Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Disables Inline Installation For Chrome Extensions (venturebeat.com)

Posted by msmash on from the tightening-bolts dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Google today announced that Chrome will no longer support inline installation of extensions. New extensions lose inline installation starting today, existing extensions will lose the ability in three months, and in early December the inline install API will be removed from the browser with the release of Chrome 71. Critics have pointed out such moves make the Chrome Web Store a walled garden, while Google insists pushing users to the store ultimately protects them.

100 comments

  1. Apple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Apple did it first post.

    1. Re: Apple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      No it was TRUMP AND THEe RUSHANZ

      ==BeauHD==

  2. Another reason by DarkRookie · · Score: -1

    Just gave me another reason not to use Chrome.

    --
    The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
    1. Re:Another reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just gave me a reason to suggest ONLY using Chrome to most users. There is no end to the amount of sideloaded shitware extensions that fuck up your browser.

      "But the website said I needed this to do X!" "I don't know. It just appeared there and I cant search anymore" "Why do I see so many ads?"

      To their Credit, google has taken down a good 20 or 30 extensions I've reported as obvious garbage that violates their terms. Still. Anything to cut down on this crap is great.

    2. Re:Another reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      To their Credit, google has taken down a good 20 or 30 extensions I've reported as obvious garbage that violates their terms.

      And how did that "obvious garbage" get into the Chrome Store in the first place?

      Google, Apple, whatever. NONE of them can be arsed to scrutinize things that are submitted to their store. Everybody knows it, and the "bad guys" exploit it routinely.

      Their "walled garden" is a PR move and nothing more.

    3. Re:Another reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In order to sideload an extension, you have to not only have OS permission (you do have your group policies setup correctly, right?) and the knowledge to enable developer mode in Chrome, but you also have to know how to download and execute the extension file itself. It's also not like the Chrome Web store is any safer. There are tons of malware and spyware extensions there.

      This is just another idiotic way that a corporation can scream out "look at me, look at me, we're protecting users", when in fact the exact opposite is true. They aren't protecting users, they are harming users by taking control and choice away from users.

    4. Re: Another reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe on googles side. But Apple has their walled garden locked down pretty tight.

      Not saying "nothing" gets thru. It's just that I trust them a lot more than I trust google.

    5. Re:Another reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      To their Credit, google has taken down a good 20 or 30 extensions I've reported as obvious garbage that violates their terms.

      And how did that "obvious garbage" get into the Chrome Store in the first place?

      Google, Apple, whatever. NONE of them can be arsed to scrutinize things that are submitted to their store.

      Google does not manually review every extension in the store. However, when an extension in the store is found to violate the rules, the removal from the store removes it for all users. That *dramatically* reduces the pay-off of tricking users into installing malware.

    6. Re:Another reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      You mad bro?

    7. Re:Another reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      You mad bro?

      Yes; the question is, why aren't you? I suspect the answer is going to involve corporate hero worship and a low IQ.

    8. Re:Another reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      You stupid, bro?

    9. Re: Another reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, so were removing from your phone any app that isn't G+ or Facebook. Its for your protection and that's the entire internet anyway.

      Still feel safe?

      How about we prohibit any retail store not called McDonald's, Walmart, Pizza Hut, and Lowes to cut down on illegal products and bad local service providers?

      Want more?

      Starting today Comcast is the only ISP allowed in America, as they have a vested interest in your protection that no one else has.

      Also Verizon is now the only allowed cellphone provider in the US for obvious reasons.

      If you can't figure out what the red light in an intersection is for, you shouldn't be driving a car. The same is true about extensions or any code for that matter. If there isn't a known reason why you need it beyond "because we said so", you shouldn't install it. And if you can't figure out how to remove them, then you shouldn't be using one period. Actually think before you click yes to everything, and you might not get hosed so easily. That's not the fault of others. Its your own fault, and you need to learn to take responsibility for your own actions instead of whining to the rest of us for protection at our detriment. I have a better idea: if you can't learn to use a web browser correctly, then you should be kicked off the internet.

