Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Google Chrome

This is topic Google Chrome in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005569

Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 09-03-2008, 05:41 PM:

Anyone using Google's new browser, Chrome yet?

I have used it some, and haven't found too many deficiencies yet even though it is still a beta release.

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 09-03-2008, 05:51 PM:

I run Firefox 3 on my Mac, but my dad, who is in software, hence a Windows user, tested a variety of browsers today, including Chrome. He was put off by its relatively slow speed and the fact that it didn't specify loading by individual tab, as FF does. In all fairness, who in their right mind opens 40 tabs at once?

I am sufficiently satisfied with FF that I doubt I'll go to the effort of trying it out, but I guess options are always good.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 09-03-2008, 08:06 PM:

Your dad said that chrome was SLOW?! I booted up into a VM just to test it out (since a linux port isn't available yet and I'd heard a bunch of hype)... and I was blown away by the speed, as was everyone else on the linux forum where our discussion about it was taking place. Having an individual process for each tab is great (no more having one tab crash, taking down the whole browser). And there are tons more innovations than just these.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-03-2008, 09:26 PM:

Yea, what I wondered also on the speed issue...

Just installed this Beta from Google and, yep...definitely faster than FF3 or IE6 ...

No problems on this end.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 09-03-2008, 10:58 PM:

Any Google spyware code buried in it?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-03-2008, 11:00 PM:

Let it build up a ton of cache and cookies and see if that speed remains. Browsers always seem fastest to me when their new, then they wear down slightly. Weird.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-04-2008, 12:03 AM:

quote: Mitchell Dvoskin
Any Google spyware code buried in it?

..Right at first, there was a window, like IE, if you want to send Google any site prob information to their servers....
This browser also uses the same engines as does FF/Netscape, thus just another duplicate Mozilla browser - just more fancy bells and whistles that Google is known for.

Also, if you do have FF3 installed (like I have in my laptop here), Chrome just installs in the Mozilla folder and that file isn't that all big, prob why the startup speed is so fast ....

The real big slick about this browser is that if you need to do a search, just put what you are searching for in the address window and Google opens automatically to that topic that you typed in.

-Monte

Posted by Rick Hunter (Member # 1606) on 09-04-2008, 02:15 AM:

It didn't take long....
Melbourne, Australia, Newspaper, The Age
Web edition

http://www.theage.com.au/

4/9/2008

quote:
"Google backs down over browser amid privacy concerns

Mex Cooper
September 4, 2008 - 12:21PM

Google has made an embarrassing backdown after it was revealed the company would have rights to any information entered into websites by people using its new internet browser.

A day after the Google Chrome browser was released, a controversial clause in its "End User License Agreement" (EULA) has been removed following concerns it breached people's privacy and copyright.

Users who downloaded the free browser yesterday were asked to agree to a clause that gave Google a "perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly, perform, publicly display and distribute" any information they typed into a website.

Part of the same clause allowed Google to share the information with "other companies, organisations or individuals with whom Google has relationships".

David Vaile, executive director of the cyberspace law and policy centre at the University of NSW, described the clause as "unprecedented" with "massive privacy and copyright implications".

"On the face of it, this does give Google a licence to do almost anything they want with content you 'submit, post or display' through the browser," Mr Vaile said.

The clause has now been changed to allow users to retain their copyright over information.

Senior product counsel for Google Chrome, Rebecca Ward, said in a statement that the company used the same set of legal terms for all its products to "keep things simple for our users".

"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," she said.

She said Google had moved quickly to respond to users' feedback and make changes to the agreement that would apply retroactively to people who had already downloaded Chrome.

Mr Vaile slammed Google for asking users to agree to a "nonsensical licence" that didn't actually apply to Chrome.

"It is very sloppy legal work if it was not Google's intention to gain such rights from users, and borders on treating users and their legal advisers with contempt," Mr Vaile said.

Monash University law lecturer Rebecca Giblin said buzz about the clause had spread over the internet within an hour of the browser's release.

She said Google's backdown was "clearly in response to public opinion".

"I think the people who drafted the agreement were doing the best to protect the company's interests without thinking about the users' interests," she said.

So the users stood up for their own rights and made it clear to Google that the wide-reaching clause was not acceptable."

"From the users' perspective, the fact that Google immediately backed down is a great outcome."

