Talk:Google Chrome

Google Chrome Themes

Google Chrome is being liking very much by people but there is one thing which looks awkward to some users and that is it's default blue color theme but the great thing is that there are 3 different color themes are available for Chrome Click Here to Download Google Chrome Themes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.125.70 (talk) 11:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Here's an official response about section 11 of the EULA from 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."

See also http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10031703-56.html -- Dankegel (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

And now section 11 has been updated! Check out http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html, it now says

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.

In other words, the objectionable parts of 11.1, and the whole of 11.2 and 11.3, seem to have been stricken. Presumably the change was made first in the English EULA and will propagate to other languages shortly. -- [Disclaimer: I, Dan Kegel, am a software engineer at Google.] Dankegel (talk) 21:11, 3 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 [3], 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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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: [4]. 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: [5] [6]. 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)

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. [[::User:Byeitical|Byeitical]] ([[::User talk:Byeitical|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Byeitical|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. [[::User:Byeitical|Byeitical]] ([[::User talk:Byeitical|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Byeitical|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" [7], 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)

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))

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)

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)

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)

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)