Talk:Google Chrome

==

Chrome Windows 7

https://github.com/Blaukovitch/GOOGLE_CHROME_Windows_7/

The latest browser versions have been successfully patched (cracked) for several years (since 2023) and run on Windows 7. Google engineers are well aware of this hack, but prefer to remain silent. There is a detailed technical article on how they did it. ChromeUser777 (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

P**nhub.com under stable releases?

Someone snook it under stable releases under Extended support versions ~2026-21095-05 (talk) 04:18, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Fixed. Someone had vandalised {{Latest stable software release/Google Chrome}}. Mindmatrix 12:55, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Leading section: unbalanced presence of open source terms

Is Google Chrome open source software? 😁

I'm examining the leading sections of popular Wikipedia articles about popular closed-source software, intercepting keywords and trying to verify if the majority of persons who quickly read (or an AI summarising the topic... or persons with functional illiteracy understanding the topic) could easily answer similar simple questions. The result is surprising.

Indeed everybody here knows that the correct answer is "no, Google Chrome is not open source". This is pretty much clear while reading the whole article.

Anyway, forget about what we know, and let's learn it from the first ~5 phrases.

Consider yourself an alien learning Google Chrome, read this ↓

Google Chrome is a cross-platform web browser developed by Google. It was launched in September 2008 for Microsoft Windows and was built with free software components from Apple WebKit and Mozilla Firefox. Versions were later released for Linux, macOS, iOS, iPadOS, and Android, where it is currently the default browser. The browser is also the main component of ChromeOS, on which it serves as the platform for web applications.

Most of Chrome's source code comes from Google's free and open-source software project known

After 5 phrases, note the 6 highlighted terms about open source. So, is Google Chrome open source?? 😁 Indeed, me, as alien, I will answer "uhm somehow yes" and this is why we should do something, since we are a neutral encyclopedia, and we should not promote closed source tools as "partially open" - since we should not adopt the the official rhetoric (which promotes the software in that way) but we should be neutral and carefully select terms to reflect the reality.

More elaboration:

Problem 1 - many "open" keywords, lack of "closed" keywords

They exist at least 3 consolidated keywords to describe the license of Google Chrome, and none of these are used in the first ~4 phrases:

• freeware -
• proprietary software
• closed source

💡 Proposal: I suggest to introducing at least one of these above "closed" keywords before mentioning any of the other "open" keywords, so to provide more balanced keywords.

Problem 2 - avoiding "built-in with some free sofware"

Think a moment about these 4 words alone: premising that it's almost impossible to find software produced with 0% free software, or 0% open source: you can easily apply the "built-in with some free sofware" to any famous software and any famous videogame and it would be correct there too (as a business usually do not waste time to re-inventing the wheel).

Pay attention since the "built-in with some free software" is the classic official promo you can see written in the official websites of software houses. This is just a phrase leading to confusing positive aspects. But having a vegan burger with pork inside does not make that burger vegan anymore, and using some free software does not make it free software. It's indeed useful to describe the free software dependencies in use by Google Chrome, but it's just too much confusing to do that in this way, here.

Same for:

• «Most of Chrome's source code comes from Google's free and open-source software project»

💡 Proposal: I suggest to completely move these phrases inside a new section called #Components (somehow like Docker (software)#Components and other complex software dependent on many other software)

Problem 3 - unbalanced mention of Linux

I'm putting this last because it's debatable, but note this phrase about versions:

Versions were later released for Linux, macOS, iOS, iPadOS, and Android

It's really esoteric to see Linux mentioned first. I'm a Linux user, and I cannot think about any factor to indicate Linux first:

• Linux is not even mentioned in the official homepage of Google Chrome. «Chrome is compatible with devices that run Windows and Mac operating systems»
• Linux is not the first platform by historical support, as the first supported platform was Microsoft Windows, in 2008 (stated in the article)
• Linux should not be first by alphabetical order too
• Google Chrome is not pre-installed in any legal Linux distribution, as this would invalidate the distribution license

💡 Proposal: I suggest to list Linux last, to reflect all the mentioned points

---

Note that I've done my best to propose very "actionable" proposals, so to do not start an huge thread. Thanks for your opinions! --Bozz (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Chrome now supports Linux on ARM64 devices

Several reliable sources are covering the news, it should be added to the release compatibility table. Ultimate Norman (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2026 (UTC)