New Google Chrome Browser - Page 6

axel77 · 09-04-2008, 05:44 AM

The http protocol of the web was originally designed to be very caching, using a lot of proxy caches along the way, just rember how slow the data flowed at that time... Proxies were a fundamental part of the design, and it was marketed a lot with this. As technology evolved however the tubes got faster better/cheaper than the storing tech, and also the growing number of active content on the web made proxy caches less and less useful, so people today get already the impression that caching is someting not to be done in this tech at all.. this is wrong.

About google caching your data, you know you can turn them off caching in the html header? Okay its an opt-out solution, but no one complain, if you care about your data to be personal/onetime/nocaching, its up to you to put it in the web the right way.#

@firefox 3, I don't have good experiences with firefox 3, it does behave much slower on my system and often enough hangs itself or even the whole system. Dont tell me, they tell you its faster and uses less memory. On my system it does not, and a lot of Ubuntu users have the same problems. I love my Firefox 2 however. Maybe I just need to wait a while longer to get FF3 wortwhile.

axel77 · 09-04-2008, 05:48 AM

On the project, on the one hand they have a BSD License for the core, which is a very generous license. On the other hand they have a very restrictive EULA for the browser itself, the "glazing" ... I don't see this combo go out well, the geeks they want to attract with the BSD license sure be much faster turned off again with the EULA. For the non-geeks they don't give a dime if the core is open or not.

Taylor514ce · 09-04-2008, 10:27 AM

I know I said I wouldn't post again, but felt I owed Harry a reply.

My background is such that I'm extremely familiar with "how the web works". I know the HTTP protocol in and out. I think most people see a browser as a sort of "window", viewing a finished site. We know, however, that isn't the case. The browser is really a code interpreter, it downloads source code from a web site, then interprets it, presenting it to the user.

It's a beautiful system, actually. The way the web was supposed to work was as a distributed, cooperative, organic system. It was created by scientists and researchers who felt that information should be free. Emails are store-and-forward. DNS servers work by "sharing what they know" with each other. We could cite many other examples. Copyright was never a consideration when the web architecture was designed. Neither was commercialism. It's a share-and-share alike utopian free-for-all.

Yes, I understand caching, and no-cache directives, and robots.txt. Those are relatively NEW additions to "how the web works", in direct response to the belated realization that hey, the web is cool and all but, gosh, what about copyright?

What Google has done is to EXPLOIT the way the web works, for commercial gain. Well, what's wrong with that? Nothing, except that while information wants to be free, we still have copyright laws. Caching my website in your browser so that you can view my website faster is one thing. Caching my website so you can sell it off piecemeal to advertisers is something else. Isn't it?

Google has set itself up as the gateway to all internet content as if they own it. The entire web is theirs, to monetize, to influence (entire sites spring up based on what "keywords" are selling for the most), and to cache. Why? Because the architecture of the web allows it.

And we're willing to give up copyright laws and label this all as "fair use" because 1) that's how the web works and 2) Google is just so damned useful.

I'm not anti-search engines. Yes, the way the web has grown, word of mouth and hyperlinking alone just don't work. I also realize that nothing I say will change a thing, which is why this is a discussion, folks, not whining and complaining.

But it's wrong to take something I write, or code, or script, and use it for your own commercial gain, or to take it and share it in ways I don't authorize. If I construct a site to share my artwork and poetry in a holistic manner, it's wrong to strip away the images and serve them up individually on your own site, with "related" ads alongside. It's wrong to take a poem I've posted as part of a portfolio site, and monetize it for your advertising system.

Whatever the web becomes (and I feel the current state of affairs cannot continue, this entire culture of content-specific advertising and AdWords and AdSense and IntelliTXT and spam cannot be sustained) it will have to come to grips with copyright and the rights of content authors to have basic artistic and intellectual control of their work.

igorsk · 09-04-2008, 10:54 AM

Hmm, since when have google cache started serving ads? Let me check... nope, still no ads there. Or are you rallying against the ads in search results?

Taylor514ce · 09-04-2008, 11:00 AM

Both. The "Cache" and the advertising system are linked. To list specific items of concern to me:

1. Caching content in the first place. I have concerns about privacy, and authorial control.
2. Using the cached content (used for search results) to drive advertising.

kesey · 09-04-2008, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taylor514ce

Both. The "Cache" and the advertising system are linked. To list specific items of concern to me:

1. Caching content in the first place. I have concerns about privacy, and authorial control.
2. Using the cached content (used for search results) to drive advertising.

Your concerns are noted. What would your ideal solution be?

