Slashdot Mirror
Chrome 72 Arrives With Code Injection Blocking, New Developer Features (venturebeat.com)
Following Mozilla's footsteps, Google has released Chrome 72 for Windows, Mac, and Linux. From a report: The release includes code injection blocking and new developer features. You can update to the latest version now using Chrome's built-in updater or download it directly from google.com/chrome. With over 1 billion users, Chrome is both a browser and a major platform that web developers must consider. In fact, with Chrome's regular additions and changes, developers often must make an effort to stay on top of everything available -- as well as what has been deprecated or removed -- most notably, Chrome 72 removes support for Chromecast setup on a computer. To set up a Chromecast, you'll now need to use a mobile device.
As this isn't a major release, there aren't many new features to cover. Chrome 72 for Windows, however, blocks code injections, reducing crashes caused by third-party software. The initiative to block code injections in Chrome started last year, with warnings letting users know that Chrome was fighting back. Those warnings are now gone, and Chrome blocks code injections full stop. Further reading: All the Chromium-based browsers.
As this isn't a major release, there aren't many new features to cover. Chrome 72 for Windows, however, blocks code injections, reducing crashes caused by third-party software. The initiative to block code injections in Chrome started last year, with warnings letting users know that Chrome was fighting back. Those warnings are now gone, and Chrome blocks code injections full stop. Further reading: All the Chromium-based browsers.
Happening now in realtime...
Do you honestly believe if Mozilla had 99% market share, they wouldn't be abusing it?
Can anybody explain what really causes Apple's apostrophes not to render? Slashdot definitely supports the correct character: ’. It's consistent with them being double encoded.
and who doesn't want their goodies in the hands of the tongue-wagging G-head intern? Words? Pft! Pictures of your goodies, of course.
Isn't that the "Evil Government" fallacy?
I just made that up, sorry. ;)
The primary reason Google chrome malware has the market share it does is persistent scare/nag campaigns against competing browsers by those using Google.
I am in control of the webziez hear me roar
Chromium isn't a fork of Chrome, it's the other way around.
Chromium is open source, developed primarily by Google. Chrome is built on top of Chromium.
They just add Google account integration and telemetry.
Long story short: A corporation gets big or powerful enough, they WILL become abusive and controlling.
Just you use the more common word "spyware", telemetry is a cop-out word.
Yes. They are a non-profit versus the largest ad company in the world.
What would they be abusing and why would they abusive?
It woudn't be healthy if mozilla share were 99% either. But that's neither here nor there: it isn't and there's no plausible scenario in which they turn into a monopolist, not to mention the fact that they're a non-profit whose interests are perhaps less likely to push them to abuse than companies peddling your private data and opinions to the highest bidder.
Ran the audit against this page
5 vulnerabilities found in the Javascript libraries. 1 medium in jQuery 1.3.2, 3 high's in jQueryUI 1.7.2 and a medium in Handlebars 3.0.0
Overall audit scores high and low:
SEO: 91%
Performance 21%
I see where the priority lies.
That's with ad-blocking turned on too, I'd hate to see how bad it is without Adblock Plus and uBlock Origin
Good on ya /., you suck.
You know what would be really helpful? If they just removed chrome, google, chromium, and cancelled all the EULAs. That would actually be helpful. But I doubt google actually wants to be helpful
Chrome having bested every other browser is clearly a solid target for malware. Its why I decided against using Chrome anymore because its just to attractive of a target these days.
Do you honestly believe if Mozilla had 99% market share, they wouldn't be abusing it?
EVERYONE abuses a monopoly position. This is why the world is far better off when monopolies are simply not allowed to exist.
Presently Mozilla is just a browser. They don't have a monopoly on search and operate massive content/ad service like Google does. Google is way more dangerous as they continue to exert ownership over more and more of the stack fueled by NIH ethos.
Google browser running on Google OS over Google transport (QUIC) to get to Google services and search sites hosted on Google (AMP). Some lucky few have even managed to get Google fiber and close the loop entirely.
Now they have taken control over transport protocols and as a result 1 session to Google (QUIC) consumes twice the bandwidth of sum total of 20 other sessions (TCP) to other places combined over a bandwidth constrained link because Google has intentionally tweaked congestion algorithms with twice the aggression of normal TCP so that they win.
How the hell does a straw man argument like that get to "score 5, insightful"? Support Mozilla, so that there is competition and choice.
