Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Google to Launch Webkit Based Web Browser Called 'Chrome'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Anyone else get the impression from the comic Google aren't really fans of Flash either.
While on Linux version as yet it's all open source it will interesting to see if someone might borrow the code build the lightest Linux install they can below it and start selling a cloud client.
While on Linux version as yet it's all open source it will interesting to see if someone might borrow the code build the lightest Linux install they can below it and start selling a cloud client.
Clouds above Steve Ballmer's bald head
So I see that "cloud computing" is forming even more clouds above Ballmer's head. Hehe.
So I see that "cloud computing" is forming even more clouds above Ballmer's head. Hehe.
There's no way on earth Google is going to use an ad-driven browser. They want people to adopt Chrome because they're working to drive some of their other endeavors, such as Google Apps. There are a lot of issues with the support of the so-called "Web 2.0" apps in all current browsers. It's in Google's self interest to work to improve the situation, and Chrome is one means to that end.
It's not quite analogous, but I'm suddenly reminded of what happened when Spyglass dealt with Microsoft... bah, anything that annoys the Mozilla Foundation is worth a laugh in my books.
I bags ("this isn't public school, Wilson!") first development on Google AdWords ad blocker. And no, Google, most people don't use the web for "apps" - beyond maybe a mail client. Locally hosted software works just great, and it takes advantage of all that tasty local native speed, reliability and security, just as it has since the early '80s when your intended model last went out of fashion. But keep up the good work with search - it's what you do well.
I am afraid you are the one missing the train.
Everything is going to be in the cloud going forward so everyone can have access to everything they need, no matter where they are.
This is not possible with hardwired desktop clients and software.
Might want to join the future.
I would have thought when the cartoon man said there are no pop-up windows and going on to described each tabs sandboxing extends to it ability to draw on screen.
So if it's tab is hidden by another tab bad luck, you'll have to wait to the user decides to look at you.
It's seems like each tab has it's only virtual screen it knows not of the world out side that screen.
Yes; and moreover, it's ultimately good for Mac users. Apple presumably wanted WebKit to be open source in the first place to promote standards, thereby making as many webpages as possible Mac-compatible (in the old days, browsing on a Mac kind of.. well... sucked).
Reminds me of Konqueror - perhaps a homage to the very browser that inspired Apple to create the WebKit API?
You know, I don't think Windows is Apple's greatest threat anymore - with all these new things coming from Google (Apps, Chrome and that Second Life wannabe thing they have), I think Google is.
You know, I don't think Windows is Apple's greatest threat anymore - with all these new things coming from Google (Apps, Chrome and that Second Life wannabe thing they have), I think Google is.
I'm not the first to make this observation, but here goes:
Waterproof prevents water
Fireproof prevents fire
Theft proof prevents theft
I'm looking forward to the future, can we agree not to call anything future proof?
No, everything isn't going to the cloud. Nothing I nor my company does is going to get hosted on foreign servers. Cloud computing is a marketing push by companies with something to gain from it-- Cisco loves it, Sun loves it, Google loves it, as do a few hundred little Javascript startups.
There's no reason I need to host my data on Google's servers to be combed over and collated when I have a few terrabytes of storage and a few megabits of bandwidth in my home. The first time people realize that the ads they're receiving learned their interests from a love letter or patent application, they'll unplug from the cloud.
Not clear. This could be Browser Wars II: This Time It's Personal.
dont know if this has been answered but oh well.
The Konqueror browser had a very clean, efficient and (relatively) short amount of code for a web browser at the time. It also handled JavaScript very well. Apple wanted to make a browser themselves and saw Konqueror and liked it for the code reasons above.
They wanted to copy it, which is fine as it's open source, but they then cannot make their browser closed source as it used open source material. In compromise, Apple took the elements of Konqueror they liked, and made an API out of it for themselves and others to use (so Safari could be closed source as it was now Apple's API not just copied code from Konqueror) and called it WebKit.
