Not signed in (Sign In)
  1.  (3483.41)
    Wasn't Mac out before windows?
    • CommentAuthorpi8you
    • CommentTimeSep 4th 2008
     (3483.42)
    It was, however Apple found the path to Enlightenment.
    •  
      CommentAuthorhmobius
    • CommentTimeSep 4th 2008
     (3483.43)
    @All.

    Apologies for the overreaction. 'Twas a paranoic mountain of a molehill.
    A friend has the saner overview of why it says what it does and how it translates.

    (But why - if they know people would read it - did Google not just release it with the sanitized EULA in the first place?)

    @SageLudwig : Mac OS v1 - 1984. Windows v1.0 - 1985
  2.  (3483.44)
    @pi8you:
    Any OS under the overexposure windows is would have the same issues.
  3.  (3483.45)
    There are some secutiry problems with the WebKit and Java (with .jar archives, a very silly kind of security leak) and these OMNIbox questions, as CNET reports. There are some news in this field? Some update or public statement by google?
    •  
      CommentAuthorhmobius
    • CommentTimeSep 4th 2008
     (3483.46)
    @pi8you : Yeah, but Enlightenment v0.17 is still under development.

    @collindeplancy : Wish they wouldn't call it Google's Omnibox. It's not as though they borrowed heavily from Opera in its creation. Re; the problems. Google can easily say that as it's a beta, users worried by the security issues should wait for the next update to include fixes from webkit and offload it. Given the speed of their EULA retraction though, they might say something and drive a fix. They could easily get open source developers decrying their promptness as 'taking over webkit' or some such, as they are still in the first week of the first release when zealots and pharisees attempt to micro-analyse everything (me included until this morning) about it without looing at a big picture.
  4.  (3483.47)
    You guys know that the reason why google is working on Chrome is because they are planning to launch an "online operational system" right?

    Which is why they need support to separated processes inside the browser, so when an "online" app crashes, it doesn't take google's entire operational system with it.

    Not sure how well that's going to work.
    •  
      CommentAuthorhmobius
    • CommentTimeSep 4th 2008
     (3483.48)
    That's the theory. gOS has been vapourware for ages. A brief google for it dates it to at least three years ago, so it's probably more like four or five.
    Of course, Chrome came up in conversation at the same time and it's now here.

    I just think that all the process vs thread stuff in the comic did not need to be there. The people who cared would have read a white paper.
    •  
      CommentAuthorliquidcow
    • CommentTimeSep 4th 2008
     (3483.49)
    I tried reading that comic, it was interesting for a few pages then started to get very technical and boring; like you say, the kind of stuff that someone who was interested would be alright with getting the white paper to read about. Kind of defeated the point of doing it in comic form surely.
    •  
      CommentAuthoralbill
    • CommentTimeSep 4th 2008
     (3483.50)
    Caveat: I work at Mozilla so I am biased. I used to work on IE at Microsoft too.

    This doesn't affect the relationship between Mozilla and Google in a direct way. As was reported by Mitchell Baker on her blog and in the press, we just inked a three year deal for search revenue a week or so ago. This extended the existing two year deal set to expire this November until November of 2011. Mozilla gets revenue from a number of sources but everyone knows that Google search revenue is a big source and that is guaranteed for three more years.

    The issue, from what I can tell, with Mac versions is that the cool process isolation stuff they are doing so only one tab crashes, etc. can't work on the Mac as they've done it on Windows. So they may have released the Windows beta when they did because they could but are blocked on the Mac version by technical issues.