I for one am glad to be able to search a la Google. In order to develop the engine there must be monetary reward. Do I have a problem with that? Absolutely not. I want as much information as is possible to be as accessible as ever it can. Many a regime (e.g. that which recently ran the Olympics) want to keep a lid on their citizens access to information. Many a regime would like to tell only the stories they want the world to hear. Sod that for a bunch of codswallop. Get the word out there and let me decide what I believe.

I do see that you are uncomfortable with the way the net has developed. A possible solution for you would surely be to develop a VPN to which only those whom you chose could gain access. Take your content off the open web and relax. There is surely nothing to be gained from constant stress. If there is at some time material which you are happy to share, then whack it back up on the web and enjoy seeing it fly. Your other private writings can reside inviolate in their own space.

Will this do? Pacem in terris.

pilotbob · 09-04-2008, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taylor514ce

Yes, I understand caching, and no-cache directives, and robots.txt. Those are relatively NEW additions to "how the web works", in direct response to the belated realization that hey, the web is cool and all but, gosh, what about copyright?

Actually, I'm pretty sure the no-cache directive has nothing to do with copyright. It came about when dynamic web pages became more popular. If a dynamic page was cached in some proxy server or on your browser it was/is no longer a dynamic page.

BOb

Taylor514ce · 09-04-2008, 11:45 AM

Kesey, you're making an assumption that I am under constant stress... that I am looking for a personal solution to a personal situation. As I've mentioned repeatedly, I am a web developer. I know all about how to secure a site.

What I'm really discussing here are the underlying principles of how Google (and other search engines) operate, and the role of copyright (and advertising) in the development of the web.

If you believe that "information wants be free", then you should be concerned at the role advertisers play in the development of web content. "Context-driven advertising" is already shifting to "advertising-driven content", and Google is the entity most responsible for that.

Ideally, I want a web that is driven by content authors. I think the future web will have "search agents" rather than "search engines". Rather than go to a "search engine" which consumes sites and offers results/ads, we'll be able to construct custom search agents and send out our own spiders and bots, which will return results without violating copyright and without weighting the results based on advertising campaigns. Personal sytsems will become powerful enough to create your own individual "search cache", and web sites will cooperate in communicating and updating "subscribers". In essence, "Google" will become irrelevant.

HarryT · 09-04-2008, 12:06 PM

Thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed reply, Taylor - I do appreciate it. I understand your concerns, although I don't personally share them. I'm rather a "fan" of Google - I guess we're just going to have to disagree about their ethical stance.

All the best,

Amalthia · 09-04-2008, 01:08 PM

I think I appreciate Taylor's concerns because I had my entire fan fiction archive of over 500 stories "archived" by a search engine and it was killing my bandwidth. That and many authors want people to come to the site not read the stories via the search engine. I also don't like the idea of someone making profit off of fan fiction even indirectly.

acidzebra · 09-04-2008, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amalthia

I think I appreciate Taylor's concerns because I had my entire fan fiction archive of over 500 stories "archived" by a search engine and it was killing my bandwidth. That and many authors want people to come to the site not read the stories via the search engine. I also don't like the idea of someone making profit off of fan fiction even indirectly.

a) those must have been really big stories, or you must have very little bandwidth, or you are mistaken in the source of the drain.
b) again, robots.txt, robots.txt, robots,txt.
c) search engines typically provide one or two sentence excerpts, unless you are referring to the google cache, and I don't know anyone who prefers to read the cache while the original site is still alive.
d) somehow I don't think you complain about the people that this search engine sends your way.

Search engines spider publicly-available content on the web, news at 11.

Shaggy · 09-04-2008, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taylor514ce

To list specific items of concern to me:

1. Caching content in the first place.

Then there would be no such thing as search engines. Caching content is fundamental to the way a search engine works. Otherwise they would not be able to make indexes or do searches.

pilotbob · 09-04-2008, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Then there would be no such thing as search engines. Caching content is fundamental to the way a search engine works. Otherwise they would not be able to make indexes or do searches.

That is so not true. Yes, you need to store the data that is contained in the index, you do not need to cache the full page/site.

BOb

axel77 · 09-04-2008, 01:47 PM

Some thoughts without bigger structure:

* Well software agents are something that I read about in almost every computing scientific article, but never have seen anything close to it in reality.

* Google has managed to move itself to the center of the web. Its like the spider in the map (*pun* intended to webcrawlers). Just remember the hour or two where in europe google stopped working due to some DNS issues, People said: "The internet stopped working". Of course people are worried about a private institution to develop such a central power, and I think they are right to do so. However already the one side-based OpenSource search engines are all very meager I've seen (that are the ones you can offer for a search field of your website on your website), not even to mention about a global working and interacting search engine. The google engine does work highly distributed, so it does work in principle. I think in the early days they were some hundret PCs or so, absolutely no specialised high tech hardware. IMHO its up to the OpenSource community to develop distributed searching technique that can live without central control servers like google.

