Talk:Google Chrome

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.

WikiProject Computing (Rated C-Class) This article is within the scope of Computing WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to computers and computing. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale This article is supported by the WikiProject Software ( Discuss ), dedicated to improving the Software-related articles on Wikipedia. WikiProject Free Software (Rated C-Class) Free software portal This article is part of WikiProject Free Software, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve free software-related articles. C rated as C-Class on the assessment scale Mid rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale WikiProject Internet      (Rated C-Class) Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on September 7, 2008.
September 3, 2008 Articles for deletion Speedily kept

To-do list for Google Chrome:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Get proper sourcing for this article. Most sources are WP:SPS. Say not synchronizable with "Google bookmarks". Add a section about the dispute around if it's "open-source". Extend the lead section to give a clear overview as per WP:LEAD

[edit] Chromium - open source base of chrome

I vote for a lemma regarding chromium: chromium builds —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.114.62.71 (talk) 07:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Seconded, because Chromium is an open-source browser, whereas Google Chrome is a proprietary closed source browser (see item 10.2 from the EULA which explicitly states the closed source status of Google Chrome) that is merely based on Chromium. The EULA under which Google Chrome is distributed is also an important difference between using Chromium and Chrome. Neitram (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I second that, too. Google Chrome is not open source. --91.0.5.83 (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Chrome is the proprietary end-user binary distribution of the Chromium open-source project, just like the end-user Firefox builds is the proprietary end-user binary distribution of the Firefox open-source project. There are proprietary stuff in the end-user Firefox builds just like Chrome. Please read the second paragraph of http://en.wikipedia.org/description/Mozilla_Firefox#Licensing Ufopedia (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The difference between Chromium and Chrome is officially explained in details here : http://blog.chromium.org/2008/10/google-chrome-chromium-and-google.html Ufopedia (talk) 05:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Free?

Does it need to be titled as a "free web browser". IE is free, opera is free, firefox is free, avast is free, safari is free. The norm now is that browsers are free. It would better to state when a browser must be paid for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.65.63 (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The additional five bytes it takes to clarify that a browser is free still seems worth it to me. Ultimately, it doesn't matter, but it strikes me as a bit pedantic. —  X  S  G  16:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's not free software, than it's not free. --w^{L<speak·check>} 08:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced "free" and the link to free software with the less ambiguous freeware and added the article to the proprietary software category. IMO the is also appropriate, as Chromium is free software, and this article covers both Chromium and Google Chrome. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Chrome is just the brand, put around open-source code. It is similar to Mozilla Firefox in that respect, yet no-one would put Firefox into a "proprietary software" category. SoWhy 10:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree, I removed it from Proprietary Software. Unless Firefox is put into Proprietary Software category too, Chrome should not be put there neither. Ufopedia (talk) 04:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DEV / BETA Channel Discussion regarding Preview / Stable Release Versions

People keep changing the latest preview release to the release given to the Dev Channel (recently 0.2.152.1 and now 0.2.153.1) and I don't think it should be changed to that. The release that you download from the official http://www.google.com/chrome is 0.2.149.30 right now, and I believe that the download there should be the "current" release. jmh010 (talk) 03:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. That's like changing it every time the SVN trunk updates. Not very practical. — ^FatalError 19:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think dev channel releases should be added. The Chromium builds are the SVN trunk updates, the dev channel builds are the preview builds, while the beta builds are the... beta builds. In this sense, the dev channel builds are like the Safari 4 Developer Preview, which are the latest preview releases, while the beta releases are the official releases.Ufopedia (talk) 06:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I advocate the beta releases being the stable releases. Who knows how long Chrome will be in beta, judging from Gmail and Google Docs... Sdornan (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true. I was thinking about doing that myself, but I didn't just because it isn't technically "stable". — ^FatalError 01:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The way Google has structured the Google Chrome project makes Beta the "Stable" release, (as shown in Software_release, it's released public (GA) and conforms to the Stable Guidlines). Their DEV Channel then applies to the Preview Release. I have made these modifications, feel free to revert but leave your comments here to discuss. DEV Channel is not "trunk" nor SVN, so it is an actual Preview Release, as noted in their Google Chrome Release blog. - Sc0ttkclark (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Development milestones before public release

Hi, All!

I just read Wired today and it has a pretty long and good article on Chrome. There is a wealth of information. In particular it has a lot of information how the project went before Google released Chrome. This is something for me difficult to find elsewhere. I added a link to it to "External references".

Levy, Steven (2008-09-02). "Inside Chrome: The Secret Project to Crush IE and Remake the Web". Wired: Issue 16.10 144-152. Retrieved on 2008-09-29.

