Google anounces new (open source) browser with new JavaScript VM.

Hi,

Maybe this is old news for some of you, but I just found this:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=9847

It will include a JavaScript Virtual Machine built from scratch.

Regards,
Erwin Moller

--
============================
Erwin Moller
Now dropping all postings from googlegroups.
Why? http://improve-usenet.org/
============================

On Sep 2, 11:44*am, Erwin Moller
<Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...@spam yourself.comwrote:I just heard of it. Googled it. Tried to download the Beta, but
Google's form threw an "object expected" error in IE7. (!)
JS engine by Google? Shudder.

On Sep 3, 12:42 pm, The Magpie <use...@pigsinspace.co.ukwrote:Won't this mean Google can collect EVEN MORE information about what we
do on the net?

In comp.lang.javascript message <b0b7fac1-ba37-4857-84eb-ce3ff4936a01@k3
0g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Wed, 3 Sep 2008 06:00:13, Laser Lips
<loudsphiers@gmail.composted:

Maybe. In comp.lang.java.programmer message <48be826e$0$15547$9b622d9e@
news.freenet.de>, Wed, 3 Sep 2008 14:26:04, Christian <fakemail@xyz.de>
posted:
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London UK. replyYYWW merlyn demon co uk Turnpike 6.05.
Web <URL:http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html-Timo Salmi: Usenet Q&A.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/news-use.htm: about usage of News.
No Encoding. Quotes precede replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Mail no News.

Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:How many users will built it from source, rather than using
precompiled binaries, do you suppose? And will refuse to install
updates? And will vet all of the source in the first place?

--
Michael Wojcik
Micro Focus
Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University

On Sep 5, 8:45 am, Michael Wojcik <mwoj...@newsguy.comwrote:Very few I suspect. There are two main benefits of open source code:

1. Other developers can use it for whatever purpose they choose and
can contribute changes that improve or modify it in useful ways.
Others can adopt those changes, or not.

2. Anyone can dig into the source to resolve bugs and determine
exactly what the code does - though clearly that is only going to be
undertaken by individuals with the ability and motivation to do so.

There are a number of claims already that Chrome reports stuff to
Google, I don't think the people who discovered that needed the source
to do so. They may use it for further analysis, or to build and
distribute a version that doesn't "phone home" (or phones a different
home).

"Refuse"? Some may disable automatic updates, but I don't see that as
aiding Google's efforts to control the universe. It may leave those
users exposed to bugs and security issues, but no more than if they
disable automatic updates of any other application.

Many enterprises have automatic updates disabled so that they can be
centrally controlled, I don't see them getting pwn3d with sufficient
frequency for it to be an issue.

I think there are very few people who could draw any useful
conclusions from doing that, so whether or not a typical user does so
is neither here nor there.

The point here is that anyone who is interested can find bugs, errors
or other issues in the code. There are a number of agencies that have
become adept at finding bugs and security issues in closed source
applications, I imagine they will find it much easier with open
source.


--
Rob

Michael Wojcik wrote:How many would it take to do Google irreparable harm by finding just one
piece of subterfuge? There doesn't have to be any; just the knowledge
that there might be one.

--
Steve Swift
http://www.swiftys.org.uk/swifty.html
http://www.ringers.org.uk