Google clamps down on rogue Chrome plugins and extensions Google is tightening security on its Chrome web browser by making it harder to install plugins and extensions that could contain malicious code. The web ad-slinger said in a blog post on Tuesday that it has begun strictly enforcing a policy, first announced in November, that Chrome extensions can only be installed from Google' …
If it helps, Apple has the equivalent of a Victorian 'secret garden' tucked away in the corner of an urban yard, you're under no illusion of where you are or that it's a manufactured environment. Google has a full fledged commercial garden with boundaries so far apart you can't see two sides simultaneously from any location. You get the illusion of endless space but the fact remains you're under just as much restriction as anyone else but you've got no idea where the boundaries are. At least until you run headlong into one. I'm honestly not sure which is worse.
"What will be next? Flash?"
Funnily enough Pepper Flash is actually your best bet in Chrome on Linux, once you've disabled the GPU blacklist thingie to get 3D support.
The missus would get a bit sarcastic if Farmville2 didn't work fullscreen and quickly on her laptop running Arch. She couldn't give a toss what it runs, provided things work and unfortunately Win8.x didn't cut it when the Nvidia drivers blew up yet again. Bizarrely: mmm nouveau!
Cheers
Jon
PS Any AC twat wanting to have a nerd off about the joys of Win8 is welcome to have a go 8)
"Funnily enough Pepper Flash is actually your best bet in Chrome on Linux"
Last time I tried out chrome on LInux it required the sandbox manager (or whatever it was called) to run as root. Sorry , no thanks. I am not having ANY user apps running as root on my system under ANY circumstances. Until they fix that Grade A gold plated amateur hour f*ck up I'm sticking with mozilla which can run adobe flash quite nicely and doesn't require root privs.
"embrace, extend..."
Been saying it for months - Google is the new Microsoft, just with far wider reach...
You're a bit behind the times then :) To be honest, I was too slow too - I should have spotted this the moment they uttered that don't be evil rubbish. The moment a company feels the need to state it's not evil, you know it's doing something that has worried them about that perception, otherwise they would have just let their actions speak for them.
"But if people aren't getting their ads, would Google care if they use their browser or not?"
Yes, because then Google wouldn't be able to collect as much information as they do, especially if people start using things like NoScript (not for the Average Joe, granted) and Ghostery and rejecting third party cookies.
No they're not. Certainly lots of plugins could be written in this way, and likely many plugins never needed to be plugins in the first place, but there are very real valid use cases for plugins. However, most of them are not mass-market but niche plugins for a specific application or range of hardware, so Chrome can get away with squashing them.
Funny how out of the six currently whitelisted Netscape plugins, two are Google Earth and Google Talk, which shows you how good Google's amazing new replacement APIs/protocols/languages they're pushing on everybody else this week are.
Like SPDY which isn't that good after all.
http://m.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/27/googles_spdy_blamed_for_slowing_http_20_development/
Understood, but some websites have really been asking for it by relying on ever-more intrusive ads. You've got videos with sound that automatically play, huge overlays covering the entire back of the website, javascript popups which move across the screen and obscure the text until you chase after them to close them, other ads which are flashy to the point of distraction, some rely upon so much Flash and javascript that pages slow to a crawl, etc.
Hence there's a reason why so many people are driven to utter distraction that they feel the need to install an ad-blocker. From the advertisers point of view, their relentless approach to make their ads more and more intrusive and in-your-face has meant people just switching them off altogether.
Understood, but some websites have really been asking for it by relying on ever-more intrusive ads. You've got videos with sound that automatically play, huge overlays covering the entire back of the website, javascript popups which move across the screen and obscure the text until you chase after them to close them, other ads which are flashy to the point of distraction, some rely upon so much Flash and javascript that pages slow to a crawl, etc.
Hence there's a reason why so many people are driven to utter distraction that they feel the need to install an ad-blocker. From the advertisers point of view, their relentless approach to make their ads more and more intrusive and in-your-face has meant people just switching them off altogether.
And let us not start on this useless Data (Ads), that get counted against out "Monthly Allowance".
some websites have really been asking for it by relying on ever-more intrusive ads. You've got videos with sound that automatically play
Actually, I remember this as one of the hacker jokes of the late 90s: set up a website with an auto-play sound file which stated very loudly (to the point of clipping) "THIS USER IS BROWSING P*RN". All it then takes is a few emails into a couple of lower life forms and you can see the hits go up incrementally as they email each other this joke, followed by a sharp drop when the corporate firewall filters get updated to stop this nonsense. Ah, pranks..
Chrome is the dominant browser in the market now, by some distance at that. Depending on exactly who you believe Firefox has less than half Chrome's market share in third place. Do you really think Google are concerned about Firefox? I'm not saying Google are in the right here, I'm saying that this is the harsh reality of the browser market.
@ Grease Monkey
Not sure why you got downvoted, I agree, I still think FF is better - Ghostery, Noscript and Adblock, at least we have the choice - and whilst it did go thru a memory leak / really bloated stage, it's def on the up now (IMHO).
I mean, I even install Chrome onto many customers PCs because it's nice and friendly and faster than IE and (poor dears), they don't have to remember to update Flash every other day without installing the auto opted in McCaffee AV scanner.
Don't Panic! There's still Firefox! Google has so far not put a gun to anybodies head and forced them to use Chrome as their browser. You can even use FF on Android phones and disable Chrome, try doing that with Safari on iPad / iPhone - hint: you can't.
Firefox LOL don't make me laugh... Firefox is virtually dead, now that its little more then a Chrome Clone in Fox Clothing....
Sadly, Firefox is about to be compromised from a different angle. Which reminds me, any statement by Google on this?
Every complaint I've seen about malicious extensions were all fully sanctioned and available from the Chrome Web Store. Particularly unpalatable are those that are funded by anonymously overlaying every site you visit with ads masquerading as coupons from the insidious Superfish service.
https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/chrome/mcRFCUAK1hw%5B276-300-false%5D
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
