Live data from Hacker News

Why I’m done with Chrome

blog.cryptographyengineering.com

141–150 of 876 posts

Re: Why I’m done with Chrome

#141
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the problem I'm trying to solve is "how to use gmail on chromium without syncing to google" not "how to use email that isn't gmail". I like gmail web mail a lot, and don't have any desire to switch. It seems absurd that my web browser would be incompatible with that.

Firefox, Edge, Safari, pretty much all non-chromium browsers are compatible with gmail.

For now. For example, Hangout video chat worked in Safari (much better than Chrome even). The new Meet video chat does not work in Safari.

Re: Why I’m done with Chrome

#142

At least on iOS and macOS I see no reason not to use Safari, Edge on Windows is pretty good too. Power users will stop recommending Chrome to the average user after these changes and over time market share will hopefully decline.

It’s tough to use Safari if you’re a web developer; Chrome tends to be better at rendering pages and in overall performance, as well as adopting features quicker than Apple.

Re: Why I’m done with Chrome

#145
These changes are really shocking. I’ve stopped using chrome a week ago for entirely different reasons and happy to hear one has managed to avoid sll this mess. I’m using 3 different gapos accounts, that would be some serious mess. Even if this change is reverted, I’m not going to switch back. By chrome, it was nice for a pretty long time.

Re: Why I’m done with Chrome

#146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you should ditch Gmail instead?

Maybe you should ditch Gmail instead? I'm thinking about doing that. The single reason I started with GMail was because at the time, it had the best spam filter in the industry. But that was years ago. Has everyone else caught up? Is there another option with equally good spam filtering?

I used to self-host because I could run really strict spam filtering. Unfortunately Sonic dropped their plans to offer static IPs and reverse DNS with their fiber products so I'm stuck with using their servers as a smarthost at least. Can't say I enjoy it (especially with their all-day outage this week), but it does give me a chance to at least easily run aggressive spamassasin filters.

Re: Why I’m done with Chrome

#147
post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Firefox is a truly fantastic browser now I've been seeing people repeat that for the past 5 years. It turns out to be false though.

Could you elaborate in this?

My opinion is that the UX is no where near as polished. The history and bookmark features still look like they're from 10 years ago, and subtler things that are just given thought to because there seem to be dedicated UI/UX designer on the chrome team.

Re: Why I’m done with Chrome

#149

For now at least, there's this escape hatch: chrome://flags/#account-consistency Edit: Some are saying this doesn't work on Chrome 69. :(

This flag is not really working. Just checked it (chrome 69.0.3497.100)

Aw man. It's working on 68! Guess I have to avoid upgrading for now. Thanks.

Re: Why I’m done with Chrome

#150
post #50

For now at least, there's this escape hatch: chrome://flags/#account-consistency Edit: Some are saying this doesn't work on Chrome 69. :(

When you're looking for escape hatches, you know the software is working against you. At that point, it's better to move to an alternative browser, it's not worth it to fight it with hacks. If too many people use the escape hatch, they'll remove it.

It seems as though the needed escape hatch is a browser that simply CAN'T send info about you back to home base. Firefox might qualify, but I don't know for sure, and I don't want that to be our only option. There's a lot of great engineering that goes into Chrome.

So I'm wondering: Is enough code open sourced to make it possible for an organization such as Apache, GNU, or whatever, to create a sanitized fork of each new version of Chrome? This would be a version of Chrome with no privileged party other than its user. Every other party would be limited to the same set of features (cookies, local storage, etc.) that apply to all 2nd parties.

Post reply on HN