Slashdot Mirror
Chrome 64 Released With Stronger Popup Blocker, Spectre Mitigations (bleepingcomputer.com)
Google on Thursday pushed an update to its marquee Web browser Chrome, now at v64, which offers a handful of new features including an improved ad blocker. From a report: Most of the new features included with Chrome 64 are meant to improve the browser's support for the ever-changing web standards that drive the modern Internet. For example, Chrome 64 is choke full of support for new browser APIs, new CSS properties, new JavaScript (ECMAScript) features, and changes to Chrome's V8 JavaScript engine. [...] Other big changes that shipped with Chrome 64 are on the browser's security side. For starters, Chrome 64 includes mitigations against the web-exploitable Spectre flaw. Further, Chrome 64 also comes with a bolstered popup blocker that can now block tab-under behavior, being much more efficient at blocking malvertising redirects.
Be happy on Safari ;)
Be or ben't
I prefer using the NSA approved Edge browser.
Except what's Chrome 64 got to compete with it? The Brave Browser?
Firesux was put out of its misery years ago by the users who jumped ship in hopes of something better from the Mozzarella Foundation. Le sigh.
Chock-full. Editors go back to school, please.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
"Chrome 64 is choke full of..."
I'm sure they meant "chock full of" but all this bloat does choke things down quite a bit...
Well, you certainly had the right people in the FBI and DoJ to make sure that your preferred candidate dodged the indictment she earned and that some phony crap aimed at what you want (as the "insurance policy" they decided they should have in place) would keep CNN and MSNBC and the NYT busy with their hair on fire ... but no, you won't get your wish. Though some of the people you were hoping could make that happen may well end up in prison. Sad.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Chrome today reminds me a lot of what Firefox was during its early years. Each release of Chrome is something that users look forward to. These releases bring new, useful features. Chrome's already-excellent performance keeps getting better and better. Even if it isn't perfect, at least Chrome is consistently moving in a positive direction release after release.
Then there's the Firefox of today. We already know that users have been fleeing it, seeing as Firefox's total market share is likely at most about 5% at this point. The Firefox 57 release was quite a disaster. In October 2017, before Firefox 57 was released, Firefox 55 had 3.86% of the market. Firefox 57 is only at 3.55%, according to the December 2017 stats.
Firefox 57 was supposed to be a very positive release for Firefox. Yet breaking nearly all extensions, and unnecessarily changing the UI, and not delivering significant performance improvements resulted in Firefox 57 being widely disliked by users, as reflected in Firefox's dropping market share stats.
It worries me that we're seeing Chrome succeed so much, while Firefox is failing so badly. Instead of getting real competition, we're getting back to the same position we were in when IE was the dominant browser, except this time it's Chrome that's in power.
It didn't have to be like this. All that the Firefox devs had to do was listen to their users! For years we've had Firefox users saying that they just want a fast, extensible, secure browser. Yet time and time again we've seen the Firefox devs just not deliver this. Firefox 57 was supposed to be such a positive release, yet it fell on its face with such force because it just ended up screwing users over so badly.
I don't know where we go from here. Who will unseat Chrome's dominance over the browser market? It probably won't be Safari, since it's so tied to macOS and iOS these days. It probably won't be Firefox, because it's pretty much a dead browser at this point. It probably won't be Opera or Vivaldi, since they're just re-skinned Chromium browsers, essentially. Writing a browser from scratch really isn't an option any longer, given how complex they've gotten.
Thanks to Chrome's stunning success, and Firefox's abysmal failure, Chrome has basically become the driving force behind the web.
Do they mention anything about the information they collect on you?
Further, Chrome 64 also comes with a bolstered popup blocker that can now block tab-under behavior, being much more efficient at blocking malvertising redirects.
Now, I must appreciate Google for this roll-out. Who can say they do not listen? The listened to me and have now provided a way to block a number of offending sites I visit.
For others, these sites surely include pr0n sites...
I like your email sig... Perhaps I could interest you in reading mine... - Just say'n...
___ I don't respond to Anonymous Cowards, and I Never Mod them UP.
For years we've had Firefox users saying that they just want a fast, extensible, secure browser.
