Google Chrome Leapfrogs Internet Explorer as the Web's Top Browser
thenextweb.com
thenextweb.com
http://memeburn.com/2012/05/its-official-chrome-is-the-webs-...
(I'm referring to http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3972651 incase you missed out on how TNW's Zee just totally does not get it).
(Edit: I'm sure this article here isn't plagiarised. That's not why I provided a link. It's hardly an imaginative story so I'm sure TNW pulled it together themselves. However, when you try and pass yourself off as a legitamate hard working publication, and fail to give credit to someone who essentially wrote and researched your article, there is something intrinsically wrong with your ethics. As a person, I'm not even particularly opinionated, lots can pass me by without me caring: but Zee's attitude disgusted me).
(Yes, I realize the irony of this comment, I should be doing things right now.)
There is certainly no loss in skipping over thenextweb.
This is just my opinion.
But in my experience they have proven themselves to be all but worthless time and again. It's not just plagiarism. They do not research their stories. They appear to lack any measurable insight into the subject matter. As such, they make a lousy source of news.
That's what the guidelines recommend.
"I used to scrape articles/content written by people. I created my own content management system that would publish entire websites for specific terms."
You mentioned this in a previous comment on another thread. I remember, because it was a fairly big comment, and wasn't long ago. Considering the discussion was on scrapping, I can only imagine you didn't have explicit permission to do so. Indeed, you go on to say:
"Anyway, content would be useful to me, because I would spin in into new content, using a very basic markov chain."
Indeed, the claim you have for not doing this anymore is:
"I don't do this any more since I'm actually working on what will hopefully be a very succesul startup..."
This doesn't grant TNW a free pass. I just found your attitude interesting.
But, just to stress one point in case it wasn't obvious from the scraping comment I made, I would never republish the scraped content. (I went out of my way to make this point in my previous comment because in spite of my somewhat "cloudy"/blackhat past, I would never rip off other peoples content. The cloest I would come would be from spinning new content using markov chains, however, when you have an ngram ranging between 3-7 and spread accross thousands of articles, there is surely no copyright infringement through republication of your fabricated content.
Anyway, I agree with what you said about my attitude being interesting.. but peoples attitudes change and the markov chain example was how I used to scrape somewhere near 4-8 years ago.
(Nice comment by the way, if there is anything I would hate to be, is a hypocrite, so a little self reflection is welcome on this subject!)
> The cloest I would come would be from spinning new content using markov chains, however, when you have an ngram ranging between 3-7 and spread accross thousands of articles, there is surely no copyright infringement through republication of your fabricated content.
I think you are lying to yourself. And, honestly, I think deep-down you know it. You seem like a reasonable guy. TNW didn't repeat word for word the article that blew up either. I'm not here to debate this. I think what you did could definitely be argued as copyright infringement. Just because you change a certain number of words doesn't mean you get a free pass.
That's not an issue, however. You realize you made a mistake, and you've moved on. And that, I think, is important. Should we forever shun TNW for mistakes in the past? Should we shun you?
> (Nice comment by the way, if there is anything I would hate to be, is a hypocrite, so a little self reflection is welcome on this subject!)
I'm glad you took it the right way. I was a bit apprehensive about bringing it up. I wanted to make a point, and discuss this. So thank you.
We all have a past. Should it haunt us forever?
Chrome is simply not trustworthy. Why would you get a browser from an advertising company that uses people's data to make money?
Problem solved.
Google Chrome is completely open source and can be easily compiled from the source (expect for its integrated Flash player and PDF reader). If you don't like something about it, please change it.
Chromium is.
People are using Chrome, not Chromium.
A compiled chromium source is identical to Google Chrone, except for the icon and name. Just like with Firefox.
* The Firefox logo is not released under a free license
* The Firefox name and logo are trademarked, and Mozilla has strict policies you must adhere to if you want to use them
However, you can build Firefox without using the name or logo. Requiring derived works to have different branding does not mean a program is not open source or free software.
The story of how iceweasel and friends came to exist can be found at http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=354622
People are using an open source browser + Flash Player + PDF Reader.
If you don't trust Google's Flash player and PDF reader, feel free to take them out. In fact, you don't have to, because using Chromium would be equivalent to doing this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_(web_browser)#Differen...
Edit: he got it wrong, though. The Google features of Chrome are not open source.
Seriously, it grew so much into me that I can't browse the web without those add-ons any more!
There are two main problems:
1. Sometimes I start FF and it tells me that its process is still running. It happens too often that I close FF and it fails to properly terminate its process. The result is that I can't open FF until I kill it in the task manager.
2. Firefox is the only browser in which Flash crashes. Almost every day I had to search for the "Plugin container for Firefox" in the task manager and manually kill it.
Today the browsers that "just work" are IE9 and Chrome. I can't use Chrome all the time because it doesn't open images in Twitter, probably because images use http and Twitter uses https. Every browser has its own little problems. Those of Firefox are too much for me.
In the end I came back to ff. All my good addons are there, they all work and if it breaks down it's way faster to kill then chrome.
Initially I tried chrome because I thought it may eat up less memory but the difference was not really big on all the chrome processes compared to the ff one.
http://neugierig.org/software/chromium/notes/2009/12/iron.ht...