Strawman much? Regardless of Mozilla's market share and what they would/would not do with market dominance the OPs point is clearly more about avoiding a monoculture than abusing market position. However, given they are a non-profit and didn't attempt the kind of abuse you are suggesting when they were peaking at around one third of the browser market I'm going to go with "no" on the willful front, although I suspect some of their innovations would become defacto standards purely because of 99% market share.
The ideal would be for Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Mozilla, as the dominant browser vendors to each have their own rendering engine and the driving factors being standards compliance and performance. As it is, three of those four (as well as a significant number of the long tail of alternative browsers) will soon be based on forks from a single codebase, and that means a monoculture where Google - an ad company of all things - is more equal than others. That's a horrible position to be in as a user and absolutely that position needs to be resisted if you care about the web. Equally, if the positions were reversed, abusive behavior or not, we should be promoting the use of browsers other than Firefox for exactly the same anti-monoculture reasons.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Because power attracts the kind of person who does that kind of thing. They would abuse their monopoly power and they would do it because they're people, not saints.
Yes. They are a non-profit versus the largest ad company in the world.
What would they be abusing and why would they abusive?
Oh, I dunno.
How about we ask Brendan Eich?
As to why?
SJWs gotta SJW...
I love Mozilla and I'd like to pretend that it would be just a few extra prompts to donate, but they do have Pocket. Pocket and other services would look more attractive to reap some extra income. and it's been a while, but didn't something similar happen to the privacy tool Ghostery? Don't they hoard and sell user data now?
> This is why the world is far better off when monopolies are simply not allowed to exist.
I'm not sure I'd go THAT far with that ideology -- the answer isn't that clear cut IMHO. I'm going to play Devil's Advocate for a minute:
Governments have a monopoly on creating and enforcing Laws and Money. Do you really every Tom, Dick, and Harry creating and enforcing new Laws? I believe THAT is called Anarchy. One of the problems with Anarchy is that it doesn't scale.
I think part of the confusion is that Monopolies and Standards go hand in hand. That is, Monopolies, at best, provide a "de facto" standard. Is a bad standard worse then no standard? Sometimes. Sometimes not.
Apple has a "monopoly" on iOS programming. Microsoft has a "monopoly" on Win32 programming. Is that a bad thing? Well that depends -- it DOES provide a standard way to access the API.
One of the problems with monopolies is that they can ignore the little guy pointing a real problem -- the little guy is screwed because there is realistically no alternative.
* IE6 had a "monopoly" on low-common-denominator web pages. One of the reasons everyone bitched about this is because IE6 didn't implement half of the HTML standards, or worse, either outright ignored them, or created their own incompatible ones. Half of the reason jQuery was invented was to work around all the stupid proprietary shit IE6 did.
* WebKit has now become a "monopoly". While the days of specific web browser extensions seem to be over the drawback is that we MAY get "locked into" a bad implementation because there is no longer any incentive to see if there is a different way to solve the problem. The other problem is that one company can dictate this now the way things are done when we don't have the experience or wisdom to see the pros and cons of that approach.
You mentioned:
Yes, I too share you concerns and lament about Google "hijacking" Internet protocols for their benefit. We are potentially heading into dangerous territory when/where one company can simple break half of the internet due to "forcing" changes in protocols. Do we really want to leave one company with that much power? The warning should be: Here be dragons.
What we REALLY should be pursuing are Open Standards. Any one tech company should not be trusted to defined protocols due to a potential conflict-of-interest and out-right abuse of that monopoly.
i.e.
Sun had a monopoly on Java. At least now we have an OpenJDK that is the official reference implementation of Java SE.
Google "dictating" what they will or won't support needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I'm not sure how to "keep them honest" aside from industry pundits and critical analysis?
Thoughts?
--
Necessity is the mother of invention,
Curiosity is the father, and
some men just wanted better lives for their wives.
Funny then, that the open source version is 1000% shittier than the closed source version. Again, just further proves what everyone says which is that open source is a terrible way (the worst way in fact) to write software. Open source has set back our industry by 20 years.
I was sitting in a meeting with my laptop reading CNN, when a video busted out and I did the Walk of Shame to take my laptop outside.
I have multiple adblocks, multiple autoplay blocks, have twiddled with Chrome settings multiple times to block autoplay, with zero long-term success since asshole advertisers are determined that you *WILL* watch this fucking video, no matter what.
A killer feature for Chrome/Firefox would be "the ability to be compiled without any audio/video support of *any* kind whatsoever", That would quickly be my browser of choice in fact.
