Chrome Is Bad • Hacker News Board

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#61

Post by enraged_camel » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 8:11 PM UTC

qz2 wrote: post #48

To make an argument of this scale you have the burden of proof. There is no proof here past casual correlation. An analogy I see here is the scene from an old film where a woman walks behind a wooden screen and a goose walks out thus the woman is a shape shifting witch.

>>To make an argument of this scale you have the burden of proof. There is no proof here past casual correlation.

And yet, as of this writing, it has 200+ upvotes and is at the top of the front page.

HN audience really needs to do better. If you are reading this and are one of the people who upvoted the story, please really ask yourself why.

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#62

Post by chongli » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 8:11 PM UTC

HelloThur wrote: post #42

aflag wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What evidence do you have to back up that claim?

In the security industry it's commonly known Chrome has the best security, this partly due to the amount of money Google invests in finding vulnerabilities (via fuzzing) in Chrome. For "proof", you can check how much exploit vendors pay for exploits for each browser. For example Zerodium offer: * $500k for Chrome RCE * $100k for Safari RCE * $100k for Firefox RCE https://zerodium.com/program.html The higher amount wo…

The higher amount would generally indicate its harder to get an RCE in Chrome

That does not follow at all. Chrome has the highest market share and so an exploit would have the greatest impact potential. More users affected => more economic value for an exploit.

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#63

Post by platelets2020 » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 8:11 PM UTC

edgefield0 wrote: post #43

sroussey wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possible correlation and hand waving equals causation. I, too, was hoping for something, well, technical. Considering #1 on hacker news...

Does anyone else see the irony that hand waving is being disputed with hand waving?

You don't get to stack "hand waving" indefinitely. The person who made the original claim is responsible for providing refutable evidence.

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#64

Post by alyandon » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 8:12 PM UTC

ivank wrote: post #21

tomaskafka wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Edge is missing E2E encryption in the sync feature.

Yep - pretty critical missing bit of functionality unfortunately.

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#65

Post by blindm » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 8:12 PM UTC

vesche wrote: post #29

The author went so far as to create a domain for this rant, and yet didn't even do any performance metrics or basic forensic analysis at all. I'm not saying the author is wrong, but there's a lot of questions here. How does Keystone hide itself from the Activity Monitor? Is there a Keystone process if you run `ps aux`? Did you run dtruss/strace? What is it doing when Chrome isn't running that causes it to degrade per…

> The author went so far as to create a domain for this rant

It's not a 'far' thing to purchase a domain anymore. Domains are cheap as chips, and have gotten cheaper now since the advent of novel generic TLDs where usually the first year is sold cheap but to roll it over into the next few years the price is hiked (which is why so many people now purchase a domain for a year only).

It is common now and expected to see single-serving-sites[0] that are just thinly veiled blogposts.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-serving_site

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#66

Post by sercand » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 8:12 PM UTC

HelloThur wrote: post #42

aflag wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What evidence do you have to back up that claim?

In the security industry it's commonly known Chrome has the best security, this partly due to the amount of money Google invests in finding vulnerabilities (via fuzzing) in Chrome. For "proof", you can check how much exploit vendors pay for exploits for each browser. For example Zerodium offer: * $500k for Chrome RCE * $100k for Safari RCE * $100k for Firefox RCE https://zerodium.com/program.html The higher amount wo…

Chrome has about 70 percent market share and this higher amount may accounts for that.

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#67

Post by leipert » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 8:13 PM UTC

inimino wrote: post #44

awinter-py wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They have that trust because all the software installed by homebrew is open source.

Not necessarily all open source, homebrew-cask has been merged into brew and you have e.g. Jetbrains IDEs and Zoom available.

Personally I use homebrew-cask to manage almost all applications and their updates, turning auto-updating off in almost all apps. That way I am in control and can update when it is convenient, know if an update broke something, etc.

Edit, using:

- https://github.com/buo/homebrew-cask-upgrade

- https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-bundle

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#68

Post by rafaelturk » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 8:13 PM UTC

sweetlucipher wrote: post #8

I'm gonna try this. Thank you.

Me too..

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#69

Post by Thaxll » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 8:13 PM UTC

"Safari is good" haha ...

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#70

Post by codetrotter » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 8:13 PM UTC

Blikkentrekker wrote: post #39

vesche wrote: post #29

The author went so far as to create a domain for this rant, and yet didn't even do any performance metrics or basic forensic analysis at all. I'm not saying the author is wrong, but there's a lot of questions here. How does Keystone hide itself from the Activity Monitor? Is there a Keystone process if you run `ps aux`? Did you run dtruss/strace? What is it doing when Chrome isn't running that causes it to degrade per…

I'm quite impressed by that “chromeisbad” as a domain was not already taken.

Yeah. After reading your comment I tried out a couple of similar domains on the form x is bad and x is good and they were both parked waiting for someone to pay whatever ridiculous price the owner is wanting to demand to sell it. I wish it was illegal to do that.