Google's Own Web-browser - It's official!

[SimRabbit 48]

MrWacko: Have you ever tried out Vista?

I guess no because you probably have an old system and can't run it. Or you just follow the "bashing vista" crowd.

But anyways, I did install Chrome today and websites load faster than a mugg!!!

[socalwu 0]

I actually download this broswer. And i have been using this for a couple of days. And this broswer is SO DAMN FAST. AND USES SO LITTLE SYSTEM Resources.

Yes, there may be alot more processes but there frigen small. The browser with the tab page alone is only 5,000 compared to Fireofx.

Youtube is 16,000kb.

It's extremeley fast and light weight.

I friggen love this broswer.

All there is now for it to come is Addons. Otherwise, It's WAY BETTER THAN FIREFOX.

[Zelgadis 638]

I'm sorry, but I have to ask...

What's this about "speed?" How can you possibly calculate this? Both my Safari and my Firefox load most web pages lightning-quick. Even if it was faster, I couldn't calculate it. It's not like I have a brand new supercomputer here or anything. It's more than 4 years old and it was obsolete when I bought it.

NYtimes pages pop up in less than 2 seconds. Often less. Is it really that important to get your browser to load a website in measurements of nanoseconds?

ISF

[socalwu 0]

It also uses less ram.

And you're lucky with the Nytimes. Ny times was my homepage in Firefox and it tooks 10 seconds.

[your_adress_here 11]

Originally posted by: zelgadis I'm sorry, but I have to ask...

What's this about "speed?" How can you possibly calculate this? Both my Safari and my Firefox load most web pages lightning-quick. Even if it was faster, I couldn't calculate it. It's not like I have a brand new supercomputer here or anything. It's more than 4 years old and it was obsolete when I bought it.

NYtimes pages pop up in less than 2 seconds. Often less. Is it really that important to get your browser to load a website in measurements of nanoseconds?

ISF

quote>

Remember, not everyone has the same internet speed.

[coolotter88 2]

I believe the opening of the browser window speed is what everyone is talking about.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10030522-2.html

Read the fine print.quote>

Thank you. Now I'm glad I had this at the ready:

*facepalm*

[Boggy1 45]

coolotter88: A Slashdot news item[30] drew attention to a passage in the terms of service for the initial beta release, which read:

"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."[31]

The passage in question was inherited from the general Google terms of service.[32] The Register summarized the passage as "Your copyright goes up in smoke."[33] Google responded to this criticism by stating that the language used was borrowed from other products, and would be removed. They also stated that the change would "apply retroactively to all users who have downloaded Google Chrome."[34]

The passage in question has since been removed from the Terms of Service.[35]

Maybe you, especially you Duke, could do a little bit of research?

[coolotter88 2]

Perhaps he is not facepalming just that but the fact that Google still reserves the right to insert ads into their browser?

I somehow feel that adblock will not make it's way into plugindom for Google chrome either, does Google really want to approve a plugin that will make their own browser block Google ads on websites it visits?

[Haljackey 17,403]

Well, I downloaded Chrome yesterday... I am quite surprised with it!  I thought it would be like Firefox but I was wrong!  It is truly a unique way to browse the net.

I thought that Google could make something that is better than Google Earth!  But this new browser comes close, and its only the beta!

Oh, and for those who are wondering, here is what Chrome looks like on Vista, viewing ST.

I will reduce the pic to a thumbnail, because its 1920x1200, way over the site limits!

 

Best,

-Haljackey

[ExiL3 10]

BOggy1: http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-chrome-license-agreement/

[Eʟᴇᴍᴇɴᴛ 273]

Ugh. Google agian... Google Maps, Google search, google images, google news, google labs, google trends, igoogle, google health... and now google has an internet browser... ouch. Just trying to make a little bit extra money even though they already make billions. Honestly I think they did this so they would make more money on their ads. :/

Still like my safari better ;D

[SimRabbit 48]

elemented9: They will make money by selling what you submit using their browser. Just read the old fine print.

BTW: is it me or is your avatar resembling the swatzika?

[coolotter88 2]

just you, the cactus's left arm and right leg point in the same direction 50 percent of the time.

[Godzillaman 21]

Originally posted by: SimRabbit BTW: is it me or is your avatar resembling the swatzika?quote>

I see where you're getting that, but it's just a running cactus...

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 Perhaps he is not facepalming just that but the fact that Google still reserves the right to insert ads into their browser?quote>

That was it, actually.

I don't really give a damn about copyrights. But ads annoy me.

I somehow feel that adblock will not make it's way into plugindom for Google chrome either, does Google really want to approve a plugin that will make their own browser block Google ads on websites it visits? quote>

They don't need to approve it. Someone could make it without their authorization. Still, with the automatic updates thing I get the feeling it might disappear not that long after you install it.

[coolotter88 2]

it is open source, the code for Adblock can be built into the source code, but then it isn't google chrome, it's Adchrome or whatever they want to call it.

