PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

yes, but will the google functions be recognized as malware?

A big reason to make this: its called "ad block plus" for firefox.

Well the browser won't be able to connect via the http & ssl ports until you allow it on a software firewall if that's what you mean. But perhaps you mean will it prevent it from being installed at all? The same jokes are made about Microsoft products but how many people here still use those too?

The EULA stuff has been addressed, this same patterns has already occured a few times with google's new "Apps" and it's apparent they throw a generalized set of legal documents at most of the stuff that gets released from the 'google labs' (like when Gmail's EULA was updated and even given a legal notice):
Ars: Google on Chrome EULA controversy: our bad, we'll change it
Dailytech: Google Removes Big Brother Clause in Chrome's EULA

Also now that I've found their dom inspector I'd say that it's at least on par with firebug, though still lacking in many of webdev toolbar's features.

Btw, don't mistake me for a google apologist. I use gmail but I won't run google's desktop search and making chrome my primary browser isn't really in the cards until the browser can be extended with more user privacy controls and such. But they have a fair number of decent web products, though it does pay to be mindful of the funny business they had with the DoJ.

There's also of course the issue with committing personal & business (private) data to any data 'cloud', whether it's through google's web apps or any other web based service, but as these services are only going to become more & more common I think there are reasonable approaches one can take to spreading out & filtering your usages to reduce your footprint and obfuscate yourself from being easily profiled or pilfered of important data. That however doesn't really even apply to the web browser unless you happen to feel that they're somehow secretly doing more than just facilitating browsing the web with Chrome (and storing searches & sites from the "omnibar").

"ooops, you noticed that? oh, sorry, sorry! our bad..."

I've been using IE 8. I have some bugs in beta 2 though. There is a problem I am having with Firefox 3 also. I changed the icon on my website and and I can not get Firefox to show the new icon even after I deleted the bookmartks! There is a fix but it's rather complicated and I haven't tried it yet.

stardust wrote:

garyb wrote:"ooops, you noticed that? oh, sorry, sorry! our bad..."

I think you refr to II5. Yes back to where we started.

no, i was refering to valis' links showing that google had apologised and removed the portion of the eula specifying that google owned everything typed into and all the data about the use of the browser...i was laughing about the way people will think that google has good intentions and will change their behavior now that they admit that the eula was over the top....

Again though this pattern has already repeated itself with Google video & Gmail, as well as several 'google labs' beta apps. If this is the first time google's EULA has been on your radar then it's more a testimony to the splash they've made with Chrome than their evil ways. Besides an EULA / click-license isn't necessarily binding in court, assuming something ever actually makes it that far. The biggest threat from Google for an end user is just the fact that google makes its income right now from the fact that it's in a central position for ad revenue online.

Well, that and the fact that Chrome currently even indexes even SSL encrypted pages, meaning in combination with the desktop search and google's integration between apps there's a HUGE exploit hole just waiting to be...ah well anyway one would hope they'll address that before final release (beyond suggesting you use incognito windows for doing SSL connections). It would also be nice if you could somehow gain more control over what was being indexed locally by apps, especially as we move forward with every major OS release making indexing more & more a central feature.

this is a 160+ iq guy who isn't impressed. web 2.0 is a boondoggle.

valis, the fact that such foul language is in the eula at all shows google's bad intent. whether or not something's binding in court is no excuse to collect data on a person, nor is it a reason to even try to own a human's thoughts...

