Comments on: Google Chrome: the Google OS http://www.pannonrex.com/2008/09/02/google-chrome-the-google-os/ Solutions that Work Sun, 29 Nov 2009 05:01:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: media kingdom http://www.pannonrex.com/2008/09/02/google-chrome-the-google-os/comment-page-1/#comment-24533 media kingdom Wed, 03 Sep 2008 19:52:08 +0000 http://www.pannonrex.com/?p=99#comment-24533 should be interesting to see if Chrome works more efficiently than FireFox and IE... if it's faster than Firefox, since isn't IE, then i'll use it should be interesting to see if Chrome works more efficiently than FireFox and IE… if it’s faster than Firefox, since isn’t IE, then i’ll use it

]]> By: piprog http://www.pannonrex.com/2008/09/02/google-chrome-the-google-os/comment-page-1/#comment-24525 piprog Wed, 03 Sep 2008 16:20:24 +0000 http://www.pannonrex.com/?p=99#comment-24525 Joeri, thanks for the explanation on the visual difference -- enlightening :-). Security: I know that the client by definition must be treated as breached (non-secure) -- that's what I'm telling all the clients :-) but there are some questions here with more complex client app architectures. Since we are in on-line mode (most of the times), in fact we could make client security better than executable security by validating the code against the server version and protecting the channel and the VM sandbox as much as possible against intrusion. Of course since the client is out of my control anything can happen there (even faking the whole protection scheme), but for many types of apps this type of protection would help a lot. I'm going to write a new entry with more details so that we can discuss... Joeri, thanks for the explanation on the visual difference — enlightening :-).

Security: I know that the client by definition must be treated as breached (non-secure) — that’s what I’m telling all the clients :-) but there are some questions here with more complex client app architectures.

Since we are in on-line mode (most of the times), in fact we could make client security better than executable security by validating the code against the server version and protecting the channel and the VM sandbox as much as possible against intrusion. Of course since the client is out of my control anything can happen there (even faking the whole protection scheme), but for many types of apps this type of protection would help a lot.

I’m going to write a new entry with more details so that we can discuss…

]]> By: Joeri http://www.pannonrex.com/2008/09/02/google-chrome-the-google-os/comment-page-1/#comment-24522 Joeri Wed, 03 Sep 2008 16:02:31 +0000 http://www.pannonrex.com/?p=99#comment-24522 The reason for the rendering difference is that chrome uses windows' native font rendering system, and safari comes with its own font rendering system that emulates that of the mac, so pages will render exactly the same on the mac and windows. About the easy modifyability of javascript, I would say this isn't a problem. The client is not secure, never, never ever. Security belongs on the server, period. Executables are not inherently more secure than javascript, not to someone who knows what they're doing. You'll still want to obfuscate javascript to protect against code theft though, because with apps moving entirely to the client side, the code will be out there for all to steal. The reason for the rendering difference is that chrome uses windows’ native font rendering system, and safari comes with its own font rendering system that emulates that of the mac, so pages will render exactly the same on the mac and windows.

About the easy modifyability of javascript, I would say this isn’t a problem. The client is not secure, never, never ever. Security belongs on the server, period. Executables are not inherently more secure than javascript, not to someone who knows what they’re doing. You’ll still want to obfuscate javascript to protect against code theft though, because with apps moving entirely to the client side, the code will be out there for all to steal.

]]> By: piprog http://www.pannonrex.com/2008/09/02/google-chrome-the-google-os/comment-page-1/#comment-24486 piprog Tue, 02 Sep 2008 21:24:05 +0000 http://www.pannonrex.com/?p=99#comment-24486 It is interesting, that although Chrome uses WebKit as the rendering engine, the visual rendering of pages (on Windows) is markedly different from Safari rendering (Safari has softer, more rounded fonts) and exactly matches Firefox Gecko's rendering. What gives? It is interesting, that although Chrome uses WebKit as the rendering engine, the visual rendering of pages (on Windows) is markedly different from Safari rendering (Safari has softer, more rounded fonts) and exactly matches Firefox Gecko’s rendering. What gives?

]]> By: piprog http://www.pannonrex.com/2008/09/02/google-chrome-the-google-os/comment-page-1/#comment-24474 piprog Tue, 02 Sep 2008 17:47:55 +0000 http://www.pannonrex.com/?p=99#comment-24474 Chris you make a point there: that will help Chrome gain market share fast, as one can expect that all these sites will have "best with Google Chrome" stickers all around. Chris you make a point there: that will help Chrome gain market share fast, as one can expect that all these sites will have “best with Google Chrome” stickers all around.

]]> By: Chris Shaul http://www.pannonrex.com/2008/09/02/google-chrome-the-google-os/comment-page-1/#comment-24473 Chris Shaul Tue, 02 Sep 2008 17:37:31 +0000 http://www.pannonrex.com/?p=99#comment-24473 I just blogged about the same thing, however, one area that Google has focused on, is its partnership with Salesforce.com to get a lot of business users utilizing the Google Docs and Gmail link within Salesforce. I am sure there are other such partnerships in the links. I just blogged about the same thing, however, one area that Google has focused on, is its partnership with Salesforce.com to get a lot of business users utilizing the Google Docs and Gmail link within Salesforce. I am sure there are other such partnerships in the links.

]]>