    10. Re:Another reason by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1, Troll

      Just gave me a reason to suggest ONLY using Chrome to most users. There is no end to the amount of sideloaded shitware extensions that fuck up your browser.

      Hmm, I had to use Chrome this morning, and the once stable browser hung on me several times. I wonder if there is any relation. Can't think why, but that's never happened before. Ended up having to use FF.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    11. Re:Another reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They probably are, and they should be.

      Unless, of course, you like the idea of the computer equipment you paid for effectively being owned by a company, which is precisely what we are progressing towards.

    12. Re: Another reason by jenningsthecat · · Score: 0

      Thanks for saying what needed to be said, and for doing it so well:

      OK, so were removing from your phone any app that isn't G+ or Facebook. Its for your protection and that's the entire internet anyway.

      Still feel safe?

      How about we prohibit any retail store not called McDonald's, Walmart, Pizza Hut, and Lowes to cut down on illegal products and bad local service providers?

      Want more?

      Starting today Comcast is the only ISP allowed in America, as they have a vested interest in your protection that no one else has.

      Also Verizon is now the only allowed cellphone provider in the US for obvious reasons.

      If you can't figure out what the red light in an intersection is for, you shouldn't be driving a car. The same is true about extensions or any code for that matter. If there isn't a known reason why you need it beyond "because we said so", you shouldn't install it. And if you can't figure out how to remove them, then you shouldn't be using one period. Actually think before you click yes to everything, and you might not get hosed so easily. That's not the fault of others. Its your own fault, and you need to learn to take responsibility for your own actions instead of whining to the rest of us for protection at our detriment. I have a better idea: if you can't learn to use a web browser correctly, then you should be kicked off the internet.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    13. Re: Another reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahhhhhh, I do love the smell of astroturf in the morning!

    14. Re:Another reason by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 0

      Just gave me a reason to suggest ONLY using Chrome to most users. There is no end to the amount of sideloaded shitware extensions that fuck up your browser.

      Hmm, I had to use Chrome this morning, and the once stable browser hung on me several times. I wonder if there is any relation. Can't think why, but that's never happened before. Ended up having to use FF.

      Looks like some folks with mod points must have been old-school AOL users who don't understand that what I posted wasn't a troll. It was a question. Carry on!

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  3. Spanking machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    need to line up all the standard apple bashers for a trip through the spanking machine

    1. Re:Spanking machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Apple bashers ain't got nothin' on Trump bashers. Those folks put even the old school vi/emacs fanatics to shame.

  4. This is fine by omnichad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you've ever seen a regular Chrome user's computer, you know there's at least one rogue extension that they can't explain how it was installed. More likely, several - and one of them changing the new tab page or redirecting searches away from Google.

    1. Re:This is fine by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Informative

      And you can still install extensions from outside the Chrome store, you just download them, enable dev mode and load them up that way.

      It's sufficiently difficult enough to deter users being tricked into doing it by dodgy web sites, but easy enough that it doesn't really affect developers and nerds.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  5. You are Safer in the Store.... by Zurkeyon3733 · · Score: 2

    Right up to the moment you realize that as much as 30% of the apps there are not properly vetted, and that infections are RAMPANT! But, of course, going to a developer who doesn't want to pay google or conform to their BS, that you may have been downloading apps and content from for DECADES, is worse somehow because google can't extort them or force creative control over their code/IP.... Isn't it?

    1. Re:You are Safer in the Store.... by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Right up to the moment you realize that as much as 30% of the apps there are not properly vetted

      And 70% of the apps have been vetted. Sounds safer to me.

    2. Re:You are Safer in the Store.... by rudy_wayne · · Score: 2

      More like 0% of apps are properly vetted.

      If you happen to get an app or extension that isn't malware, it's more likely just luck and coincidence, not an actual benefit of getting something from an official App Store.

      After all, Google and Apple have so few employees and so little money, they can't possibly conduct proper vetting of apps.

    3. Re:You are Safer in the Store.... by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      And what exactly are you installing that you need Google to protect you.....

