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

Google Chromium drops support for Linux 3.16 and earlier

lists.debian.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–139 of 139 posts

Re: Google Chromium drops support for Linux 3.16 and earlier

#131

Post by RaleyField »

strcat wrote: post #113
honestthrowaway wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google invented sandboxing in client apps? I don't know who's more arrogant - Google or their fawning fanboys.

Google created seccomp-bpf which is crucial to a meaningful sandbox and has no equivalent on other platforms. It was not an obvious innovation or it would have been done years earlier. It exists because someone paid by Google to improve Chromium security had the epiphany that BPF would be a good way to filter system calls.

Isn't seccomp-bpf similar to OpenBSD's (failed) systrace? Both are basically filters for system calls if I'm not mistaken.

Re: Google Chromium drops support for Linux 3.16 and earlier

#133

Post by colechristensen »

reidrac wrote: post #129
izacus wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but we ARE talking about arguably the most important piece of software running on an end-user device not being supported on a less than ONE YEAR old distribution. Not 5 years, not 15 years. Less than a year. The result of your argument is basically returning to dark ages of having to support old broken IE6 because the vendor couldn't be arsed to support an older platform. When did dropping support for a le…

My argument is that open source is what it is. Read the license and you'll find that there's nothing about free support; and if for some reason it breaks... you keep both pieces. I know this puts distributions in a bad situation, but unless the users can force the upstream project to be more user friendly, I think the only option is to switch to a different software (hint: Firefox). You seem to think I endorse Chrome…

Open source is what it is, but not all open source is equal.

I often see versions of this argument more or less opposing complaints against open source products. It has some merit, depending on circumstances. Circumstances are important.

Chrome isn't some guy's spare time project, or something done by a team of corporate and personal volunteers. Chrome is a product. Looking for Google's valuation comes up with an analysis that it will likely be the first or second company to be valued at a trillion dollars. Chrome enjoys nearly a 50% browser market share. Google has one of the strongest hands in shaping technology today, and it seems they aren't always making the best decisions; not that one would expect such a large company to always make the best decisions (or that there would be a consensus on _what_ is the best decision).

I've never paid for anything made by Google, but I am a customer regardless; so are you. Money hasn't changed hands but they have certainly profited from the relationship, and so have I.

---

"If you don't like it, submit a pull request" -- that response always rubs me the wrong way. To be clear, some of the loudest complainers about open source projects are entirely too entitled, but those that aren't do have a point sometimes. I believe that whether you are a guy with a hobby making $0 or a company valued at $3.8 * 10^11, you owe it to yourself and your users to maintain a certain level of quality if you create a popular product. More of a personal philosophy than the expectation of a legal obligation of course, but I think just as valid.

Re: Google Chromium drops support for Linux 3.16 and earlier

#134

Post by igravious »

kjksf wrote: post #80
igravious wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'd be nice if they used some of their massive pile of cash to back-port that feature and generate a ton of good will.

Google does a lot of Linux kernel work, a lot of gcc work, a lot of clang work, open-sources monumental amounts of code, pays several hundred students to work on open-source during summer. If that's not enough to "generate a ton of good will" then doing one more minor thing won't change anything. If they start giving out hundred dollar bills, you'll be complaining that it's not two hundred dollar bills.

I'm aware of the work they do. A couple of stupid decisions can cancel out a lot of good will. Not back-porting key pieces of tech and sunsetting products without open-sourcing them is going to counteract the good will they generate. I actually don't dislike Google, and appreciate that they've been a decent open-source player.

This is not so minor.

If they start handing out hundred dollar bills I would think they'd gone nuts.

Re: Google Chromium drops support for Linux 3.16 and earlier

#135

Post by johnsea »

davidw wrote: post #76
johnsea wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is the unprofessional one. Threaten to not support Jessie, hey? What an arrogant self-referred world Google lives in?

I think Google is more or less "in the wrong" too, but a less snippy, snarky response would probably do more to convince people of that. "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar", as they say.