* This has however nothing to do about offering the cache version or not. Google would be pretty much in the same positoin without offering you a cache version. HOWEVER, they need to download and store your data to be able to index it. Of course you can turn this of by robots.txt, but who would find your site then? Its an egg and chicken problem.

* Today I thought about a funny analogy people complaining about cache version when they don't set the non-cache attribute in HTML pages. Its like standing on a train station (in britain) and singing for your girl friend a song. Then go over to the station control and demand they hand you out their survilance videos, because they fraud your copyright.

* One can clearly see the problem Google has. It has a strong development team, I'd say one of the best in the world, I must say everything I see from google on the technical site is pretty well developed, elegant and often pretty innovative. They started with a search engine. And this one is done, there is hardly something you can do to the search engine anymore, but they don't fire their development team, they continue to try to come up with new ideas what they can do... some successfull, some not.

* IMHO hybrid-technology between web and the desktop is the future. That is either the Javascript/HTML as an all purpose application platform. That was google is after. They aren't the only ones, Microsoft Silverlight and Adobe Air are other products that target the same core idea. It will be interesting who will win out over this in the long run. The Idea to either be able to use an application from the web, requiring you no installation is a strong one, when combined with the ability to download and install it as application when you decide so. In the second version working offline, guaranteeing your more privacy and being able to interact with your desktop better (clipboard access, file drag/drop and so on). However the developer has only to code it once. At the same time except microsoft Silberlight the Javascript/HTML / or Adobe Air take application programming to a real seperated layer, running quickly and easly and independent from, on every platform something coding always was about since C, then Object-Pascal, then java, but never really worked out so far. Google Chrome is as far as I see not a new technique to capture your private data, but as a platform for this desktop enhanced HTMLish applicatoins, which google (and I) consider future application will be, and this will be with or without google. However they again try to secure them a central position... I don't know I am not too fond of this, but I like google by a** more than Microsoft (and e.g. Microsoft silverlight) by the face, also this Adobe Flash /Air /Actionscript things, not really my tonic, but can't say exactly why... Its just all not so "elegantly" designed...

Amalthia · 09-04-2008, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acidzebra

a) those must have been really big stories, or you must have very little bandwidth, or you are mistaken in the source of the drain.
b) again, robots.txt, robots.txt, robots,txt.
c) search engines typically provide one or two sentence excerpts, unless you are referring to the google cache, and I don't know anyone who prefers to read the cache while the original site is still alive.
d) somehow I don't think you complain about the people that this search engine sends your way.

Search engines spider publicly-available content on the web, news at 11.

This happened back in 99 or 00 and my site wasn't the only one hit. Basically, one of the archives with over 10k stories was also hit and for them it was a much bigger deal. The way this happened was you'd search for the author or story and it didn't direct you to the Archive Index. It just opened the link right then in there from their cache (but the images were still linked back to the my site which still used bandwidth, and also the way it would load everything was different from the archive structure so instead of just pulling the 1 story someone may want it pulled 100 at the same time which ate bandwidth) Basically, for me it was more annoying but for another site with 10k stories it was a much bigger deal. Also 8 years ago bandwidth wasn't as cheap as it is now.

09-04-2008, 05:44 AM	#76
axel77 Fanatic Posts: 584 Karma: 914 Join Date: Mar 2008 Device: iliad	The http protocol of the web was originally designed to be very caching, using a lot of proxy caches along the way, just rember how slow the data flowed at that time... Proxies were a fundamental part of the design, and it was marketed a lot with this. As technology evolved however the tubes got faster better/cheaper than the storing tech, and also the growing number of active content on the web made proxy caches less and less useful, so people today get already the impression that caching is someting not to be done in this tech at all.. this is wrong. About google caching your data, you know you can turn them off caching in the html header? Okay its an opt-out solution, but no one complain, if you care about your data to be personal/onetime/nocaching, its up to you to put it in the web the right way.# @firefox 3, I don't have good experiences with firefox 3, it does behave much slower on my system and often enough hangs itself or even the whole system. Dont tell me, they tell you its faster and uses less memory. On my system it does not, and a lot of Ubuntu users have the same problems. I love my Firefox 2 however. Maybe I just need to wait a while longer to get FF3 wortwhile. Last edited by axel77; 09-04-2008 at 05:52 AM.