My uncle is a Mensa and he is a total idiot about some things. He is a devout Catholic and he doesn't like minorities. Your IQ on a test has little to do with your intelligence in the real world. Web 2.0 is what we are using right now. This forum is web 2.0. I don't think you know the meaning of it. You think you do but you don't, you really don't Gary.

braincell wrote:My uncle is a Mensa and he is a total idiot about some things. He is a devout Catholic and he doesn't like minorities. Your IQ on a test has little to do with your intelligence in the real world. Web 2.0 is what we are using right now. This forum is web 2.0. I don't think you know the meaning of it. You think you do but you don't, you really don't Gary.

whatever, i'm a total idiot about most things. i'd NEVER join a group like mensa and i have no idea what my iq currently is, nor do i care about it. my iq means nothing which is why i posted that very sarcastic and humorous post. oh, by the way, you really don't know, you really don't.

being web 2.0 compliant is not 2.0. if the planned internet 2 happens, there won't be a planetz. no one would know it existed and there would be a premium charge to view it. internet fees will be handled like cable tv. it will be Winston's viewscreen for sure, requiring biometric id in the name of security. the big backbones won't be required to allow all traffic equally, the trolls will be in charge of the bridge FOR SURE.

hey, there'll be great shopping though!

signed,
the idiot who'd be happy to be wrong.

stardust wrote:

yes, this is the plan. resistance is futile.

garyb wrote:this is a 160+ iq guy who isn't impressed. web 2.0 is a boondoggle.

valis, the fact that such foul language is in the eula at all shows google's bad intent. whether or not something's binding in court is no excuse to collect data on a person, nor is it a reason to even try to own a human's thoughts...

You seem to be under the impression that I'm defending Google's intentions even though I stated above I'm no Google Apologist. What I've said is that this has happened before several times with Google (frequently enough to be almost yawn-able), and that it was almost to be expected. Also I suggested that since the clauses are absolutely laughable given current usages of web browsers they'd surely know (when pressed) that it wouldn't hold up in court, assuming it ever got that far. And when they addressed it I posted links because it was topical, not because I'm making any excuses. I just think that getting fluffed up over a browser's EULA (while in beta!) is silly when there are 4 other options on windows, 3 other options on OSX and 2 other options on most linux/bsd distributions (OSX/bsd & linux versions are forthcoming). I installed and tried it out both because I do web development and have every browser installed (most in multiple versions or via virtual OS instances) and also because I'm the curious sort.

Also said that it's understandable that they'd offer a browser since they have a webphone codebase coming soon, and I've done my part in sharing what I've read about potential security issues. Really if you are worried about google the DOJ issue is still the biggest thing to be concerned over. There isn't any way of knowing if Google is 'open' to the us govt. or not with its databases, and with it's lion's share of both the search and online ad-revenue market that's a pretty big slice of the public's browsing habits up for grabs. Tack on the mere fact that their desktop search and this browser together currently give unencrypted indexing of encrypted browsing sessions...

But if you're really paranoid you shouldn't be using windows anyway, especially since they've also had their own run-in with the DoJ & Executive branch of the dear old US govt, and things 'magically' (mostly) went away with a mere slap on the wrist. A hardened bsd or linux distribution running on shadow volumes encrypted by Truecrypt, internet traffic fully encrypted by ssl connections to an external shell (vpn over ssh), and then all traffic over that link going out to the net via Tor, email encrypted via an open pgp implementation, irc & web chats encrypted by blowfish or the like, etc. By the time you get done with all of that I do hope you find something left for music

Anyway don't mistake my caffiene fueled early morning rant here for my panties biing in a bundle, they're not. It is interesting to see the backlash against the 'Do No Evil' corporation these days though. What I'm more curious to see, is if they have some reason to carry this multithreaded model over to their upcoming phones.

Aside from that, I've a few more notes on performance for anyone interested.

From my use it seems that if you typically spawn new tabs while browsing (for instance in forums each new thread in its own tab) then you'll notice that Chrome's performance is worse than FF, due not only to the additional allocation of threads & resources, but also due to the hard drive hit you're taking when waiting on each new process to instantiate its cache.

On the other hand if you tend to stick within a few tabs and have a modern multicore cpu and enough ram, Chrome is in general faster especially on javascript/ajax heavy sites. FF 3.1 will speed up the firefox side of javascript/ajax for people who are FF 3.x users....

