Development, Privacy, and Standards for Chrome 114
Continuing our coverage of Google Chrome, snydeq points out an Infoworld story about looking at the new browser from a developer's perspective, and another about how WebKit should be the focus of development efforts, rather than the browsers that use it. TGdaily notes that Chrome's search box will fetch all types of data, and can be made to display banking information with little effort. ABC and coderrr have slightly more paranoid articles questioning Google's commitment to privacy. NetworkWorld suggests that Chrome's unique process model (explained here) will require the development of new measurement standards.
Re:Completely good and noble (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh... Webkit doesn't have vulnerabiities it has bugs... the browser is what has vulnerabilities. Webkit has no network stack... it can't communicate. All it can do is accept input and render output.
The javascript engine can have vulnerabilities because of XMLHttp, cookies and filesystem access... but even then it passes all comms through the browser or directly through the filesystem.
Gears and the storage API (Score:5, Insightful)
So google stripped [ejohn.org] the HTML 5 standard local storage api from Webkit to use their own implementation Google Gears. Why? The api was already there, and it worked, so they had to strip it out to go with google gears, their own, not w3c compliant. I think they are starting to become evil.
Bug (Score:4, Insightful)
Indexing of HTTPS pages is most certainly a bug. Did the poster of the article report it to make Google Chrome a better product or is he just going to complain? It's only in beta.
And the work around is simple: Use Incognito mode for all sensitive work. Which is what it's for.
Re:Completely good and noble (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Gears and the storage API (Score:3, Insightful)
I see no reason not to assume stupidity instead of malice. Remember, they started writing this as a pure Windows application they now have to try to port to Mac and Linux (registry twiddling, DLL hell, etc), rather than writing it cross-platform from the outset - there's copious evidence of stupidity along the way. Developers set free to go "not invented here, I could sooo roll my own better" is hardly unique to Google ...
Re:Bug (Score:5, Insightful)
It's only in beta.
I don't accept this excuse from Google, because they have effectively destroyed the concept of a beta version. Even gmail is still in beta, and it's probably among the world's top three email providers now.
Google, please do official releases of your products. Or, if you really need to childishly continue to call them development versions, invent a new category. Maybe, call them "gamma" versions. You are spoiling a useful metaphor for everyone else.
It works with Wine... here's the recipe (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
You know the whole problem with IE started when it became the only rendering engine in town?
We all benefit if Webkit, KHTML, Gecko, Presto, and yes, even Trident are upgraded.
Re:Bug (Score:3, Insightful)
We feel for you man, but it's a beta, nothing we are required to, er, can do.
I wouldn't be too sure about that. I know where you're coming from, and ordinarily I'd agree, but I think if someone wanted to push the point a court would probably be sympathetic to the argument that it really isn't a beta any more - it's been in extensive, public use for far too long, and as another poster points out is probably one of the top 3 email providers. Just slapping on a label that says "this shit might break" doesn't necessarily save you.