SuperSite Blog

Two stories for IE8 Beta 2

Four (so far) for Google Chrome

Two teasers that it's coming

One that it's shipping

One that they have a blog

And then there will be at least one more for a preview and one more for a review

For a browser that's, at Paul's own admission, a knock off of IE8 Beta 2.

Why?

I have been using Chrome for the past couple of hours. First impression is good. It is better looking than the screen shots I have seen. Although time will tell how much I "really" like it.

Mike,

It's sexy.  Plus, there hasn't been a competitor to MS like Google since MS bumped off Netscape and slit the throat of Netware, Wordperfect, and Lotus 1-2-3.  I heard it on the television news today.  Yes, the television news.

Everything Google does is getting big pub.  Why MS can't generate excitement for its wares like Google and Apple (especially) do is interesting.  

If IE provided all the features that Chrome is getting a lot of publicity for for...then MS needs to fire it's marketing staff and hire some evangelists.

Ocean

I expect breathless rewording of press releases from the "I use the Google" non-tech press.

I expect better from Paul.

rjohn05 said:

I have been using Chrome for the past couple of hours.

Me to.  I like it a lot.  The tabs above the location bar actually work for me - it presents a more logical heirarchy of information, the location of the page is contained within the tab  It sort of highlights the fact that each tab is a separate process.

I'm actually seeing this thing not so much as a browser, but as an optimized,  run-time application environment for web based applications.  Particurlarly google's.  Notice the "Create Application Shortcuts..." item in the documen tmenu.  They mean to make it real easy to put Gmail in your taskbar.  

I think there's much more afoot here than just a new entry in the browser wars.

Of course, installing the thing in the user/Local Settings folder is just stupid.

Others (and perhaps you yourself) have said it many times:  It's his blog; he can post what he wants to.

You're free to start your own.  As for me, I appreciate the updates.

So far I'm not impressed. I know it's beta, but the download rates, javascript rendering, and even flash rendering are horrifically slow. It also improperly renders PNG transparency... and why the heck can't they do anti-aliased fonts on Windows browsers? IE can do it!

Hmmm...  As I was just saying.

This is from the Chromium Developer Documentation, User Experience section.

dev.chromium.org/user-experience

"In the long term, we think of Chromium as a tabbed window manager or shell for the web rather than a browser application. We avoid putting things into our UI in the same way you would hope that Apple and Microsoft would avoid putting things into the standard window frames of applications on their operating systems.

The tab is our equivalent of a desktop application's title bar; the frame containing the tabs is a convenient mechanism for managing groups of those applications. In future, there may be other tab types that do not host the normal browser toolbar."

>>In the long term, we think of Chromium as a tabbed window manager or shell for the web rather than a browser application. We avoid putting things into our UI in the same way you would hope that Apple and Microsoft would avoid putting things into the standard window frames of applications on their operating systems.<<

They are forward thinking, aren't they?  You'll never get MS or Apple to agree to that for Safari or IE though...and the most they can hope for from Mozilla is a theme-like UI switch.

That said, this thing feels rock solid.  I've got a lot of muscle memory developed around Firefox, it's very customized to how I work and I love my plugins...so I don't think I'll be making the switch anytime soon though.

CFisher83,

I would guess they don't do ClearType because they're going for a least common denominator code tree so that Chrome will look the same on Mac and Linux (if they ship on them). But that's only a guess.

WebGuy3000

That's pretty amazing. They honestly think that the OS will go away and all applications on all platforms will run inside Chrome which will become the universal UI for all applications.

Wow. Now THAT is arrogance and hubris we haven't seen the likes of since SUN announced we'd all throw away our computers and switch to Java terminals using dial-up.

>>They honestly think that the OS will go away<<

No they don't.  Something has to run on the machine.

I think they think it will be superseded in importance by the browser though.

I certainly don't think Google thinks "the OS will go away."  I do however think they be okay with it if quite a few desktop applications went away.