Dr Giblin said the clause would have given Google rights to any information typed by a person into a website while using Chrome, including bank details, passwords and emails.

"It gave Google the right to that content, to display it elsewhere, display it to other people, modify or adapt it. That's why the clause was so controversial," she said.

She said many internet users inherently trusted Google, whose unofficial company motto is 'do no evil', despite privacy concerns raised about some of its other products including Street View.

"The thing is Google is at heart an advertising business. It does not have a focus on security like a bank does. So even if you trust Google with your secrets there is no guarantee that information will not come out in other ways," she said.

Dr Giblin said Google's core business was to gather information that could be used to target advertising to internet users, which had been one of the company's motivations to release Chrome.

"Everything you've typed into a browser (could be filtered) through by Google to decide what sort of products to target at you, it raises significant privacy concerns," she said.

"Most Google services are paid for by advertising, it is their core business, and the better they know their users, the better they can target advertising to them."

She said she was not surprised Google had removed the clause as it placed a high value on its reputation as a "good company".

"Every time a controversy like this arises it puts another chink in their armour," she said.

Google has touted Chrome as a faster, more user-friendly and safer internet browser than Microsoft's dominant Internet Explorer.

A Google Australia spokesman said the company took users' privacy "very seriously" and information shared with Google through Chrome was "similar to the information that is shared when you're using a different browser and search on Google".

Google has released a YouTube video which explains features on Chrome that can be used to turn off functions that store users' information, including cookies, records of downloads and web history.

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 09-04-2008, 07:28 AM:

So far, it seems that Chrome is only available for Windows. I wonder if they'll make a version for OSX?

I'm currently using Safari 3.1.2 with OSX (Leopard). I absolutely love it, and cannot say enough about it. Just brilliant! [Big Grin]

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 09-04-2008, 08:45 AM:

Rick, that sounds positively News Corp-esque! I have had some concern over privacy with Google, but I also find the relevancy of their searches is getting worse and worse. When searching for technical information for a car, for example, I get pages and pages of ads, and no real useful data. I *gasp* am considering leaving Google for something better, but I don't know what else there is anymore. What am I going to do, Google "search engines better than Google"?

Michael, have you looked at FF3? While I'm not saying it is impossible to like Safari over Firefox, I find Firefox is much more functional for many things, especially with the new way v3 searches through the address bar history as you type in it.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 09-04-2008, 10:05 AM:

The blurb Rick's story refers to was fixed. What happened was the EULA that google used was copied from their web services TOS (terms of services). Since then, they have updated the EULA to remove that part.

quote: Monte L Fullmer
This browser also uses the same engines as does FF/Netscape, thus just another duplicate Mozilla browser - just more fancy bells and whistles that Google is known for.

No it does not. Chrome uses webkit which is the engine for Apple's Safari browser. In fact, shortly after Chrome was released a security guy found it had an old Safari bug since there hasn't been a new webkit since that bugfix.

Also, if there is any spyware in the browser it'll be easily removed by the community since this is an open source browser.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-04-2008, 12:56 PM:

True, just noticed the "Mozilla" in the "about" of the browser along with "Webkit" ..and how it installed under the Mozilla directory.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 09-04-2008, 03:50 PM:

Monte,

The "chrome" directory located inside Mozilla's directory is part of the Mozilla install.

Google Chrome gets installed to "C:\Documents and Settings\username\Local Settings\Application Data\Google\Chrome" by default.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-04-2008, 06:42 PM:

Thx and interesting .. a hidden program then in the DOC's directory....found it .. almost a 30M directory then...

Now why would it be installed in the DOCs instead of Program Files....a bit on the interesting side, along being hidden? [Confused]

-Monte

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 09-04-2008, 08:40 PM:

I thought this thread was going to be about some Google trademark rims. I am slightly disappointed.

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 09-04-2008, 09:28 PM:

Nope, demand for oversized chrome rims plummeted this morning, finally. This may be too regional a joke, but believe me, it is modestly humorous.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 09-05-2008, 12:13 AM:

You sure that's the right link you have there? [Confused]

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 09-05-2008, 02:07 AM:

Thinkin' the same thing. [Confused]

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 09-05-2008, 07:15 AM:

Yeah. If you don't live near Detroit, it lacks the appropriate context, it seems.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 09-05-2008, 08:17 AM:

Do people live near Detroit on purpose?