We have seen it before in the open source world like Xfree86.
What about Brendan Eich?
I thought he was ousted on a hunt to find political undesirables?
Was there something wrong with his performance at Mozilla other than his private life?
Firefox keeps abusing their users by imposing interface and functionality changes even with a minority marketshare. I can't imagine what they would do with a 99% market share.
Google doesn't hold a monopoly on search. Not within the US anyways. They more or less do in the EU, but nobody cares because, of all of the retarded ways to fight a monopoly, the EU forced Google to put spammy shopping comparison sites at the top of its search results.
The test is in the scripts and allowing the user to still control the browser and what ads can do.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
The browser now has ads are part of the content a users wants to see.
The ability for the browser to block ads is getting altered.
Find a great browser that allows a users to remove ads. That can respond to ad attempts on a users browser.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
UTF-8 is a SUBSET OF unicode, not the same as, not a superset. Words are not interchangeable like that when being pedantic.
Maybe if Mozilla was Google's size, they could afford enough staff to please even drama queens who "suffer" from such "abuse" whenever the UI changes in the tiniest way, or their precious customizations need to be updated so the browser can progress with their limited workforce's efforts.
If they really had a limited workforce, they would not be wasting time messing around with the damn interface and trying to add things that have no place in a fucking web browser.
That's kinda GPs point. Mozilla can still do stupid things and force behavior for dumb reasons.
Sure they would. What's your point? Any sane person doesn't want ANYONE to control the web, be in Google or Mozilla.. The "Arrogance of the Monopoly" rarely tends to benefit the customer/consumer/user.
Ideally we'd have 3 or 4 browsers with about 25-33% market share each.. This would help to insure adherence to standards as well as preventing any one company from introducing unsupported features (a la Microsoft). Embrace, extend, extinguish is a tactic used by more companies than just the one in Redmond.
Too many browsers, each with it's own glitches/quirks isn't too desirable, nor is too few. I suspect somewhere between 3-5 browsers would be okay, but certainly at least 3.
Long story short: A corporation gets big or powerful enough, they WILL become abusive and controlling.
Just like people and/or governments
Abuse need not be economic.. Abuse can be as simple as saying "We've got 99%, we think RFCs and web standards are a pain in the ass, so we're gonna do it our way". If you are rocking 99% market share, who's gonna want to go through the extra effort to ensure that the remaining 1% have a good web experience? Monopoly breeds arrogance.
No cosmetic filtering = your solution sucks.
A monopoly doesn't necessarily mean 100% market share. It can also define an overwhelming market share that impedes or denies competitive entry into a market.
Google is more tentacled that you probably realize.. They are tracking everything. I can't remember the last time I visited a website that didn't have that Google Analytics code buried in the HTML.
What are the real competitors to Google? Bing and Yahoo are about it, as far as I can tell.. DuckDuckGo uses Google as a backend, so.. not sure they really count as competition.
Just did a quick search on "Search Engine Market Share" for "United States", and Google has 88%. Bing is at 5.2%, and Yahoo is trailing with 4.9%. DuckDuckGo (that I would already exclude) is at 0.81%.
Google has a monopoly... It's even worse in Europe where Google is carrying a 93.41% share.
Still want to go with:
Google doesn't hold a monopoly on search. Not within the US anyways.
? If not, where would you draw the line to define a monopoly? 99%? 90%? 95%?
This is why the world is far better off when monopolies are simply not allowed to exist.
I'm not sure I'd go THAT far with that ideology -- the answer isn't that clear cut IMHO. I'm going to play Devil's Advocate for a minute:
Governments have a monopoly on creating and enforcing Laws and Money.
My remarks were in the context of commercial endeavors. It's quite a stretch to even attempt to apply the term to governance. I'm quite comfortable with my anti-monopoly sentiment generally.
The underlying reason for my belief is the observation power almost always corrupts the user. People are incapable of acting properly unless guided by an environment designed to reinforce good behavior.
All successful states by definition have obtained a monopoly interest on the use of violence yet inter and intra state competition depends entirely on the governance structures of states themselves. While I certainly would never see myself preferring a one world government the monopoly interest of a states authority/legitimacy over its citizens isn't actually relevant. The structure and distribution of power within the centralized structure is what matters.
Dictatorships run by kings with absolute power tend to rot from the top down.
Other structures where power is disaggregated and jealously guarded by many competing interests limit accumulation and exercise of power thereby protecting participants from themselves.
