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

Google enforcing Web store only extensions for Chrome

sites.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 84 posts

Re: Google enforcing Web store only extensions for Chrome

#61

Post by skrowl »

nsmartt wrote: post #55
el_duderino wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'll be back man. Trust me. I've tried numerous times to go back to FF, but you enjoy the speed + ridiculous amount of available popular snooping extensions more than anything. I know you're in a different state of mind atm, but you will be back to Chrome within a couple weeks.

Coming back to Firefox from Chromium was a wonderful experience for me. The majority of extensions I used on Chromium were inferior to their Firefox counterparts, due largely to limitations of the extension API. Aside from that, load speeds are fine, the devtools are phenomenal, and everything is great. I actually enjoy using my browser.

AdBlock Plus and Thumbnail Zoom Plus for Firefox are much better than their competition on Chrome

Re: Google enforcing Web store only extensions for Chrome

#62

Post by bad_user »

I'm a little disappointed with Google. I understand the rationale behind this decision, however instead of improving their browser's permissions system, instead of doing a better job reviewing all those crappy extensions that turn to mallware over night (e.g. Window Resizer - and btw, Mozilla is doing a much better job), instead of all of that, they decide to drop the ability to install extensions from third-party source. I predict a similar change will also come for Android. Because grandmas need protection of course.

For several months now I have been torn between Chrome and Firefox, not able to decide which I like better, switching back and forth depending on mood. Well, I guess this settles it. I was already using Firefox on my Android exclusively, because it's the only mobile browser that has extensions, whereas Google decided that extensions are a nuisance on Android and even if they don't admit it, they probably hate the idea of AdBlock making it to Android.

Chrome has had a positive effect on the marketplace, but now the negative effects are starting to show up. Adobe for instance decided to drop the support they had for Flash on Linux and only support Chrome, so at present and going forward, if you want the latest Flash on Linux, you've got to use Chrome. My answer was just to disable it of course.

But do we really want a monoculture? Haven't we had enough with IExplorer 5/6? Are we really that dumb?

Either way, at the very least Chrome fans should start using Chromium, because the Chrome binary is not open-source and if you use it, you won't realize the true difference/cost between it and the competition. For example the PDF reader bundled in Chrome is something proprietary, whereas Mozilla bundled a PDF reader that's open-source, built in Javascript and that also works in Chromium - you see, whenever Mozilla does something, it usually benefits everybody.

Re: Google enforcing Web store only extensions for Chrome

#63

Post by bad_user »

d0 wrote: post #33
blueskin_ wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google, Apple and MS, sure, but that's just Linux's gain. Yes, the "Year Of The Linux Desktop" joke is as funny as ever, but I definitely foresee a split in computing into passive consumers with no idea how things work and hackers who need full access to the things they own and want to experiment, learn and create.

I'm not sure Apple and Microsoft fit that bill yet. They divide their empires into three separate concerns: walled garden consumer devices (phones, tablets), open enterprise/desktop and media. it's pretty easy to get into the internals of OSX and Windows still. In fact it's been made easier over the years. I can still push apps to our customers on Windows and Mac desktops like I could in 1993. Google on the other han…

> I can still push apps to our customers on Windows and Mac desktops like I could in 1993.

That's true for now, but the trend is clear - OS X doesn't want to open apps downloaded from the Internet without the binary being signed by a registered developer. You can work around that, but I had to Google it (and I was trying to install YourKit Profiler - an otherwise very legit app from a well known and respected company). Microsoft only allows apps installed from their store on Windows RT. We are not talking about Windows Phone btw - Windows RT is Windows for ARM devices. Windows 8 has the same policy as OS X, both moved to the app store model, both now give warnings when installing from third-party sources.

BTW, Android is allowing app installs from third party sources. It always did. Not sure how long will that last, but iOS and Windows Phone 7 are completely locked down in that regard.

It's about time we stop thinking of these companies as being our friends. They aren't. They are partners at most and the free market doesn't work well if customers aren't prepared to vote with their wallet.

Re: Google enforcing Web store only extensions for Chrome

#64

Post by omaranto »

el_duderino wrote: post #48
sergiotapia wrote: post #47

Yep, this is the last straw for me. The final drop of water that overflowed the cup. I'm switching back to Firefox and will make a conscious decision to start deleting all my Google data. The tin foil conspiracy theorists were right all along it seems, I'll do my best to support companies that fight for my privacy and are open source. Firefox, I'm sorry I ever left you - happy to be back.

