21–30 of 71 posts
Another day, another step closer to Apple.
Presumably Chromium has no such restriction.
Another day, another step closer to Apple.
There's a comment on the Chromium blog [1] (via magicalist's comment [2]) that nails this: if security is all they cared about, a signed certificate is all that's necessary. Knowing that option exists and persisting with their store-only approach means they must have an ulterior motive of some sort, most likely control and money. Ad blockers that target Google Ads will be no more, as well as anything else that the us…
I am displeased by this change. Although the Firefox version of my extension is more work to develop, I will be pouring most of my resources into that in the future. I currently have a product that uses a Chrome extension to work. I am privately beta'ing it out by hosting it on my own website. Because I don't want to be killed with negative reviews of my unpolished first version in the Chrome store. Now I am forced t…
I don't think anyone would have a problem if this was a simple opt-in system like downloading unofficial apk's on android. Only a select few would be opting in, and those are not the core audience that Google is pretending to be security conscious about.
Giving no ability to switch on this ability for a normal user makes Google lose face with the general tech community. I don't understand the reasons behind this.
And even if it does affect a ton of users, I'm sure there are other ways for Google to fix this, even if not completely. But assuming for a moment this wasn't a malicious move from Google's part, I'm still angry with the lazy decision to "just close off non-store extensions" to fix the problem.
Should I expect side-loading to be gone from Android soon, too, Google? Don't you dare!
The way Android handles this issue is the best possible compromise (there will always be a compromise between security and freedom - and that's a great thing). In Android sideloading is disabled by default, and if a user knows what he's doing, he'll enable it and do whatever he wants.
So why can't Google do the same with Chrome?! Disable sideloading by default, but still keep the option in settings somewhere. What's the big deal? Unless they have a completely different agenda behind this...
Also, I'm not sure, but do Chrome extensions work in Opera or Safari? I think it's about time we call Google on this and ask them to open up the format, so other browsers can use the same extensions. The browser shouldn't be another vector for "lock-in".
I'm guessing it's time for alternatives then. Has anyone tried the new Opera, and what other browsers are out there? Or maybe I'm just overreacting.
So it depends on which features you'd prefer to keep.
I can definitely recommend using Pinboard for your bookmarks anyway.
However, to fully remove the ability to install third party extensions is just ludicrous.
I develop a small Chrome application for internal use at my workplace. The staff love it, it helps them do their jobs a lot quicker. I don't see any easy way other than (as mentioned), building Chromium to remove this limit, as has been done before with crx files.
Might just move to Firefox and take my workforce following with me!
actual source instead of useless techcrunch filler: http://blog.chromium.org/2013/11/protecting-windows-users-fr... Wasn't this already largely the case? You have to manually download extensions and then drag them into the extensions manager to install them outside the store right now, don't you? The only change here seems to be that now you need a checked "Developer mode" box in order for that to work. I guess that…
Developer mode only allows installing unpacked extensions, no?