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

Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar

androidpolice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 733 posts

Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar

#561

Post by chooseaname »

crazygringo wrote: post #532

Safari has been this way since 2014. I've never seen any pushback on Apple doing it over the past six years . It's genuinely a benefit for the vast, vast majority of users, where the only important piece of information really is the domain name, to check which site you're actually on. And for more info, you can just click. Copying the URL becomes no more difficult. The URL path beyond the domain is as useful to most…

If I recall there was some grumbling, but Apple being Apple, they do what they want.

Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar

#563

Post by AsyncAwait »

fastball wrote: post #545
bad_user wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true, but then again absolutely all browsers are being funded by ads. We are talking Edge, Safari, Brave, all of them. Did you know that Apple does in fact get more money from Google than Mozilla does, for keeping their search engine as the default? 12 billion dollars in 2019. Do you think Apple would activate ad blocking by default and risk losing that many billions of dollars? Speaking of which, Safari's ad…

None of the things you mentioned about Brave make them funded by Google, and the system they want for ads is clearly better for the consumer than the status quo.

Brave is essentially a repackaged Chrome and does nothing to help undermine the Blink monopoly. They're not directly funded by Google, but their browser depends directly on Google funding Chrome's development.

Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar

#564

Post by on_and_off »

crazygringo wrote: post #532

Safari has been this way since 2014. I've never seen any pushback on Apple doing it over the past six years . It's genuinely a benefit for the vast, vast majority of users, where the only important piece of information really is the domain name, to check which site you're actually on. And for more info, you can just click. Copying the URL becomes no more difficult. The URL path beyond the domain is as useful to most…

As long as you see the full url when you hover/click on the bar, I am all for it as well.

If find some of reactions on this ridiculously hyperbolic "biggest attack on the web in years" ? seriously ?

I get it, Google is a gigantic monster that does not necessarily act in its users best interests, but that does not mean we need to bring the pitchfork each time they launch an app update.

Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar

#565

Post by ehnto »

chiefsucker wrote: post #222
nerdponx wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's bullshit, it's not an attempt to help anybody but Google. What better way to keep people on AMP pages, than to make them so ignorant as to not even know how to tell the difference?

What the heck? A regular user doesn’t understand or care what the technical difference between a “regular” page and AMP is. I wouldn’t call this ignorance per se.

Just because they don't care doesn't mean exploiting their ignorance is okay. I don't know that I agree with the GP that this is a targeted move to get AMP to slide under the radar, but if it is we should totally care. AMP undermines the fabric of the web. Just wait for the day that Google starts serving AMP for sites that aren't even configured for it. When they serve an AMP page, they are doing more than being a middle man, they are controlling the traffic and the display of the site, and the user is none the wiser. Google penalizes you for doing the same thing, specifically because it's nefarious.

Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar

#567

Post by joshuamorton »

megous wrote: post #208
ubercow13 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The claimed purpose is basically just to prevent phishing. They explain a number of reasons why it is difficult for people to extract from a URL the part which is relevant to security, ie. the bit that affects who has authority over the page and how your cookies will be separated by the browser. The cookie sharing actually had some rules I didn't know about as a non-web developer but experienced URL user. They show h…

Looks like this will be great for reflected XSS attacks. Even advanced users will not be able to notice there's something weird going on outside of the domain name part of the URL. Perfect! Basically any page on the website with this vulnerability will be useable to show a fake login page, and user will not even notice he's not on the /login, but on some weird path + ?_sort=somejavascript Not that it's that hard to c…

Stick "?jsessionid=" in front of the xss and no one will ever look.

Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar

#568

Post by _trampeltier »

shadowgovt wrote: post #522
superkuh wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> misses Google's goals overall. Oh, I'm not missing that. Google's software offerings are now primarily designed for bad computers with bad UI, bad network, and bad energy storage. Because people love those crappy devices and most use them primarily. We both agree. >A shorter URL bar in the desktop allows for to take up less horizontal space, Which really doesn't matter if you're on a desktop computer with an actual…

Agree to disagree, because my primary device is a multi-core desktop with a curved monitor over two feet long and I still think the URL bar takes up too much horizontal space in my browser top bar.

The problem is maybe, a widescreen is bs for most things anyway. In most applications there is so much emtpy space on the left and the right side. I use not just with monitors because of it, they are also height. 43" 4K is nice to work with.

Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar

#569

Post by Mirioron »

wolco wrote: post #291
butz wrote: post #62

While this might be useful for a casual user, hidden URLs are a huge problem for web developers. Asking for a screenshot from client is not enough, now I'll have to provide additional instructions how to copy/paste full URL when reporting issues. Not to mention all possible problems with misconfigured servers when www and www-less domains lead to same website, but some script refuses to work on one of those. While it…

Developers at least the experienced ones never left firefox. For the new developers who got hooked on chrome over the last 10/15 years time to move to a developer friendly browser. At this point ie becomes more useful.

Perhaps Mozilla should never have made breaking changes that pushed people away? The UI change that killed my extensions made me look elsewhere. Chrome's much faster js engine sealed the deal.

I've looked into switching back to Firefox, but what I've found is that they don't allow me to use my own extensions. I would have to use a beta version of Firefox or submit all of my extensions that only I use for approval to Mozilla or have to reinstall my extensions every time I close Firefox. None of these seem good options to me.

Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar

#570

Post by AsyncAwait »

shadowgovt wrote: post #502
AsyncAwait wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A (high-quality) monoculture is actually much much easier on most web devs, because it minimizes the number of browsers they have to support for quirks. Short-term, sure. Long-term it opens devs to Google's whims and makes the "open" web barely more open than Apple's AppStore. But that's short-term vs long-term thinking and I can't deny most would prioritize the short-term. Here's hoping there's still enough ideali…

GNU did great things for UNIX. It hasn't really demonstrated much utility in the user experience improvement space. The flow there, in general, appears to be that the big, closed source commercial interests devise new approaches for user interface operation and the open source community copies the ones that work. The only space I can name off the top of my head where my open-source architectures have outstripped Wind…

If you're taking casual computer experience, KDE's still way more customizable than any of the commercial desktop environments out there.

Of course proprietary software has more funding to hire designers and such, but in terms of actual functionality, I'd contest your claim.

If you're talking developer user experience, it's not even a race. The FLOSS ecosystem has a landslide lead here. In fact the whole point of WSL is to try to keep devs on the Windows platform by bringing that experience to Windows more directly.

Post reply on HN