Refutation by counterexample: I have Chrome, FF, and mpv running right now and my WindowServer process is averaging below 6% on a 2015 13" MBP.
Chrome Is Bad
91–100 of 306 posts
Re: Chrome Is Bad
#92the 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…
Apple should allow Firefox and Chrome into the Mac App Store as they are, and have the updating done from there. That’s the solution.
The Mac App Store is for well behaving apps haha. For some definition of well behaving, anyways. This compromise is actually great -- the MAS is available to those who want to live in a cozy little walled garden of perfection. Those who are willing to compromise on security in exchange for apps that have free run of the system are welcome to do that also.
Re: Chrome Is Bad
#93The 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…
Possible correlation and hand waving equals causation. I, too, was hoping for something, well, technical. Considering #1 on hacker news...
Hating Google is very fashionable on HN these days, I'm not surprised to see this so highly voted. I also wouldn't be surprised if most of the upvotes are based on the title/domain rather than the actual "content".
Re: Chrome Is Bad
#94Any actual evidence of the performance impact? This seems thinly supported by evidence.
I think evidence of functional impact might be just as appropriate.
If removing keystone doesn’t harm the user, and may make the computer faster; why would anyone leave it at all?
Re: Chrome Is Bad
#95The window to the internet should not be some monster that takes millions of developer hours and held ransom by a couple of big companies. I should be able to build my own browser in a 3 month sabbatical.
There’s more to the Internet than web pages. Web browsers don’t even get the most runtime on my machine.
Re: Chrome Is Bad
#96The 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…
Because this sounded outlandish, I decided to have a look on my own system. Since the author didn't give any technical details, I grepped `~/Library` and `/Library` for files containing `keystone` in either name or contents. This yielded the following interesting candidates, along with similar entries for daemons etc:
~/Library/LaunchAgents/com.google.keystone.agent.plist
~/Library/Google/GoogleSoftwareUpdate/GoogleSoftwareUpdate.bundle/Contents/Resources/com.google.keystone.agent.plist
Looking through a full system trace in Instruments didn't yield anything interesting either (outside of discovering that I forgot to shut down one of my virtual machines).
All in all, this sounds like hot air, and I can't help but wonder what the motivation behind making this page was.
Re: Chrome Is Bad
#97It 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
What does Chrome do better than Safari?
Does anyone know a way to get Safari to show a preview of the url when you hover over a link?
I tried to switch recently since it's supposed to waste less battery but two things I found were a bad experience after Chrome:
- no decent ad blocker? the one I saw recommended was Ad Guard but that seems to require you to have an Electron app running simultaneously (!) in order for it to block anything
- in Chrome when I hover over a link I see the url in the bottom left 'status' area... I had no idea how much I like this until it wasn't there in Safari... it feels really weird to click on a link and not know where it goes to
Re: Chrome Is Bad
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
Possible correlation and hand waving equals causation. I, too, was hoping for something, well, technical. Considering #1 on hacker news...
That this is so high right now is quite reflective of HN. It's nearly an exact match of the meme like utterance often seen on reddit: "chrome bad".
I think that in HN there is a high quality in the comments and a low quality in the voting of publications, because in the first, people refrain from commenting stupid things because it gets them harsh criticism, but in the second, people can vote for stupid (or low quality) publications because they will not be criticized.
And most of HN (and of social media, and the world in general) is dominated by dumb people.
Re: Chrome Is Bad
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you misunderstood the GP's comment. They aren't advocating to work with Safari, but to work with Firefox then to test with Safari. If it works in Safari after being developed in Firefox, it's likely to work everywhere.
FWIW I haven't found that to be the case with something as simple as making an image autoresize.
Then you can keep a Chromium-based browser like Brave around for some additional testing, even if it's not your daily driver.
Re: Chrome Is Bad
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Or perhaps that Chrome exploits are more useful? In fact, given Firefox's tiny market share (despite my efforts) I'm surprised the disparity isn't higher. Maybe it's harder to find Firefox exploits? It's more likely that more popular browsers equally have more people attempting to crack them; and software in general is so buggy that results probably scale in proportion to the number of people looking.
Thats a valid point if we're referring to relatively unknown browsers. But the main three browsers are all high profile enough that they all have significant eyes on them and are thoroughly tested.
Firefox may have a small market share, but exploits for Firefox may even have more value to some entities/governments, due to its use in Tor Browser.
To clear any confusion, all three are extremely secure in comparison to other types of products (which is why exploits are so expensive), however Chrome just edges ahead, due to its sandboxing, and rapid patch cycle.