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

231–240 of 306 posts

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#231

Post by diebeforei485 »

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 it's kinda sus that Google doesn't provide any sort of instructions or script to uninstall Keystone. Why not?

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#232

Post by diebeforei485 »

lorenb wrote: post #225
jodrellblank wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The page says " I deleted Chrome, and all the files Keystone had littered on the computer, restarted, and it was so snappy it felt like a brand new computer. Yeah, I realize this sounds like a freakin' infomercial, but it worked so well I spent $5 on a domain name and set up this website even if it makes me sound like a raving nut. " To then "wonder what the motivation is" is to suggest that you don't believe this si…

Yeah, there was no super master plan here, just that after dealing with one sluggish computer for days (you name it, I tried it), and another one for 5 years... the fact that it turned out to be slow because of an app that wasn't even running was pretty frustrating. Filing a bug report that would get "works on my machine"'d and then ignored and auto-closed by a bot in 5 years didn't quite feel worthy. Auto-updating b…

What's a good way to verify that I've removed Keystone completely? Google doesn't provide any sort of uninstaller or uninstall instructions.

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#233

Post by dang »

_qulr wrote: post #195
dang wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This entire submission has been flagged, so it appears that Hacker News itself sees something seriously wrong with the author's web site. Anyway, FWIW, I was defending the author from the charge of doing something suspicious.

> a dude with too much money and self-importance

Personal attacks are not ok on HN. Please don't post like that again, regardless of whom you're defending.

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#234

Post by sbarre »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #210
collinvandyck76 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple, Microsoft, Mozilla, Google

Well, Microsoft gave up and are using Google's browser. And Mozilla just downsized the Firefox team (and they're paid by Google to keep Firefox going, basically). And Safari is only ever a presence on Apple computers, which Apple already control completely. It's not really a huge competition...

Microsoft Edge is not "Google's browser". It uses the Chromium rendering engine but it's still developed and distributed by Microsoft, which means they own the telemetry, the features, the defaults, and the user experience (which are the parts that matter, no one cares about the renderer from a business POV).

Google has Chrome, we've covered that already.

Apple has Safari.

Firefox exists, and is only funded by Google - in my opinion - to fend off anti-trust at this point.

Just because Google has more or less won the browser wars doesn't mean all those other companies wouldn't _love_ to regain market share in the future.

And perhaps they will. Owning that window is hugely valuable and lucrative, so why wouldn't they?

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#235

Post by silexia »

dang wrote: post #186
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.

Hundreds of people commented and how many tens of thousands read it first though? Reminds me of the moderation problem big tech companies face. Humans are prone to confirmation bias which means that when they read inaccurate information that confirms a bias it even further twist people's brains. For example, this article likely twisted thousands of people just a little further against Google even with though there was no good reason for it.

My grandpa twenty years ago had some legitimate gripes with the other side of the political aisle. However, he has seen so many biased and false news stories that his confirmation bias has accepted as truth without critical thinking that he now believes the other side is literally made up of evil criminals intent on destroying the country.

The only solution I can think of is something like a libel law that makes anyone who publishes false information liable to anyone who reads that information... Basically, cut out the enormous amount of garbage produced by media and people chasing pennies. People should only publish things they firmly believe based on evidence to be true.

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#236

Post by rangoon626 »

devmunchies wrote: post #166
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.

and Apple take 30% of transactions you make in Chrome and FF? Desktop is less of a walled garden than ios. i hope it stays that way.

They could make an exception, for the larger benefits to their platform. Custom updaters are helping no one, and it seems like the spark has left Sparkle (the last I looked, sparkle 1 was for an era long past, and sparkle 2 was still incomplete).

On an alternate timeline, Apple could have allowed software vendors to hook into the old software update application, and pull in updates through that mechanism, in addition to the first party updates.

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#237

Post by wutbrodo »

coldtea wrote: post #160
fartcannon wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google, Amazon and Facebook. Microsoft gets it in the comment section, mostly. Only Apple is truly safe on HN.

> Only Apple is truly safe on HN. Not even close to being true...

Yea, I would've agreed ten years ago but Apple gets plenty of criticism here these days.

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#238

Post by astrange »

leggenda47 wrote: post #142
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…

My WindowServer usage was over 90% before but it went back down to under 10% after I did what he said. I also only needed it to test one site I was developing. I had the exact same things he did: MBP slow even when nothing is running, WindowServer always running high. So I think I can vouch for it being true. It seems to have worked for me also. EDIT: Maybe it's just placebo. I checked the CPU usage on WindowServer b…

If you’re having visible performance problems, file a report with Feedback Assistant. It’s ok if it seems to be a 3rd party app causing the issue.

(High CPU use isn’t necessarily a real performance issue and might be caused by just having Activity Monitor open.)

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#239

Post by alexeiz »

rhencke wrote: post #84
SXX wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fortunatelly on Linux it's just using standard repositories.

Yes... except the Chrome package adds updating itself to your cron scripts without telling you. :/

I used to be concerned about it. But so does Brave and other Chromium-based browsers. The script in `/etc/cron.daily/google-chrome` on Fedora ensures that the google chrome repository configuration file is correct, but it doesn't update Chrome itself. You still update Chrome manually with `dnf update`.

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#240

Post by isodev »

I share the author's experience. Once you add Chrome, everything gets slow ... including Safari, which is weird and shouldn't happen.
Post reply on HN