Heres a good opinion piece on what Google is trying to accomplish:

www.avc.com/.../chrome-android.html

SUN thought we'd give up personal computers and switch to Java based terminals that could run local applets anywhere with a minimal OS (preferably their own) talking to SUN back-end servers,

Google thinks we'll give up personal computers and switch to JavaScript based terminals that can run local applets anywhere with a minimal OS (preferably their own) talking to Google back-end servers,

Been there, done that, saw the idea crash and burn and almost take that generation's darling-of-the-media company with it. (Back then, SUN was the company cursed with the tag of "The Next Microsoft")

>>Google thinks we'll give up personal computers <<

No, they don't.  They just think the tech world needs to be re-oriented and better positioned for life on the Internet.  It doesn't mean that the desktop doesn't also have its own utility.

We seem to be discussing Chrome (the browser) in the Chromium (the open source project) blog post.  I shall go to the Chrome blog post for Chrome discussions..

Ocean

"They just think the tech world needs to be re-oriented and better positioned for life on the Internet"

Care to try that again in English rather than MarketingBuzzWords?

>>Care to try that again in English rather than MarketingBuzzWords?<<

Sure.

>>The OS that we’re using today is kind of in the model of a ’70s or ’80s vintage workstation. It was designed for a LAN, it’s got this great display, and a mouse, and all this stuff, but it’s not inherently designed for the Internet.

--

Here’s the way I talk about it to people at Microsoft. The desktop is very useful. People use it a lot on a daily basis. There are things that the web is good for, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that for all those things that the desktop is not good anymore. What I think is important is to re-pivot the center of what we are trying to accomplish.<<

Ray Ozzie, Chief Big-Big, MS

gigaom.com/.../the-gigaom-interview-ray-ozzie-microsoft-corp

Ocean

So you're saying that Google is following Ray Ozzie's views? That hardly matches their app designs or strategies that they've discussed.

Maybe you could say what you mean rather than cryptic quotes of other people's words to explain your own claim?

>>Ocean

So you're saying that Google is following Ray Ozzie's views? <<

No, I'm saying that you're out of touch with where the next generation of technologists are taking technology.  It's not just Google thinking this way...

Well, despite the lack of actual content you managed to turn a vague statement into a meaningless attack.

You see, what you don't have a clue about is that Ray Ozzie's vision of the next generation web is totally different from what Google is espousing.

Ray Ozzie not only gets it, he pretty much wrote most of it. Google, on the other hand, not so much.

Perhaps you should read some of the articles before just sideswiping people with them.

To quote my sig file...

---

If "Web 2.0" was the equivalent of replacing the dumb terminals of "Web 1.0" with smart terminals then

Live Mesh is the equivalent of replacing those terminals with a peer to peer network of personal computers.

---

Google is saying, "lets stop innovating with Web 2.0 and, instead of moving forward, let's make smart terminals that are really, really optimized for our Web 2.0 applets."

Of course, if Google is right, then so was Apple when they told their developers that they didn't need an iPhone SDK and should just write lots of AJAX web sites instead.

Yeah. That's a winner.

Ray Ozzie, on the other hand, is moving everybody forward to a much more powerful and much more flexible environment than, apparently, Google can imagine as they sit, locked into a Web 2.0 mindset. (as are, apparently, many others)

BTW: (for Ocean) You don't survive in this industry for 30 years by looking backward or locking in to what exists.You survive by living as far ahead as you can dream. I've survived for over 30 years now and I can tell you we're just getting started.

BTW: (for everyone else) The PDC this October will be amazing. If you can't attend, clear some space on your calendar to absorb the changes.

Mike, you've drank the kool-aid, and deeply too.

You're not wed to the right tool, you think every tool makes is just right.  Thats the very definition of fanboy fanaticism.  

If MS publishes IE9 with the same look and feel and guts that we see in Chrome you'll be decked out in a cheerleading outfit with a giant M turning handstands over it.

It's funny when Ocean accuses someone of drinking the kool-aid. :-)

Whose kool-aid am I drinking...Carp?  :)

Shark

I think it's so cute.