    4. Re:You are Safer in the Store.... by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      More like 0% of apps are properly vetted.

      If you happen to get an app or extension that isn't malware, it's more likely just luck and coincidence, not an actual benefit of getting something from an official App Store.

      After all, Google and Apple have so few employees and so little money, they can't possibly conduct proper vetting of apps.

      What is the point of getting a malware-free extension for Chrome? Chrome already is malware, it is made specifically as spyware to collect more data on you, and while it benign in that it can be (mostly) disabled, and Google is probably one of the safest places to have your personal data, and trusted to only to sell it anonymized as statistics, it still is what it is.

    5. Re: You are Safer in the Store.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Open extension folder. Read source code.

    6. Re:You are Safer in the Store.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google is probably one of the safest places to have your personal data, and trusted to only to sell it anonymized as statistics

      "He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."

    7. Re: You are Safer in the Store.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Big Brother Google loves us all.

  6. No biggie by Billy+the+Mountain · · Score: 1

    As long as they support Radial, Boxer, and V8 and Wankel Rotary installations, we're good to go.

    --
    That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
    1. Re: No biggie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up, you sexist pig.

      -Ethel

    2. Re: No biggie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ethel, you're going to wind up as a series of brooms, primitive ironing boards or a dog house!

    3. Re:No biggie by sconeu · · Score: 1

      I have a V6, you insensitive clod!

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    4. Re:No biggie by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Of course they support V8. It's a critical part of their engine. Not only that, they opensourced their work on it.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    5. Re: No biggie by cas2000 · · Score: 1

      Ethel shook her twigs angrily. And Billy just laughed.

  7. Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pushing them to the app store generate leads.

    I will continue to use third party crxs, in dev mode, after having to white list them.
    How else am I supposed to fix the UI on junky websites like youtube?

  8. Good, another reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    To push Chrome onto the vast majority of people. I can't even count the number of people who I've help with computer issues with odd, usually scammy/spammy/spyware/malware type extensions installed. 100% of the time they had no idea exactly what they were installing, they were essentially "drive by" installs because of this inline installation feature. 100% of the time, I uninstall those extensions and never get one single complaint about "hey this used to work, but now it doesn't"

    The root of the problem is less that a tiny fraction of computer users actually read any of the fucking dialog prompts they are shown. If there is a "yes" or "ok" button, they push that the vast majority of the time and only click "no" or "cancel" on rare occasion.

    1. Re:Good, another reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The root of the problem is less that a tiny fraction of computer users actually read any of the fucking dialog prompts they are shown. If there is a "yes" or "ok" button, they push that the vast majority of the time and only click "no" or "cancel" on rare occasion.

      And the root of *that* problem is the fact that those dialog prompts aren't really meant to be effective deterrents, they're just CYA that they throw up at potential infection points so when you get pwned they can say "well we warned you".

      If you want people to stop ignoring them, perhaps begin by convincing MS to change Windows to not throw a security panic literally every single time an .exe file is opened, even (by default) if you've ran that same program a thousand times before.

  9. Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    1. Put up a app walled garden.
    2. Have government demand you remove app that chronicles torture and murder.
    3. Profit

    So long as Google has a walled garden for the expressed purpose of removing nefarious content based upon the whim of governments across the globe, Google is complicit in the support of crimes against humanity.

    1. Re:Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Put up a app walled garden.
      2. Have government demand you remove app that chronicles torture and murder.
      3. Profit

      So long as Google has a walled garden for the expressed purpose of removing nefarious content based upon the whim of governments across the globe, Google is complicit in the support of crimes against humanity.

      The web is the only medium in existence which allows anyone to publish documents that anyone with a computer can easily read, and has no gatekeeper who decides what can be published.

      You are complaining about censorship from a company that developed one popular web browser, and kept another alive by paying 85% of its operating expenses for years. If they had not done so, the only way to read web pages would have been IE.

    2. Re:Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The web is the only medium in existence which allows anyone to publish documents that anyone with a computer can easily read, and has no gatekeeper who decides what can be published.