That's what Firefox is now, it's really great and just getting better.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The single biggest annoyance for web today (to me) is all the damn sites that autoplay video just because you view a page.
I want a setting that stops all media, video/audio from autoplaying.
Now if Chrome had adblock on Android, it might actually be a usable browser. I sure don't want to pay for downloading all those ads.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
What's a good browser to use during 2018?
I don't want to use Chrome. I really don't like its UI, and I don't particularly like using software from Google. So it's not an option.
The pre-Blink versions of Opera are hopelessly outdated now. They're not an option.
Vivaldi, Brave, and modern versions of Opera are all basically just Blink, which as far as I'm concerned makes them Chrome. So they're not options.
Text-based browsers like Lynx and Links aren't practical. They're not an option.
Firefox is no good, especially after Firefox 57 totally ruined its formerly-rich extension ecosystem. In my opinion its UI and performance are also terrible. So it's not an option.
The browsers derived from older versions of Firefox, like Pale Moon, seem very sketchy to me, and I just don't trust them or their small development teams. So they're not an option.
I don't want to use IE, for obvious reasons.
I hate to say this, but Edge is looking like it's the best browser for 2018. I've used it on Windows 10, and I've found it to be very fast and capable. It doesn't hurt to use, like Firefox does.
My only complaint with Edge at this point is that it's too tied to Windows, but I use Linux. If Edge were ported to Linux, and possibly also macOS, I would surely consider using it on a daily basis.
It's a pretty sad state of affairs when Microsoft's browser is the best one available! But perhaps that's not so much an indication of how well Microsoft has done, but rather it's just an indication of how badly Firefox, Opera, and other browsers have failed.
Edge's success may just stem from the fact that it just hasn't failed as badly as the other browsers have!
I need something that blocks those overlays (whatever it is called) that ask you to sign up for a website.... etc.
Caution: Contents under pressure
Actually I voted for Sanders, sorry fagcone apologist. Enjoy watching Trump die in prison with the rest of us, or keep doubling down on retarded and lying. It's your choice, but it makes no difference lol.
I gave up on it after the 5,000,000th time that needlessly altered the UI on their browser. Just this last release they decided to ignore the user's MS Windows preferences per window colors. Idiots are what they are. Apparently they can't understand I set up my desktop environment in a certain manner for a specific purpose.
Caution: Contents under pressure
Your comment is a perfect example of how out-of-touch and blind Firefox's supporters so often are these days. Your description of Firefox is completely the opposite of what Firefox's users are actually seeing.
Firefox 57 replaced a rather powerful extension system with one that's very limited and crippled. Not only were pretty much all existing extensions broken by Firefox 57, but the new extension system is so limited that there are critical Firefox extensions that couldn't even be reimplemented properly due to missing extension system functionality!
Yet you have the gall and delusion to tell us that "Firefox is extensible", only a few weeks after we users had so many of our Firefox extensions that have worked fine for years suddenly broken, only to be replaced with crippled, near-useless imitations of what we once had. In some cases it's not even possible to create these half-assed "replacements"! Firefox has become the opposite of extensible.
And you also have the gall and delusion to tell us that Firefox is somehow "faster", yet when we users actually use Firefox 57 and Firefox 58, we still find them so much slower than Chrome. We notice that Firefox uses gigabytes of memory. It's the complete opposite of performing well.
So while people like you throw out these nonsensical claims that "Firefox is great", Firefox's users are seeing the real picture. They don't like it at all. They're now stuck with a browser that's much less extensible than it was just a few months ago, and it doesn't even perform any better for these users.
The more you push your fantasy about Firefox, the more Firefox's users see the terrible reality they're faced with. And do you know what they're doing? They're abandoning Firefox. Chrome's market share keeps going up, while Firefox's keeps dropping.
Firefox of today isn't "really great". Firefox of today is being abandoned by its few remaining users!
For starters, Chrome 64 includes mitigations against the web-exploitable Spectre flaw.
Where other browser were updated last week...
Sig?
Obesity + high cholesterol + crappy diet + no exercise + stress.
Firefox 57 replaced a rather powerful extension system with one that's very limited and crippled. Not only were pretty much all existing extensions broken by Firefox 57, but the new extension system is so limited that there are critical Firefox extensions that couldn't even be reimplemented properly due to missing extension system functionality!