He keeps replying where he doesn't have even the slightest clue what's going on beyond "There's a non-Microsoft side so I should be on it. Maybe if I agressively throw buzzwords around in hope they form a coherent sentence then people will think I know what I'm talking about."

>>Maybe if I agressively throw buzzwords around <<

Pot, meet kettle.

I posted this over at Dwight Silverman's too, in case anyone reads both and this looks familiar.

Pros:

* Fast and simple interface

* Nice idea with the default blank tab including the most visited sites.

* I love that the address bar integrates search.

Cons:

* Enormous memory hog. With two tabs and a blank page open, the browser uses 150 MB of RAM.

* Middle click to open new tab doesn't work on Netvibes.

* No way to mass delete or move bookmarks.

* No Adblock.

* No way to reorder tab opening so that the most recently opened tab is next to the current tab instead of farthest away.

* Imports Firefox quicksearches, but no apparent way to change or edit them in Chrome.

* Doesn't support clicking the mouse wheel on an empty area of the page to scroll.

It's a nice idea, but it's a ways off of being truly competitive. I know they've made each tab its own process for security and stability reasons, but this makes the browser more of a memory hog than Firefox ever was.

WebGuy3000's comment is insightful.  Chrome may work better as a web-based application shell than a generalized web browser.  Of course, Microsoft and Mozilla don't have that far to go (hide UI widgets, improve JavaScript performance) to do the same thing.  

>>With two tabs and a blank page open, the browser uses 150 MB of RAM.<<

What do you have running in those two tabs?  I've read that rich media pages (like ESPN) send it off the charts.

Right now I've got two tabs open in Chrome (I'm typing this in Firefox, with 5 tabs open is using 90 MB)...ESPN and the NYTimes.  They take up 8 and 10 respectively.  The 'new tab' page takes up 5, and the Flash plugin takes up 34.4.  The Browser itself takes up 34.8.  That's from the Chrome task manager.

Windows Task Manager says there are 5 chrome processes running at 41, 39, 17, 13, and 11.

Poll

(non-scientific of course)

news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10030522-56.html

@Ocean

I had ESPN.com and Netvibes.com open.

With ESPN, Netvibes, ABCNews, MSNBC and Google open:

Chrome: 254 MB RAM

Firefox: 123 MB RAM

Chrome memory usage is going to increase linearly with the number of sites you have open.  I bring this up mainly due to all the complaining about Firefox 2's excessive memory use.  It should also be reiterated that Google did this by choice - they chose security and browser stability over memory efficiency.

This thing looks alright on XP - a bit better than the first screenshots - but it's (surprisingly?!) awesome on Vista.

"SUN thought we'd give up personal computers and switch to Java based terminals that could run local applets anywhere with a minimal OS (preferably their own) talking to SUN back-end servers,

Google thinks we'll give up personal computers and switch to JavaScript based terminals that can run local applets anywhere with a minimal OS (preferably their own) talking to Google back-end servers,"

You could add that the mobile phone makers now believe more or less the same thing -- they too are replacing the old-fashioned desktop.

Microsoft does not seem to believe in mobile devices taking over. Or at least they seem to have given up that space for good and simply let others control it. It is interesting that where the web use grows fastest -- in Asia -- more people are now accessing the web through mobile phones than through PC's. And they're not doing so with MS products, or via MS services, it seems. They use Nokia, Google, etc.

MS seems to have a vague grasp of the cloud computing thing, though, even if their attempts there pretty much suck. Skydrive, anyone? Hotmail? Seriously?

Anyway, the desktop isn't dying. But the growth is elsewhere. What is this Chrome thing's relation to all that, I do not know. Maybe there's none. Maybe it's just a cheap tie-in strategy. But I do know that I have zero interest in a yet another browser. No-one needs this thing. No-one.

And no, I did not hear about it in the news. Thank God for that. I mean, that would be just creepy...

"I would guess they don't do ClearType because they're going for a least common denominator code tree so that Chrome will look the same on Mac and Linux (if they ship on them)."

I think they'd have to code their own type rendering engine separately from OS X if they wanted to do it without anti-aliasing on Mac.