      Freenet. Tor. Most P2P networks. The web is heavily filtered in a lot of countries. Only through the use of a VPN or some other less common mechanism do you escape censorship. The internet and by extension the web, is also not readily available everywhere--although it's gotten very close. Adding "on the internet"/"with a computer" is generally a shitty argument. Books and other medium exist even without the web and would be going much stronger if the web didn't exist precisely because people would wish to communicate around gatekeepers. Yes, the web and the internet in general great enhance the ability of people to self-punish and overcome local censorship. So, what part of this should make us in any way applaud a company that is actively censoring?

      You are complaining about censorship from a company that developed one popular web browser, and kept another alive by paying 85% of its operating expenses for years. If they had not done so, the only way to read web pages would have been IE.

      So, your argument is that we should ignore the exact, obvious, and extant collusion of Google with China and other countries because they did good things in the past? Btw, Konqueror would still exist even if Mozilla and Google had done nothing. By extension, so would Safari. You want to argue that Google has had a net benefit? Sure, that's arguable. That doesn't excuse their current behavior.

      PS - The obvious fact that so many Chrome Extensions are shit clones which may or may not be doing nefarious things really undermines any claim of this all being for the user. The effort isn't to make it harder to do drive-by installs, tricking people into installing extensions they don't want, or generally limiting the damage extensions can do. Those would all be very positive things. Making it much easier to report extensions would be great. Blocking extensions that allow you to time shift Youtube or space shift around firewalls or lack of sufficient internet while still allowing extensions for other sites is simple bullshit.

    3. Re:Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The web is the only medium in existence which allows anyone to publish documents that anyone with a computer can easily read, and has no gatekeeper who decides what can be published.

      Freenet. Tor. Most P2P networks.

      Freenet and tor have insignificant usage compared to the web. The sentence you are replying to says "documents that anyone with a computer can easily read". I don't know a single person who knows how to use tor, or knows what Freenet is.

      P2P networks are not a reasonable means of publishing ideas. They have few users compared to teh web, and no sane scheme for pointing people to a specific document.

      The web is heavily filtered in a lot of countries.

      Grandparent complained that the company that makes a web browser (the best tool ever invented for the dissemination of ideas) is an enemy of the free exchange of ideas because they are removing a "feature" that lets web sites install extensions when you visit some web sites. How is the fact that governments censor websites relevant to the discussion?

      Text so far was too silly. Did not read the rest.

    4. Re:Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. I misunderstood what "inline install" was.

      "Chrome browser users have three ways to install extensions: They can use Google's Chrome Web Store; they can use a link on a third-party website to fetch an extension from the Chrome Web Store via inline installation; or with developer mode enabled, they can download the code from an open source repository and install it.

      It's this second option that will be gradually be phased out."

      Ie, Google Chrome Web Store is either sufficiently bad at vetting extensions or sufficiently bad at informing users when they prompt for inline install. So, they're removing inline install so instead of a malicious website issuing a Chrome popup to install malware hosted on the Google Web Store, a malicious website will instead be prompted to install malware hosted on the Google Web Store and then redirected to the Google Web Store to install it. Is that really a massive improvement?

      So, it's an effort to paper over incompetence.

      PS - Governments censor websites. You don't think they call on Google to censor extensions that displease them? Just like Freenet/Tor, by pushing extensions into something that's out of the way and inconvenient they're pushing less people to do it. Of course, when it turns out removing inline doesn't help, they'll start pushing on closing developer mode as much as possible--maybe some sort of key to unlock it. Then you'll have the choice of following a community fork of Chrome or continuing with Chrome.

      You want to actually clamp down on malware through the Chrome Web Store? Work on removing malware from the Chrome Web Store and make it more difficult for people to add it back. Having a walled garden isn't a panacea against malware if you let anyone in. It does make a good way to control things you actually don't want people to use, though.

