless of the source.
Many clauses in EULAs are often not enforceable (most noteably, reverse engineering and privacy clauses), particularly when they're click-wrapped. Software publishers just throw as much garbage into them as possible.
-
Since it's open source, then I'm thinking that people could make an offshoot with the reporting junk removed or even just write an add-on that blocks it.
-
(http://regmedia.co.uk/2008/09/02/chrometoon_fun.jpg)
-
vpamicue wrote:
Once security issues are addressed and we find out exactly what information goes to google from our browsing we will see.
Just look here:
http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/privacy.html
"When you type URLs or queries in the address bar, the letters you type are sent to Google..."
"If you navigate to a URL that does not exist, Google Chrome may send the URL to Google..."
"Your copy of Google Chrome includes one or more unique application numbers. These numbers and information about your installation of the browser (e.g., version number, language) will be sent to Google..."
and so on and so on...
You still want to use it? Then I can't help you.
-
Open a few Chrome browsers & tabs and then type into the search bar of one of them ":%" (without the quotes).
It likes that ;-)
-
it's already made to be portable (http://portableapps.com/node/15456)
-
Colani1200 wrote:
"When you type URLs or queries in the address bar, the letters you type are sent to Google..."
"If you navigate to a URL that does not exist, Google Chrome may send the URL to Google..."
"Your copy of Google Chrome includes one or more unique application numbers. These numbers and information about your installation of the browser (e.g., version number, language) will be sent to Google..."
and so on and so on...
You still want to use it? Then I can't help you.
Just for perspective: re: sending the letters you type, Firefox does the same thing by default with the Google search box, and possibly with the "Awesome"Bar, for predictive search. This isn't to say it's good, just that the Mozilla Foundation has been tight with Google anyway.
Nice catch on the "unique application numbers," it'll be interesting to find out if that's a unique S/N or just a way of talking about a normal User-Agent string that makes it sound like a unique S/N.
@weirdami: Yeah, I'll be interested in the inevitable? GNU-neutered version myself.
@Trev: Your hypothetical skips a beat: "If such clauses were enforceable, every open source media player produced would grant the world an irrevocable right to distribute the media processed by the player, regardless of the source."
Aside from the fact that there seems to be precedent (and also, apparently, a general consensus of common-sense) that processing a data stream is not the same as linking with executable code, none of the popular open-source licenses would operate that way; their terms qualify distribution, not use. If you're trying to call all open-source authors "freetards" (those who would attempt to land-grab everything into the public domain without concern for the creators), well, you'd be wrong anyway.
-
I'm just going to snip my post from the Ars Technica forums on the whole "EULA conspiracy thing":
Of course it wasn't [an accident that the EULA initially read like it did] - just like when Apple released Safari for Windows with an EULA that said you couldn't use it on non-Apple computers. That wasn't an accident either - it was a clever plot on Apple's part to be able to sue everyone who downloaded Safari for Windows once they go bankrupt from not licensing OS X to Dell. That's *obvious*. Too bad they were found out, eh?
...
-
@Floid
You just reiterated my point, but I think you're wrong about the intent of certain open source licenses. Under the GPL, for example, dynamic linking and internal commercial use are highly contentious issues.
Personally, I prefer a BSD-style license for open source projects, and I do not support software patents. It's unreasonable, unconscionable even, to expect software developers to start every new project from first principles. It's not that extreme, I know, but companies like Microsoft, Apple, and yes, Amiga and Hyperion, would certainly prefer you don't use their operating system products as a foundation for creating competition for their productivity applications. Hell, Microsoft even forbids it in their license agreements. It's not enforceable, of course.