Google Chrome

[garysturn]

Chrome is optimized for Java. It runs Java faster than any other browser. That is the area they have spent the most time on. They still need to do some more work on Flash, which still has problems.

[brado426]

Chrome is optimized for Java. It runs Java faster than any other browser. That is the area they have spent the most time on. They still need to do some more work on Flash, which still has problems.

Maybe slightly faster, but it seems that IE8 has it beat already. I just read this article on CNN which has me excited about IE8 now. Compared to IE8, Chrome sounds like a CPU-hog.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/ptech/09/0 ... index.html

[russellhltn]

What was Googles reason for creating yet another browser?

A valid question, but one that is likely to get a lot of opinions. From the editorials I've seen, it's either concern over some of IE8's privacy features or it may be IE's dominance of the market means that Google is too dependent on Microsoft for it's customers.

Personally, I see Chrome as more likely to take customers from Firefox then from IE, but we'll see.

[marianomarini]

I support open source even if it doesn't work!
In Italy the news says that Chrome will don't need all plugin sfor video, media, ecc.
This mean that a lot of work must be done yet.
I'm looking for Linux version to test it. Maybe Firefox will improove too.

[brado426]

I support open source even if it doesn't work!
In Italy the news says that Chrome will don't need all plugin sfor video, media, ecc.
This mean that a lot of work must be done yet.
I'm looking for Linux version to test it. Maybe Firefox will improove too.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. Isn't using the open source model for something as widely distributed and used as a web browser a serious security concern? It seems to me that it would be far easier for a virus/spyware developer to infiltrate a web browser when they have the source code in front of them.

Any project that I do where security is of extreme concern, I ensure that it is closed-source. Otherwise, someone could look at my source code and see exactly where the weaknesses were.

Brad O.

[aebrown]

Any project that I do where security is of extreme concern, I ensure that it is closed-source. Otherwise, someone could look at my source code and see exactly where the weaknesses were.

I agree, except where you are confident of your security. In that case, the fact that a security-related application is open-source could be an indication that the security is actually stronger, and not weakened by disclosure. The algorithms for public key cryptography, for example, are publicly known, but that doesn't weaken the security at all.

Firefox is open-source, and I see far more security issues raised with IE than with Firefox.

[brado426]

I agree, except where you are confident of your security. In that case, the fact that a security-related application is open-source could be an indication that the security is actually stronger, and not weakened by disclosure. The algorithms for public key cryptography, for example, are publicly known, but that doesn't weaken the security at all.

Firefox is open-source, and I see far more security issues raised with IE than with Firefox.

You're right... I'm never 100% confident with my security no matter how many CPU cycles I use to encrypt things. I don't think anyone can be in this day and age.

[marianomarini]

The equation: no source=more secure is not true.
Someone has already found an insecurity into Chrome. This happen because it has access to source.
Instead to have 3 or 20 developper working on it there are 100 or 1000 on the net.
So hacker has to face more skilled developper into open source environement.
There is no end into battle between good and evil. The more goods are the faster solutions are.
(I hope this make a sense in English). It means that is better to be many than few to go against bads.

[brado426]

The equation: no source=more secure is not true.
Someone has already found an insecurity into Chrome. This happen because it has access to source.
Instead to have 3 or 20 developper working on it there are 100 or 1000 on the net.
So hacker has to face more skilled developper into open source environement.
There is no end into battle between good and evil. The more goods are the faster solutions are.
(I hope this make a sense in English). It means that is better to be many than few to go against bads.

Maybe this is true for vastly popular projects where the number of developers working on the project outnumber the hackers. Maybe it is fine for something like Chrome. However, most of the project I work on do not have this luxury. It has to be a project where there are a lot of enthusiastic and excited people that want to donate their time to the project.

I think releasing the source code to the public for a project that will likely not get any real development support from the outside would be a very bad idea for security reasons.

Brad O.

[marianomarini]

I understand your point of view. Reality is not as simple as our mind think is it!
Speacking on general we can assume that this equation is true:
Hacker are proportional to users and Developpers are proportional to users.
So hackers AND developperare interested to popular program.
I have not data to assume that, just an enpirical assumption.
Maybe some university student can do such a study.