Slashdot Mirror
Google Chrome 32 Is Out: Noisy Tabs Indicators, Supervised Users
An anonymous reader writes "Google today released Chrome version 32 for Windows, Mac, and Linux. The new version includes tab noise indicators, a new look for Windows 8 Metro mode, and automatic blocking of malware downloads. You can update to the latest release now using the browser's built-in silent updater, or download it directly from google.com/chrome."
I'd like it to block noisy tabs, block metro 8 and block malware. Maybe I should just go back to lynx.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Noisy tab identification makes up for killing reader. (almost)
How long until the 64-bit version is released?
When you can do a bunch of code to detect which tab has the auto-page refresh which brought up an auto-play blatherskite advertisement.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Besides an indicator, I'd expect a per-tab _mute_ button.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
The noise indicators are nice, I would have preferred a small control to stop playing, stop recording.
How are they automatically blocking malware without submitting every link you try and download from to Google's servers first?
I personally turn off all the intrusive features I find on any browser and this seems like another one.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
If you're a user of startpage.com (google-based search that doesn't track you), you'll no longer be able to use the "POST vs GET" option, which I believe is the default, and which keeps websites from tracking your search terms.
For whatever reason, chrome 32 with POST vs GET will cause startpage searches to redirect back to the startpage.com home page with no results.
To use the previous version of chrome on Windows, look in your %APPDATA%/Local/Google directory. There should be an old_chrome.exe that you can run that links to the previous version.
Of course, when chrome auto-updates again, you'll lose that version. I've disabled the update plugin in about:plugins, but I'm not sure if that's sufficient to prevent updates.
PLEASE let me have the options of deciding how long I want cookies saved for. Firefox has an "Ask me everytime" options for cookies - I want and need it. Chrome for some reason still doesn't have that (to the best of my knowledge - I check from time to time after updates).
Haven't been able to find any plugins that add that functionality, either.
I really want to switch to Chrome. It's so much zippier that Firefox. But not without my per-session cookie settings...
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
Seems a reasonable thing to do if you, say, go a page with a song or video on it.
You know those little arrow buttons at each end of the scroll bar? The ones that scroll the content one line at a time? Gone as of Chrome 32. Anyone else think this is a terrible idea? Bug report here.
Firefox loads images really slowly.
Don't believe me? Create a local html file with 500 pictures in it, and open it. Depending on how fast your computer is (mine is a $300 Ivy Bridge whatever it was) It will take firefox like 10 seconds to open, and chrome opens instantly.
I actually still use firefox as my default browser because I am used to it, but I can see the appeal of using chrome.
because I do some web development I actually will use firefox, chrome, and IE on various pages to see if they have different behavior.
Amen. I'd also like to see it give high priority to media when the user permits it. I don't mind if my text takes a few extra seconds to render while music is playing in the background. I do mind if the music burps because I've loaded a new document.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Does Chrome still spawn a new instance of itself for every tab you have open and every extension you have running? I like Chrome and I use it, but I upped my system to 12GB ram in order to use it to the extent that I need to. I realize that they do this so if one tab crashes, it doesn't take down the whole system. But the only thing that makes Chrome unstable in the first place is this behavior. Don't believe me? run this command:
ps -eo pmem,comm | grep chrome | cut -d " " -f 2 | paste -sd+ | bc
Now start opening more tabs with content and run the command again. Open more tabs and run it again. Memory usage sky rockets. Now try the same command but replace chrome with firefox, midori, or whatever else you have. Big difference.
Why do I have the feeling modding isn't going to go my way with this post. Oh well.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Please see: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4668171&cid=45959933
(Hint. . its called adblock plus)
How about Google's close relationship with the NSA ?
They dont have a close relationship with the NSA. You have apparently been reading headlines, and skipping the articles. Heres a hint: the NSA's own documents indicated that the spying was done without the knowledge of the companies (Yahoo, Google, etc); Google responded by encrypting their intra-datacenter comms before any of the other companies did so.
They are the ONLY major search provider who fought against China's requests for data on dissident bloggers
How about Google's close relationship with the NSA ?
As a Googler, I'd say the best description is of Google's relationship with the NSA is "antagonistic". The news that the NSA had been tapping fiber between Google's data centers really pissed people off.
Google has publicly denied providing the NSA with any access, and there's no evidence that the denials are false. From my internal point of view (working on security infrastructure stuff), I also see zero evidence, and I think I would see it if it existed.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
No, actually, it does not seem reasonable at all.
If I go to a page with a song or video on it, the browser should ideally give me a visible control that indicates the media file and gives me an *option* to start playing it, or to save it. It should under no circumstances whatsoever simply start playing the file.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
It's usually called "Click-to-play". You can whitelist/blacklist sites as you like. The feature is supported in Chrome since forever and I use it. Since the majority of users just want youtube to start playing without added clicks, it's a sane default to allow auto-play.
Maybe you can answer the question prompted by the post above - why were the intra-datacentre comms links ever unencrypted?
I had been using Chrome in Metro mode, because I wanted to have experience in Metro, and I had to go back to desktop with this release.