"Shark

I think it's so cute.

He keeps replying where he doesn't have even the slightest clue what's going on beyond "There's a non-Microsoft side so I should be on it. Maybe if I agressively throw buzzwords around in hope they form a coherent sentence then people will think I know what I'm talking about.""

Also, most of his comments are links to blogs and articles or quotes from them, He rarely adds more than a couple of his own words to the discussion.

It's funny to see the reaction to the browser. Some people are happy because Google is taking on MS. Other's are pissed off because Google is taking on FF.

JHC Mike and Ocean you guys need to swap phone #'s.  You guys dominate this blog.  What do you do in your spare time?

Anyone see this...?

news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10030888-92.html

or do this test?

www.rybazoom.com/browsermips

@BrightrevCarl  the BIG problem with FF and memory was not really how much RAM is uses when you open X tabs.  Its been how much is DOES NOT give back when they closed.

In FF2 after a day of usage it would look like it was using an insane amount of RAM to do very little, and in reality it had just not returned it.

For the most part that is fixed.

It's fast, and that's about it. ZDnet has already blogged about the carpet bomb issue with Chrome similiar to Safari.

No competition to Firefox 3 or IE8 as far as I can see.

@ Lindy,

Your browserMips test you pointed to is both not a credible or serious way to determine browser performance.

Second, bragging about javascript speed? The same javascript that is the most compromised scripting language? The same javascript that causes XSS or cross site scripting. The pathway to break into computers and either run malicious code and obtain information?

That really isn't the best way to boast a new browser. Also the EULA agreement in Chrome is suspect. Here's a excerpt from the Chrome EULA.

"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."

In other words, use Chrome and any potential copyright now belongs to Google. Thanks but no thanks.

(Throws up an American football yellow flag to indicate a penalty.)

Encroachment upon copyright liberties, thats 30 yard penalty. Repeat, second down.

Peace.

>>In other words, use Chrome and any potential copyright now belongs to Google.<<

Not true.

>>>>The wording on Chrome's TOS is very similar to the TOS of Google Docs, which caused a similar outcry in Aug 07. At the time a Google Docs rep replied in our comments: "As we state in our terms of service, we don't claim ownership or control over your content in Google Docs & Spreadsheets, whether you're using it as an individual or through Google Apps. Read in its entirety, the sentence from our terms of service excerpted in the blog ensures that, for documents you expressly choose to share with others, we have the proper license to display those documents to the selected users and format documents properly for different displays. To be clear, Google will not use your documents beyond the scope that you and you alone control. Your fantasy football spreadsheets are not going to end up shared with the world unless you want them to be."<<

www.readwriteweb.com/.../does_google_have_rights_to_all.php

Pauls writeup is up (is that 5 Mike?) :

windowsitpro.com/.../googles-browser-created-out-of-fear-of-microsoft.html

I might note that Paul is putting words in Googles mouth (as Mike and as MS seek to do):

>>But a big part of the thrust behind Chrome is to formalize the notion that Web applications are as capable and "real" as traditional desktop applications.<<

Where did they say that?  Because they didn't.  Be very wary whenever a partisan writer starts off with the words: "implicitly admitted".  

So....

Lots of stuff here. I'll address the "I expect more of Paul" and "why" stuff.

More...  in what way? :)

What I've written about Google Chrome has been very critical. This includes the Preview here on the SuperSite and two news articles on WinInfo (www.wininformant.com).

But I do cover it, yes. Because it's important. Because I feel that cloud computing is the future, and that while this may be premature, Google's on to something. Yeah, it's what they do (cloud computing). But if all they do is inspire Microsoft, Mozilla, etc. to make better browsers, great. We all win.

So that's why.

But I'd also point out that readers of this site/blog tend to be more technical than Joe Windows user. So this is a topic that should be of interest to all of you. I do use Firefox, for example, and I suspect a lot of you do too. Well, guess what; Google Chrome is something you should look at. (And I shouldn't have to explain that.) For those for typical users in the audience, heads up: Google's working on a browser. It makes sense from that perspective as well.

