Google Open Sources Browser Sync

Dan Berlin writes "After announcing that Browser Sync was being discontinued, a lot of people asked for Google to open source the code so development could continue. Well, they've done just that. The code for browser sync is now available on code.google.com, and a blog post about the release can be found on the Google open source blog"

dupe

[stiller (451878)]

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/30/2036213 [slashdot.org]

Re:dupe

[Mushdot (943219)]

Nah, you didn't sync Slashdot properly.

Server

[by Anonymous Coward]

What server will you trust?

Re:

[Chrisq (894406)]

Thats a good point. With Google you knew where you stood. They might use your info to to target advertising. They might reveal it to the government if ordered to do so. They would not be likely to sell it to spammers or pass on lists of people who bookmark anti-Islamic sites to an Al-Qaeda operative.

Without google hosting it you need to host your own or find someone you can trust.

Re:Server

[hansraj (458504)]

But with your data encrypted, why do you need to trust anyone? For you it is the state of your browser, passwords etc, but for anyone else it is random bits.

Doesn't Browser sync already supports encrypting your data? Even if it doesn't I am sure this capability can be added now that it is open-source.

Re:

[Chrisq (894406)]

Good point - I hadn't thought of that!

Re:

[drinkypoo (153816)]

Doesn't Browser sync already supports encrypting your data? Even if it doesn't I am sure this capability can be added now that it is open-source.

The functionality ought to be super-easy to borrow from firegpg.

No need to borrow.

[Chyeld (713439)]

They all ready had it. You had two 'passwords' that you had to enter to use GBS. One was your account password and the other was a passphase used to encrypt what you uploaded to them.

It works the same way Mozilla's Weave project works. The only those with your passphrase can use your data.

Re:Server

[KlaymenDK (713149)]

You know, some of us would rather host our data ourselves than trust Google with it...

Re:Server

[Xiph (723935)]

Might it be part of the reason they're shutting down and releasing source?
They don't want a judge to release the data to Corporation X.

Besides i can easily host my own browsersettings on my home computer, in fact, i'll be setting it up (or trying to) when i come home

Re:Server

[Alarash (746254)]

I don't understand people. You could send your sync data to _any_ server, even your own, it will *never* be totally safe. Just *_don't_* send data that can potentially harm you if it's intercepted. Personally, I sync only my bookmarks, and I don't give a damn if anyone ever gets access to them.

Re:

[shvytejimas (1083291)]

Have a look at Passhash [wijjo.com] add-on for firefox. You only need to remember a single strong master password; the add-on generates different passwords for each site, according to their URL (or site tag).
In cases where the add-on is not locally available, there is a static html page with javascript with the same functionality, that you can host on your home server.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

How about hosting it on google? Like on gmail or something.

Hosting on Google is possible using Google App Engine.

Re:Server

[djdavetrouble (442175)]

How about you name droppping some more distros within an otherwise useless comment.

Your own? Or... Google?

[brunes69 (86786)]

If you don't want to run your own server, I am sure someone can modify this code such that the saved settings are either saved in your GMail account or your Google Pages account or elsewhere in the Google mesh.

Re:Server

[dissy (172727)]

What server will you trust?

One that I own and administer.

The real question is, will I be able to get their server back end installed and working...

The conspiracy is complete

[pacroon (846604)]

I can't imagine a company that actually does what the public asks? They must have a secret agenda!

Re:

[jacquesm (154384)]

yes, but only when we decide it's either bad business (as in we just dropped it) or when it makes us look good. If it should in any way shape or form be a 'key' item (GFS, linux kernel improvements) then forget about it.

Re:

[drinkypoo (153816)]

If we all stopped using google until they delivered those items, they would do so. However, since we won't (most literates wouldn't bother to try to do so, let alone the masses) then they won't be giving us that code. (And since they're not redistributing it, they're not violating any licenses, either.)

Re:

[chrisd (1457)]

We actually do push back kernel improvements, and funded work on disk traceability, xorp routing and more...

There was a neat study [kernel.org] that Greg KH did about corporate contributions to the kernel, which has us at a not-too-shabby 13th.

