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

Chrome Is Bad

chromeisbad.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 306 posts

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#181

Post by Aeolun »

crazygringo wrote: post #102

This should not be the #1 story on HN right now. :( It's a single anecdote that deleting Chrome on two computers sped them up. It provides zero evidence (even anecdotal) that it has anything to do with "Keystone" specifically. It provides zero evidence for the idea that "Keystone" is able to "nefariously hide itself from Activity Monitor". And it also completely contradicts the normal user experience of Chrome, which…

I think the thing is that the title is ‘chrome is bad’, and that’s something most of the crowd here can sort of agree with for a variety of reasons.

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#182

Post by hyperdimension »

arcticbull wrote: post #92
rangoon626 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple should allow Firefox and Chrome into the Mac App Store as they are, and have the updating done from there. That’s the solution.

The Mac App Store is for well behaving apps haha. For some definition of well behaving, anyways. This compromise is actually great -- the MAS is available to those who want to live in a cozy little walled garden of perfection. Those who are willing to compromise on security in exchange for apps that have free run of the system are welcome to do that also.

This argument sounds eerily familiar, but I can't quite place it...

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#183

Post by Aeolun »

nostromo wrote: post #106
Etheryte wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because this sounded outlandish, I decided to have a look on my own system. Since the author didn't give any technical details, I grepped `~/Library` and `/Library` for files containing `keystone` in either name or contents. This yielded the following interesting candidates, along with similar entries for daemons etc: ~/Library/LaunchAgents/com.google.keystone.agent.plist ~/Library/Google/GoogleSoftwareUpdate/GoogleS…

> I can't help but wonder what the motivation behind making this page was. Why would you immediately jump to assuming bad faith? No grand conspiracy required... the author believes that Chrome is slowing down his Mac and decided to share it. The end.

And domains are dirt cheap nowadays, so it’s not as if the author is out a lot of money.

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#184

Post by artiszt »

libria wrote: post #143
Blikkentrekker wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm quite impressed by that “chromeisbad” as a domain was not already taken.

With the amount of rebuttals in this thread, I'm impressed `chromeisgood.com` isn't taken.

right

besides, most probably would learn themselves the hard way when put in the same position the OP detailed

problems with Goo are widely known in circles of the Mac-communities ever since Goo-acc's first became avail in the beginning only by invitation, back then

also worth to look into the history of why, when and by whom LS aka LittleSnitch was developed in the first place -- tho this was more related to issues with that then must-go-to site 'versiontracker' [for all sorts of Mac shareware] and a vintaged firewall [3rd party] product widely used that time that didn't work as advertised

a Mac OS w/out LS these days ? back then very few only were concerned with 'calling-/phoning-home' issues on a scale nobody could imagine, least speak or post about in public, in those pre-iPhone ages

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#185

Post by Aeolun »

ehsankia wrote: post #175
z3t4 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So users are expected to run debugger tools in order to figure out what some hidden program is doing? Many years back I couldn't sleep and noticed my HDD's was working hard. I checked and it was google updater that was scanning everything... I will never know why, they might be stealing IP (i was working on OCR at the time) or they just wanted to create a profile to serve better ads...

> So users are expected to run debugger tools in order to figure out what some hidden program is doing? That's like saying "So we're expected to investigate and have a full trial before sending someone to jail?". If you just want to delete it, go ahead. If you want to go as far as creating a whole domain to blame Chrome, yes, you do need more than just "I deleted it and coincidentally my computer got fast".

> If you want to go as far as creating a whole domain to blame Chrome, yes, you do need more than just "I deleted it and coincidentally my computer got fast".

I think the fact that the site exists and is a pretty highly ranked story on HN probably proves that incorrect.

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#186

Post by dang »

crazygringo wrote: post #102

This should not be the #1 story on HN right now. :( It's a single anecdote that deleting Chrome on two computers sped them up. It provides zero evidence (even anecdotal) that it has anything to do with "Keystone" specifically. It provides zero evidence for the idea that "Keystone" is able to "nefariously hide itself from Activity Monitor". And it also completely contradicts the normal user experience of Chrome, which…

Indignation attracts upvotes, then flags. When an indignant post is relatively empty or misleading, flags will eventually win, but it's like the immune system—it takes some time to marshall enoguh white blood cells.

This is a nice case because moderators only saw it after the process was done.

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#187

Post by [deleted] »

ma2rten wrote: post #76

This must be how things like some alternative medicine and anti-vax start: Things like feeling healthy and your computer being slow can be very subjective. The author appears to be technical enough to know that there is something called keystone on his computer, but not technical enough to benchmark and investigate further. The name keystone sounds kind of nefarious, so it makes sense that someone would be able to co…

[deleted]

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#188

Post by dang »

_qulr wrote: post #180
ehsankia wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, for one, going as far as buying a domain for a single rant is a little bit suspicious. If at least it was a website dedicated to gathering issues with chrome, but a single issue with zero evidence or research. That's not generally how people "decide to share it". Sure looks suspicious and not the content I expect to see on HN.

The author is the well-known Loren Brichter: https://twitter.com/lorenb/status/1337832978253230081 So there's unlikely to be a conspiracy, just a dude with too much money and self-importance.

Personal attacks are not ok here. Please don't respond to a comment that breaks the site guidelines by breaking them yourself. That just makes the thread even worse.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#189

Post by Ma8ee »

epakai wrote: post #103
qz2 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh this is normal. People upvote the title, then comment, then read it if the comments aren’t agreeing with their preconception. Humans are a mess of a species.

Sounds like a design issue. Why does the front page have an upvote button if we expect people to read the post/article first?

Because some people check the linked article only and might never look at the comments.

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#190

Post by dang »

ehsankia wrote: post #171
nostromo wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can't help but wonder what the motivation behind making this page was. Why would you immediately jump to assuming bad faith? No grand conspiracy required... the author believes that Chrome is slowing down his Mac and decided to share it. The end.

Well, for one, going as far as buying a domain for a single rant is a little bit suspicious. If at least it was a website dedicated to gathering issues with chrome, but a single issue with zero evidence or research. That's not generally how people "decide to share it". Sure looks suspicious and not the content I expect to see on HN.

"Assume good faith."

"Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Post reply on HN