What functionality are you missing? All the plugins I want still work.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Well this is really exciting news, but I can't help noticing that number 64. Version numbers have always been a mystery to me. I have software that's been evolving for 20 years and now it's up to v1.234. No consistency! These numbers are meaningless to anyone not intensely involved in the development of a particular system.
Would it be possible to standardize on a system? Dates seem logical. A version announced today, for instance could be labeled 'Chrome 180125'. Everyone everywhere would know when it was made available and could quickly differentiate it from other versions. For frequently updated software; hours, minutes and seconds could be added: 'Chrome 1801250337.25' (That's a joke- seconds should rarely be required.) There once was a severe limit on the length of a filename but now there's room for a 6 digit version number. (Yes, it's remotely possible that Chrome will still be viable in the next century causing confusion over this date limitation. Let them worry about it.)
You could even search your drives for software created before or after a certain date. My current Macs won't run software from before a certain date, so those can be archived. I'm not a team programmer and may just be ignorant of how things are done in that environment. What are your thoughts?
...omphaloskepsis often...
NoScript for one...
uMatrix is a decent replacement though.
You really do need to ask yourself why your sexual obsessions emerge every time you talk about Trump. Is it his hair? His ties? Give it some thought.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Yesyesyes. Lets use a browser worse than Chrome. Safari is just Apples version of IE.
The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
Does it run on Linux yet?
Classic Theme Restorer and Download Status Bar.
No add ons replace the functionally of these. I am not using their new shit UI.
The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
I saw the headline as Commodore 64.
I never had one but did have a VIC-20.
I don't want autoplay video on any tab.
I hate auto play video that relocates the frame as I scroll it off to keep off my view.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
I saw the headline about "Chrome 64" and thought, "oh my god, some poor sap has ported Chrome to a 22-year-old video game system."
Google on Thursday pushed an update to its marquee Web browser Chrome, now at v64, which offers a handful of new features including an improved ad blocker.
Chrome has an ad blocker? I think given Google is also an advertising company, bundling something that blocks other companies' ads would raise some FTC eyebrows. How about a pop-up blocker, like it says in the title?
Ah yes, the "I'm the only kind of true Firefox user, so if your opinions differ from mine, then it means you're not a user, you're a rabid fanboy/supporter."
If we could convert even 5% of the hot air you "real users" contribute into actual useful work, your precious addon APIs would probably exist already, and you wouldn't have to use userChrome.css or that user JS hack-fest. Instead, you bitch and moan about how you're the real users, and everyone is magically jumping ship all of a sudden, instead of them having already done so years ago.
Firefox was doomed not in spite of you folks, but because of you folks.
I like my current 63.0.3239.108 It is responsive with 340 tabs (on Linux anyway), just like the good old days. Though those 340 tabs used 20GB RAM... Hope 64 is as good in this respect.
If you think Safari is not a valid option because it requires macOS, then Edge is also not a valid option because it requires Windows.
I don't see the equivalence. Edge can be thought of as a $119.99 browser that runs on almost any x86-64 PC (and comes with an operating system called Windows at no additional charge). Safari requires specifically an Apple brand computer.
Two extensions that I have used have not been ported. One was not ported because it depends on legacy APIs known to lack a counterpart in WebExtensions.
Keybinder This allows disabling the Ctrl+Q keyboard shortcut for Quit, which is too easy for a user to hit accidentally while reaching for Ctrl+W or Ctrl+Tab. Restore Previous Session fails to restore some forms, particularly Slashdot D2 comment forms. A replacement for Keybinder is pending the resolution of bug 1325692 in BMO. The README file in its source code states that its maintainer abandoned the project over the lack of a counterpart to XUL keysets. Ubufox This notifies the user when the APT package manager has upgraded Firefox, so that the user can plan a restart for when no unrestorable forms remain open. In theory, bug 1364978 in BMO and bug 1711778 in Launchpad would track porting Ubufox to WebExtensions, but I don't see 1364978 depending on other bugs.On Linux, chrome just crashes when trying to upload a file. Can anyone confirm?