You'll be back man. Trust me. I've tried numerous times to go back to FF, but you enjoy the speed + ridiculous amount of available popular snooping extensions more than anything. I know you're in a different state of mind atm, but you will be back to Chrome within a couple weeks.

I switched back to Firefox because Chrome started feeling slow, and Firefox feels now as fast as Chrome used to. Plus in Firefox I get to use extensions (I know there are some for Chrome, but I could never find ones as good as the ones I've always used on Firefox, for example, It's All Text or pentadactyl,). I bet at some point in the future Chrome might get faster than Firefox again, if so, maybe I'll switch back. If you tried Firefox recently and think Chrome is faster, then keep using it, but if you have an old impression of Firefox, give it a shot again.

Re: Google enforcing Web store only extensions for Chrome

#65

Post by octopus »

d0 wrote: post #33
blueskin_ wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google, Apple and MS, sure, but that's just Linux's gain. Yes, the "Year Of The Linux Desktop" joke is as funny as ever, but I definitely foresee a split in computing into passive consumers with no idea how things work and hackers who need full access to the things they own and want to experiment, learn and create.

I'm not sure Apple and Microsoft fit that bill yet. They divide their empires into three separate concerns: walled garden consumer devices (phones, tablets), open enterprise/desktop and media. it's pretty easy to get into the internals of OSX and Windows still. In fact it's been made easier over the years. I can still push apps to our customers on Windows and Mac desktops like I could in 1993. Google on the other han…

ChromeOS is a browser based OS, so I would guess you could use JavaScript to do a lot of things you would do in C# or Pyhton on your old PCs.

Also, ChromeOS has a developer mode and you can always install a chroot Linux along side ChromeOS. In essence you can do pretty much everything if you are a programmer and you spend a few minutes searching online.

For the average user (read non programmer), less options is always better.

Re: Google enforcing Web store only extensions for Chrome

#66

Post by eponeponepon »

wreegab wrote: post #59
eponeponepon wrote: post #26

Oh dear. Yet another garden firmly walled.

"Firmly" is a bit much, given you can install an extension manually using "Developer mode".

But if I have customers, and either don't want to or can't use the Play store, then I have to ask them to do that too, and most of them won't, so I am effectively walled off from any sales.

(disclaimer: I don't have any customers and I don't produce any Chrome extensions - just engaging in speculation)

Re: Google enforcing Web store only extensions for Chrome

#67

Post by ryanackley »

I don't really understand the righteous indignation. The only way you can presently install a Chrome extension outside of the web store is by going to chrome://extensions in your browser, then dragging and dropping a crx file (packaged extension) onto this page. Chrome will stop allowing this. Why is that a big deal?

If this makes you mad, vote with your feet. Firefox is a great browser.

Re: Google enforcing Web store only extensions for Chrome

#68

Post by RealGeek »

ryanackley wrote: post #67

I don't really understand the righteous indignation. The only way you can presently install a Chrome extension outside of the web store is by going to chrome://extensions in your browser, then dragging and dropping a crx file (packaged extension) onto this page. Chrome will stop allowing this. Why is that a big deal? If this makes you mad, vote with your feet. Firefox is a great browser.

There are a lot of windows application bundling malacious chrome extensions, Firefox and IE plugins with the windows installer. They are installed automatically with explicit permissions from users. Moreover, if you remove the adware from chrome extension settings, it gets installed again automatically upon your next reboot.

I believe this policy shall reduce such abuse.

Re: Google enforcing Web store only extensions for Chrome

#69

Post by d0 »

microtonal wrote: post #50
d0 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure Apple and Microsoft fit that bill yet. They divide their empires into three separate concerns: walled garden consumer devices (phones, tablets), open enterprise/desktop and media. it's pretty easy to get into the internals of OSX and Windows still. In fact it's been made easier over the years. I can still push apps to our customers on Windows and Mac desktops like I could in 1993. Google on the other han…

I can still push apps to our customers on Windows and Mac desktops like I could in 1993. Well, on OS X, you'd better have a $99/year developer program account or you cannot sign software. For most users it's a hasse to either disable Gatekeeper or to discover Ctrl/right-click to circumvent it. Of course, signing software is good. But I'd rather like to accept/verify a key on a vendor-basis and have that used to valid…

The signing missing isn't a major effort. You can turn it off easily with spctl via ssh or allow an app for example. Same with windows domains if you have configured a root CA for your organisation. Even metro apps can be side loaded/self signed on Windows enterprise edition.

Agree with your second point entirely.

Post reply on HN