09-04-2008, 10:27 AM	#78
Taylor514ce Actively passive. Posts: 2,042 Karma: 478376 Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: US Device: Sony PRS-505/LC	I know I said I wouldn't post again, but felt I owed Harry a reply. My background is such that I'm extremely familiar with "how the web works". I know the HTTP protocol in and out. I think most people see a browser as a sort of "window", viewing a finished site. We know, however, that isn't the case. The browser is really a code interpreter, it downloads source code from a web site, then interprets it, presenting it to the user. It's a beautiful system, actually. The way the web was supposed to work was as a distributed, cooperative, organic system. It was created by scientists and researchers who felt that information should be free. Emails are store-and-forward. DNS servers work by "sharing what they know" with each other. We could cite many other examples. Copyright was never a consideration when the web architecture was designed. Neither was commercialism. It's a share-and-share alike utopian free-for-all. Yes, I understand caching, and no-cache directives, and robots.txt. Those are relatively NEW additions to "how the web works", in direct response to the belated realization that hey, the web is cool and all but, gosh, what about copyright? What Google has done is to EXPLOIT the way the web works, for commercial gain. Well, what's wrong with that? Nothing, except that while information wants to be free, we still have copyright laws. Caching my website in your browser so that you can view my website faster is one thing. Caching my website so you can sell it off piecemeal to advertisers is something else. Isn't it? Google has set itself up as the gateway to all internet content as if they own it. The entire web is theirs, to monetize, to influence (entire sites spring up based on what "keywords" are selling for the most), and to cache. Why? Because the architecture of the web allows it. And we're willing to give up copyright laws and label this all as "fair use" because 1) that's how the web works and 2) Google is just so damned useful. I'm not anti-search engines. Yes, the way the web has grown, word of mouth and hyperlinking alone just don't work. I also realize that nothing I say will change a thing, which is why this is a discussion, folks, not whining and complaining. But it's wrong to take something I write, or code, or script, and use it for your own commercial gain, or to take it and share it in ways I don't authorize. If I construct a site to share my artwork and poetry in a holistic manner, it's wrong to strip away the images and serve them up individually on your own site, with "related" ads alongside. It's wrong to take a poem I've posted as part of a portfolio site, and monetize it for your advertising system. Whatever the web becomes (and I feel the current state of affairs cannot continue, this entire culture of content-specific advertising and AdWords and AdSense and IntelliTXT and spam cannot be sustained) it will have to come to grips with copyright and the rights of content authors to have basic artistic and intellectual control of their work. Last edited by Taylor514ce; 09-04-2008 at 10:49 AM.

09-04-2008, 11:45 AM	#83
Taylor514ce Actively passive. Posts: 2,042 Karma: 478376 Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: US Device: Sony PRS-505/LC	Kesey, you're making an assumption that I am under constant stress... that I am looking for a personal solution to a personal situation. As I've mentioned repeatedly, I am a web developer. I know all about how to secure a site. What I'm really discussing here are the underlying principles of how Google (and other search engines) operate, and the role of copyright (and advertising) in the development of the web. If you believe that "information wants be free", then you should be concerned at the role advertisers play in the development of web content. "Context-driven advertising" is already shifting to "advertising-driven content", and Google is the entity most responsible for that. Ideally, I want a web that is driven by content authors. I think the future web will have "search agents" rather than "search engines". Rather than go to a "search engine" which consumes sites and offers results/ads, we'll be able to construct custom search agents and send out our own spiders and bots, which will return results without violating copyright and without weighting the results based on advertising campaigns. Personal sytsems will become powerful enough to create your own individual "search cache", and web sites will cooperate in communicating and updating "subscribers". In essence, "Google" will become irrelevant. Last edited by Taylor514ce; 09-04-2008 at 01:15 PM.

