Other contacts

Novi članci

Flickr Goodness


May 12, 2010 @ 9:28

Google wants http:// to die

From what Google is doing in Chrome/Cromium browsers it is obvious that Google wants http to disappear. Google is saying that http confuses regular users, but that is just pure PR nonsense and a lie.
The real reason is that spdy:// would confuse users, but Google is spinning it a different way and Chrome/Chromium developers must do as Google tells them to do.
If you aren’t familiar with spdy:// it is a new and protocol that is faster and better than http protocol for browsing, it is developed by Google.
Spdy hasn’t gained much traction since it’s announcement, and none of major sites uses spdy protocol yet, so to make it ambiguous Google has decided to remove http from Chrome/Chromium browsers address bar thus causing lots of havoc.
Chromium developers aren’t listening to any comment and just ignore all issues that have been cropping up. For me first issue is that copy/paste of url links on Linux is broken, but there are more serious issues if you read through comments.
Now even commentig is disabled and on the bug page there is a message saying: “This issue is read-only. New comments cannot be added.” This is a really bad move from Chromium developers. The discussion was locked on first mention of spdy protocol.
The obvious solution to show http:// when users click on the address bar just isn’t what Google wants, no matter what users want.

Filed under linux


  1. Posted by Igor

    May 12, 2010 @ 9:53

    Well, than don’t use CHROME :) you have dozens of browser today and G.C. is just one one them…

  2. Posted by disi

    May 12, 2010 @ 13:44

    I maybe Google is bad?


  3. Posted by Joshua

    May 12, 2010 @ 13:56

    I think it is a good idea to remove the http. It still shows it for other protocols and https so I don’t think it is to push their new protocol.
    Furthermore open source does not mean it is a democracy.

  4. Posted by valent

    May 12, 2010 @ 14:52

    Google has demonstrated that it doesn’t mean that, but they still should listen to their users.

  5. Posted by bochecha

    May 12, 2010 @ 16:27

    >but they still should listen to their users.

    Well maybe they are and the people complaining are only a vocal minority?

    Or maybe they are listening to the users they want to attract? Of course, those don’t necessarily correspond to the users they have now…

    PS: Two captchas? Really?

  6. Posted by William Chambers

    May 13, 2010 @ 21:28

    So what purpose does this rant serve? http:// ‘is’ pointless. It’s a complete waste of 7 chars that could be better used for the site domain. I don’t think anyone would care if http: was spdy: and I doubt it’d confuse anyone as long as it ‘just worked’. IIRC that bloody big has been open for months and it’s just people complaining about a very minor change. Copy/Paste has worked just fine for me on both KDE/GNOME for Fedora/Ubuntu and It sucks that it doesn’t work for you.

    Regardless if the root cause, I think it takes a company like Google to reevaluate decisions made 20+ years ago and then decide if they’re still valid decisions today. Even if the decision itself turns out to be a bad one, I still would support Google for their attempts to break unneeded parts of the mold.

    (And two captcha’s? Seriously?”

  7. Posted by valent

    May 14, 2010 @ 13:19

    Sorry for two captchas, other got turned on by mistake.

  8. Posted by Mike Belshe

    May 14, 2010 @ 17:48

    I work on SPDY.

    The desire to remove “http://” from the UI has no relation to spdy whatsoever. In fact the UI team that is working on that change has never spoken to the spdy team at all. SPDY, when it is deployed, is really more like a new version of HTTP than a new protocol. URLs for downloading over SPDY will remain as “http://”. Whether the “http://” is shown in the UI or not is a UI choice, not a protocol issue.

    At any rate, I’m sorry that you are dissatisfied with the answers you are getting about whether the UI should display the “http://”, but your post is inaccurate because the two issues are not related. There is no conspiracy here :-)


  9. Posted by valent

    May 16, 2010 @ 17:49

    Thanks for your reply Mike, it is still a shame you made such a big UI change and despite lots of people who disagree google and chromium developers are still pushing this change :(

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Comment


    Flickr photostream

    SSL is required

    Meta meta :)