Google Chrome, is it a good thing?

[energyman]

http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/

[deanjo]

Still - the memory consumption is horrible.

That's odd, that's the exact opposite of what all the other sites are saying.

1) close all browsers
2) open all of your browsers and navigate to the same web page in all of them
3) open a new tab in Chrome and type about:memory for the url it will display all the browsers that are opened and how much memory they are consuming.

[energyman]

Chrome is horrible. Fat! And google wants all the rights of all your stuff. Are they insanse?

EDIT: ok, they corrected it. The new eula looks fine. Still - the memory consumption is horrible.

[StringCheesian]

The EULA is just slightly worrying when coming from a company that excels in data mining. Although with the browser being open source you could just remove any pieces of code that report back to google but I'd hope it would never reach that stage.

Google fixed Chrome's EULA. Apparently it was just an oversight.

[deanjo]

Konqueror still uses KHTML and afaik there's no way of telling it to use webkit instead.

There has been webkit enabled Konq builds for quite a while now.

http://liquidat.wordpress.com/2007/12/20/kubuntus-kde-4-livecd-comes-with-webkit-enabled-konqueror/

As well as opensuse. kde4-webkitpart WebKit render engine for Konqueror



Once installed Systemsettings -> Advanced -> File Associations -> text/html -> Embedding -> Select Webkit -> Move Up (as often as needed) -> Apply.

[Zhick]

I'm pretty excited about Chrome, especially if it uses qt. I'll definately give it a try. And since it's FOSS, I'm pretty sure somebodys gonna rip out all the parts you wont want, if there realy are such parts, and call it IceChrome or something .
Also I actually do trust google and their "don't be evil" philosophie quite a bit. And after all they've been veeery good to us (the FOSS/GNU/Linux community).

Wouldn't that be called Konqueror? You have been able to use webkit as an engine on it for a while now.

Konqueror still uses KHTML and afaik there's no way of telling it to use webkit instead.

[Thetargos]

I insist, being it OSS, wouldn't it mean that Mozilla could base Firefox 4 on a design like it? And who knows? Maybe even incorporate V8 on FF 3.5, or further tweak TraceMonkey.

Here is a comparison of V8, TraceMonkey, SquirrelFish (WebKit) and IE8.

I have to wonder if the advantage of V8 on Chrome are due to the modular design of the browser and because it runs under its own process, rather than under the bigger, bulkier process of the browser, add threading there, and that process might even receive a dedicated CPU to it on multi-core systems.

[Kano]

Well you can use safari too - even for Win

[deanjo]

If WebKit + Qt then = epic win.

Wouldn't that be called Konqueror? You have been able to use webkit as an engine on it for a while now.

[grantek]

There is something about a company that specializes in data harvesting that really really bugs me.

Yeah, I agree - I haven't had a good feeling from Google for a while, but they've consistently proven they're happy to follow standards, and being an open-source browser I'd hope someone has the resources to run a "centos"/"iceweasel"-type fork that removes all the googlisms. Either way, I'd expect there's user options to prevent autodownloading of blacklists/autocompletes, to at least stop the data flow to them if one wishes.

Google really does seem to "get it", in terms of helping open software and open standards, and they seem to understand that that's how they'll thrive. Being as large a corporation as they are, I'm not placing any long-term trust in them, but the fact that they're acknowledging that their browser is "just" chrome on top of WebKit goes a long way to position them as nothing but a Microsoft killer, which to me is a good thing

And wtf are people complaining about the eula for? The code's available under the BSD license fer goodness' sake!