As I understand Google's announced plan for Chrome, the eventual intent is to block ads on all sites that use ad formats that the Coalition for Better Ads has determined annoy viewers. Currently the Better Ads Standards deem the following formats annoying:
If Chrome doesn't block Google's own ads, it's because Google doesn't offer inventory in any of the annoying formats.
Tab-unders aren't listed on the Coalition's website, but I find them worse than some of the listed formats because the act of closing such an ad destroys the back button stack.
I was disappointed that the standards didn't list the practice of "retargeting" or "remarketing" on sites with unrelated subject matter, a practice that many users claim to find creepy. But then I guess that's Google's bread and butter.
APK Hosts File Engine 10++ SR-1 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/
Ads/script/malware rob speed/security/privacy/bandwidth.
Hosts add speed (via hardcodes/adblocks), security (vs. bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (vs. dns down), & anonymity (vs. dns requestlogs/trackers).
Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivir + less security bugs/complexity & faster vs. av/addons/routers/remote dns!
Avoids DNSChangers in routers/IP settings & dns redirect (99++% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + DNS tracking & lighten DNS load & resolve faster via local RAM!
* Via what u NATIVELY have in a FASTER kernelmode IP stack (does more w/ less).
APK
P.S. - Does the job better & faster BEFORE browsers ever need to + vs. more threats by far... apk
Oh please, Slashdot has improved greatly since the days when Dice first pissed off users a couple of years ago. I used to have an account here, heavy contributor. The new editors/management have made this site great again. C'mon, give credit where credit is due, the new /. management/editors, while human, are heads and tails far better at managing this website. They pulled it out from a certain demise. 10/10 Stars to the new /. team. :)
Then there's the Firefox of today.
Oh good. Another pointless, content-free "Firefox kicks puppies!" post from an anonymous coward.
Yet breaking nearly all extensions
All the extensions I use continue to work, and so do over 8,000 other extensions. Your experience is not universal.
For years we've had Firefox users saying that they just want a fast, extensible, secure browser.
And that's what Firefox is. Maybe get outside a bit more and get some perspective.
Firefox is somehow "faster"
It sure is. Try turning on Firefox's Tracking Protection. Set it to "always" and you will halve your average page load time.
NoScript for one
NoScript works in Firefox 57+. Giorgio Maone, the author of NoScript, says Firefox's add-ons API is the best of any current browser. So that one's solved for you.
I've got NoScript running in Firefox right now.
It was broken for a day or two, and had UI issues for a couple days after that, but now I like it even better than I did before FF57's plugin apocalypse. Change was good for it.
Of course, I gave the author useful feedback and paypal'd him a donation to support the work, so I'm not surprised that the tool works fine for me.
I'm interested in switching my blog to hosting its own ads. How would I go about finding sponsors? Last I checked, well-known advertisers preferred to buy inventory from ad networks and ad exchanges so that they could reach multiple publishers' sites with one buy, target very specific inferred demographics regardless of correlation with a particular site's subject matter, and benefit from economies of scale in click fraud detection. If you have operated a site that hosts its own ads, how did you overcome these obstacles? I know Daring Fireball does, but I don't have quite his scale yet.
Seems this release was completely botched. They're releasing another Chrome version with the exact same feature set: (place finger here)
I was all ready to install that but it doesn't do what it claims. It says click to close those overlays? You already have to click them to close them. I don't want to fucking see them in the first place. I know its some css bullshit so can't we have a plugin that blocks that call?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
You don't need to have 340 tabs open. That is the equivalent of having a house filled to the ceiling with junk mail on the off chance you might need to refer back to it one day.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
XUL/XPCOM was neat for its time, but HTML5 is growing quickly and that's where the major new development is taking place (including JS and WebAsm), which makes XUL redundant.
XUL is also a monolithic block, not multi-threaded, so doesn't utilise modern architectures.
But I'd love to know other reasons why it's wasn't possible for mozilla to make xul memory-friendly and multi-threaded for multi-core processors?
Regardless, since it took a great number of devs to maintain Firefox and fix issues with XUL; every month that passes, makes Pale Moon / Waterfox / etc, more redundant and a security threat... especially since they are mostly maintained by ONE guy.