09-04-2008, 01:47 PM	#89
axel77 Fanatic Posts: 584 Karma: 914 Join Date: Mar 2008 Device: iliad	Some thoughts without bigger structure: * Well software agents are something that I read about in almost every computing scientific article, but never have seen anything close to it in reality. * Google has managed to move itself to the center of the web. Its like the spider in the map (pun intended to webcrawlers). Just remember the hour or two where in europe google stopped working due to some DNS issues, People said: "The internet stopped working". Of course people are worried about a private institution to develop such a central power, and I think they are right to do so. However already the one side-based OpenSource search engines are all very meager I've seen (that are the ones you can offer for a search field of your website on your website), not even to mention about a global working and interacting search engine. The google engine does work highly distributed, so it does work in principle. I think in the early days they were some hundret PCs or so, absolutely no specialised high tech hardware. IMHO its up to the OpenSource community to develop distributed searching technique that can live without central control servers like google. * This has however nothing to do about offering the cache version or not. Google would be pretty much in the same positoin without offering you a cache version. HOWEVER, they need to download and store your data to be able to index it. Of course you can turn this of by robots.txt, but who would find your site then? Its an egg and chicken problem. * Today I thought about a funny analogy people complaining about cache version when they don't set the non-cache attribute in HTML pages. Its like standing on a train station (in britain) and singing for your girl friend a song. Then go over to the station control and demand they hand you out their survilance videos, because they fraud your copyright. * One can clearly see the problem Google has. It has a strong development team, I'd say one of the best in the world, I must say everything I see from google on the technical site is pretty well developed, elegant and often pretty innovative. They started with a search engine. And this one is done, there is hardly something you can do to the search engine anymore, but they don't fire their development team, they continue to try to come up with new ideas what they can do... some successfull, some not. * IMHO hybrid-technology between web and the desktop is the future. That is either the Javascript/HTML as an all purpose application platform. That was google is after. They aren't the only ones, Microsoft Silverlight and Adobe Air are other products that target the same core idea. It will be interesting who will win out over this in the long run. The Idea to either be able to use an application from the web, requiring you no installation is a strong one, when combined with the ability to download and install it as application when you decide so. In the second version working offline, guaranteeing your more privacy and being able to interact with your desktop better (clipboard access, file drag/drop and so on). However the developer has only to code it once. At the same time except microsoft Silberlight the Javascript/HTML / or Adobe Air take application programming to a real seperated layer, running quickly and easly and independent from, on every platform something coding always was about since C, then Object-Pascal, then java, but never really worked out so far. Google Chrome is as far as I see not a new technique to capture your private data, but as a platform for this desktop enhanced HTMLish applicatoins, which google (and I) consider future application will be, and this will be with or without google. However they again try to secure them a central position... I don't know I am not too fond of this, but I like google by a** more than Microsoft (and e.g. Microsoft silverlight) by the face, also this Adobe Flash /Air /Actionscript things, not really my tonic, but can't say exactly why... Its just all not so "elegantly" designed... Last edited by axel77; 09-04-2008 at 01:50 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
HTC Google Chrome OS tablet - more info	SameOldStory	News	5	08-23-2010 07:05 PM
Sony uses Chrome as default browser	pking36330	News	42	09-04-2009 03:54 PM
Wierd warning from google chrome!!	mklynds	Feedback	3	06-13-2009 02:30 AM
Google Planning Web Browser?	Liqiud	Lounge	0	01-27-2005 07:39 PM

09-04-2008, 05:48 AM	#77
axel77 Fanatic Posts: 584 Karma: 914 Join Date: Mar 2008 Device: iliad	On the project, on the one hand they have a BSD License for the core, which is a very generous license. On the other hand they have a very restrictive EULA for the browser itself, the "glazing" ... I don't see this combo go out well, the geeks they want to attract with the BSD license sure be much faster turned off again with the EULA. For the non-geeks they don't give a dime if the core is open or not.

09-04-2008, 10:54 AM	#79
igorsk Wizard Posts: 3,442 Karma: 300001 Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Belgium Device: PRS-500/505/700, Kindle, Cybook Gen3, Words Gear	Hmm, since when have google cache started serving ads? Let me check... nope, still no ads there. Or are you rallying against the ads in search results?

09-04-2008, 11:00 AM	#80
Taylor514ce Actively passive. Posts: 2,042 Karma: 478376 Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: US Device: Sony PRS-505/LC	Both. The "Cache" and the advertising system are linked. To list specific items of concern to me: 1. Caching content in the first place. I have concerns about privacy, and authorial control. 2. Using the cached content (used for search results) to drive advertising.

09-04-2008, 12:06 PM	#84
HarryT eBook Enthusiast Posts: 85,544 Karma: 93383099 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: UK Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6	Thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed reply, Taylor - I do appreciate it. I understand your concerns, although I don't personally share them. I'm rather a "fan" of Google - I guess we're just going to have to disagree about their ethical stance. All the best,

09-04-2008, 01:08 PM	#85
Amalthia Wizard Posts: 1,185 Karma: 32196 Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Anchorage, AK Device: Sony Reader PRS-505, PRS-650, PRS-T3, Pocketbook HD2	I think I appreciate Taylor's concerns because I had my entire fan fiction archive of over 500 stories "archived" by a search engine and it was killing my bandwidth. That and many authors want people to come to the site not read the stories via the search engine. I also don't like the idea of someone making profit off of fan fiction even indirectly.