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

Chrome Is Bad

chromeisbad.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 306 posts

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#11

Post by awinter-py »

the linked 2009 wired article quotes adobe saying 'yeah we don't see the need to have an always-on updater process'

fast forward to 2020 when (1) adobe has this and (2) they still email me every so often to remind me to install their software which (3) I have installed and been using

I think life would be better if there were a 3rd-party update service that wasn't trying to also own marketing + distribution (i.e. take 15-30% of the sale and also maintain platform dominance). A tool that was 'just updates' so my other software doesn't get to install a rootkit.

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#12

Post by DaSilentStorm »

awinter-py wrote: post #11

the linked 2009 wired article quotes adobe saying 'yeah we don't see the need to have an always-on updater process' fast forward to 2020 when (1) adobe has this and (2) they still email me every so often to remind me to install their software which (3) I have installed and been using I think life would be better if there were a 3rd-party update service that wasn't trying to also own marketing + distribution (i.e. tak…

Like homebrew maybe? ;-)

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#13

Post by meibo »

crispyporkbites wrote: post #5

Just use Firefox If you want to be sure your stuff works across browsers, test in safari Don’t support or trust ad companies to deliver technology, their interests are always misaligned with the user

Safari is arguably the worst browser to do general tests in if you're not making iOS apps, as it has a history of rendering and behaving differently than any other browser.

The dev tools are also unusable compared to Chrome.

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#14

Post by comex »

This is total nonsense.

Even for malware, hiding from Activity Monitor would be quite a feat. Short of an exploit, you couldn't hide your process without a kernel rootkit, but macOS has required user approval to load kernel extensions for several versions now. I suppose you could go the low-tech way and just name your process "WindowServer" to confuse the user, but you'd still end up with two WindowServers.

The idea that Chrome's auto-updater is doing this is ludicrous.

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#15

Post by kgwxd »

Is there anything like this going on on Linux? I don't really use it, but I have it in case I need to do dev testing.

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#16

Post by awinter-py »

DaSilentStorm wrote: post #12
awinter-py wrote: post #11

the linked 2009 wired article quotes adobe saying 'yeah we don't see the need to have an always-on updater process' fast forward to 2020 when (1) adobe has this and (2) they still email me every so often to remind me to install their software which (3) I have installed and been using I think life would be better if there were a 3rd-party update service that wasn't trying to also own marketing + distribution (i.e. tak…

Like homebrew maybe? ;-)

homebrew is non-commercial and updates on-run, rather than in the background, but frankly yes

if they had a commercial offering I think they have the brand trust to make this work

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#17

Post by akkartik »

awinter-py wrote: post #11

the linked 2009 wired article quotes adobe saying 'yeah we don't see the need to have an always-on updater process' fast forward to 2020 when (1) adobe has this and (2) they still email me every so often to remind me to install their software which (3) I have installed and been using I think life would be better if there were a 3rd-party update service that wasn't trying to also own marketing + distribution (i.e. tak…

Situation: there are 14 companies installing rootkits.

14?! Ridiculous. We need a single company that's allowed to install rootkits.

Situation: there are 15 companies installing rootkits.

How about we just stop digging when we find ourselves in a hole?

(Ref https://xkcd.com/927)

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#18

Post by tomaskafka »

Exuma wrote: post #2

It sucks because Chrome is so much better usability wise than all those others. I wish they would just fix whatever this keystone trash is, and leave that to stonehenge

I found out, surprised, that current Edge is basically a better Chrome - even compatible with all extensions, faster, and with lower battery consumption.

And, yes, Microsoft AutoUpdate, which however seems reasonable so far.

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#19

Post by meibo »

The author should probably note that not updating Chrome is a very bad idea.

There's a good reason for automated updates on a web browser for the general public and there's a good reason why Chrome is the most secure browser on the market.

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#20

Post by awinter-py »

akkartik wrote: post #17
awinter-py wrote: post #11

the linked 2009 wired article quotes adobe saying 'yeah we don't see the need to have an always-on updater process' fast forward to 2020 when (1) adobe has this and (2) they still email me every so often to remind me to install their software which (3) I have installed and been using I think life would be better if there were a 3rd-party update service that wasn't trying to also own marketing + distribution (i.e. tak…

Situation: there are 14 companies installing rootkits. 14?! Ridiculous. We need a single company that's allowed to install rootkits. Situation: there are 15 companies installing rootkits. How about we just stop digging when we find ourselves in a hole? (Ref https://xkcd.com/927 )

yes I get it but none of the proprietary updaters are trying to be a standard or a 3rd-party tool
Post reply on HN