Re:The conspiracy is complete

[chrisd (1457)]

Well, I'd disagree, I think we're doing fine from a kernel release perspective. We could do more, and in time, we will, but we only really started a concerted effort to release changes 3 years ago, so...not so shabby. Red Hat has been more important than Google or any linux -user- in the development of the kernel.

Your comments about manipulation are weirdly paranoid. The original list that Greg posted was 20+ companies long, and originally didn't include us, as he didn't count Andrew to us. He fixed that, and the post I sent to you was from his talk at Google. It's part of his presentation to call out the company he visits, which is one of the reasons we invited him out.

Google is built on software, some of which comes from the world of open soruce, and most of which was written here. To give back, we both release code from the company (a significant amount >1m lines per year), fund external code (uncountable, really) and through the summer of code, create new developers and even more code still (2.1m+ last year, at least 3m this).

That's not too shabby, in my book. I also would point out that it is disingenuous to equate linux use with some license fee savings. If linux had initially charged a license fee, then the world of linux users would be using bsd. Linux is successful because it is free of charge and free to use and free to modify. I think it is important that we give back and the rest, and we do that, but to multiply the number of machines running linux on the internet and consider that money as having been stolen is antithetical to the whole idea behind free software and open source.

Chris

Good for Google

[Rik Sweeney (471717)]

If they're not going to develop it any further, they might as well let someone else have a go. Now all we have to do is convince Microsoft to release the source code to Windows ME.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

If they're not going to develop it any further, they might as well let someone else have a go. Now all we have to do is convince Microsoft to release the source code to Windows ME.

the difference is that nobody wants Windows ME.

Re:Good for Google

[Syrente (990349)]

Whereas Browser Sync is in the interest of technology/simplicity, I'd see the source code of Windows ME being released in the interest of tragic comedy more than anything...

Re:

[hvm2hvm (1208954)]

You could feed thedailywtf.com for years with it...

Re:

[Godji (957148)]

Do you really think none of the Windows ME code is in Vista? I'd guess you'd be wrong.

Re:

[Firehed (942385)]

Check out the Add Font dialog... that hasn't changed since Win3.11. Big surprise that most designers use Macs :p

I really liked it.

[XB-70 (812342)]

I use a bunch of machines all over the place (mostly for development/personal interest). I use old machines, dial-up, new machines, servers - having browser sync was a god-send. It was great to be able to reference everything regardless of architecture and O/S. I agree that there are concerns about what Google would/could reveal to legislative bodies, but that's only because they are so huge that other factors come into play. Maybe this is their way of extricating themselves (somewhat) from the liabilities associated with having that much info about a person's real interests. That said, I feel that I was never 'targeted' as a result of their handling of my data, nor was there ever any 'push' marketing as a result. I think that's where you draw the line between good corporate citizen and spammer. I hope that someone who has the time can re-incorporate it into FireFox 3.x

Re:

[wangi (16741)]

Are are aware that other solutions exist for this problem? I use Foxmarks: http://www.foxmarks.com/ [foxmarks.com]

Re:I really liked it.

[naich (781425)]

Foxmarks is OK for syncing bookmarks, but GBS also synced your history, open tabs, passwords (if you were brave enough) and cookies. Having a synced history and cookies was very useful because you could stay logged in to the same sites across any GBS'd computer.

Never heard of this...

[pgillan (1043668)]

There's no clear reason given as to why it's being discontinued, but if it's due to lack of interest, it was probably lack of advertising; I wasn't even slightly aware of this project, and it sounds like something I would have been very interested in. I use Foxmarks religiously and have trouble functioning without it.

Wow

[Cloud K (125581)]

I'm sure there have been other examples, but this is the first and possibly only example I can think of of a company *actually responding* to requests for a discontinued product to be open-sourced. Let alone actually going ahead and doing it.