In business leadership is naturally aligned with the objective function: making money. Becoming a monopoly and leveraging yourself is the dream of all money making corporations. In effect there are no competing interests, no guarding of power... corporations are effectively one organism doing whatever they can get away with within their environment to maximize the objective function.
Do you really every Tom, Dick, and Harry creating and enforcing new Laws? I believe THAT is called Anarchy. One of the problems with Anarchy is that it doesn't scale.
No, there can be centralized things de-centralized in their governance. For example the UN and IETF are simply forums for those with power to communicate and pursuit mutually beneficial outcomes.
Having the entire world influenced by the fruits of a global effort doesn't make it a monopoly simply because consensus was achieved and everyone decided to follow the same standard.
I think part of the confusion is that Monopolies and Standards go hand in hand. That is, Monopolies, at best, provide a "de facto" standard. Is a bad standard worse then no standard? Sometimes. Sometimes not.
I have no interest in playing word games which is all these characterizations amount to. My remarks had nothing to do with "standards" and the question you raise are irrelevant. Simply put global standards can exist in the absence of monopolies.
Funny then, that the open source version is 1000% shittier than the closed source version. Again, just further proves what everyone says which is that open source is a terrible way (the worst way in fact) to write software. Open source has set back our industry by 20 years.
You're a fucking idiot. You having a nice day there on the MS Campus? Don't deny it.. You're a fucking MS employee or shill. Or, and I'll grant you this small concession, if you aren't either of those two, then I accept the possibility that you are a genetic (Down's Syndrome) retard. While I would like to imply that all the cocks you've allowed to be buried in your ass probably gave you brain damage, I'm aware that's not biologically possible. (even if it would really explain how your tiny chimp brain operates)
Google doesn't hold a monopoly on search. Not within the US anyways.
Was just browsing yesterday's logs. 1400 hits from Google followed by 100 from Baidu of all things then Bing, Yandex and DDG each with about 40.
Assertion Google doesn't hold a monopoly on search is simply not a statement I care to waste my time entertaining.
They do not give a shit if you watch the video or not. They just want the advertizing revenue.
I'd suggest you get a real browser (such as Firefox) and get rid of that Chrome shit.
Funny then, that the open source version is 1000% shittier than the closed source version. Again, just further proves what everyone says which is that open source is a terrible way (the worst way in fact) to write software. Open source has set back our industry by 20 years.
You're a fucking idiot. You having a nice day there on the MS Campus? Don't deny it.. You're a fucking MS employee or shill. Or, and I'll grant you this small concession, if you aren't either of those two, then I accept the possibility that you are a genetic (Down's Syndrome) retard. While I would like to imply that all the cocks you've allowed to be buried in your ass probably gave you brain damage, I'm aware that's not biologically possible. (even if it would really explain how your tiny chimp brain operates)
some open source projects would be better if advocates were not such assholes.
Do you honestly believe if Mozilla had 99% market share, they wouldn't be abusing it?
They never will, so how is this in any way relevant?
Ezekiel 23:20
Its a shame Firefox does not have a plugin that allows NOSCRIPTs to run. Am I right?
Long story short: A corporation gets big or powerful enough, they WILL become abusive and controlling.
I think that's true of almost every member of the human race, individual or in groups. That includeds government, corporations, and any other organization that gains power, like unions, churches, and perhaps some charities.
And that has what to do with having a web browser monopoly?
Which change are you referring to specifically? How do you feel that the web is made worse by the changes in the new version of Chrome?
Or are you just whining in general?
Chrome 72 removes support for Chromecast setup on a good computer. To set up a Chromecast, you'll now need to use a tiny computer with a shitty OS.
FTFY
They won, they finally won, now I'm done trying to understand anything.
I now expect announcements such as these :
- Uber drops support for hiring cars
- Youtube drops support for uploading videos
- IRS drops support for paying taxes
I honestly wonder if the people who criticize Mozilla even know a tenth of what they clearly think they know. Have you no idea of what's actually going on with Firefox, other than whatever lets you feel persecuted somehow? Firefox is based on ancient software frameworks that are *highly* problematic, and each time they revamp or replace one related to the UI, they also have to reimplement a lot of the UI. Would you rather they just waste even more time trying to make it look the same as the old one?
Or would you rather they only strictly adhere to YOUR personal vision of what browser is, and end up with even fewer users, who only know how to criticize everything they do, never showing any signs of fairness of thanks? Why on earth would anyone want to write software for such people?
