It has been a subject of frequent discussion whether open-source software holds the advantage over proprietary applications when it comes to reliability and responsiveness to user requirements. The argument goes that access to the source code has enabled bugs and errors to be detected more quickly, and that users haven't had to wait for the next official update or release for a fix.
With an effectively unlimited development team on the case, modifications can be carried out with a speed and efficiency that would be impossible in a conventional development environment. The counter-argument is that a commercial environment is the best guarantee of developer competence, and that open source is inherently liable to be buggier and less stable.
Each side has examples to support its position. Chrome, on the face of it stands somewhere in the middle, and it might not be too far-fetched to suggest that it could offer the best of both worlds.
Despite the no-cost distribution model of Chrome, the indisputably commercial environment of Google requires that the software must perform to the highest possible standard. At the same time, releasing it under an open-source license could turn out to be an inspired decision.
The welcome transparency this open source release affords the browser is likely to help deflect any lingering suspicions that Chrome is just an elaborate plot to further Google's information gathering intentions. This is a point critics of the unfortunate licensing slip-up would do well to remember.
Search Engine News 
/ 5 
