Wednesday, September 3, 2008

Setting priorities; more Chrome nits

Due to various events circulating around and entrapping me, I'm thinking of requiring folks to prioritize the requests they send me. They can select from the following options:
  • Priority 1.15. My request is important, but not so important that anyone will actually notice before we or they change teams/companies. I'm mainly filing this to cover my ass and I can point to a document and say, "I told you so," should this blow up.
  • Priority 1.1. My request is important enough to require you to do this now, but not so important that I'm willing to devote any of my team's resources into understanding the problem.
  • Priority 1. My request is important enough that I'll make vague promises to understand the problem at some unspecified point in the future, but will hope that you don't follow up on this. Also, I'll hound you with meeting invites until you submit to my will.

On the Chrome front, I'm still generally happy with it, though I did experience slowdowns with some Flash stuff. My experience here mirrors someone's review (which I can't seem to find at the moment): better than Firefox on CPU usage, but worse than IE8.

However they don't support SPNEGO/Kerberos/NTLM authentication, at least not yet. This is the magic which lets me get away with typing my work password only once a day rather than once for each internal website I visit. I'll have to keep Firefox open in the meantime.

4 comments:

soleta said...

have you seen this?

http://dev.tapthehive.com/discuss/This_Post_Not_Made_In_Chrome_Google_s_EULA_Sucks

David Cuthbert said...

I did. However, I don't consider that problematic as Chrome doesn't actually use any of Google's services for viewing normal pages. I'm guessing that EULA was ported from their actual service based software (maps, GMail, etc.) and someone didn't bother to update it.

I could be wrong. IANAL.

collisions said...

We used to have too many #1 priorities, so we created a new level - priority zero. Now we have like four of those. *sigh*

Michael Scott Cuthbert said...

Agree with everything about Chrome. Love the speed, the new UI is an interesting alternative (and much better than uncustomized defaults on other browsers). But the crashing, lack of user certs (MIT uses them for everything), etc., keeps me switching back and forth to Firefox. Though it too seems promising, I haven't hear enough good things to risk d/l'ing IE8 yet, considering MS's aversion to making it easy to uninstall their software.