[SimRabbit 48]

Adblock would be actually contradictory to Google as they will insert ads into the websites you visit.

So Im not expecting an Adblocker for Chrome any time.

[fukuda 351]

Originally posted by: SimRabbit is it me or is your avatar resembling the swatzika?quote>

You never played Final Fantasy, right?

[TV-VCR 15]

Originally posted by: fukuda

Originally posted by: SimRabbit is it me or is your avatar resembling the swatzika?quote>

You never played Final Fantasy, right? quote>

Aha, I knew that was from some japanese game! My mind went blank.

Google Chrome vulnerabilities starting to pile up

Security vulnerabilities in the new Google Chrome browser is beginning to pile up.

Following our coverage of the carpet bombing combo threat and denial-of-service crashes, several readers have sent pointers to Chrome exploit code floating around the Web:

• First up is an automatic file download bug found by researchers in the Ukraine.  The proof-of-concept exploits (there are three) drop an executable (hack.exe) in the default download directory without any intermediate warning.
• Vietnamese research outfit SVRT-Bkis has published demo exploits for what is described as a critical buffer overflow that could lead to remote code execution attacks.   “The vulnerability is caused due to a boundary error when handling the “SaveAs” function. On saving a malicious page with an overly long title (<title> tag in HTML), the program causes a stack-based overflow and makes it possible for attackers to execute arbitrary code on users’ systems,” the group said.  An attack scenario would require some form of social engineering.

Vulnerability researcher Robert ‘RSnake’ Hansen is very harsh in his response to Google’s decision to build its own browser:

If you build a browser in isolation, you don’t get the benefits and knowledge of the smart people who have come before you. Yes, Google’s browser is open source, like Firefox. But even Firefox came from Netscape, which had tons of background in the browser world, and Mozilla, too, has learned from a mistake or two. It is easy to call into question Google’s ability to build a safe browser given its rather poor track record in other areas of security. And no, you shouldn’t download it — not if you care about your security. So, like cryptography, you shouldn’t build a browser unless you really, really know what you’re doing.

ModSecurity’s Ivan Ristic has a different reaction to the news of Google Chrome security hiccups:

The whole point of having a public beta release is expose a product to a wide audience and deal with the discovered problems prior to a stable release. The existence of security issues in Chrome is in line with our current inability to develop software free from security issues. Thus, people should not be distracted by the small problems that are now discovered. We should be  looking at the big picture instead. Chrome is a browser that’s been designed from the ground up with security in mind. That’s bound to have a positive impact. We’ll know more about the impact once the details of its architecture surface.

Ristic however called on Google to stop abusing the “beta” tag because it unacceptably blurs the line between beta and stable is simply not acceptable.  “How else are users going to be able to judge what is acceptable for production use and what isn’t?”

UPDATE:  Google’s PR team e-mailed the following statement:

• “We became aware of this vulnerability last night and began working on a fix immediately.  We expect to release the fix soon through an automated update to the browser, so users will not have to take any action to be protected.  As always, Google asks researchers to practice responsible disclosure, so potential vulnerabilities can be evaluated and fixed before they become public and before users are subjected to unnecessary risk.  Security bugs for Google Chrome can be filed at code.google.com/p/chromium.“

quote>

[fukuda 351]

That's why it's still a beta

[bixel 1,228]

Gotta say - it SEEMS faster - but I dunno if I am fooling myself. I like its slick spartan methods. Hrmm - I just might make the switch.

[Cockatoo 2,262]

I think I'll stick with Firefox. But heh, they're just web browsers... dose it really matter which one you're using.

My logic is Google = Adds. I don't want anymore google stuff on my computer anyway.

[threeswept 12]

I'm sure that speed might be an issue if you're on dial-up or a really low-end DSL. I have digital cable and couldn't imagine loading pages any faster than they already do...nanoseconds. I also couldn't imagine using a browser that fills web pages with more and more ads that might possibly not allow one to block them. I hate ads, never click on them and am rather bothered that they're interfering with whatever I'm doing on the net. And, whenever I come across a site that has flashing or bouncing ad junk I immediately close the window. As a browser, FF is perfectly fine for me. Too, I never use Google as a search engine. I have to say that they have some great applications - google maps, youtube, etc. But, that's about as far as google goes for me. And, who is clicking on all these ads anyway? Wait...I'm sure that's a whole other thread...

[fukuda 351]

Sorry, but I see exactly the same amount of ads than when browsing with firefox. And, sincerely, I don't care about adverts.

And yes, those ads are actually helping and funding tons of websites, ST included as I can see, btw.

[The Arrowz 3]

It is much faster and cooler, kinda like a firefox lite.

Although... is anyone who has a laptop getting a problem where you can use the touchpad to scroll down, but can't scroll up? I can scroll up and down in FF but I can't go up with it on Chrome.