Be aware that this is a beta release, so it is still far from finished, but should be relatively safe and stable.
Bringing my current total of installed browsers up to four IE (unavoidable, and still unable to obey CSS properly after all these years), Firefox (superb rendering and speed now, but has an unidentified hard disk interaction problem), Opera (really superb, super fast browsing, but has no adblocker), and now Google Chrome.
The install is problem free and relatively quick, with the usual importing of bookmarks etc from IE, although I must say Opera was smarter, and brought in my Firefox bookmarks instead. This was important, since I live in Firefox, not IE.
Things are relatively simple and bare, at the moment at least, and every option I tried worked as described. As might be expected from Google, where they tend to promote what is commonly described as "Thinking outside the box", Chrome looks and feels a bit different from IE, and offers features that shows it has been put together by people that both program AND use the product, not just program if for others to use.
I think this has some promise, and I would have to think they will be playing with the code to make it work faster with applications like maps, and new method such as those commonly referred to as Web 2.0
Notably, it works with everything I've thrown at it foe a quick test, including application produced by Google's competition, which can be integrated into the Chrome browser with no problems at all, unlike trying to run Microsoft maps in Opera.
Again, unlike Microsoft's offering, this third alternative new browser also renders SeSco pages as they are designed to appear, so earns itself a Gold Star for that alone, if nothing else
Apollo, I haven't used this, but one of the other forums I go to, someone has, you should really take a look at the terms and conditions as its crossing the line a bit.
Quoted Text
11. Content license from you
11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.
11.2 You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services.
11.3 You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this license shall permit Google to take these actions.
11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above license.
Whoever, or whatever forum this was posted on is just promoting the old "Google monster" mythology.
If you read the T&C of most of the online organisations you will find the same. Try the BBC for example, where they ask you to send in pictures.
All this does is re-iterate, albeit it in overly explicit language, conventional copyright law.
The most important part is the opening sentence, which acknowledges that your copyright of your material remains with you.
The remainder is simply a re-statement of that part of copyright law which means that once you give someone permission to use material to which you hold copyright, you cannot go back later and revoke that permission.
This is normal copyright law (if you dig out the UK Copyright Act 1988, you will find the same provisions). It simply means that a copyright holder cannot give someone permission to use their material, then go back a few years later and take it back, thereby rendering all use of that material in retrospective breach of copyright, and sue the person/organisation if they don't pay up, or delete their use.
The anti-Google paranoia is just getting silly now, as some individuals seem to be out to use any excuse to cause them trouble with anything they release.
This one is really stupid, since using a browser only collects and display material from the web, and has nothing to do with your content, and only if you upload it and place it within a Google service.
Browse and enjoy, and let the loonies collect tinfoil to make their new hats from
Fair enough, here's the thread if you want to judge the content, I'm a moderator at that place and we do get some odd types but they're not all tinfoil hat types.
We did get rid of one who said the government was going to lock us up in cattle cars and take us to these camps to get disposed off (no kidding)
At the end of the day (a very tired phrase I know) the geeks @ googleworld are providing this browser free of charge to anybody interested in using it but they reserve certain 'rights' as way of some kind of possible recompense should you contribute something remotely valuable and possibly interesting to the 'outside world'.
Its a fair kop I think, and as Apollo says much the same as every other browser provider. We all seem to want everything for nothing on the net, and tend (or want) to forget that everything invented, devised, engineered, written. programmed or whatever actually cost 'something' to put it there - like intelligence, skill, inspiration, labour, materials or just a lot of time.
The adage is if you don't want it pirated arbout the net - don't put it on, I learnt that a few years ago and now don't post any original research that I consider 'hard found and hard won' - that keeps for good old fashioned paper bound in a book - someday.
If the comment was a bit throwaway and broad, it wasn't intended to encompass the forum, just the content.
I had a (very) quick wander through the thread to see if there was anything new, but it's just the usual claptrap regurgitated by those who have been taken in by the "BEWARE! - Gig Google is watching you" brigade which perpetuates the idea that Google has some sort of mysterious and magical means of watching each one of the millions of individuals around the world that use anything it owns.
It is important to question them and their validity, to at least the same degree as Google, Microsoft, Tesco, or any other "big-player" when these claims are levelled against them - and although it may mean actually reading the legal documents involved eg the Copyright Act - it would show that the problem is not usually the big-player, but the detractor.
I actually used to enjoy having a laugh and jumping up and down with the folk that liked to kick those big-players, until I started to read, research and question those claims, then made an extremely red-faced and deeply embarrassed withdrawal from the pastime, as I discovered most of it was based on mis-information.
These comments are all very nice to repeat, but have little basis in what web-tracking can actually do, and even less basis at a personal level - if anyone wants to worry about web-tracking, they should worry about their ISP's logs of their connections, which are identifiable, and show which sites you visit, yet you never hear anyone squealing about that.
The Captain does a pretty good summing up, and all the browsers are "free", in return for the use of what you use them for.
He's equally correct in saying that if you don't want to lose it, don't put on the net, period (unless you're already rich and can afford to go to court). And, if you do have something that Google or someone makes a fortune from by exploiting - why didn't you go do a deal with them first?
It's just the same in SeSco, only the Admin couldn't afford a tower block full of lawyer to put some T&Cs together (and I know he likes plain and simple English too).
Google has rescinded an article of the user agreement for its new browser, Chrome, released on Tuesday.
The initial agreement claimed rights over "any Content which you submit, post or display on or through" the browser.
Google reworded the agreement on Wednesday, leaving those rights in the hands of Chrome's users.
A spokesperson for Google said its user agreements were re-used and the initial claim was an oversight.
The initial End User Licence Agreement (EULA) claimed "a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services."
Rebecca Ward, senior product counsel for Google Chrome, said the problem arose because Google re-uses swathes of its Universal Terms of Service across all its offerings "in order to keep things simple for our users".
"Sometimes, as in the case of Google Chrome, this means that the legal terms for a specific product may include terms that don't apply well to the use of that product," she said.
The amended article instead suggests that users "retain copyright and any other rights" that they already hold on the content they submit or display using the browser.
The situation echoes last year's controversy surrounding the EULA for Google Docs, its online word processing and spreadsheet programs. Google initially claimed similarly wide-ranging rights, but eventually reworded the agreement in response to users' concerns.
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
Google Chrome - their own browser
Print Thread
Report to Moderator
Logged
Private message
ICQ
Skype
Site
Thread Tags