      PSS - Further, if Google really gave a shit about malware they'd start by making it so websites can't pop things under the mouse or block the interface until a pop up is closed. Pop ups in general should be actually blocked as originally claimed. "Block Notifications" shouldn't include the ability of websites to ask for Notifications to be turned on. Etc. Using the web with javascript + no ad blocker is beyond infuriating. It's becoming that even without javascript + an ad blocker is becoming infuriating. I guess that's what you get when there is no gatekeepers. Maybe Google can put all web pages on their web store to fix that.

  10. Whoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At first I thought that the article was saying that you wouldn't be able to install extensions from the Chrome Web Store. I have literally never sideloaded an extension. Who in their right mind would do this?

    1. Re: Whoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Malware/adware writers.

  11. Take Ivan out back and shoot him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    This is probably the most cowardly defense of treason and collusion I've ever heard a retarded faggot Trump supporter ever make. Congratulations, INCEL leader. You're really protecting the President's anal integrity from Prison.

    (Lol, good luck next week though)

    1. Re: Take Ivan out back and shoot him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      For Christ sakes, I just wanted to post a first post meme. How the hell did you idiots turn this into something about trump?

      Madness

    2. Re: Take Ivan out back and shoot him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      NICE TRY HILLARY

    3. Re: Take Ivan out back and shoot him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      You don't blame Trump for this fiasco? Wut are you, a Russian bot???!?

    4. Re: Take Ivan out back and shoot him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      You caught me, busted. I will relinquish control of my email servers now.

    5. Re: Take Ivan out back and shoot him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Back in the cage, GOP incels

    6. Re: Take Ivan out back and shoot him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Donald Trump took a poop in my shoes! That's right, he dropped a deuce right in my loafers!

    7. Re: Take Ivan out back and shoot him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      You tell'em, Comrade Wang!

  12. So how do I develop? by ugen · · Score: 2

    I wrote a small Chrome extension previously. I did submit it to the Chrome store (where I can download it) - but during the development process I needed to modify and reload that extensions many times over (as is natural to any dev. process)

    Without inline extension installation ability - how would a developer be expected to do that? Is there going to be a special "developer" Chrome version? Or would developer have to submit every line change of the extension to the store in order to test it?

    1. Re:So how do I develop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Inline installation just refers to installs from a website. What you are talking about can be done locally using the extensions tab in dev mode.

    2. Re:So how do I develop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's already a developer mode that lets you sideload extensions (this is not going away or nobody could make extensions), but it will nag you to disable them every time you restart the browser.

    3. Re:So how do I develop? by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Develop your app using Chromium, then port it to Chrome.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    4. Re:So how do I develop? by Tough+Love · · Score: 0

      There's already a developer mode that lets you sideload extensions (this is not going away or nobody could make extensions), but it will nag you to disable them every time you restart the browser.

      Remember how Windows used to nag you if it found itself running under DRDos? It's like that. Microsoft ended up being sued and paying out for such practices, ISTR DRDos was part of that.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    5. Re:So how do I develop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Windows didn't 'nag' if it found DRDos, it gave a fake error message and then pretended to crash.

    6. Re:So how do I develop? by Tough+Love · · Score: 0

      There's already a developer mode that lets you sideload extensions (this is not going away or nobody could make extensions), but it will nag you to disable them every time you restart the browser.

      Remember how Windows used to nag you if it found itself running under DRDos? It's like that. Microsoft ended up being sued and paying out for such practices, ISTR DRDos was part of that.

      Wow, some Microsoft belly crawler doesn't want the world to remember that.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    7. Re:So how do I develop? by GoRK · · Score: 2

      Sort of; you can no longer download and install a packaged extension. You have to unpack the extension and put chrome into developer mode where it will display a warning about the extension every time you open Chrome.

      Tried to install moonlight on my macbook yesterday (chrome is the only way to run it on os x) and it was really fucking annoying.

    8. Re:So how do I develop? by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the world of users vs. developers. I recently installed Android in a VM so I can publish the content I produce on a real OS. I also need to use an "app" (things sure have developed from from the olden decades of "application program") for 2FA, because obviously smartphones and/or Chrome are the best way to keep things secure online.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    9. Re:So how do I develop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only on GNU/Linux, IIRC they made it more cumbersome on Windows and OSX

    10. Re:So how do I develop? by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Remember how Windows used to nag you if it found itself running under DRDos? It's like that. Microsoft ended up being sued and paying out for such practices, ISTR DRDos was part of that.