Justifying this seems silly. It's obvious to me that this is important, and that's true whether their browser is good, bad or indifferent.

Ocean, actually I'm not putting words in Google's mouth. I'm putting motives to their moves. Yes, Google does very much say that Web applications are as capable and "real" as traditional apps; they say it in their comic book which pretends that that's how we all compute right now. That's *why* they "needed" to make a browser. Let's not get silly over semantics. Google is doing this out of pure competitive desire. Which is absolutely fine, and completely normal.

I'm not a "partisan" writer. And I think that's what kills you. I can actually think. And I don't always pick Microsoft. In fact, this topic proves it: I use Google services heavily. Thus, Google Chrome is important to me. But I am critical of their motives (as you've linked to) because I don't trust their public pronouncements about why they're doing this. It's dishonest.

Real partisan.

Paul

The 'expect more" was in context of doing more than saying, "Hey, they've got a blog. Here's the first few graphs"

The more isn't "why cover it", it's "why write EIGHT articles on the release of an early beta (4 here, 2 on SuperSite, 2 on WinInfo). By comparison, beta 2 of IE 8 which is used by most Windows users got half that coverage at best.

Lastly, all the teasers have a bit of the tone of a breathless fan talking about their favorite boy band's new interview in Seventeen. It's not as though Google isn't getting coverage. There really isn't a need for the press release reprint articles. Every blog had those.

In short, the Thurrott value-add is the insightful pieces. The preview had that. The rest? Not so much. And that's why more is expected.

And to show it's not a partisan thing, I'd say the "Over one million users sign up for Office Live Workspace" post here also falls under the "more is expected" category. While Office Live Workspace is interesting and I'd have loved to have seen more about it in the online world shootout you did, I'm not sure that adding "From Microsoft" to a press release really did add much insight.

@Ocean

Do you honestly expect anyone to believe Google, a multi-billion dollar corporation not to use content to their best interest? I'm sorry but there are a lot of users that will object to the language in the EULA and I'm one of them.

Just because they "say" they won't, doesn't mean that they will. How many times have we seen companies pass long information that helps them get more business? How many times have we seen intelectual properties and patents violated.

Case in point, since you constant flaunt the Wii numbers, I'll give you a Wii example.

Hillcrest Laboratory is suing Nintendo over several patent violations concerning the Wii mote. Nintendo has been successfully sued for other patent violations over the Wii classic controller and the Gamecube controller by Anascape Ltd.

Nintendo right now is becoming the poster child for violating patent agreements. Are we going to trust Google in the same bated breath with content as both Hillcrest Laboratory and Anascape did?

Thats when the tiny cynic within me starts to emerge. The Wii is part stolen technology and not true innovation from Nintendo. It may sell just fine but it taints the freshness of the Wii. As for me, it justifies my decision not to purchase one.

Subzero

But Google says they're "not evil" so obviously everything they do is purely altruistic.

On a more serious note, sometimes EULA wording actually does show more threat than is intended. For a while (I think it was clarified in later case law but IANAL) if an ISV moved your data from one server to another to load balance or upgrade hardware they had to have a "we have rights to all your data" clause in the EULA because they were copying and deleting your data without your explicit approval.

Still, when a legal document and a statement of intent by a PR person disagree, I tend to be a little suspicious.

Mike,

The whole point of having a legal department is to make documents to stand up to scrutiny. The problem is interpritation. You and I might see it one way, a judge somewhere may not. I think this EULA could be better written.

I understand the need for such language. Many folks in here who have greater understanding of such agreements are raising questions about this part of the End User agreement in Chrome. That justifies your and my suspicions about this. Infact, many lawyers have been suspicious about many of the End User agreements, which I'm sure you've probably know heard before.

>>Google does very much say that Web applications are as capable and "real" as traditional apps; they say it in their comic book which pretends that that's how we all compute right now.<<

Well, most of us do use web mail...and perhaps a RSS reader.  Those are real apps that have migrated to the web.

