Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 3rd Sep 2008 22:49 UTC
Google While Google's new Chrome web browser has been met with a lot of praise and positive responses (well, mostly, at least), there has been one nagging issue that arose quite quickly after people got their hands on Chrome: the End User License Agreement accompanying the browser. It more or less granted Google the rights to everything seen or transmitted through the browser. Google now changed the EULA, saying it was a big case of woopsiedoopsie.
Thread beginning with comment 329195
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: one naggin issue?
by exigentsky on Thu 4th Sep 2008 07:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: one naggin issue?"
Member since:

Let's not forget the KDE team. They created the KHTML engine which was transformed by Apple into WebKit.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: one naggin issue?
by badtz on Thu 4th Sep 2008 08:36 in reply to "RE[3]: one naggin issue?"
badtz Member since:

which is why I said "main contributor" ... ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: one naggin issue?
by renox on Thu 4th Sep 2008 11:08 in reply to "RE[4]: one naggin issue?"
renox Member since:

Which is still wrong: the originator of a project is also a contributor.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: one naggin issue?
by l3v1 on Thu 4th Sep 2008 11:25 in reply to "RE[4]: one naggin issue?"
l3v1 Member since:

I'd say the "main contributor"s were the KHTML dev team members, since probably that's still the largest part of the code base (I'm not sure, I didn't take a look, but I presume). Anyway, credit was given, so whatever, important is that it's based on a good rendering engine which hopefully will only get better.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: one naggin issue?
by Havin_it on Thu 4th Sep 2008 12:57 in reply to "RE[4]: one naggin issue?"
Havin_it Member since:

Heh... witty, but I wonder if you tried Konqueror in the years before Apple got their finger out and started contributing code back to KHTML? Granted, I never used it full-time, but when I did use it I found no cause for complaint with the rendering abilities. I'd say it was faster and less prone to leakage over time than Firefox, without a doubt, and my layouts never needed tweaking for any bugs. If the surrounding interface hadn't been left for dead by Firefox's I'd probably be using it now.

Apple have helped it along a lot, no argument, but to suggest that they are responsible for the bulk of its current quality seems like the effects of a Reality Distortion Field(TM)...

Reply Parent Score: 5