|switching to chrome? you can't be serious; unless your adsense-account benefits of better conditions!|
"Don't Be Evil" that's big fat mama google's slogan so far; but let's face it, all features grantes for free by google (including chorme) are just serving ONE target: harvesting as much informations from users as possible, just to sell them to whoever offers enough.
for instance installing google-chrome under windows includes the installation of a suspect "update.exe" as a service and there's no way to deinstall it the normal way.
let's have a closer look to google-chrome itself:
what's behind it? nothing else but the same technique as for the Safari (webkit) engine! that means that the one who uses Safari already won't see any difference!
i read an article which said: " ... on first sight chrme appears humble, almost minimalistic; that's exactly what we expect from google ...."
sorry but what I expect from google is for exemple "what happens with the collected datas?"
each installation of chrome has its own number ............ ????
google pretends chrome being "open source" (supported by the press and several articles in newspaper (of course ALL uncontrolled)); the fact is that i didn't find ANYTHING about sources of chrome!
in the very first version of the policies you could read:
10.2 you're not allowed to modify the code entirely or partially ..... (strange that this paragraph disappeared meanwhile)
this is a so to say unusual clause for an open-source-project.
nevertheless it's still possible to have a look on the source itself, but a reassembling is strictly forbidden.
so let's search for the adequat source-code ....... and what do we find? in the best case we'll find chromium, which google describes as follows:
"Chromium is the open-source project behind Google Chrome."
which means to say that chromium IS NOT chrome!
chromium IS open-source, no doubt about it, but chrome is a project by itself, based on chromium!
we can read further: "Google Chrome is built with open source code from Chromium." which means, chromium is a part of chrome but not all! so a part of chrome is open-source the other part is not! ..........
that's all i have to say about "don't be evil" ...........
as far as i'm concerned, i'm kinda disappointed by manuel for taking part of a project which consists of collecting as much informations as possible.
as a matter of facts i'm myself top contributor of adsense and high-leveled on the webmasters forum, but what did i do?
every 2 minutes a child dies due to lack of drinking-water!
every 8 seconds a child dies by famine on the planet!
we all now that for advertisements only 500 billion dollars are spent each year, knowing that just 10 billions would be enough to feed the whole earth-population!!!!!!!!
this is the reason why I stopped advertising on ALL my sites and this is also why i dont believe anymore in the slogan, knowing that google for instance gives all features almost for free to all its employees, just by using their membership-card; sport-center, cantine, leisure and and and;
i also know that google records ALL which is bought or leased with the card, just to records the employees habits only to know if they are worth being kept in the company .............
whatever commes from google, you can be sure that it's only for google's profit! and manuel, you support this? ????????????
|2010-05-06 18:23:03 - In reply to message 1 from michel tomasini|
|I am not aware of any benefits for whoever has AdSense accounts. Sounds like you jumped to the Google conspiration theory bandwagon!|
I use Chrome on Linux. There is no such thing as update.exe. As a matter of fact, Chrome on Linux cannot update by itself because it was installed as RPM by the root user. So a regular Linux user cannot update the program without the user entering the root password.
Google Chrome is based on Chromium, which is an Open Source project. Webkit is also an Open Source project. It is a bit silly to claim that it is not Open Source just because you did not find the source. The press is saying it is Open Source because it is.
The clauses that you mention should be related with parts of Google Chrome that cannot be made Open Source because they were licensed by Google from proprietary sources, like for instance the H.264 video codecs which are patent encumbered. That is why Firefox does not support H.264 streams in the video HTML elements.
Anyway, if you are scared that Google Chrome binaries do any evil things, just hack Chromium source and build it yourself.
I am not taking part of any Google project. I am just fed up of Firefox being so sluggish. That is way I switched browsers.
As for being paranoid about Google, it seems inconsistent of you, especially when you use Windows. Did you know when you use Windows Update it sends the list of all devices you have in your computer and all the programs you have installed?
Oh, by the way, did you know there video cameras everywhere recording where you pass?
One more, did you know that your ISP can intercept your Web access, even when you use SSL?
