Google "Chrome" Enters Browser Wars

**Lemur** · 09-05-2008, 15:44

But ... but why would they change it? Rabbit assures me they're evil!

**Husar** · 09-05-2008, 15:53

They're afraid of the consequences the mighty capitalist consumer market would bring upon them by uhm, ehh, using it anyway.

**Xiahou** · 09-05-2008, 18:34

Originally Posted by Lemur

But ... but why would they change it? Rabbit assures me they're evil!

Why do people try to assign morals to corporations? They had a PR backlash over the EULA, so they am amended it. They wanted to do business in China, so they censored search results. Google is a 'for profit' organization and they're very good at it.

**Che Roriniho** · 09-05-2008, 20:17

'salright. I''l wait for some add-ons to be done before I start leaping around like a lunatic. Still reccomending the incendairy canine to all my friends though.

**drone** · 09-05-2008, 22:50

Originally Posted by Che Roriniho

Still reccomending the incendairy canine to all my friends though.

Vulpine, not canine.

**Sasaki Kojiro** · 09-06-2008, 23:16

Hmm well speed is king and chrome is faster.

**Husar** · 09-07-2008, 02:17

I heard they already found half a dozen security holes...
Oh and because of that and for other reasons some german federal agency for the security of information systems (rought translation) is saying people should not use it unless they're kind of computer experts who know that they're using an insecure beta etc.
Either way, doesn't look like I'm going to switch to this.

**Crazed Rabbit** · 09-07-2008, 21:00

Originally Posted by Lemur

But ... but why would they change it? Rabbit assures me they're evil!

I just wanted to call them on being so self righteous when in reality they are as ruthless as anybody else. Heck, they said they weighed the 'evil' of censoring results vs the 'evil' of not doing business in - excuse me, not providing people in China with their search engine - and censoring was 'less evil' as though their product is some sort of moral good.

What does this mean, if anyone can explain to me?

They no longer own everything you post on the internet through their browser.

CR

**Alexander the Pretty Good** · 09-11-2008, 17:52

One of my suitemates mentioned that there's some pretty gaping security holes (or at least there were, it might have been fixed in the last update). That plus the whole fishy EULA means I can continue being a smug Firefox apostle.

**Che Roriniho** · 09-11-2008, 23:11

Standard warning really: THIS IS A BETA. It is not the finished product, and yes, it will have security holes, but then most do when they're so early on. even firefox did IIRC. for gawds sake don't switch yet, but possibly do when it's finished.

Oh, and it is literally twice as fast at Javascript than firefox, and EIGHT times faster than IE7