      Wow, some Microsoft belly crawler doesn't want the world to remember that.

      But the internet does remember.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  13. Big problem for Chinese users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google has just created a problem in China, where the store is blocked and inline installation was the only way to get an extension installed. To add insult to the injury, installing an extension is the only way to get the screen shared via WebRTC.

  14. Does it affect Chromium? by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Though it sucks to see another browser making it harder on Devs. I'm still trying to get my extension to play nice with FF Quantum (It's a slow, laborious re-write with a lot more C++ I need to write to do the conversion now). I'm not seeing a lot of improvements in security just more work for devs.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Does it affect Chromium? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Though it sucks to see another browser making it harder on Devs. I'm still trying to get my extension to play nice with FF Quantum (It's a slow, laborious re-write with a lot more C++ I need to write to do the conversion now). I'm not seeing a lot of improvements in security just more work for devs.

      Do you use inline installation in chrome?

      As far as I know, the only user of this feature was google drive and malware. If you can explain a reason an extension needs to be installed from a web page, and locally or from the web store, please share it.

    2. Re:Does it affect Chromium? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      youtube video downloader ?

    3. Re: Does it affect Chromium? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any web app which wants to share your desktop? Like WebEx, zoom, Uber Conference, and vMee?

  15. Typical corprate product lifecycle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Embrace, extend, extinguish. It's not just for Microsoft anymore.

  16. So that's why Firefox... by urusan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So that's why Firefox has been becoming more and more Chrome-like, so it can be an alternative to Chrome after this change!

    1. Re:So that's why Firefox... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FF is already too Chromelike and has been increasingly failing since release 57 in doing mundane online tasks like login and look at mail, browse a simple website, etc. I am using it less and less, but good alternatives are few. Given that Chrome sets the future for Firefox (beta testing new features and "ideas"), FF 65 should be completely and irretrievably broken.

  17. Its not like the chrome web store is trustworthy by blackest_k · · Score: 1

    I've reported too many dodgy chrome extensions from the chrome store to trust it.
    What this is really about is control over what you can install.

    There are useful extensions for working round restrictions and google is trying to stop you using them.

    Although this is often effective.

    document.body.contentEditable = 'true'; document.designMode='on'; void 0

    just add it as a bookmark usually is fairly successful, just delete the content you don't want.

    --
    Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
  18. Mozilla regretting dropping xul now by xack · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    if i was mozilla i'd be restoring xul support as fast as possible to give chrome refugees a place to get real extensions. But now they rather place the sjw game and give people toy extensions.

    Luckily we have the trio of heroes pale moon, waterfox and basilisk.

  19. You brought this on yourselves by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

    You brought this on yourselves. Who would have thought that a Google-owned browser monoculture would increasingly tend towards evil? Solution: use Chromium. Better solution: use Firefox.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    1. Re: You brought this on yourselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only solution use something other than Firefox or Chrome as both do not allow unsigned extensions. (For your protection of course.)

    2. Re:You brought this on yourselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even better solution, use Pale Moon!

    3. Re:You brought this on yourselves by johnsie · · Score: 1

      Browse as little as possible. The Internet is a giant data collection tool.

    4. Re:You brought this on yourselves by vandamme · · Score: 1

      Even better solution: use a real Linux distro, not ChromeOS. I'm running GalliumOS, which is a spin of Ubuntu optimized for Chromebooks.

  20. Mozilla regretting dropping their pants. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    XUL was an interesting idea poorly executed.

    1. Re:Mozilla regretting dropping their pants. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the HELL didn't they use the glade XML file format instead of creating a new one ?

      Not invented here I suppose...

  21. Creating your own add-ons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this mean you can no longer develop your own add-ons and test them locally on your computer?

    1. Re:Creating your own add-ons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does this mean you can no longer develop your own add-ons and test them locally on your computer?