-- BaldPark (talk) 04:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Linux version of Chrome

I believe discussion about the Linux version should reference the Prism project from Mozilla that is remarkably like Chrome and available on Windows, Mac and Linux. I discovered it by accident and love it for much the same reasons i love Chrome. http://labs.mozilla.com/projects/prism/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.147.61 (talk) 02:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it has an article at Mozilla Prism. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I also like Prism a lot, but what does it have to do with the Linux version?? Prism is already mentioned at the right place in this article. Vesal (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I just read this article on ZDNet about the official Linux version of Chrome - http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Chrome-now-works-on-Linux-crudely/0,130061733,339293247,00.htm?ocid=nl_TNB_14112008_fea_l7 - should there be a mention of this in the article? Floorwalker (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Latest Preview Version

It says in the article right now that the latest preview version is 0.3.154.3. Yet when I open up my copy of Chrome, it says in its About Google Chrome dialog box that it is up to date with a version number of 0.2.149.30. What is the reference for the preview version number of 0.3.154.3?--Susurrus (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

These are dev-channel releases. See the discussions above about which ones to list. Vesal (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unofficial builds

I don't understand why were are listing off every Chromium build/workaround/mod available on the internet. None of the current items mentioned are notable except for CrossOver Chromium, which was released by a fairly well-known company. Out of the others, one of them is by some random guy, another is by an unnotable company, and the third was a workaround mentioned on a discussion forum for crying out loud. I think the others should be removed, and the information about CrossOver merged into the article text. Thoughts? — ^FatalError 03:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about the others, but considering that the privacy concerns raised over Chrome were quite significant, the fact that Iron has all of that phoning-home stuff disabled and/or removed makes it very notable in my book. And that's also not the only thing that sets Iron notably apart from Chrome or other Chromium builds (Iron is readily available in a portable no-installation ZIP packed version, which I think Chrome isn't; unlike Chrome it has a basic content blocker losely compatible with Firefox's AdBlock plugin and Opera's urlfilter syntax; it is built using the very latest Webkit version, which as they say Chrome isn't). 91.33.200.240 (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not my point; how do these unofficial builds, such as Iron, meet Wikipedia's policies on notability? Being notable in your book does not make them notable on Wikipedia. This isn't the place to list every unofficial workaround that exists on the Internet. Unless there are reliable, third-party sources mentioning something about these, they should be removed. — ^FatalError 20:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Since no one seems to be having any objections, I'm removing the section. Feel free to add the info about CrossOver Chromium somewhere else in the article body, but please don't revert the edit without giving a good reason. Thanks. — ^FatalError 20:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Google Chrome, StarOffice, open source

So Google Chrome, based on open source Chromium is free (open source) while StarOffice which is based on OpenOffice.org is proprietary? --Joshua Issac (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The Firefox binary download is technically "proprietary", because you cannot modify or reverse engineer it, but it is an open source application and listed as such. Same with Chrome. StarOffice is different because it is a commercial (not open source) application based on the OpenOffice source code. It would be same thing if someone took the Mozilla source code, made their own browser out of it, and released it as a closed binary. The new browser would be proprietary, even though it's based off the Mozilla code. Does that make sense? — ^FatalError 20:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry about the late reply; this seems to have slipped through my watch list. --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In a nut shell, people should use this because...?

Better protection?

Firefox for games and movies and Chrome for unsafe sites?

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.254.250 (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Because they like it? Why do you think that Firefox is better for games and movies, and Chrome for unsafe sites? (Why would you visit unsafe sites if you knew they are unsafe?) This is probably unencyclopaedic. Moved to bottom.--Joshua Issac (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Folks, this is not a Discussion Board. Please take questions like this somewhere outside of Wikipedia. —  X  S  G  19:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me restate the question. Why doesn't the article make clear why Google decided to develop another browser? They have explained this, and there are many news sources explaining their motives. (To achieve a general performance and stability improvement in browsers so that Google Docs could compete more effectively with desktop apps.) In fact, I added something about that to this article, but it was removed due to my bad prose. Vesal (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

IMO that information belongs somewhere in the development section. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Skulduggery?

• Why does Hotmail (owned by Microsoft) only allow me to read emails when I use Chrome? I can't write them at all - yet no other browser (Firefox, IE...) has this problem. Is this intentional by Microsoft (not unlikely IMO)? Anyone know of any sources that discuss this? Malick78 (talk) 10:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

If it works in Firefox, which is currently the biggest threat to Internet Explorer, then why would they make it not work in Chrome? According to the source you added, they even have Apple Safari on the list. --Joshua Issac (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Chrome has lots of JavaScript bugs. There are problems like this on websites like Facebook as well. I'm not sure if this is the reason, because it could be that Microsoft is just being stupid and doing browser detection or something (which I wouldn't be surprised about). — ^FatalError 20:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Google Update

IMO there should be information about hidden update service, installed with Chrome without any notification 83.26.218.238 (talk) 10:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)