The new Metro mode doesn't integrate well with the rest of Windows 8. It doesn't resize with Snap View, so you have to keep it full-screen. It adds an app switcher bar, but the bar only switches between Chrome apps, which I generally don't use. It has an app launcher button, but if you use a mouse then the Windows Start button appears and overlaps it.
Furthermore, the latest version of Chrome crashes more. So, I not only have to be in desktop, but I have to be in Firefox. Sometimes I wonder if the Chrome team runs their own product on Windows.
Have a nice time.
You have obviously never configured an exception table.
So, when I open up a Youtube video in a new tab, clearly I don't want it to play audio unless I go through the additional effort of unmuting that tab.
Exactly.
Maybe you want to read the comments, before you launch a NSFW video in the office.
Its exactly one click more. I'll take that every day over one one annoying ad a week.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
And if you will look up for a moment, you will see the joke that sailed over your head. Beautiful isnt it, it's subtleness protects it from the clueless. Lets watch!
Monstar L
Wow, they encrypted their intra-datacenter comms! Awesome! That so totally shows how much they are fighting against the NSA ... as much as the fact that their SSL connections still use unbreakable, military-grade RC4 encryption!
Why are the network lines between a grocery store and their main office unencrypted, even though it's used to transmit credit card data? (I'm looking at you small northwest grocery store chain which caused me to get a new credit card the day before Thanksgiving)
Because it's cheaper, and cheaper is always better than secure in the eyes of a a cost cutting/saving leader.
Suborbital [spaceflight] is the special olympics of spaceflight. - Rei
You're either naive or work for google.
So if Google introduced a 'one click more' way to mute a tab, that'd be fine then?
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
People can't have this both ways. Endlessly they argue that people can have their web server serve what they want, and it's your client, so you can interpret that HTML data whatever way you want -- by discarding ads, or rearranging the layout of Facebook. Some people like to write HTML pages that, when you land on that page, play a video.
What next? You want spoiler tags between every paragraph so you don't have to "automatically" see text?
If it bugs you, don't visit the site. To each their own.
You are missing the entire point of the web. To be able to open arbitrary data files from arbitrary, untrusted sources is a big part of it - and it's absolutely ridiculous that we have browsers that miss the point so badly that we have 'drive-by' infections where the victim never even has to be tricked to allow the infection, it just happens automatically. You say "dont visit the website" but that's stupid on many levels - you dont know what is on the website until you go! A browser that will not allow me to view arbitrary websites without being infected is broken.
Text, with semantic markup, will never enable that. Autoplay of arbitrary files does.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Probably. But other than closing a tab, there really isn't any way to do that without adding a whole bunch of add-ons.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
The HTML iframe that embeds, for example, a YouTube video embeds the YouTube player. It's a feature of the YouTube player to decide what behavior to take when it starts. Your browser doesn't determine how to handle YouTube's code. It takes it at face value.
Let me give you my real-world case. I have an RFID enabled poker table -- cards placed on the table get read and a video system auto-produces your own realtime WSOP-like poker production, with hole-cards and percentages overlaid onto your table video. I run a website that discusses our poker league, and includes a link to a live camera of the table. If we're playing a game at my house, we're broadcasting that game to the internet.
When someone clicks on the LIVE CAM link, I want the video on that page to start automatically.
I understand how it works very well, and I also understand why it should never have been done this way.
"The HTML iframe that embeds, for example, a YouTube video embeds the YouTube player. It's a feature of the YouTube player to decide what behavior to take when it starts. Your browser doesn't determine how to handle YouTube's code. It takes it at face value."
Actually, that's not true at all. I get a nice little box where youtube wants their player to show up. Only if I click it and explicitly permit it, does my browser execute their player. This is as it should be.
What's not as it should be is that my browser has had to be customized to behave this way, and the developers like to keep breaking the customizations. This means that while I, as a technically advanced user, can somewhat defend myself here, the people that need help the worst, the least technical users, are effectively locked out from exercising their rights.
'When someone clicks on the LIVE CAM link, I want the video on that page to start automatically."
When we are talking about MY browser on MY computer, your wishes are and should be entirely besides the point. If you dont want the person clicking on the link to have the power to determine how that link is interpreted, you should not be on the web, because that is simply the way it works.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
I said it once, and I'll say it again:
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
You can instruct your browser to prompt you for every app and script, and to specifically request your permission before displaying upper-case characters if that's your thing. ...but when the applet is given the go-ahead to run, it either plays video or it doesn't. You only chose if you're going to execute it, and it's execution is at face value.
In short, it makes sense in, like, my opinion, man. to have a link to LIVE CAMERA actually have moving pictures behind it.
"You can instruct your browser to prompt you for every app and script, and to specifically request your permission before displaying upper-case characters if that's your thing. ...but when the applet is given the go-ahead to run, it either plays video or it doesn't. You only chose if you're going to execute it, and it's execution is at face value."
Again, not true. I can actually inspect the code and determine the URL to the media file myself, then download it and do whatever I want with it. AS IT SHOULD BE.
"In short, it makes sense in, like, my opinion, man. to have a link to LIVE CAMERA actually have moving pictures behind it."
Yes, it does, so why not do that?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.