Probably yes.

As a non-native english speaker it is quite difficult to find an enough but not too much snippy/snarky response (had e.g. to lookup these words)).

Re: Google Chromium drops support for Linux 3.16 and earlier

#136

Post by reidrac »

colechristensen wrote: post #133
reidrac wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My argument is that open source is what it is. Read the license and you'll find that there's nothing about free support; and if for some reason it breaks... you keep both pieces. I know this puts distributions in a bad situation, but unless the users can force the upstream project to be more user friendly, I think the only option is to switch to a different software (hint: Firefox). You seem to think I endorse Chrome…

Open source is what it is, but not all open source is equal. I often see versions of this argument more or less opposing complaints against open source products. It has some merit, depending on circumstances. Circumstances are important. Chrome isn't some guy's spare time project, or something done by a team of corporate and personal volunteers. Chrome is a product. Looking for Google's valuation comes up with an ana…

Good comment, thanks.

I always have mixed feelings when Google has a project with two versions: the open source one and the binary only based on that one. Chrome and Chromium are not quite the same thing after all.

I don't know for sure, but for Google Chrome may be the product and Chromium just a convenient way to make it happen.

Re: Google Chromium drops support for Linux 3.16 and earlier

#137

Post by stingraycharles »

johnsea wrote: post #135
davidw wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Google is more or less "in the wrong" too, but a less snippy, snarky response would probably do more to convince people of that. "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar", as they say.

Probably yes. As a non-native english speaker it is quite difficult to find an enough but not too much snippy/snarky response (had e.g. to lookup these words)).

What are you implying, that when English is not your native tongue, it is easier to be snarky?

English is a second language to me, and I cannot imagine this being true.

Re: Google Chromium drops support for Linux 3.16 and earlier

#138

Post by zobzu »

strcat wrote: post #109
zobzu wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chrome certainly didn't pioneer anything. Google devs brought seccomp-bpf to the kernel, which is a simpler alternative (but also not always as useable) to many other mechanisms. Chrome is one of the first products on linux with a large amount of users to support a reasonably strong sandbox. But that's not what pioneering means. Of course, seccomp-nonbpf, selinux and quite a few other mechanisms have been around for…

> Of course, seccomp-nonbpf, selinux and quite a few other mechanisms have been around for a longer while. In non-Linux kernels in fact, there are FAR more secure mechanisms (but also, they don't run Linux binaries..) You're quite confused. SELinux, AppArmor, SMACK, etc. do not overlap with seccomp-bpf which exists to protect the kernel itself. Chromium has a working sandbox with or without seccomp-bpf based on a chr…

they actually do the control in a very similar way. its the model of how the control is decided that differs. in other words, they're all blocking syscalls depending on the arguments/syscall name/etc. LSMs and seccomp-bpf alike.

So no, I'm not confused :)

Re: Google Chromium drops support for Linux 3.16 and earlier

#139

Post by zobzu »

pacala wrote: post #118
zobzu wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chrome certainly didn't pioneer anything. Google devs brought seccomp-bpf to the kernel, which is a simpler alternative (but also not always as useable) to many other mechanisms. Chrome is one of the first products on linux with a large amount of users to support a reasonably strong sandbox. But that's not what pioneering means. Of course, seccomp-nonbpf, selinux and quite a few other mechanisms have been around for…

There is no stable sandboxed browser protecting against kernel vulnerabilities on any platform that I know of prior to Chrome. That's the very definition of pioneering. Do you have an example of prior art? There may be sandboxing mechanisms in various kernels, but that's not what browser users care about. As for the other points: * "seccomp-nonbpf" is a vastly more limited mechanism than seccomp-bfp, and inappropriat…

if you give enough details you'll always find a way to work around words. For example if i ship a copy of webkit with my ui on top with a sandbox I'll pioneer that. Or a shell. Or a text editor. Or whatever you want. A blue wheel of 29.0349in on a bike. etc.

I'm not sure why I'm even replying sometimes.

Post reply on HN