Now this was an obvious API for any tom, dick or harry wanting to make a browser - the materials were free, it was stable, fast and efficient. As Apple created WebKit however, they put the Safari icon on it to show it's an Apple technoogy - even if lots of it was Konqueror derived.
There you go then, we Mac users owe a Linux browser our thanks as it gave us Safari
Judgement reserved until I have it installed and working. It's Google though, so it's promising.
Very interesting move, especially after they *just* renewed their commitment to supporting/sponsoring Mozilla.
Very interesting move, especially after they *just* renewed their commitment to supporting/sponsoring Mozilla.
Erm, that cloud doesn't have to belong to Google, you know. Your company could create its own cloud using its own servers. I think you're seeing things a bit too narrow here.
--Erwin
Yes they can. KHTML is licensed under the LGPL. Which means that the code is free software, and any modifications to the code need to be shared with others. And that's what Apple is doing with Webkit. But since it's LGPL (as opposed to the more common GPL) you can link proprietary applications to the code. Which means that you could biuld a closed-source browser that uses KHTML (or Webkit) as it's rendering-engine. You would not have to release the code of your browser, but you would have to release the changes you made to the rendering-engine.
Safari is actually not based on Konqueror. What they did that they took the rendering-engine KDE-project had created (and that was used by Konquerior, among other places) and built Webkit out of it. Konqueror is a browser (well, it's a lot more than just a browser, but still), KHTML is the rendering-engine it browser uses. Webkit is based on KHTML, and Safari is based on Webkit.
No, Apple didn't touch Konqueror at all. They just took the rendering-engine it used. KHTML was already available for anybody to use, and Apple took advantage (that sounds negative, but it isn't) of that offer. Their version of KTHML is called Webkit
There you go then, we Mac users owe a Linux browser our thanks as it gave us Safari
That much is true. I remember when KDE-folks created KHTML, and lots of people thought it was stupid. They said "why not simply use Gecko?". Thanks to KDE, we got a high-quality HTML-renderer, and a whole bunch of hi-quality browsers, with more on the way.
For those interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KHTML
I know that Google try to pitch Writely^WGoogle Docs as not a competitor to Microsoft Office, but that's precisely what it is - an office suite with very limited functionality requiring continuous connectivity to 3rd party servers. But perhaps you mean "popular" by comparison with other web apps (stats?), rather than "popular" by comparison with other apps trying to satisfy similar need; I'm not quite sure how that demonstrates the success of web apps, though.
What you're describing is amply fulfilled by a laptop running local software with some version control system to check in and out from a shared drive sitting somewhere on the Interwebs. OTOH, it's not satisfied by a webapp-based "cloud", which requires continuous reliable fast Internet connectivity.marksman said:
It's especially not going to be satisfied by a 3rd party cheep'n'cheerful cloud like Google's, where you're relying on the availability and security non-guarantees that come with paying $0-50. As for the advantage of not having to install web apps, why would I be accessing company data via a machine that my company has no admin rights to? Do people really wander into a cybercafe to edit "Company Sales Strategy 2009.googledoc" without a care for whether there's a keylogger or screen grabber installed?
apple & google very good friends..........
lots of people winging about the mac version not being out yet and how this is shocking seeing as A & G are such good friends
well maybe thats why ..........
Google don't want to come and stamp over Apples territory
Android - not an attack on the Iphone but windows mobile
browser - not a safari replacement but a IE replacement
apple will rule macs/Iphones
google takes PC's & phones
lots of people winging about the mac version not being out yet and how this is shocking seeing as A & G are such good friends
well maybe thats why ..........
Google don't want to come and stamp over Apples territory
Android - not an attack on the Iphone but windows mobile
browser - not a safari replacement but a IE replacement
apple will rule macs/Iphones
google takes PC's & phones
Too bad that the Mac is getting treated like a second class citizen again. Especially with the growth in market share and continuing rise in usage of Macs, you'd think they could put out both versions together!