Gary,

I don't buy your conspiracy theory about the internet 2. The genie is out of the bottle and there is no way to stop it. I don't think we have to worry though because Internet 2 isn't going to be a reality for most people in our country Gary for a long long time. It's just pretty much impossible to get any major changes implemented (Obama will find out). There will probably be Internet 2 for the general public in every other country before we have it. I predict our speeds will continue to fall further and further behind the rest of the world as they have been because of political bickering, corporations and the complete and total stupidity of the average American voter. This will coincide with a continued lowering of the standard of living and the loss of military dominance which is the only good thing that will come out of the inevitable decline.

how is a loss of standard of living good?


yes, don't worry. you can't stop it. resistance is futile. love your oppressor.

bandwidth problems? what a crock. users PAY for access and sites pay for bandwidth. if that money doesn't buy new infrastructure, that's because of the corrupt jerks running the system, not a design flaw that requires thumbscanning and the end of net nuetrality and...

Coruption is possible because of poor government oversight.

braincell wrote:Gary,

I don't buy your conspiracy theory about the internet 2. The genie is out of the bottle and there is no way to stop it. I don't think we have to worry though because Internet 2 isn't going to be a reality for most people in our country Gary for a long long time. It's just pretty much impossible to get any major changes implemented (Obama will find out). There will probably be Internet 2 for the general public in every other country before we have it. I predict our speeds will continue to fall further and further behind the rest of the world as they have been because of political bickering, corporations and the complete and total stupidity of the average American voter. This will coincide with a continued lowering of the standard of living and the loss of military dominance which is the only good thing that will come out of the inevitable decline.

Internet2 and other shill programs are already planned. You just won't know it until it's too late.
I work in this industry, and see where the control systems are heading - towards more and more technical control by the major media companies that are being used as front-men to 'manage' bandwidth and distribution.

First it's Google's search engine, then it's a browser, then it's a net-based operating system, then it's a centralized control grid.

Stop blaming Americans for being brainwashed ignoramouses like everyone else.

G

I know Internet 2 is planned. It is in use now. If you were in the industry you would know this. I'm saying it's going to be 10-20 years before most people in the USA are using it and even then there will people people using the old internet and there will be a gateway. People still use dial-up.
When I was told by a so called industry insider that high speed was around the corner I scoffed at that. It was another 10 years from him saying that before it was a reality. It is very easy to say you know what is going to happened. I have found the experts to be mostly wrong. Being an industry insider doesn't give you credibility. It really doesn't.

braincell wrote:I know Internet 2 is planned. It is in use now. If you were in the industry you would know this. I'm saying it's going to be 10-20 years before most people in the USA are using it and even then there will people people using the old internet and there will be a gateway. People still use dial-up.
When I was told by a so called industry insider that high speed was around the corner I scoffed at that. It was another 10 years from him saying that before it was a reality. It is very easy to say you know what is going to happened. I have found the experts to be mostly wrong. Being an industry insider doesn't give you credibility. It really doesn't.

It does if I'm involved in designing the tech. that enables it. It does if I monitor the activities of the FCC and spectrum sales.

Internet2 is not all here yet. The current so-called I2 is a bridge network into subscriber/toll-based systems (universities, medical networks), but it's not officially I2 yet. People will be forced to 'adopt' to subscription-based systems when it comes fully into play. They're going to do their best to turn off the 'bad stuff' (i.e. free media distribution, mp3's, youtube, porn, etc.). Backdoor gateways will be deemed 'illegal' by those that don't want free information exchange to continue (although I would definitely support free internet rather than this stupid I2 crap). There are already bills in Congress that provision for this. It is designed to happen much sooner than you think - definitely not 10-20 years.

I never called myself an expert. That term is for the outsiders that aren't building it (marketing, investment brokers, etc.).

Greg

Gary,

Web 2.0 is a general term therefore being "web 2.0 compliant" is meaningless. I reaffirm my statement that you do not know the meaning of "web 2.0".