what's the significance of making Google Chrome my browser?

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by taustin

But I find Google to be a bit hypocritical, given what their motto is, and their apparent determination to take over the world. One gets the impression that if they though they could get away with it, they'd recruit an actual army, and make war on anybody who got in their way.

I can't blame Google for being hypocritical. My own company's motto "Damn right we're evil!" was pretty much a failure. We had to execute the entire marketing team.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Fluribus

I can't blame Google for being hypocritical. My own company's motto "Damn right we're evil!" was pretty much a failure. We had to execute the entire marketing team.

Well, that just proves you're not really all that evil at all.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Fluribus

I can't blame Google for being hypocritical. My own company's motto "Damn right we're evil!" was pretty much a failure. We had to execute the entire marketing team.

Well, Google's marketing team consists of a bunch of number crunching computers.

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I know a lot of people who still use IE. I think they just quietly go about their business most times and stay out of (or are oftentimes ignorant of) browser wars.

The trouble is, those "browser wars" are pushed on us by web servers.

Microsoft never gave up on pushing web development tools that create content which requires IE on the user side. IE users, these days, face a growing number of (not so important) web pages that work better on any other browser. IE quirks and deviations from the standards (which varies for IE versions) are many and web developers are tired of all special handling that they have to build into their designs to support IE. Or a designer fails to test his page with all IE versions.

What was suggested on this topic, not to remove IE from Windows machine that already has it, makes sense. I have a virtual machine with WinXP as a backup solution for stubborn web pages or software solutions that exist only on Windows. It is rarely, if ever, used these days, Linux works very well. Cheap disk space and virtualization, I don't have to give up on anything.

Firefox, or Chrome, or something else? De gustibus non est disputandum.

[GlenBarrington]

Originally Posted by Ankh

The trouble is, those "browser wars" are pushed on us by web servers.

Microsoft never gave up on pushing web development tools that create content which requires IE on the user side. IE users, these days, face a growing number of (not so important) web pages that work better on any other browser. IE quirks and deviations from the standards (which varies for IE versions) are many and web developers are tired of all special handling that they have to build into their designs to support IE. Or a designer fails to test his page with all IE versions.

What was suggested on this topic, not to remove IE from Windows machine that already has it, makes sense. I have a virtual machine with WinXP as a backup solution for stubborn web pages or software solutions that exist only on Windows. It is rarely, if ever, used these days, Linux works very well. Cheap disk space and virtualization, I don't have to give up on anything.

Firefox, or Chrome, or something else? De gustibus non est disputandum.

Ankh, I'm just starting to explore Linux as a platform for serious photography, so I'm something of a newbie, at least in terms of Linux for personal computing. I'm hoping you have enough experience to explain what appears to be an anomally for me.

I see, that there is an open source project called 'Chromium' available for Linux, and then the standard Google software called "Chrome". Aside from the slightly different screen icons, they appear to offer the same functionality and have the same User interface. What's up with that? Is one preferable to the other?

Once it slowly dawned on me that there was a difference, I opted for the Google version on the assumption that would always be the most viable. but I wonder if I'm missing some subtle difference.

[fratermus]

Originally Posted by GlenBarrington

I see, that there is an open source project called 'Chromium' available for Linux, and then the standard Google software called "Chrome". Aside from the slightly different screen icons, they appear to offer the same functionality and have the same User interface. What's up with that? Is one preferable to the other?

You're on the right track. Chromium is the underlying open source browser project. Chrome has proprietary/closed-source additions from Google which serve its commercial interests. From a casual user's point of view I think the main difference is Chrome comes with flash baked-in and chromium users would use a plug-in to get functionality.

Open software purists would probably be happier with Chromium.

I have both on my machine. I use Chrome as a daily driver, loaded up with whatever extensions I like. I keep stock Chromium on hand in stock form.

[Graham]

Deleted - answered better above by fratermus.

Graham

[fratermus]

Originally Posted by Ankh

The trouble is, those "browser wars" are pushed on us by web servers.
[/i].

To be fair, IIS itself isn't requiring a particular browser flavor or version. It's just the bearer of bad news, slinging standard/RFC noncompliant content created by folks who are either clueless or are being forced to do this stuff by a pointy haired boss or clueless client.

It's so silly, just another attempt to get customer lock-in. The silliness of it is exposed when using a user-agent switcher to lie to the site, which happily provides a functional experience.

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by fratermus

You're on the right track. Chromium is the underlying open source browser project. Chrome has proprietary/closed-source additions from Google which serve its commercial interests. From a casual user's point of view I think the main difference is Chrome comes with flash baked-in and chromium users would use a plug-in to get functionality.

Open software purists would probably be happier with Chromium.

It is my understanding that one of the major differences is that Chrome, unlike Chromium, takes advantage of Google network resources whenever possible. Proxies, DNS servers, stuff like that. Chromium is "tame", it behaves like any other browser would, using network services as they are set up by user, or maintained by user's ISP (Internet Service Provider).

Google is all about network presence. If there is something "evil" about chrome, it likely lies on the other side of network void, on Google servers, not on the client's machine.