Google Chrome

Barrucadu · 2008-09-03 16:19:57

As someone quoted section 11 of the Chrome EULA, I thought I'd quote section 9.4

Other than the limited licence set forth in Section 11, Google acknowledges and agrees that it obtains no right, title or interest from you (or your licensors) under these Terms in or to any Content that you submit, post, transmit or display on, or through, the Services, including any intellectual property rights that subsist in that Content (whether those rights happen to be registered or not, and wherever in the world those rights may exist)

Thus, section 11 only applies to the google web apps, and it's in their licenses anyway.

Mr Green · 2008-09-03 17:15:31

You guys quit too easily.......

Sp4rkR4t · 2008-09-03 17:20:05

Of course we can just use WINE mr.green but we shouldn't have to, come on google pull your finger out.

Last edited by Sp4rkR4t (2008-09-03 17:20:25)

Lord Illidan · 2008-09-03 17:20:46

Well, it seems wine works, MrGreen?

Mr Green · 2008-09-03 17:37:06

Lord Illidan wrote:

Well, it seems wine works, MrGreen?

sussed lol....

No it does not work in wine .... you only get browser window looking on ubuntu you have to use winetricks to get it sort of working

Think I will wait

richs-lxh · 2008-09-03 18:02:05

babypuncher wrote:

Where's the catch? The part where they rape our privacy like with every other "innovation" they've produced.

Aaah... now that's more like it

I was thinking exactly the same thing. Google is an information business based on surfing habits. We already have urchin, googlebots, adsense etc....

I am wating to see what little secrets this browser will have.

When I saw the news of Google Chrome, I didn't think What? or How?....... I thought Why?

Let's face it, Opera and Firefox are free. You can't make money from them, they don't do a bad job and the crashes are caused by Adobe Flash. So what is Chrome going to provide that the others can't?

richs-lxh

Mr Green · 2008-09-03 18:04:43

Take a look at me screeny now :-)

Lord Illidan · 2008-09-03 18:38:20

richs-lxh wrote:

babypuncher wrote:
Where's the catch? The part where they rape our privacy like with every other "innovation" they've produced.
Aaah... now that's more like it
I was thinking exactly the same thing. Google is an information business based on surfing habits. We already have urchin, googlebots, adsense etc....
I am wating to see what little secrets this browser will have.
When I saw the news of Google Chrome, I didn't think What? or How?....... I thought Why?
Let's face it, Opera and Firefox are free. You can't make money from them, they don't do a bad job and the crashes are caused by Adobe Flash. So what is Chrome going to provide that the others can't?
richs-lxh

What kind of secrets are they going to hide in an opensource browser? This is a Google project. Personally, I think lots of programmers will be thinking the same as you and will be eagerly scanning every morsel of their code to see if there is a potential leak, potential incriminating data going back to Google. Mozilla, Microsoft, Opera..wouldn't they want see if their new competitor was behaving?

And if Google puts 1 foot out of line, Google will get their ass sued. I don't think they're dumb enough to do this mistake. And as to the why, perhaps Google wants to expand its presence in the Internet world, seeing that they are depending 100% on the internet anyway. Perhaps it's a branding issue. They want to show their competitors that they have the cojones to build a browser from scratch, and rethink the way we browse the web?

And, you're paranoid about Google Chrome. What about Safari? Why would Apple make their own browser? Why would they release it on Windows? What can it provide that IE, Firefox, and Opera can't? Why didn't MS discontinue IE 6 when FF was pwning it's ass? And for that matter, you have more reason to be paranoid about the closed source browsers, since you have no way of seeing their code.

I am not a Google fan, but this privacy hysteria when it comes to Chrome is a bit unfounded in my opinion. Probably that was one of the main reasons why they opensourced it.

As to further reasons what it provides, read the comic. Seriously. Apart from some cool features such as a separate process for every tab, (we could definitely use it when Firefox clangs up sometimes), and a taskmanager, it also speeds up javascript. Again, this is of great use for them with their gmail applications, for instance. They might put a link in gmail - For optimal experience, use Google Chrome.