      Developer mode will keep allowing it.

  22. I am not an app developer by foradoxium · · Score: 1

    But would this mean app developers can't test their extensions without first getting them in the store? If so is Google going to allow bad apps onto the store for the use of testing? Seems very odd.

  23. Chrome behind firewalls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about Chrome that couldn't connect Chrome web Store.
    I guess that if they disable "online installation" that already connect to Chrome Store in fact, they will disable the more invasible extension policies to allow alternative web to install the extension.

    What a shame. My client will be unable to use my extension or needed to use a harder way to install it (no, developer mode is not an option)

  24. Re:basilisk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Basilisk is just the beta of pale moon.

    https://forum.palemoon.org/vie...

  25. Protecting the Users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This indeed is a classic Protection scheme.

    That's a real nice extension you've got there.
    It'd be a shame if your users couldn't install it.
    The boss, see, he's got this great web store ...

    1. Re: Protecting the Users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, wella I got this hex editor ya see? And uh, well I found your little SIG check branch instruction. Be a shame if we had to hack it......

  26. Out of curiosity... by gerald.edward.butler · · Score: -1

    What is your extension?

  27. ...what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the fuck is " inline installation of extensions".

    Wtf is wrong with slashdot? You define common terms, but don't bother to define shit like this.

  28. Fuck off google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's MY PC. I will run the software THAT I WANT!

  29. Inline Extensions by enderwiggin7 · · Score: 1

    And the definition is? I've been a Chrome user since the beginning and I've never heard that term.

  30. Everyone moving to a walled garden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Other the severely fragmented open source of Linux desktop, just about everything else is pretty much already considered working within a walled garden sort of ecosystem. Apple, Google and Microsoft all offer some crossover stuff into other ecosystems where it makes sense. But all three really want the end user to exclusively use all of their products and services the way they want you to use them. Or become one of the 5% who reject this walled garden system and simply use Linux desktop. I really think most will trade a bit of flexibility in order to achieve better security.

    1. Re:Everyone moving to a walled garden by skids · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well they would get even better security still if the walled gardens would democratize the vetting process, and allow users to add multiple authorities which vouch for apps, and choose which authorities to trust (to the possible exclusion of "the store" whichever store that happens to be.)

      (Really it astounds me that people stand for being forced to divulge a user identity in order to obtain all software, including free-as-in-beer and opensource, but that's an othogonal matter. It also astounds me that people stand for having basic things like a goddamn text notepad or file manager missing from the base install and relying on 3rd parties, but hey... it's the 10's)

      --
      Someone had to do it.
    2. Re:Everyone moving to a walled garden by jwymanm · · Score: 1

      Love this post. Thank you. Unfortunately it seems everyone is content in being consumers and more and more are born into this environment of not giving a fuck about freedoms.

  31. Less usable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So I take it that now when someone tries to do something like join a web meeting via WebEx, instead of being able to help the user get on their meeting quickly, companies like WebEx are going to have to explain to the user how to go get the extension?

  32. "inline installation" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $20 says "anonymous reader" just learned the phrase "inline installation" and has no idea what it means, but saw it somewhere and decided to use it a bunch of times in a paragraph in an attempt to look like a brilliant jargon-slinging badass, rather than putting in a single sentence explaining what it is.

  33. Like Microsoft, Google has proven untrustworthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Windows 10 forcibly spies on you. Android now REQUIRES location to be turned on for some Bluetooth and WiFi functions with no explanation from google.

    Everyone knows that google products included chrome spies on you forcibly, so, why are we using chrome again? Out 10K user business won't touch it nor will be use Windows 10. Fortunately we have a unique situation that works well for us.

  34. not a garden by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

    It's not a "walled garden", it's a "prison state".

  35. How about an option that allows the adults freedom by Marisaze · · Score: 1

    Can we get a setting that allows me to use my computer the way I want to? I know how to not wreck myself and would maybe like to not be beholden to Google's strategy tax.

    Oh well, I never got on the Chrome bandwagon, this just ensures I never will.