Bravo Google :)

Re:Wow

[neokushan (932374)]

I'm sure there's better examples, but off the top of my head I know that a few years ago, there was a petition started to release the source code to Warzone 2100 [wikipedia.org], an old (yet brilliant) 3D RTS game that still stands out amongst the crowd today. After a few months (possibly a couple of years), Eidos scrambled together the source code and released it to the community.
Since then, the Warzone resurrection project has come leaps and bounds - fixing bugs, improving what platforms the game runs at, allowing higher resolutions, improving the AI, etc.
The only slight catch (that I'm aware of) is that the Video CODEC used in the original game was proprietary, so Eidos couldn't release the source to that and the company that owns the CODEC wouldn't allow it to be distributed any more.

Re:

[JustinOpinion (1246824)]

Another example I like is Blender [blender.org] (the open-source 3D modeling platform). Blender was originally [wikipedia.org] a closed-source commercial product. When the company went bankrupt, the creditors agreed to release the code under the GPL for a one-time payment of $100,000. A donation campaign was started and raised the required funds. So now Blender is open-source, and has been extended and enhanced remarkably in the years since its release.

The reason I like this example is it shows that you can get paid to write code tha

Re:

[drinkypoo (153816)]

There's a few more open-sourced games out there. Ones that come up off the top of my head are Quake, Allegiance, Freespace 2, and Star Control 2 (as The Ur-Quan Masters). Not sure if Allegiance has gone much of anywhere since release.

Re:

[neokushan (932374)]

Yup, it's good to see so many as well. However, the example I picked was because it came from a petition from the community to have the source, rather than the developers releasing it of their own free will (Ala ID and Quake)

Re:

[iwein (561027)]

Wasn't the source to some browser once open sourced and developed into Firefox?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla [wikipedia.org]

So when will we see the first code for FF3

[houghi (78078)]

I run 2 instances of Firefox (not Windows, two seperate processes) and I am forced to use different profiles. However I want them to have the same bookmarks and addons. Now I just symlink it from one profile to another what is needs. I would be much nicer to have something that could do that on my own machine, without telling anybody else what my Pr0n preferences are.

I already switched to foxmarks

[smartin (942)]

And I have to say that it works much better than browsersync ever did, with the added bonus that I can host my own data.

Re:

[smartin (942)]

You need to set up apache running webdav

http://wiki.foxmarks.com/wiki/Foxmarks:_Frequently_Asked_Questions#Using_Other_Servers

This is what every software company should do.

[zmjjmz (1264856)]

Open source their abandonware. The world would be a much better place, and the companies wouldn't get hurt.

Re:

[iwein (561027)]

Some things are better left untouched.

Re:

[X0563511 (793323)]

You can't opensource abandonware that has other companies IP in it, or active patents. You could opensource the other components, but... it's abandonware! For some reason or another, they are no longer working with the code (and filtering the code may be impractical or impossible).

Re:

[martin-boundary (547041)]

Can't you just flasm -d [nowrap.de] the SWF bytecode and figure out the url for the flv that way?

Re:When google

[martin-boundary (547041)]

Dang! First Reiserfs, now THIS .... I hope Linus checks criminal records on patch submitters, or I'm TOTALLY switching to Vista ;)

Re:When google

[daveime (1253762)]

There's a nice little add on for Firefox called "Live HTTP Headers", which shows all requests made from the browser. This includes the actual request by Flash to fetch the FLV file, so you get the full URL of the request, paste it back into the address bar, and choose save as file. Easy.

Let the FLV pr0n downloads begin.

Re:

[Per Wigren (5315)]

Or you could just let it load the file, cd $HOME/.mozilla/firefox/blablabla/Cache/, "ls -lt | head" to find the filename, test it with mplayer and if it's the right one, cp it to somewhere.

Re:Slashdot Google Obsession

[Xiph (723935)]

my settings is set to give trolls +1 and flamebait +2.
It's often some of the most humerous and insightful comments. At other times it's just gay fiction.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

What about the other 20 or so extensions I depend on that Opera does not offer similar functionality to?

If it wasn't for the extensions I probably would be using Opera myself. But Opera is just killed by the flexibility of Firefox.

Re:Mashup with Amazon S3

[Firehed (942385)]

Is Amazon no longer a third party? Granted I trust them as much as I trust Google (and from an advertising perspective, they probably have better data about me as they have actual data points for my purchases, not just my purchase-related searches) but that still seems like a rather dumb statement.