Slashdot Mirror


Google Chrome Extensions Are Now Available

kai_hiwatari writes "The Google Chrome Extensions site is now open for Windows and Linux users — but not yet for Mac — and contains around 300 extensions. AdBlock is not yet available, however. (The closest thing to it is Adsweep, but right now it seems to be broken. Who wants to take this on?) Does the availability of extensions put Chrome at risk of becoming bloated, like many complain about with Firefox?"

16 of 291 comments (clear)

  1. No by curunir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does the availability of extensions put Chrome at risk of becoming bloated, like many complain about with Firefox?

    No. For a lot of us, that's like asking, "Does the ability to run JavaScript put Chrome at risk of becoming bloated?" or even, "Does the ability to render HTML put Chrome at risk of becoming bloated?"

    Extensions are among the core featureset that a browser should support. With extensions, you simply make sure that everything is possible to accomplish with the extension API instead of implementing new features. That way, the user decides how bloated the browser becomes and doesn't have to put up with the bloat of unwanted features.

    --
    "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
  2. Re:SRWare Iron and firefoxs addons by FlyingBishop · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He was clearly talking about the architecture, not the UI.

    Personally, I'm skeptical that Chrome will offer significant performance improvements over Firefox once its extension system is up to scratch. Even if Chrome's architecture is better, I would expect the extensions themselves to be of similar quality to those in Firefox.

  3. Re:SRWare Iron and firefoxs addons by at_slashdot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't know about you, but I trust more Google than some random guys on the Internet.

    --
    "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
  4. Extensions security? by mcrbids · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hey, extensions are great - but for one detail: Security! The current extensions model is as insecure as hell. All extensions have full access to the browser process - there is NOTHING that stops a rogue extension that was helpfully installed when you tried to punch the monkey and clicked "Yes" to the annoying question from watching everything you do in the browser and send any input you type into a form back to a mother ship you didn't even know existed.

    I appreciate that the idea of adding a decent security model into extensions and plugins is a hard, thorny problem to solve. But that is exactly why we really, desperately need it! The browser is, for many computing environments, the "Operating System". Although I write this on a Linux laptop, the computing platform I use for development isn't Windows or Linux or MacOS, it's Firefox/Chrome! I don't personally much care what O/S the end user uses.

    Because of this importance, because the browser is fast becoming the only O/S that actually matters, it's vitally important that we develop SOME kind of framework for application level security. The utter lack of a current extensions security model is just begging for disaster!

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    1. Re:Extensions security? by slimjim8094 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Firefox extensions would be next to useless if there was sandboxing or anything like that. The entire base browser is more-or-less a large extension, at least from an architectural point of view. The idea is that extensions can and and replace arbitrary bits of the browser, because they're peers.

      "Fixing" that problem would destroy Firefox.

      Enough people use Firefox that, if your dire predictions were accurate, we'd see hundreds of exploits. But Firefox makes it really hard to install extensions from anywhere outside the SSL-secured addons.mozilla.org site.

      IOW, it's not a problem

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    2. Re:Extensions security? by jonbryce · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is a firefox extension I use called Property Bee. What it does is that every time I visit certain popular British and Irish real estate listing sites, such as Rightmove, it sends details of everything I look at on the site to a central server. In return, it tells me what all the other plug-in users saw when they looked at that particular property, so I can see a full history of all the changes the estate agent (realtor) has made to the listing, including price and description.

      A plug in like that, which is totally up-front about what it does is fine, but the same technology that is used in that plug-in could be used for purposes that are definitely not OK.

  5. Re:SRWare Iron and firefoxs addons by larry+bagina · · Score: 4, Insightful

    try posting that comment in a thread about linux vs windows.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  6. Take on AdBlock? by peterwayner · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As someone who makes his living selling content through the Internet, I want people to think several times before building a tool like AdBlock. If the content industry can't make money from ads, we'll either go out of business or put our information behind a paywall. That may happen whether or not you create the ad block extension because ads don't generate enough money to pay for the kind of reporting that newspapers used to do, but it will definitely happen if a tool for blocking ads gets adopted by any non-trivial subset of society.

    I understand that advertisements can be annoying and often temperamental, but tools like this are rarely as precise as they should be. They usually end up blocking far more unless the user spends more time monkeying with the config files than it would take to actually glance at the ads or wait for them to finish their flash animation.