Coincidentally, I recently poked at Iron to determine if it includes the security and stability fixes we merge for stable releases. So, I tried to get the source code to make the analysis easier. It turns out there's no repository, and I had to wait eight hours pulling 1GB of archives from Rapidshare. When I finally opened it I found a tarball from Chrome 6, which is almost two years old (even though Iron is obviously using Chrome 18). So, I don't think the creator is very concerned about keeping up pretenses (like being an open source project) anymore.
The code is there. If they do something you don't like, you can always fork.
Openness of the code is only part of the problem.
That's the reason I prefer Mozilla over Google as an organization.
I apologize my bad argument before.
They all have their strengths, but I'm still amazed Opera doesn't have a higher share.
While that sounds plausible enough, I've not encountered a website that didn't work in Opera for a long, long time.
Looks like they are back on track. I like the renaming of the upcoming release. A little sad to see Unite go. Perhaps it wasn't the right time - it always looked like a bit of a security nightmare.
Open services should be easily accessible/usable in the OS layer and across networks, but I guess they currently aren't - without some skill.
If I take my laptop around someone's house and want to share a few files - how easy is this? If I want to just play some tunes, or a video from my laptop on someone else's PC or set top, how trivial is it? Not very. At least not for the mythical average user.
A decentralised web sounds good to me also. And lowering the barriers to web publishing where you have control over the content in my eyes is a good thing.
Unite though feels like a component that could live happily outside of the browser (again ideally in the OS layer). The email client could be standalone also. Unless they want to go the Chrome OS way.
I remember trying to sign up to ebay - I had to move through three different browsers - then swap Operating system and move over to Internet Explorer - because of some weird bugs!
That's not poking a hole at any of the other browsers, but it's to say that quirks can be found in all of them (even if that's through fault of the page author.) Under those circumstances it's just easier to move over to another browser.
I think it has just never been seen as 'sexy' by the tech geeks, and therefore never evangelised.
Surprisingly Opera's strong showing in mobile/wii didn't impact the desktop. Does HN think it might do better if it was open-sourced?
Both of these features are available in both Firefox and Chrome by default. I don't know about tab stacking (since I have no interest in the feature), but it's probably possible in Firefox with an extension, but not in Chrome.
Perhaps it is because it's closed sourced, I don't know.
Personally I went with Firefox rather than Opera back in the day mainly due to Firefox extensions (nowadays Opera supports extensions aswell) and have stuck with it since I know it so well and it works fine.
Google has the money and clout to introduce Chrome pervasively. Opera doesn't. Technical merits never came into play.
Chrome - 63.1%
Firefox - 21.1%
IE - 7.1%
These are heavily biased towards young (13-25) Windows users who play games.
I've noticed the massive dominance of Chrome for some time, but the numbers are not clear enough to show a rise or fall in its use over time.
I would guess, this means there are still more people using IE, but those using Chrome use the internet more often?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#Dif...
75% split roughly even between 3 players. The big three are all very different (Community led Open Source, Bundled with the OS & Mega Company led Open Source). Developers can still feasibly test for major browsers. Everyone will be aware they have a choice. There is room in the remaining 25% for new players to emerge.
Seems ideal.
The monopoly issue seems even more troublesome this time, as compared with when Microsoft was trying to tie the browser to the desktop PC OS, because the web and search is actually Google's core business.
If I were working on Chrome I would find myself wondering, "So what happens after we become the browser that 99% of the web uses and develops for? What if ChromeOS follows a similar path? Is that going to be good for the web in the long term? What if Google's business starts to slow down? We have created a virtual strangehold over the web. We might have to use it more aggressively."
Or maybe not. All that free food. The big bonuses. The great things we achieved. In the near term, we have seriously made things better for everyone. Life's just too good to think business could ever falter. Maybe I might never have such thoughts. I'm just an engineer. I'm just doing my job. I can't worry about these things.
The amount of control one company is developing over something so essential as the web is just obscene.
The nice thing is that their business model doesn't seem to revolve around locking people into any particular system. In fact they want the opposite, as far as they are concerned everyone should be equal in terms of clicking on ads.
But the goal is user eyeballs, not having compelling free services. So Google is perfectly happy to do other things that help ensure users will use said services.
Nothing wrong with that, by the way.
IE still accounts for the majority of all traffic. It has always been in my experience IE, Firefox then Chrome. With IE holding roughly 40-50% of the share.
I don't know where or who these Chrome users are, but they certainly aren't visiting your bread and butter small biz websites.
When they removed the ads in 2005 it was far too late, Firefox had changed the game.
Also, the curve in the article is pretty steady/linear. Where comes "leapfrogging"?
Personally, I have been using Chrome and Firefox both. Firefox being the primary browser for browsing the wild web and Chrome for development and for using Google's services.
Back in the Firefox 3.6 days, Mozilla was beginning to get a little lazy, somewhat like Microsoft in the IE6 days. Then Chrome came along and Mozilla realized that they had to compete. It took them a couple of years to catch up, but now Firefox is a worthy competitor to Chrome and vice versa.
http://www.neowin.net/news/windows-xp-market-share-goes-down...
If Microsoft would have written IE versions beyond 8 to work with XP, IE might have been able to hang in at #1 longer since the later versions of IE aren't as bad.
I know I'll be happy when I see IE 8 usage drop sufficiently low in my logs to allow me to stop attending to its limitations while developing.
It's really easy, right? And it works just the same as Chrome, right?
Mozilla is open source but the complexity and volume of the code means very few people can work with it.
How many of you, who are not Mozilla developers, have modified the Firefox source and compiled a working version?