This, along with the inability of disabling the async dns feature in the latest Chrome for desktop versions (thus making pihole/adguard irrelevant), makes me accelerate the change to another browser.
[deleted]
Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar
711–720 of 733 posts
Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar
#712Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar
#713Earlier quoted context omitted.
What the heck? A regular user doesn’t understand or care what the technical difference between a “regular” page and AMP is. I wouldn’t call this ignorance per se.
This is patently false. I talk to non-tech "regular" users all the time that despise AMP.
This is patently false. I talk to non-tech "regular" users all the time that don’t know what I’m talking about when I mention AMP and its issues.
Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar
#714Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because I want to use my own DNS server and block ads at the DNS level rather than the browser level. With this move, Google has effectively white listed adsense / adwords to not be blocked regardless of the network settings of the device.
Chrome doesn't respect DNS settings anyway. I have in my resolv.conf: search my.home And entering hostname of my server would just googles the hostname of my server, instead of trying a lookup and googling only afterwards (or never, I don't see why the browser should contact the owner just because I mistyped the url).
This point merits an explanation. The file /etc/resolv.conf is a configuration file for the `dns` NSS module used by the glibc resolver.
Google's async DNS feature uses Chrome's own internal DNS resolver which doesn't call gethostname(). It would be incorrect for Chrome to parse this file and attempt to "respect" your settings because NSS is a series of black-box system-specific modules. If you removed the dns module from /etc/nsswitch.conf then resolv.conf wouldn't even enter the mix on your system and then Chrome would do the wrong thing. If the dns module behaved differently on your system and /etc/resolv.conf was actually /etc/resolv.json or /etc/resolver.conf then Chrome would again do the wrong thing.
When resolving a name applications have two choices, either look up the name with glibc, send the request through the NSS gauntlet of black-box modules and take whatever it returns of perform the DNS request itself and ignore everything on the system. Any sort of hybrid approach would be more confusing.
Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar
#715Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Spend more money on your computer" is a fine solution for a bay area software engineer. It's not a solution at all for the half of America that would have to sell their car to cover a $400 ER visit.
I make under $12k/year. I live in the midwest. I would have to sell my car for a $1k ER visit. It's still cheaper to build a $450 real desktop computer (that lasts decades+) than it is to buy a $800 4 year life gimped smart phone that can't do any productive work any isn't in my control. (And my $20 nokia dumb phone has worked perfectly since 2006 for phone calls/text.)
You live in the midwest United States; you're not the user we're talking about.
We're talking about the person in small-town India who has a Micromax Black Q385 spark 3, 8GB store, 1GB ram, 5.5" screen, which they bought for $50. They also get their Internet access through the cellular equivalent of a drinking straw.
(Even still, my personal guess is that this URL bar change isn't about them; it's about the desktop experience).
Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar
#716Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a pretty big leap, especially since users can change Chrome's search engine. There are a couple of reasons they could be making this change highlighted in these threads.
It's the default, and most people who would change it (let's be honest, for privacy reasons) would switch to something like Firefox.
It still feels like you dove into the deep-end of the data collection conspiracy pool before considering other more-likely explanations, like "They have the information now to know that, in general, using color to make the rest of the bar less prominent wasn't sufficient to minimize users feeding data to malicious sites."
Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar
#717Earlier quoted context omitted.
How a proprietary extension can get preferential features illustrates that chromium is open source in name only.
Hardly. If you look at firefox's source, you will find several extensions that are hard-coded for special handling. This is not new.
True, but the distance between Firefox source and Firefox is config+compile.
You cannot compile Chrome. I've heard that Chromium can be compiled and run, but I've never actually seen it, or hear of anyone using that professionally.
Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar
#718Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hardly. If you look at firefox's source, you will find several extensions that are hard-coded for special handling. This is not new.
True, but the distance between Firefox source and Firefox is config+compile. You cannot compile Chrome. I've heard that Chromium can be compiled and run, but I've never actually seen it, or hear of anyone using that professionally.
I'm not sure what your point is... You thought it was weird that an extension would get preferential treatment, and I pointed out that this is true for Firefox also.
Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar
#719Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, but the distance between Firefox source and Firefox is config+compile. You cannot compile Chrome. I've heard that Chromium can be compiled and run, but I've never actually seen it, or hear of anyone using that professionally.
I'm not sure what your point is... You thought it was weird that an extension would get preferential treatment, and I pointed out that this is true for Firefox also.
My point is that you are correct.
There are other factors at play which mitigate the preferential treatment, but it's definitely there in Firefox as well.
Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar
#720Earlier quoted context omitted.
I make under $12k/year. I live in the midwest. I would have to sell my car for a $1k ER visit. It's still cheaper to build a $450 real desktop computer (that lasts decades+) than it is to buy a $800 4 year life gimped smart phone that can't do any productive work any isn't in my control. (And my $20 nokia dumb phone has worked perfectly since 2006 for phone calls/text.)
You live in the midwest United States; you're not the user we're talking about. We're talking about the person in small-town India who has a Micromax Black Q385 spark 3, 8GB store, 1GB ram, 5.5" screen, which they bought for $50. They also get their Internet access through the cellular equivalent of a drinking straw. (Even still, my personal guess is that this URL bar change isn't about them; it's about the desktop e…
I don't think Chrome can run on a machine like that.