    Also I want to remind people that some open source projects like Firefox depend on advertisements for their support. Google itself depends almost entirely upon ads for their revenue. While I recognize that many of their ads were historically unobtrusive, they are selling more and more display ads.

    An ad blocker for Google chrome will not only hurt Google but slice into Google's revenues and undercut their ability to pay for more development. Okay, you say, let's be selfish and ensure that the ad blocker won't block Google ads. That's clever, but it still hurts Google because it hurts the free information ecosystem which is what drives Google. If there's no free information, there's fewer and fewer things for Google to index and thus fewer and fewer reasons to look at Google ads.

    Please consider the long term consequences for building such a tool. The information ecology is much more fragile than you can imagine.

    1. Re:Take on AdBlock? by MORB · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can't force people not to develop and deploy solutions to filter out ads any more than you can force them to look at them.

      You have to accept this, and if your business model can't work because of it then it simply means that it's not viable.

    2. Re:Take on AdBlock? by vlm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So, in summary, if we block the ads, we'll have the internet of 1992, which I rather enjoyed?

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    3. Re:Take on AdBlock? by peterwayner · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm grateful for this kind of attitude. Believe me. The competent websites watch for this kind of loss and they work hard to ensure that the ads don't damage their long term viability.

    4. Re:Take on AdBlock? by peterwayner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To each his own. I like glancing at my home town newspaper without committing to a big subscription. If the ads don't work, though I won't have that option.

      If you really want to live in the past, here's the Wayback Machine's take on Slashdot:

      http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.slashdot.org

      Note, it didn't exist before ads and it won't exist without them.

    5. Re:Take on AdBlock? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If the content industry can't make money from ads, we'll either go out of business or put our information behind a paywall.

      Have you considered why people block ads in the first place? Historically ads have been both obtrusive and have degraded the user experience in terms of performance. Advertisers do not have a good record of restraining themselves, if they can get a neon ad to appear in the middle of your screen and shake around until you respond to it, that's what they're going to do. Now that the public has the ability to restrain ads it's up to the advertisers to figure out how to structure their ads so that they are not a problem for users. It would be pretty easy to gauge how well they're doing by the number of people who choose to block ads. It's not up to the public to support an obnoxious business model, if advertisers want money they need to figure out how to not be obnoxious. Unfortunately for them, advertising is inherently obnoxious.

      Please consider the long term consequences for building such a tool.

      If the long-term consequences involve removing ads from the internet, that's not a bad thing. Even if a lot of content goes with it, in time the content will come back and there will always be people willing to post content without expecting a paycheck from it. The internet doesn't exist to put money in your account.

      The information ecology is much more fragile than you can imagine.

      No it's not, it's far more robust then you give it credit for. Information will always be available online, as long as there are people willing to spread their message without being paid for it. That's the backbone of the internet, advertisers and people selling content are just along for the ride. If you don't believe me, look at Wikipedia, or take a poll here and figure out how many posters got paid to comment.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    6. Re:Take on AdBlock? by AaronLawrence · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If that were true, most "competent websites" would not accept Flash ads which are very distracting and demanding of CPU; nor would they put large amounts of ads on pages with minimal content.
      The reality is that they try and push as much advertising as they can get away with, which turns out to be quite a lot because people will tolerate a lot of crap to read free content. But let's not pretend they are happy about it.

      --
      For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
    7. Re:Take on AdBlock? by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is that AdBlock's only mode is "always on, except on whitelisted sites." If it had a mode of "always off, except for blacklisted sites" then I think a lot more people would get behind it-- content creators and web surfers.

      I know for me, there are only about 3 domains I regularly see that have ads I want to block, everything else I visit I want to see the ads. But there's no way to tell AdBlock this, and so my choices are either to block all ads, or keep AdBlock constantly turned-off until I'm on one of those sites. Neither is a good choice.

  7. Available? Well, kind of. by The+Evil+Couch · · Score: 4, Insightful
    From the summary:

    The Google Chrome Extensions site is now open for Windows and Linux users

    From my browser:

    Google Chrome is up to date. (3.0.195.33)

    From Google Chrome Extension site:

    Extensions are not yet supported in this version of Google Chrome. Please download the Beta Channel of Google Chrome to install extensions.

    I realize that this was posted by kdawson, but having "beta test" in the title or, at the very least, somewhere in the summary would have been great.