Basically, fuck you too Google. For sucking the open source community
Guidance to developers affected by effort to block less secure browsers, apps
141–150 of 165 posts
Re: Guidance to developers affected by effort to block less secure browsers, apps
#142Welcome to Google's private World Wide Web. Please ensure that you use the one and only official Google WWW client (others exist, but they are just for show). Unauthorized alteration of its configured operation will result in user termination. One might wonder how that can accompany all the talk about open standards, and multitude of devices implementing different subsets, and responsive/adaptive/semantic design, etc…
Precisely
Re: Guidance to developers affected by effort to block less secure browsers, apps
#143This is a campaign against Lynx! > The browser must have JavaScript enabled. > You must confirm that your browser does not contain any of the following: > * Text-based browsers Once upon a time the internet was TCP with things like FTP, Email, Newsgroups, IRC and yes also HTTP (aka WWW). Now, the internet seems to be Google, Apple, Facebook aaand SEO. Hey, wait! There is a small shiny place!! Hackernews! :)
My site still works in Lynx, nojs, and Netscape.
Google is leaving the web behind, doing its own thing.
That is fine.
Re: Guidance to developers affected by effort to block less secure browsers, apps
#144This has nothing to do with security and everything to do with banning tools like youtube-dl, wget and others; from the post: > The browser must identify itself clearly in the User-Agent. The browser must not try to impersonate another browser like Chrome or Firefox. > The browser must not provide automation features. This includes scripts that automate keystrokes or clicks, especially to perform automatic sign-ins.…
This is kind-of funny requirement given the history of user-agent strings being incredibly convoluted.
I mean Chrome doesn't clearly identify itself as Chrome, it still identifies itself as Apple Webkit
Re: Guidance to developers affected by effort to block less secure browsers, apps
#145If browsers which does "server-side rendering" are blocked from accessing my Google Account, I lose my access to all Google services requiring sign-in like Gmail etc. I don't have the privilege to own a desktop, laptop, or even smartphone. I am using a J2ME enabled feature phone with Opera Mini to access the internet. Most websites requiring "modern browsers" are out of reach from me. Thanks to all the people who mai…
Always welcome all browsers and configurations.
Re: Guidance to developers affected by effort to block less secure browsers, apps
#146This only concerns auth?
Re: Guidance to developers affected by effort to block less secure browsers, apps
#147Next step: The browser must not be anything but Chrome.
Please stop spreading FUD on HN.
FUD? You still do not see the frog boiling after years of pushing Chrome and mindwashing developers into creating sites that only work in Chrome?
Google is the one "spreading FUD". Just look at the downvoting going on in the discussion and you'll see some pretty obvious attempts to silence anti-Google criticism.
Re: Guidance to developers affected by effort to block less secure browsers, apps
#148"The browser must not proxy or alter the network communication. Your browser must not do any of the following:
* Rewrite HTTP headers
* Headless browsers
* Text-based browsers"
HN does not impose such restrictions. It is no less useful than Google, IMO. Imagine if HN required "a reasonably complete implementation of web standards and browser features" just to sign in.
I once read that Marissa Mayer, former Google VP, still uses Pine.
Bias disclosure: I am a text-only browser user; I prefer text-only software.
Re: Guidance to developers affected by effort to block less secure browsers, apps
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, Chrome on iOS is ‘only’ a 118 mb application! And much of that is also in Google Maps, the Google Docs apps etc.
Chrome on iOS isn't even a real thing, it's just an app embedding Safari like every other app with a webview (because Apple's draconian policies forbid alternate browser engines). All the other Google apps also have to use Safari for any web stuff.
I'm surprised such draconian policies still haven't been challenged in court like Microsoft or Google have.
Re: Guidance to developers affected by effort to block less secure browsers, apps
#150This is a campaign against Lynx! > The browser must have JavaScript enabled. > You must confirm that your browser does not contain any of the following: > * Text-based browsers Once upon a time the internet was TCP with things like FTP, Email, Newsgroups, IRC and yes also HTTP (aka WWW). Now, the internet seems to be Google, Apple, Facebook aaand SEO. Hey, wait! There is a small shiny place!! Hackernews! :)
This is regarding man-in-the-middle attacks. There is not attack on Lynx. Many sites do not functionin without JavaScript. Sad, but that's the way it is.
Google is actually misrepresenting the danger in their blogpost, because they write "One form of phishing, known as man-in-the-middle,..." - this statement is clearly false because MITM is not phishing. Not in any stretch of the definition. So who knows what is the real justification.