Michel, relax, true privacy is utopic. If you are going to be paranoid about it, you better not do anything in life.
|2010-05-07 06:43:29 - In reply to message 2 from Manuel Lemos|
thanks for the reply but we shouldn't make it too personal and stay rational please.
i don't see any contradiction to what i said about open-source or not. as i can see you agree that chromium is open-source and chrome is not, in contrary to what the press and google himself said.
and you're right, "update.exe" installs on windows only, but that's a point i also mentionned ....
of course i'm aware of the informations given as soon as i do updates or equivalent, but since i don't use any illegal stuff, who cares?
you call me paranoid, but what's strange is the fact you totally ignored my true motions about advertising, especially advertising in spams, due to google's sold-outs of informations, not mentioning the disproportion of the invested sums. i you ever happen to have children, you should understand what i mean ...........
when my first daughter was born, i looked for a place where there is no violence and no drugs; but i couldn't find such a place.
when my second daughter was born, i looked for a place where there is no fireweapons and no gambling, but i couldn't find such a city on the map.
in contrary the governments not only support but even promote such practices; that's in fact what i call the disdain of life itself.
but don't let us get too philosophical so far. what i meant to say is, and there i agree with you, microsoft for instance has far too much informations (just to name one of them). and google's chrome is just another tool to make google even more mighty, rather than really serve the internauts. since you're using linux (which i do sometimes too), you certainly won't tell me that there's nothing better than chrome, do you?
|2010-05-07 07:30:39 - In reply to message 3 from michel tomasini|
|Right, I am not taking it personal. You suggested that I could have undisclosed benefits for encouraging the use of Google Chrome. I just felt that I had to clarify that it was never my intention.|
As for Google not making Chrome fully Open Source, I am sure that is not because they do not want to, but rather because they are not allowed to do it because they need to use proprietary codecs to support H.264 video format.
That is the same reason why Flash player is not Open Source and why Firefox does not support H.264 codecs for Firefox being an Open Source project.
I have no knowledge of Google selling out private user information or other illegal practices. If you have evidence of that, I am sure that FTC would like to hear from you. If it is just speculation and conspiration theories without real evidence, that is what I call paranoid.
As for using Google Chrome, a lot has been said about Google invading the user privacy. However, if you look in the Chrome options section for privacy you will find several options that you can use to prevent disclosing to Google information that you do not want.
Anyway, my criteria for switching is that Firefox became to sluggish, especially in comparison to Chrome and Opera. It is certainly not Google's fault that Firefox became too sluggish.
|2010-05-07 20:29:19 - In reply to message 1 from michel tomasini|
|maan you gotta be kidding. Either you have read some google is evil don't trust him (and use good old fashioned ie instead) or you're just paranoic. Unless you're seriously scared of using chrome try watching traffic that browser does (etc. wireshark) and you'll see that the only thing chrome sends is address you're typing so that it can suggest you the result. Leave conspiracy theories for some more important issue ;)|
|2010-05-10 22:12:06 - In reply to message 5 from Jan Klat|
|We all need to be concerned about living in a free world.|
It's important to support Firefox, even if they are sometimes struggling with memory management. Firebug and HTML Validator are indispensable tools for me when developing. I have not yet tried Chrome and will add it to my browser zoo and see what it has to offer, but I read my 1984 and was raised in post war Nazi Germany, and evil always comes in different disguises.
Do not get me wrong, I am in no way paranoid, but skeptical when it comes to companies like Microsoft and Google, and feel a strong sympathy for Firefox and respect that they brought all these developer goodies and render CSS and HTML as it is meant to be. So when I am developing, I am developing with Firefox, and then I look if other browsers comply to it. As I moved to XHTML strict, I am not having too many problems, but Firefox is the reference system.
And I am very happy that it is not Internet Explorer.
That being said, I would not mind to use google ads to generate some income, on a big scale this might be the money to feed the world.
|2010-05-10 22:26:07 - In reply to message 6 from Ralf Strehle|
|I understand your concern but it still seems paranoid. A lot has been speculated about Google intentions but Chrome is based on Chromium which is Open Source.|
If you do not trust Google binaries, you can always compile Chromium yourself. It will not support H.264 videos because it requires proprietary codecs, but it will work like in Firefox.
Most of the claims of Google invading the user privacy are about things that are meant to improve user experience and can be turned off.
Things like Google Safe Browsing are meant to protect the user from accessing sites with malware. It is also available and turned on by default in Firefox because it is a good thing. It it was a bad thing because you would be passing private information to Google, Firefox developers would not enabled it.