Lord Illidan · 2008-09-03 18:39:32

Mr Green wrote:

Take a look at me screeny now :-)

Photoshopped!/Gimped! as the case may be.

X/ax · 2008-09-03 19:08:20

Probably simply vbox seamless, hidden explorer.exe or something ;')

Mr Green · 2008-09-03 19:22:51

uh uh check ubuntu forum.....

Exitium · 2008-09-03 19:35:29

Mmm... Lul wut...

I wasn't able to login here Arch forums with Chrome. And it lost connection to one other forum (I was redirected to the main page and my account was still online)...

Waiting for final version. (Tested with WinXP)

Lord Illidan · 2008-09-03 19:52:31

Mr Green wrote:

uh uh check ubuntu forum.....

Obviously the Ubuntu forum users used photoshop then. Never trusted them.

tonyisnt · 2008-09-03 20:15:56

Sp4rkR4t wrote:

That is just the standard google applications (like mail, docs, etc) User agreement. If you want to know about what info goes back to google goto the privacy page on the chrome website.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure this has been in their TOS for quite a while, unless they recently added it. Makes me wonder why nobody noticed it sooner. I only use Google for two things, personally—Gmail and searching—so I'm not all that worried, although I am a bit when it comes to my email. I've never liked the idea of all of my history being tracked or logged or any of that, though, which is kind of why I've stayed away from the other services they offer. Or maybe I've just been paranoid since reading this.

Obi-Lan · 2008-09-03 20:30:08

http://tapthehive.s483.sureserver.com/d … EULA_Sucks

As a short reference:

In chapter 1.1 Google defines Chrome as a part of Services. (I suppose. Its not directly said nor denied)

In chapter 11 Google defines that it has right for all content what goes trough Services (which means also Chrome).

EDIT. this EULA also defines that only meaning to all this collected data is to use it as a refence (=advertising).

Last edited by Obi-Lan (2008-09-03 20:41:39)

Lord Illidan · 2008-09-03 21:09:22

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20 … ge-it.html

Google is to change the EULA

Last edited by Lord Illidan (2008-09-03 21:09:44)

freakcode · 2008-09-03 23:01:26

Well, it's pretty obvious that the purpose of launching a browser is that they can control the whole software chain - from the peer's browser, to the web apps, to the "cloud". And it's also pretty obvious that they want this so they can do better what they do best: sell ads. That's also the whole point for not including an Ad-Blocking feature like in Firefox (people would complain it's unfair to block other's ads but not Google's own)

catwell · 2008-09-03 23:03:30

Since it is BSD licenced, isn't rebuilding the source enough to get rid of the EULA anyway ? BSD allows relicensing afaik.

Lord Illidan · 2008-09-03 23:03:59

freakcode wrote:

Well, it's pretty obvious that the purpose of launching a browser is that they can control the whole software chain - from the peer's browser, to the web apps, to the "cloud". And it's also pretty obvious that they want this so they can do better what they do best: sell ads. That's also the whole point for not including an Ad-Blocking feature like in Firefox (people would complain it's unfair to block other's ads but not Google's own)

And since it's OpenSource, anyone can make and install his own plugin that enables ad-blocking. Firefox doesn't come with an Ad-Blocking feature out of the box, it's just a very popular extension.

But most of the users who bother enough about Ad-blocking are never going to click on any ads, so showing them ads would just be a waste of bandwith.

LTSmash · 2008-09-03 23:20:16

Here's a PKGBUILD for using the Google's binary for Windows, so you need wine to use it

NOTE: Install to the predefined paths...

