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

Chromium: Permit blocking of view-source: with URLBlocklist

chromium-review.googlesource.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 136 posts

Re: Chromium: Permit blocking of view-source: with URLBlocklist

#111

Post by TheIronYuppie »

artkiver wrote: post #106
ericlaw wrote: post #46

To answer a few questions here: 1. I landed this fix because there was a policy that did not work properly. We could instead document that the URLBlocklist policy works for every scheme but one, or we could fix it. Fixing it makes more sense. 2. This policy only can be set on managed machines. 3. This policy, in isolation, is trivially circumvented. Managed environments block many things, including many of the propos…

You're, a moron, I guess? I mean, you work for Microsoft, so you clearly have 0 qualms about supporting the legacy of a robber baron college drop out who plagiarized actual researchers in the field of computer science, multiple times. Have you ever been a LISA scale administrator? A K-12 level County Office of Education administrator? Have you ever helped patch embargoed bugs in codebases such as BIND, used billions…

This is among the most naive, namedropping, rude post I’ve seen in this site, and I’ve been here a long time.

Step out from behind your sock-puppet if you’re going to make attacks like this.

Re: Chromium: Permit blocking of view-source: with URLBlocklist

#112

Post by TheIronYuppie »

I have no idea what everyone’s problem is with this:

- Active Directory/Group Policy/Managed Devices have hundreds of thousands of ways to lock machines down based on the IT staff’s needs (eg disabling USB ports, disabling devtools, etc)

- You will not be affected by this in ANY way if you don’t have a managed machine

- The feature is already there, just broken

If you’re mad about this, get mad at your IT staff?

Re: Chromium: Permit blocking of view-source: with URLBlocklist

#113

Post by TheIronYuppie »

kuschku wrote: post #68
ericlaw wrote: post #46

To answer a few questions here: 1. I landed this fix because there was a policy that did not work properly. We could instead document that the URLBlocklist policy works for every scheme but one, or we could fix it. Fixing it makes more sense. 2. This policy only can be set on managed machines. 3. This policy, in isolation, is trivially circumvented. Managed environments block many things, including many of the propos…

Many of the best people in IT are there today, because they got curious about how stuff worked, experimented with it, broke the rules, and learned from that. This curiosity needs to be encouraged, not stopped. The young generation in IT already has issues because many of them don’t understand files, and many of them can’t even use a computer anymore. They grow up with tech all around them, but because all of it is cl…

Do they grow up with managed machines?

Re: Chromium: Permit blocking of view-source: with URLBlocklist

#114

Post by J-Kuhn »

TheIronYuppie wrote: post #113
kuschku wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of the best people in IT are there today, because they got curious about how stuff worked, experimented with it, broke the rules, and learned from that. This curiosity needs to be encouraged, not stopped. The young generation in IT already has issues because many of them don’t understand files, and many of them can’t even use a computer anymore. They grow up with tech all around them, but because all of it is cl…

Do they grow up with managed machines?

Unfortunately, the answer is sometimes: yes.

Some students get a managed device from their school - and are allowed to take it home.

There have been already some scandals revolving around those devices. From school accessing their webcam - and trying to discipline someone for taking drugs when they ate jelly beans.

Re: Chromium: Permit blocking of view-source: with URLBlocklist

#115

Post by gsich »

ddalex wrote: post #83
arcbyte wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the link to vote, no registration required: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/

~3/4 out of Firefox users have their analytics disabled if you're invisible your vote doesn't count anywhere ....

If you depend on metrics you get a product like Firefox. Worse with every iteration.

Re: Chromium: Permit blocking of view-source: with URLBlocklist

#116

Post by dang »

artkiver wrote: post #106
ericlaw wrote: post #46

To answer a few questions here: 1. I landed this fix because there was a policy that did not work properly. We could instead document that the URLBlocklist policy works for every scheme but one, or we could fix it. Fixing it makes more sense. 2. This policy only can be set on managed machines. 3. This policy, in isolation, is trivially circumvented. Managed environments block many things, including many of the propos…

You're, a moron, I guess? I mean, you work for Microsoft, so you clearly have 0 qualms about supporting the legacy of a robber baron college drop out who plagiarized actual researchers in the field of computer science, multiple times. Have you ever been a LISA scale administrator? A K-12 level County Office of Education administrator? Have you ever helped patch embargoed bugs in codebases such as BIND, used billions…

It's not ok to post like this to HN. I've banned the account.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Re: Chromium: Permit blocking of view-source: with URLBlocklist

#117

Post by delif »

dang wrote: post #116
artkiver wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're, a moron, I guess? I mean, you work for Microsoft, so you clearly have 0 qualms about supporting the legacy of a robber baron college drop out who plagiarized actual researchers in the field of computer science, multiple times. Have you ever been a LISA scale administrator? A K-12 level County Office of Education administrator? Have you ever helped patch embargoed bugs in codebases such as BIND, used billions…

It's not ok to post like this to HN. I've banned the account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html .

You know whats funny dang that you let misinformation about vaccination and other made up shit from old accounts go without even giving warnings. You know what lets do a little test and mirror this site for 4 weeks lets say every 5 minutes just to look what your agenda really is. see you in a month.

Re: Chromium: Permit blocking of view-source: with URLBlocklist

#118

Post by ericlaw »

2Gkashmiri wrote: post #102
ryanmcdonough wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a computer level browser policy rather than something the website can request the browser to honour.

who says this isnt normalized in regular chrome as a security feature and later into firefox because "industry"

The many many upstart browsers (including mine) that are eager for Chrome to do something so foolish so we can collect all of their irate users?

Re: Chromium: Permit blocking of view-source: with URLBlocklist

#119

Post by borland »

ericlaw wrote: post #46

To answer a few questions here: 1. I landed this fix because there was a policy that did not work properly. We could instead document that the URLBlocklist policy works for every scheme but one, or we could fix it. Fixing it makes more sense. 2. This policy only can be set on managed machines. 3. This policy, in isolation, is trivially circumvented. Managed environments block many things, including many of the propos…

> We could instead document that the URLBlocklist policy works for every scheme but one, or we could fix it. Fixing it makes more sense.

What makes more sense - a small documentation update to explain an edge case scenario, or a breaking change across the web? Hint: it's not the one that involves code changes.

Post reply on HN