Google Chrome Beta

KaiserWarrior said:
snip
Click to expand...


Clearly tried to slip one by us, they only enumerated it in the EULA, and the software itself only had one of the most permissive open source licenses in use today. Yeah definitely tried to slip one by us there, even though the code doesn't even do half the things people are spreading FUD about, which can be confirmed by examining the source which is open, did I mention that?
 
i'm sure it's been said... but with all those millions of dollars they can't hire someone to derive that their ToS for chrome was a little off-base.

i know i wont be using it for a while, if at all; i already use my gmail account sparingly based on certain privacy statements included in that tos.
 
Digging it. However, I don't like that I can't click my scroller and move the mouse around to move the page.
 
Google works for me now. I have symantec and think that's the problem - so I have to use "-no-sandbox" and all is well (well, except no sandbox)
 
So how much should the TOS matter if the company using the TOS just throws in any generic derivation for their own product(s)?

It seems a bit...unjust...to have to abide by rules that are just some copy paste job from another product entirely. If the company releasing the product doesn't take the time with their own TOS agreements, then why should the end user be held to the agreement?
 
Good point. I think the entire point of the Terms of service have gotten out of hand. It used to be primarily do not reverse engineer the product, do not distribute for profit or without permission etc....

Now it has turned into any use of the product on a a computer file system means all files stored on the same network as the program may now be read, scanned, reposted, and uploaded without user interaction and are actually the property of { insert evil company here }.
 
KaiserWarrior said:
To all the talk of FUD going around: Just because they're not doing it doesn't mean they can't. As has been said before: Even if Chrome doesn't phone home, they wrote a EULA stating they could, and that's wrong. Enforceable or not, they tried to insert legalese saying they own all your data. That is the fact of the matter, and it's a red flag.
Click to expand...

It's called covering your ass. It's what ANY smart company does in the lawyer-frenzy that is the USA. You make everyone to agree to every possible situation that could ever arise that allows them to attack you. The browser is open source. They wouldn't be able to slip much by for long even if they wanted.b:rolleyes:
 
It's interesting how many people are defending Google for trying to get that EULA past everybody. Imagine the outrage and calls for anti-trust sanctions if it was MS who tried to do that.
 
teenk said:
It's interesting how many people are defending Google for trying to get that EULA past everybody. Imagine the outrage and calls for anti-trust sanctions if it was MS who tried to do that.
Click to expand...

If they had actually written that EULA for Chrome, maybe, but they didn't. Most of it is just cut-and-paste from their generic cover-our-asses EULA they use for tons of stuff.

Had it been a paid product I might have been annoyed by the laziness, but for the beta of a free product I couldn't care less.

Beyond any of this, Google is huuuuuggeeee, any changes to Chrome will be picked through by thousands of nerds with nothing better to do. There is no way in hell they'd be able to slip anything even remotely big-brotherish through without it being public knowledge in no time flat.
 
schulzpm said:
Pages that use Javascript heavily like OWA as someone mentioned. I find it to be much faster rendering GMail and my RSS reader as well (NewsGator web.)

I think everyone is missing the point of Chrome. I don't think Google intends for this to be a browser that competes for share. They are looking to make web applications look and feel and operate like desktop applications. If you want to see the point of Chrome take an app you use like Gmail and make an application shortcut for it, then use it through that. Continue to use Firefox for 'regular' browsing. Having GMail segmented from my browser for reliability and having access to it without all the extra browser stuff in the way is really nice.
Click to expand...

Ya, they way they've kept customization and even UI elements to a minimum... They might just end up taking it strongly in that direction... In that regard it'd probably be competing with stuff like Adobe's AIR more so than IE/FF, and there's definitely a place for this kinda splinter app to run web stuff in a window other than the browser.
 
Zepher said:
Chrome is faster on my machine than FF2 and IE7.
I like the way I can grab tabs and move them to the other screen and then put them all back together.
Sometimes when I am surfing and I want to compare two pages at the same time, I'll have to open up another FF2 browser or open up IE7, and then copy the link.
Click to expand...

You don't really have to copy the URLs, dragging a tab from one FF window to the other would accomplish the same... And it's not much more complicated than dragging Chrome tabs around (just gotta open another FF window first).
 
Nemesis999 said:
If they had actually written that EULA for Chrome, maybe, but they didn't. Most of it is just cut-and-paste from their generic cover-our-asses EULA they use for tons of stuff.

Had it been a paid product I might have been annoyed by the laziness, but for the beta of a free product I couldn't care less.

Beyond any of this, Google is huuuuuggeeee, any changes to Chrome will be picked through by thousands of nerds with nothing better to do. There is no way in hell they'd be able to slip anything even remotely big-brotherish through without it being public knowledge in no time flat.
Click to expand...

And even more amazing that people automatically believe Google when they say they just copy-pasted a cookie-cutter EULA to one of their products (eventhough it's free it's still is a product). To actually believe that a company (who is a very prime and ripe target for lawsuits) with a large legal department and full time outside counsel did not have their lawyers comb thru the EULA is beyond giving Google the benefit of doubt. Like I said, if MS did this to one of their products they're giving away free I doubt there would be this many defenders.
 
Don't like it then don't use it ...

If the browser starts calling home then they will get very bad publicity so I'm not losing sleep over it. About any firewall would notify you regarding something sending outbound traffic so it would be quickly detected.
 
DusterAZ said:
Don't like it then don't use it ...

If the browser starts calling home then they will get very bad publicity so I'm not losing sleep over it. About any firewall would notify you regarding something sending outbound traffic so it would be quickly detected.
Click to expand...