# Contributor: LTSmash <lord.ltsmash@gmail.com.com>
pkgname=google_chrome_win32-bin
pkgver=0.2BETA
pkgrel=1
pkgdesc="Google's Open Source Web browser for Win32 (Wine)"
arch=('i686')
url="www.google.com/chrome"
license=('GPL')
groups=()
depends=(wine xorg)
makedepends=(winetricks)
install="chrome.install"
source=(http://gpdl.google.com/chrome/install/149.27/chrome_installer.exe)
md5sums=('5c505d4d695201614785e00fe4804d30')

build() {
  cd "$srcdir/"

#Installing Win Deps.
  winetricks riched20 riched30 || return 1

#Installing the app
  wine chrome_installer.exe

#Making the apps accesible for everyone
  chmod -R 775 $HOME/.wine/drive_c/windows/profiles/$USER/Local Settings/Application Data/Google/Chrome/ || return1

#Creating a symlink to execute the app.
  echo 'wine "$HOME/.wine/drive_c/windows/profiles/$USER/Local Settings/Application Data/Google/Chrome/Application/chrome.exe" --new-http --in-process-plugins' | tee /usr/bin/gchrome && chmod +x /usr/bin/gchrome || return 1
}

Check if it works, it should. It will install in your current terminal user's $HOME and will give some permissions for everybody to run from there.

PD: Just build it, don't install it

Last edited by LTSmash (2008-09-03 23:28:52)

LTSmash · 2008-09-03 23:23:31

Lord Illidan wrote:

Mr Green wrote:
uh uh check ubuntu forum.....
Obviously the Ubuntu forum users used photoshop then. Never trusted them.

No guys, it actually works

http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.p … ngId=30815

Lord Illidan · 2008-09-03 23:24:55

LTSmash wrote:

Lord Illidan wrote:
Mr Green wrote:
uh uh check ubuntu forum.....
Obviously the Ubuntu forum users used photoshop then. Never trusted them.
No guys, it actually works
http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.p … ngId=30815

It's obviously a conspiracy. Wake up SHEEPLE!

LTSmash · 2008-09-03 23:27:12

Lord Illidan wrote:

LTSmash wrote:
Lord Illidan wrote:
Obviously the Ubuntu forum users used photoshop then. Never trusted them.
No guys, it actually works
http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.p … ngId=30815
It's obviously a conspiracy. Wake up SHEEPLE!

Then try the PKGBUILD by yourself

Jacek Poplawski · 2008-09-03 23:51:52

I don't get it, if Chrome is open source then why noone can't make a real PKGBUILD?

Lord Illidan · 2008-09-03 23:53:17

Jacek Poplawski wrote:

I don't get it, if Chrome is open source then why noone can't make a real PKGBUILD?

AFAIK it still doesn't build on Linux yet. Give them some time.

Arch Linux

#76 2008-09-03 16:19:57

Re: Google Chrome

#77 2008-09-03 17:15:31

Re: Google Chrome

#78 2008-09-03 17:20:05

Re: Google Chrome

#79 2008-09-03 17:20:46

Re: Google Chrome

#80 2008-09-03 17:37:06

Re: Google Chrome

#81 2008-09-03 18:02:05

Re: Google Chrome

#82 2008-09-03 18:04:43

Re: Google Chrome

#83 2008-09-03 18:38:20

Re: Google Chrome

#84 2008-09-03 18:39:32

Re: Google Chrome

#85 2008-09-03 19:08:20

Re: Google Chrome

#86 2008-09-03 19:22:51

Re: Google Chrome

#87 2008-09-03 19:35:29

Re: Google Chrome

#88 2008-09-03 19:52:31

Re: Google Chrome

#89 2008-09-03 20:15:56

Re: Google Chrome

#90 2008-09-03 20:30:08

Re: Google Chrome

#91 2008-09-03 21:09:22

Re: Google Chrome

#92 2008-09-03 23:01:26

Re: Google Chrome

#93 2008-09-03 23:03:30

Re: Google Chrome

#94 2008-09-03 23:03:59

Re: Google Chrome

#95 2008-09-03 23:20:16

Re: Google Chrome

#96 2008-09-03 23:23:31

Re: Google Chrome

#97 2008-09-03 23:24:55

Re: Google Chrome

#98 2008-09-03 23:27:12

Re: Google Chrome

#99 2008-09-03 23:51:52

Re: Google Chrome

#100 2008-09-03 23:53:17

Re: Google Chrome

Board footer