>>Hillcrest Laboratory is suing Nintendo over several patent violations concerning the Wii mote. Nintendo has been successfully sued for other patent violations over the Wii classic controller and the Gamecube controller by Anascape Ltd.

--

The Wii is part stolen technology and not true innovation from Nintendo. <<

LOL at your conclusion.  Did they admit guilt, or pay up to make the cases go away?

Did Hillcrest Laboratory have a game system in development, or were they one of those idea laboratories that reserves ideas and then sues from the blindside when someone actually implements them?

>>By comparison, beta 2 of IE 8 which is used by most Windows users got half that coverage at best.<<

Everyone has been waiting for a Google browser to drop...that justifies the coverage.   If MS didn't have a browser and suddenly announced that they were going to release one, it would have gotten the same coverage.

>>It's not as though Google isn't getting coverage. There really isn't a need for the press release reprint articles. <<

Get your own blog Mike...you've got the gravitas.  I like Pauls coverage....just...as...it...is.

C'mon Ocean.  Can you really believe anything stated by the same company that openly stole book contents to accelerate their own advertising business?

You can't possibly answer that question and come out looking intelligent.

According to a bit of Googling (what would be the equivalent if I used Live Search?) that company is a 'patent troll' that loves the judges in a certain part of the country.

www.alleyinsider.com/.../sony-slapped-with-blu-ray-patent-lawsuit-sne-

www.alleyinsider.com/.../nintendo_loses_21_million_patent_infringement_suit

Yep...those companies were paid to go away.  Just another nasty slur.

www.technologyreview.com/.../wtr_16280,300,p1.html

Stole book contents?  Was it that blatant, or was there a legal dispute?

@Ocean,

If Hillcrest Laboratory legally own the patent, what they do with the technology is their business. You just can't decide my company's need is greater than yours and violate patents.

If you must know, the technologies are licensed out to several different companies including Logitech International SA, Universal Electronics Inc, and many others. So to answer your question, they haven't just sat on these ideas. These companies are using that technology and paying the proper agreed fees.

If you want a specific product that uses the "Freespace" techonology, I've got one for ya.

Logitech® MX Air™ Rechargeable Cordless Air Mouse.  

The patent is theirs and anyone who wants to use the technology has to deal with them. And no, its not my conclusion. Anascape Ltd, won its suit against Nintendo. So its stolen tech, no matter how you spin it.

As for the Hillcrest Laboratory suit, they're seeking to suspend importation of the Wii's. It might take 15 months, but if they win, thats more stolen tech found in the Wii.

@ Ocean

"According to a bit of Googling (what would be the equivalent if I used Live Search?)"

maybe it's "living" :D

subzerohitman721...they're patent trolls.  I read the same article you did.  Do a bit more reading.

Here's the Wikipedia entry about the Book Search.  Google calls it Fair Use, some people call it infringement.  It's hardly as blatant as some here are making it out to be:

>>While librarians hail the initiative for its potential to offer unprecedented access to what may become the largest online corpus of human knowledge,[29][30] the publishing industry and writers' groups have criticized the project's inclusion of snippets of copyrighted works as infringement. The Authors Guild of America[31] and Association of American Publishers[32][33] have separately sued Google, citing "massive copyright infringement." Google claims its project represents a fair use, and is the digital age equivalent of a card catalog with every word in the publication indexed.<<

en.wikipedia.org/.../Google_Book_Search

>>A more forceful refutation of Rubin's position comes from Ed Black, president of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, an industry interest group in which both Google and Microsoft are members.

"While I normally avoid commenting on disputes between members, I cannot overlook Microsoft's unfortunate mischaracterization of copyright law," Black said in a statement. "Contrary to Microsoft's suggestion, every unauthorized use of a copyrighted work is not infringement. Highly transformative copies, such as those made by search engines like Google and Microsoft's own MSN, or those made by Microsoft's software programmers when reverse-engineering competitors' products, are fair use under copyright law. Microsoft would do well to consider that its own business depends on fair use before brushing aside that important doctrine."