I always wondered about those EULAs. I mean, they can put ANYTHING they want in them and people just click I AGREE. I wonder what kind of legal strength. For all you know you could be agreeing to deeding over the title to your car to them, or as in this case, your rights to EVERYTHING you type, even your bank pin and account numbers. Is the agreement as binding as say a real legal document that you sign and have witnessed?

Say if Google started using your bank pin....could they actually go into court and win based on the fact that you clicked some dumbass statement? That kid who took Pepsi, was it? to court because they had an ad that said something to the effect that anyone who can guess the number of pepsi bottle caps that would fit in a jet plane, wins the jet plane. The kid guesses the exact number and he damnit, WANTS HIS JET. Pepsi claimed that it was obvious that the ad was a tongue-in-cheek campaigne, and they never intended to give away a jet. They claimed that they didn't have to give him a jet, no matter, the court said, that's what Pepsi SAID they would do without any qualification; the kid didn't get the jet, but he did get one huge cash settlement, enough to make Pepsi take that tongue out of their corporate cheek real fast.

Couldn't Google kinda say the say thing.....in other words, "You, end user imbicel, you SAID you voluntarily give us the right to sell your bank account and pin number and to use your personal information any way we want, including selling it to foreign nationals." Do we have any recourse?

You would think a court would look at common sense with regard to those "I Agree" things and draw the line at something that obviously an average person in good faith would never have signed of on had they known; would a court throw out Google's claim (hypothetical, of course)? One would hope, but then again, courts have come down on some pretty bizarre crap against common sense plenty of times.

I think I am just going to go to download Chrome and then click on I DON'T AGREE. I bet if a couple of thousand people did that, it would make them piss their pants. [evil]

Of COURSE she is going to say they "didn't mean it" What would they do if no one caught it and called them on it? Same as if Sony didn't get cought on the worm they planted in their CDs. You wouldn't see ANY of this mea culpa act if they didn't get caught.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-05-2008, 09:56 AM:

All they want is to be able to send you advertising crap. Outside of the various copyright junk, they should just say: "By agreeing, you agree to let us send you advertising."

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 09-05-2008, 10:29 AM:

quote: Frank Angel
I always wondered about those EULAs. I mean, they can put ANYTHING they want in them and people just click I AGREE. I wonder what kind of legal strength.

Well, Facebook (or one of those social networking sites) has a similar EULA and they started using people's postings and pics in advertising without getting specific permission. When challenged, they said it was right there in the EULA. As far as I know, it hasn't been challenged in court, and I'm not sure how big and infraction they will have to commit before someone wants to dedicate the time and money to challenging it.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 09-05-2008, 05:35 PM:

EULAs, for the most part, haven't been challenged it court.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-05-2008, 09:27 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
I think I am just going to go to download Chrome and then click on I DON'T AGREE. I bet if a couple of thousand people did that, it would make them piss their pants.

I doubt it. I would imagine if you click no that the installer on your computer simply would close down. I don't think it 'reports' anything to Google.

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 09-05-2008, 09:33 PM:

EULAs typically begin with something in the order of "By use of this software, you agree to..." therefore by launching the program you are legally bound to the agreement, regardless of whether you circumvented the agreement upon installation.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 09-06-2008, 06:38 AM:

True, but that's the question. How far can a company go in putting stuff in that EULA before a court would say, no, there's a presumption on the part of the end users that when they click I Agree, that 1) they are signing something that directly relates to just that software, and 2) that it will not do them personal harm.

For example, if Adobe were to put a provision in it's EULA for Photoshop that said by running their software, you are agreeing to give them access to any bank account software, its account and pin numbers, that reside on the same hard drive as their progam and that they have the right to deduct recurring fees every month that you use said software. You would think that a court would say that there would be a presumption on the part of rational, ordinary people, that when they are running installing a graphics program, access to their bank accounts is way out of the realm of reasonable expectation. The law can and does look at "common accepted practice" as one element to consider in civil cases.

And then there are rights that you have that you simply cannot give away in the first place because they contradict other laws like the Consitution, for example, even if you were to actually sign an agreement to the contrary.