Well said ;)

I don't see why anyone should get so worked up when others decided that they are completely happy with the EULA or whatever else lawyer talk about the browser.
 
DusterAZ said:
About any firewall would notify you regarding something sending outbound traffic so it would be quickly detected.
Click to expand...
No. Any browser is going to have to send outbound traffic per normal operations. Rules would already be in place to allow and not flag the browsers outgoing packets.
 
teenk said:
It's interesting how many people are defending Google for trying to get that EULA past everybody. Imagine the outrage and calls for anti-trust sanctions if it was MS who tried to do that.
Click to expand...

Key difference: Internet Explorer is not open source.
 
google is trying to take over the world me thinks....

That EULA is bit ridiculous, and I think I will stick with FF for now and see how everything pans out...
 
Amazing how fast they achieved Damage Control Factor 10 over this EULA fiasco. Not shocked at all they announced a change to it.
 
Makes you wonder whether it was an honest mistake or just an attempt at pulling a fast one. Either way kudos for addressing it.
 
SPARTAN VI said:
Were you on Attack of the Show yesterday? There was video viewer thing that they had on with the same "Stevedave" name. I immediately recognized your name (because it's 2 first names afterall!) searched your [H] posts, but you hadn't mentioned anything about Chrome until now. :D
Click to expand...

No I am just a loser who stole the name stevedave from a kevin smith movie.
 
Luthorcrow said:
Makes you wonder whether it was an honest mistake or just an attempt at pulling a fast one. Either way kudos for addressing it.
Click to expand...

Not sure what exactly they'd be trying to "pull". Just because you put it in a TOS or EULA doesn't make it valid.

Anyway, Chrome is great. I've been using it for a couple days and love it. I miss a couple of my Firefox plugins but they weren't really that necessary anyway. Props to Google on a winner. This browser is a beta release and it has caused me far less grief than Firefox ever did.

We'll see how it turns out in the long run, though.
 
I found it very responsive! Browsing with Chrome is very enjoying and quick access bookmarks are useful.
 
teenk said:
And even more amazing that people automatically believe Google when they say they just copy-pasted a cookie-cutter EULA to one of their products (eventhough it's free it's still is a product). To actually believe that a company (who is a very prime and ripe target for lawsuits) with a large legal department and full time outside counsel did not have their lawyers comb thru the EULA is beyond giving Google the benefit of doubt. Like I said, if MS did this to one of their products they're giving away free I doubt there would be this many defenders.
Click to expand...

I believe the point of copy/pasting a EULA with overkill language like that is exactly so that the lawyers DON'T have to analyze it. The lawyers have already gone over this one, and it's pretty hard to sue about stuff that is already in the EULA.
Even if they meant it to be, there would be no lawsuits happening (after all, the EULA warned you), just complete lack of use.

The copied EULA is nearly lawsuit-proof for things that Google does. They can always (like they did here) have the lawyers adjust it later.

I have no problems, or tin foil.
 
If Google doesn't read it's own boiler plate Licence, why should anyone else?
It makes the whole thing completely meaningless.

Don't bother including one if you don't care what it says.
 
So far I really love it. Fast fast fast and it renders everything properly.
 
I only miss one FF plugin and other than that I love chrome. It DESTROYS FF and it hasn't crashed on me yet. Props to Google for completely destroying every other browser in performance and stability with their first release of this browser. Plus, FUCKING PORN MODE.
 
well I have only tried it for about a 30 minutes and I like it a lot. I just wanted something basic that had built in spell checker and could reliably play all embedded media including Flash. for now its bye bye FF and your shitty handling of Flash and hello Chrome. :D
 
For the stuff I do at work its much faster than Opera or FF. I usually have pandora, yahoo web messenger, google maps, a VOIP call que manager, Hardocp, INTJ forum, and a crap ton of over tabs open at once. Opera and FF both groan when I jump to one of the heavier ones like yahoo webmsng or or pandora. Chrome doesnt flinch! It even removes some of the hesitation on google maps!!! (while pinning the little 2.8ghz P4 CPU at 100% when wiggling them around lol)
 
Kicking the tires. The speed is nice and the import function worked great.

Only downside is no mouse gestures and spell check. They add both of those features and I could live without plugins for general browsing.
 
f394302d.jpg
 
Luthorcrow said:
Kicking the tires. The speed is nice and the import function worked great.

Only downside is no mouse gestures and spell check. They add both of those features and I could live without plugins for general browsing.
Click to expand...
it does have spell check.
 
Crazy, I must have been dead tired last night while tacking it for a spin. Sweet. 2 out of three. Color management and mouse gestures and I am set and if I had to only get one more feature I would settle for color management. After all the other big browsers based on webkit has it (Safari).
 
Luthorcrow said:
Crazy, I must have been dead tired last night while tacking it for a spin. Sweet. 2 out of three. Color management and mouse gestures and I am set and if I had to only get one more feature I would settle for color management. After all the other big browsers based on webkit has it (Safari).
Click to expand...
well it might not have been there when you first tried it because after a little more research I found that it was just added yesterday. http://stuff.techwhack.com/4746-google-chrome-spell-check
 
Spellcheck worked fine on my installation of Chrome when it was first released, not sure why it seemed to be "broken" on so many others.
 
Don't know if I like the stealth updates. I rather prefer to know that something is updating, even if it doesn't ask. Just let me KNOW> That way of something gets borked up, I know that the update is a possible culprit...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top