71–80 of 102 posts
Seems kind of obvious yes? I mean if you're building an OS (ChromeOS) and you want to do native development, you build your tools to work in the OS right? Or am I missing something here? One of the coolest things about early databases was the 'web based' development environment, except for the sql injection attacks of course :-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Secure? When did OS+browser became more secure than just OS? You can't get a virus from visiting a web page. You don't give a web page access to all your files just by visiting it. Running a native app requires significantly more trust than running a web app. Web apps are significantly more sandboxed.
> You can't get a virus from visiting a web page. You very much can. In fact, that was one of the most common attack vector for viruses: web browser exploits, from applet bugs to native web browser code buffer overflows and other issues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So browser extensions are bad now? When can HN get off the hate train for everything new? This place is seriously starting to depress me.
Well, most browser extensions relate to browsing. Google, on the other hand, is trying to turn the browser into an OS. This is a really big shift that may very well determine the future of computing, so I think there's plenty here for people to get legitimately angry about. Not really the same kind of "hate train" that occasionally shows up on project posts, I think.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Secure? When did OS+browser became more secure than just OS? You can't get a virus from visiting a web page. You don't give a web page access to all your files just by visiting it. Running a native app requires significantly more trust than running a web app. Web apps are significantly more sandboxed.
> You can't get a virus from visiting a web page. You very much can. In fact, that was one of the most common attack vector for viruses: web browser exploits, from applet bugs to native web browser code buffer overflows and other issues.
Are you really going to argue that native apps and web apps are equally secure because web browsers can occasionally be compromised to give you the permissions that native apps give you by default?
Are you really going to argue against the security of today's web browsers because security of browsers used to be comparatively atrocious?
If I give you the choice of either running my malicious native app or visiting my malicious website, are you really going to say that they are equally risky?
Seems kind of obvious yes? I mean if you're building an OS (ChromeOS) and you want to do native development, you build your tools to work in the OS right? Or am I missing something here? One of the coolest things about early databases was the 'web based' development environment, except for the sql injection attacks of course :-)
There's no "native" development. It's just HTML and CSS. Don't know why we would need another "IDE" to write html but whatever....
"they’re Google’s way of pushing the limits of the Web as a platform." Nope, they're Google's way of extinguishing non-Chrome browsers. Only Chrome/Chromium will be supported. That's called vendor lock-in - regardless of being open source.
If you want an example, see OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice.
I look forward to the day when chrome is the only OS and all the proprietary OSs have finally died out.
Surely the least proprietary mainstream OS would be Linux?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can't get a virus from visiting a web page. You very much can. In fact, that was one of the most common attack vector for viruses: web browser exploits, from applet bugs to native web browser code buffer overflows and other issues.
Do I really have to spell things out in legalistic precision to make what should be a very obvious point? Are you really going to argue that native apps and web apps are equally secure because web browsers can occasionally be compromised to give you the permissions that native apps give you by default ? Are you really going to argue against the security of today's web browsers because security of browsers used to be…
By default in which system? Because sandboxing for native apps has been a default on OS X for the last 2 OSes at least.
Plus, there's another differentiator at play.
People don't only stick to a few large websites (like Google and NYT). People visit THOUSANDS of sites every month, and each can be an attack entry point if there's a browser/applet/etc exploit.
OTOH, with apps the situation is different. People use far fewer third party apps (say, less than 20 for the average user), and have the option to get them from legit (and verified/encrypted) sources, like several App Stores, the services of official vendors like Adobe etc, official software sites and such.
I never had a virus from a legit app purchase/download. How many cases are there were the upstream sources is poisoned?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are just apps that use the ChromeOS development library (JS, HTML, CSS and some custom APIs). Think of it like Cocoa on OS X. Except they can also run in the Chrome browser on other OSes. I don't understand why people get so riled up about this.
Chrome Apps as far as I know can only be installed via a proprietary web store. You can't actually package them up as an exe or dmg to distribute yourself. They also don't have access to the system tray - they're not really first-class standalone desktop apps.
I don't understand Chrome apps. They require installation and only work on Chrome, so they come with none of the benefits of the web. They are slower and uglier than native Windows/Mac/Linux apps. What's the point?
> They are slower and uglier than native Windows/Mac/Linux apps. What's the point? They are the "native" apps for ChromeOS that, incidentally, can also run anywhere else* that Chrome OS runs. * except iOS