One would hope that common sense would prevail in the legal system and it would recongnize when a EULA is writen in a way that would trick or confuse, or outright defraud the end user. I know in other legal issues -- apartment leases for example -- the courts, at least here in NYC, will not accept provisions in a lease document if they are buried and never explained thoroughly to the leasee, regardless if the tenant has signed that lease. The courts want a legal document to include full disclosure and they look very dimmly on stuff that looks like an attempt to get stuff under the radar.

Same thing with stuff like malpractice lawsuits -- it's not good enough that the doctor makes you sign a waiver saying basically that you agree that no matter what happens, it's not their fault. The big legal question always is, before they asked you to sign that waiver, did they explain in clear, understandable layman's terms, what you were getting into, risk included. It's not good enough for them to say, "Yah, but he signed the agreement which says even if what we do in the operating room kills him, it's still not our fault. Yah, ya, so we cut off the good leg and not the diseased arm; what's he complaining about? He's still got the other good leg.....and haven't we agreed to remove the diseased arm at no extra charge?"

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 09-06-2008, 10:05 AM:

Plus, the EULA comes AFTER you already purchased the software. Agreeing to it is kinda forced on you since the thing you spent good money on is useless without agreeing.

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 09-06-2008, 12:31 PM:

Hi Galen!

Yes, I've looked at FF3, and I do think it's great the way that the history bar comes up like you said. Overall, I find that I prefer the way that Safari renders graphics, and although it might be my imagination, I think it's a tad faster as well.

It's a close call either way.

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 09-06-2008, 01:47 PM:

quote: Mike Olpin
EULAs typically begin with something in the order of "By use of this software, you agree to..." therefore by launching the program you are legally bound to the agreement, regardless of whether you circumvented the agreement upon installation.

it seems i have much to learn about how the law works!

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-06-2008, 11:27 PM:

The other dumb thing about EULAs is, you buy the software, open the package -- thereby making it non-returnable. But it says in the EULA, if you don't agree, return the software.

I've never tried to return opened software because I don't agree with the EULA, but I'll bet the pimple-faced, pierced-nosed, spike-haired teenagers at the software store would not have a clue how to proceed if I did.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-07-2008, 12:16 AM:

Yes they would. They'd just follow store policy, see that it is open, refuse a refund and tell you to GTFO.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 09-08-2008, 09:40 PM:

OMG, it's lightning fast! I just set it as my default browser. Cool. [thumbsup]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-08-2008, 10:08 PM:

Careful, I've seen Google Chrome post some really odd characters when it is used with certain forums. Lots of 0$0$0$ type gibberish.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 09-08-2008, 10:52 PM:

I'll get flamed for saying this but IE8 Beta 2 is also VERY fast. It has some issues that need to be worked out, but overall it's a big advance over IE7.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 09-08-2008, 10:56 PM:

*Obligatory flame*

And as an FYI, since this is still beta software it's gotten its fair share of vulnerabilities, some of which have been fixed.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1858&tag=nl.e550

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 09-09-2008, 02:08 AM:

Don't you guys know the number one EURW (End User Rules of Wisdom)....thou shalt never, ever use software releases lower than v2.5? Let them work the bugs out on unsuspecting fools, or at least make them PAY you to be their guinea-pig and test their new buggy software on your computer.

Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 09-09-2008, 08:18 AM:

While Chrome seems fast, I find it hangs for a while while opening new tabs. I assume this is because it opens new tabs as a separate process. While it increases stability, it decreases performance. It also means that when you open a lot of tabs, it's memory footprint increases dramatically.

Posted by Allison Parsons (Member # 2728) on 09-09-2008, 01:08 PM:

Anyone getting this error with the 'old' version of Google? I've been getting this Google error for the past month or so while use the back button. Starting to tick me off....

The requested URL /hws/dell-usuk/afe was not found on this server

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 09-09-2008, 01:27 PM:

No I've not gotten that error just by hitting "back"

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 09-09-2008, 02:50 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
never, ever use software releases lower than v2.5

The only thing that would bother me, would be if it crashed or hung up all the time. It's fast, and doesn't have a lot of fancy stuff that I'll never use anyway, so I'm already a fan. All I need is to just view web pages.

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 09-11-2008, 03:31 PM:

Many of the links in the pictures warehouse come up with error 404. Some work, some don't. IE works fine.