Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No to Chrome

notochrome.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 319 posts

Re: No to Chrome

#231

Post by sparkywolf »

digitarald wrote: post #167
sparkywolf wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally the day Firefox finds the way to be able to use all my passwords in keychain/suggest and generate new ones, I'm switching to it full time. I loved safari, but killing extensions is crossing a line.

Password generation landed in 69, right? Latest on Keychain sopport is in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106400#c130 as WONTFIX due to macOS changes.

Still holding out hope. I'll have to look into the suggestions again then! Maybe I could figure out a way to migrate keychain

Re: No to Chrome

#232

Post by missblit »

TekMol wrote: post #5

Nice black and white design. I would remove the light grey bars behind the logos. Clicking on the images at the bottom should open the respective website instead of the image. The "why" page should mention amp. Instead of ranking websites by user friendlyness, via boosting amp they rank them by affiliation with Google. I think that is the most evil thing Google did so far.

As long as we're providing website critiques:

* "Google want to automate us" should be "Google wants to automate us"

* They should consider making the page about why not to use chrome in particular more discoverable from the main page

* "Google have been accused of ensuring other Google products don’t work on Chrome" should be "Google have been accused of ensuring other Google products only work on Chrome"

* They block Google search from indexing the page, but they also block all other crawlers. Why not let DuckDuckBot through?

Re: No to Chrome

#234

Post by commandlinefan »

AVTizzle wrote: post #104

They really miss an opportunity to say WHY anywhere on the landing page, instead going straight to: "Chrome is bad. Here's some alternatives."

There's a "why" link on the upper right-hand side, but even if you click on it, you'll see they don't really make a compelling case to distrust google. Because they scanned books and digitized them?

Re: No to Chrome

#236

Post by yellow_postit »

I only keep a Chrome browser around to access Google properties like Google Maps or Gmail which are painfully slow in Firefox. It feels like old IE days where there are sites that only really work in 1 browser.

Re: No to Chrome

#237

Post by O_H_E »

kienkien wrote: post #228
bxparks wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TIL. So funny, I've been using Chrome since the beginning, and I've never noticed this feature, and I search all the time. I am now switching between Firefox and Chrome among various laptops, and I am impressed with Firefox. At some point, Firefox may become my dominant browser.

I afraid that day may never come

> Firefox may become `my` dominant browser.

I think you misread that

Re: No to Chrome

#238

Post by smush »

RealStickman wrote: post #63
cyberpunk wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try !s instead -- same results as google (apparently) but via startpage which supposedly doesn't track.. I don't really understand how startpage is able to operate such a service, I assume it's maybe because if google started trying to stop them it would be rather hypocritical?

Starpage is now owned by an advertising company. I wouldn't rely on them not tracking me.

I have also hopped to Qwant / DDG for their proxied Bing search.

Keeping that in mind, doing a !s bang is probably better privacy-wise (bonus - you get the same results) vs a !g bang, even if it is no longer as good as it was.

Re: No to Chrome

#240

Post by tiborsaas »

Not really well argued (not at all actually) for a non-techie user who at most does email, youtube, work and shopping...

They are probably 99%.

The site feels like it's authored with a tin-foil hat on.

Post reply on HN