@Fraser, @Steve, @et al.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that "locking people into open source" is akin to "locking people into Google." Google is no more benovelent than Microsoft; they've taken "open source" and made it their own for-profit venture. So, they're really no better than anyone else--they've stood on the shoulders of all those before them, and taken the next step.
I find it interesting that the "each tab is its own process" is being looked at as a novel idea. Everyone calls Microsoft a "me, too" company, introducing tabs and sharing the process memory between all tabs with IE7. They obviously should have waited a few more years and called their old "separate window in a separate memory space" process revolutionary. Everything old is new again. This poo apparently *can't* stink because it comes from Google. The self-proclaimed "Do no evil" company has just polished another turd.
As for the comment from Steve:
-- "Thanks Google for making a few leaps forward unlike IE8 which is lagging behind and doing nothing more than stealing it's ideas from others (mostly Firefox)."
You just need to turn to Page 2 of the delightful Google and read the bottom two right panes, "Finally Google Chrome is a fully open source browser. We want others to adopt ideas from us -- just as we've adopted good ideas from others."
So, Google calls it "adopting" and it's OK; anyone else does it and it's stealing?
The only things preventing Google from having as much purported evil as Microsoft are (in this order): longevity in the marketplace (Microsoft's got a good 30 years) and money (Google's market cap at $146bn is about $100bn behind Microsoft).
Given enough of both, Google will be every bit as protectionist and evil. Google's in business to make money, not to benevolently employ thousands of programmers to turn out goodwill software. They have shareholders to appease, which means that the dollar is king.
There are plenty of other companies that base their products on open-source that are nearing this level of evil as well. Open source doesn't mean "better" anymore--it just means you only have to put the finishing touches on someone else's work before you call it your own and start charging for it.
In the end, all companies are out to make a buck at the expense of the consumer. While they may start with lofty ideas of free (as in beer and as in speech), free doesn't pay the bills. Adverts, popups, licensing and subscription fees, and marketing apparently do.
Welcome to Google being just like everyone else.
Mine's the one with a cynical view embroidered on it.