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

211–220 of 306 posts

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#211

Post by eduardb »

thewebcount wrote: post #136
Siyo wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most likely the issue was resolved by the reboot, not by uninstalling Chrome. From my experience Mac OS tends to slow down after a few days. Animations and scrolling gets choppy and there's nothing I can do to fix it, short of rebooting.

I use macOS daily for months at a time without rebooting and have not seen this problem on any of the 5 Macs I've been using for the past several years, for what that's worth. It does seem like it's something specific to your machine.

The question is: Chrome, or no Chrome? xD

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#212

Post by jovial_galileo »

Fuck this site! Firefox devs are working their butts off to make a bbetter web for all of us and this site says not to use it?

As a Firefox contributor in my spare time I really feel offended. You would prefer a monopoly with tons more money and a lot less features? You would also prefer a shady centralized shitcoin funded by vulture capitalists?

Please recommend Firefox. It's the only honest browser out there. The servo team has been fired because we told our friends and family to use bloated spyware.

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#213

Post by arcticbull »

hyperdimension wrote: post #182
arcticbull wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This argument sounds eerily familiar, but I can't quite place it...

I know I can’t because the iOS App Store argument is “and you can’t have it any other way.” On macOS for as long as you can have it other ways I’m totally ok with it.

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#214

Post by varenc »

tomaskafka wrote: post #205
saagarjha wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is because since macOS Catalina Activity Monitor did something to itself to make itself spend half a core just updating its table view and literally nobody who works on it (which I suspect is <1 person) understands that a monitoring tool that uses more CPU than the thing it is meant to monitor is absurd. I have seriously considered rewriting it multiple times and if the app stays like it is one day I probably wi…

Please do! I like Mac, but I yearn a quality of 1st and 3rd party Windows tools. Task manager is nicely readable and lightweight, and process explorer is a godsend. Meanwhile Activity Monitor updates once per 30 seconds when the system is under load.

Agreed! I recently used Windows for the first time in years, and was impressed by two of the built in monitoring programs. It was dead simple to actually get a global view of all file system activity and the processes responsible. Mac’s first party "fs_usage" tool is far less usable. As an example, there’s no way to prevent it from truncating long paths.

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#215

Post by boogies »

wnevets wrote: post #198
coldtea wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hating Google is very fashionable on HN these days Well, why shouldn't it be?

Why shouldn't apple? For some reason apple gets a pass on HN for things like fighting to keep forced labor camps open [1]. Lets hate Google AND Apple. 1. https://9to5mac.com/2020/11/23/anti-forced-labour-bill-apple...

Seriously, why not? And why was wnevets getting downvoted?

The linked article references a source I’m sure most on HN would agree is reputable, to the extent it confirms their biases.

> A report in [The Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/11/20/apple-u...) claims that Apple is trying to weaken provisions in the bill.

> > Apple lobbyists are trying to weaken a bill aimed at preventing forced labor in China, according to two congressional staffers familiar with the matter, highlighting the clash between its business imperatives and its official stance on human rights.

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#216

Post by CRConrad »

comex wrote: post #14

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…

I may have got it wrong, but I interpreted the page to say only that Chrome and/or its updater made Window Server work hard, not that they're impersonating it.

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#217

Post by disposekinetics »

leggenda47 wrote: post #142
crazygringo wrote: post #102

This should not be the #1 story on HN right now. :( It's a single anecdote that deleting Chrome on two computers sped them up. It provides zero evidence (even anecdotal) that it has anything to do with "Keystone" specifically. It provides zero evidence for the idea that "Keystone" is able to "nefariously hide itself from Activity Monitor". And it also completely contradicts the normal user experience of Chrome, which…

My WindowServer usage was over 90% before but it went back down to under 10% after I did what he said. I also only needed it to test one site I was developing. I had the exact same things he did: MBP slow even when nothing is running, WindowServer always running high. So I think I can vouch for it being true. It seems to have worked for me also. EDIT: Maybe it's just placebo. I checked the CPU usage on WindowServer b…

After reading your post I did the same thing. Similar results 90% to 20% in my case. Anecdotes aren't data but I am glad I tried.

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#218

Post by arcticbull »

saagarjha wrote: post #168
arcticbull wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Mac App Store is really for scamware, it seems like…

Now that I haven’t heard!

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#219

Post by CRConrad »

Aeolun wrote: post #194
prox wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This point is truly worthy of an article or domain name. People here ask why there is so much “hate” for Chrome, but forget something important, that it doesn’t fall out of the sky. More and more I find that sites / apps work badly on my FF or Safari. It’s truly shameful and that IS my why absolutely am disappointed with Chrome and devs who can’t be arsed to do the work for other browsers.

If you’ve never been in the IE era maybe it’s hard to believe/understand that browsers are different enough to make that necessary.

How does it make it necessary for developers not to be arsed to do the work for other browsers?

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#220

Post by sneak »

f1refly wrote: post #51
sneak wrote: post #10

Chrome's security is, however, light years ahead of anyone else's; it remains the sole reason I still use it. It's possible to use Little Snitch to deny Keystone/ksupdate all network access, which is what I do, which removes the Google RCE vulnerability it places on your machine. Make sure to periodically manually update Chrome, however.

> chrome's security is, however, light years ahead of anyone else's give evidence to support your claim. I've been using Firefox for the past 10 years and I fail to see how it's insecure. I do see however, how it's not nearly as user-hostile as chrome.

I don't need to have a working exploit for Firefox to accurately state that it's easier to exploit Firefox than it is Chrome.

I encourage you to read writeups on the patched bugs for Chrome sometime.

Post reply on HN