"Copyright practice currently labors under an oppressive 'permission culture' in which every unauthorized use of a work is viewed as a potential violation of the law," Black added. "This distorted view of the law undermines access to information, is hostile to innovation, and most importantly, is not accurate. The copyright monopoly is a limited one, and it must stay that way if it is to continue to promote progress."

Don Dodge, director of business development for Microsoft's Emerging Business Team, in his blog called Rubin's speech a "really dumb move." While allowing that the legal issues mentioned remain unresolved, Dodge chastises Rubin for "pandering to the Association of American Publishers" and inviting bad publicity. <<

www.informationweek.com/.../showArticle.jhtml

"Google calls it Fair Use, some people call it infringement."

....those "people" were the authors and copyright holders.

I would just imagine the kind of lawsuit that would happen should Google have gotten their hands on somebody like J.K. Rowling's next Harry Potter script and thought it would be "fair use" to publish it online.  I wouldn't put it over Google were they to think it would help push their ads.

BTW:  quoting wikipedia and informationweek doesn't help your argument any either.

You're calling it outright theft.  I'm saying it's a legal dispute.

You may be correct in the end, but you're not correct now.

The quotes establish the facts:  this is still a legal dispute.  There has been no judgment.

@Ocean - Didn't you say that you were going to quit posting here? You remind me of the Mac guy in the Mac vs PC ads...like that pesky little neighbor kid that is starving for attention and just won't go away.

@Paul - We really need an IGNORE feature here.

--tayme

Tayme...why did you just waste 50 seconds of your life posting that?  

Paul,

I second tayme's call for an ignore function. Ignore or moderated boards.

Later.

I like the moderated boards idea.

I've rarely seen the ignore function well implemented though.  Most times you end up seeing the ignored users post in the replies that others make to him.

@Ocean - For the same reason that you waste hours per day of your time hijacking this discussion thread, costing your employer.

Or...are you just the newest encarnation of our old zit faced friend, bonch, using the high school's resources, when you should be in math or English class?

Anyway...I usually try to avoid personal attacks, but you make it so easy...and fun!!!

Your F5 finger must be cramping, as you wait for the next refresh with something new for you to carry on about.

Have a great afternoon and evening.

--tayme

I hijacked it?  Surely you jest.

Just a tip for all you all...no need to use f5 (or whatever key it is to reload)...just use this extension:

addons.mozilla.org/.../115

"You're calling it outright theft.  I'm saying it's a legal dispute.

You may be correct in the end, but you're not correct now."

No, you just don't get it.  I'm not calling it ANYTHING.

The AUTHORS are calling it theft.  The thieves are saying it isn't.  I'll side by the ones whose property it is, thank you very much.

By what basis do you call them thieves?  This Fair Use stuff is pretty murky.

EULA update (I love that last sentence):

>>Google's Rebecca Ward, Senior Product Counsel for Google Chrome, now tells Ars Technica that the company tries to reuse these licenses as much as possible, "in order to keep things simple for our users." Ward admits that sometimes "this means that the legal terms for a specific product may include terms that don't apply well to the use of that product" and says that Google is "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."

It's worth noting that the EULA is largely unenforceable because the source code of Chrome is distributed under an open license. Users could simply download the source code, compile it themselves, and use it without having to agree to Google's EULA. The terms of the BSD license under which the source code is distributed are highly permissive and impose virtually no conditions or requirements on end users.

So, there you have it: a tempest in a (chrome) teapot.<<

arstechnica.com/.../20080903-google-on-chrome-eula-controversy-our-bad-well-change-it.html

Ocean, sorry to say, but we're going to have to figure out something for you. You're a bit much.

BTW... googlewatch.eweek.com/.../google_clearly_sees_chrome_as_the_clouds_future.html

""I think operating systems are kind of an old way to think of the world," Brin said. "They have become kind of bulky, they have to do lots and lots of different [legacy] things. We want a lightweight, fast engine for running applications."

But seriously. Let's at least keep things on topic. The insane diatribe about Google Books is pointless. And uninteresting.