See subject (proves how STUPID they are) & this https://developers.slashdot.or...
* :)
APK
P.S.=> LOL! apk
See subject & HOW SO via https://developers.slashdot.or...
* :)
APK
P.S.=> Mozilla (under Google "$" imo & what I've heard) tried to & this is the cure for HTTPS slow you down soon to be broken bs (SSL to TLS anyone?) in parameters in about:config
network.dnsCacheEntries 0
network.trr.mode to 5 (SHUTS IT OFF)
Which under HTTPS "pushing" (Joogle like drugdealers do) stalled hosts - NOT anymore & as long as Mozilla allows reparameterization on initialization (which good software does)? I've NO PROBLEM w/ them & use FF under KUbuntu/Linux... apk
Why don't you just mute the audio for the whole computer?
All they do is either make sure they don't work like any other browser ever created, or they simply copy Chrome as much as they can.
They've become the GIMP of the browser world.
"I was sitting in a meeting with my laptop reading CNN.."
Does this answer your question?
fyi just mute the whole chrome while in office.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
See subject as to your comment on UBlock & ABP (useless now) vs. https://www.bleepingcomputer.c...
* :)
APK
P.S.=> Can't DO THAT to custom hosts files https://developers.slashdot.or... - hostsy don't RUN in a SLOW usermode browser (increasing messagepass overheads, ESPECIALLY when you STACK multiple addons + using MORE & doing FAR LESS vs. hosts) & INSTEAD are a NATIVE PART of a kernelmode FASTER IP stack itself... apk
See subject: Keep the web clean & stop others from being infested/robbed + stop "spreading the disease" https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (w/ 'musical accompaniment' from Queenryche via their tune of the same name) via work I've done that DOES work & has always done more to give users more speed/security/reliability/anonymity online using what you have NATIVELY already (not "Bolt-on-'MoAr'" ILLOGIC-LOGIC full of security issues & slowdown (DNS/Antivirus)) especially when hosts files do MORE for LESS vs. ANY SINGLE OTHER "so-called 'solution'"...
* On 'serving a cause': I'm being of service to others & society (imo, this is a "CIVIC DUTY" we should all perform IF POSSIBLE when one has ability to do so). I'm just doing what a person with the ability to do so, SHOULD be doing!
I.E. - In the spirit of MAKE A WHEEL https://isc.sans.edu/forums/di... & others w/ ability ought to strive to do the same (it betters YOU too + the world for others AROUND YOU).
APK
P.S.=> JOOgle's PERFIDIOUS (proving it now in fact) - they only serve themselves & THEIR CAUSE (which isn't their own & that's ALL I am saying - they aren't here to SERVE YOU - they'll serve you for DINNER instead)... apk
See subject & https://www.bleepingcomputer.c... & addons = easily detected & blocked by webmasters + run in SLOW usermode (vs. hosts in FASTER kernelmode as part of the IP stack itself) & NO SINGLE addon does as much as hosts & hosts do so for FAR LESS too.
* NOT HOSTS FILES THOUGH https://apple.slashdot.org/com...
P.S.=> To CHATTERING do-NOTHING "ne'er-do-well" TWATS who will STALK me here by UNIDENTIFIABLE anon posts - GET ON TOPIC & quit STALKING me by UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous troll posts, loons - Make a Wheel (as I have multiplatform) instead https://isc.sans.edu/forums/di... vs. wasting your time (after all, YOU can't STOP me doing the RIGHT thing - &, I clearly am per 100++k users of my work in this program alone)... apk
See subject: I do my best to keep the web clean & stop others from being infested/robbed/"spreading the disease" https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (w/ 'musical accompaniment' from Queenryche via their tune of the same name) via work I've done that DOES work & has always done more to give users more speed/security/reliability/anonymity online using what you have NATIVELY already (not "Bolt-on-'MoAr'" ILLOGIC-LOGIC full of security issues & slowdown (DNS/Antivirus)) especially when hosts files do MORE for LESS vs. ANY SINGLE OTHER "so-called 'solution'".
* On 'greatness'? I'm "not that great" - I can "get a job done": One that needs doing, that's all.
Again - you ought to all @ least TRY do the same, pay it forward.: I'm being of service to others & society (imo, this is a "CIVIC DUTY" we should all perform IF POSSIBLE when one has ability to do so). I'm just doing what a person with the ability to do so, SHOULD be doing!
I.E. - In the spirit of MAKE A WHEEL https://isc.sans.edu/forums/di... & others w/ ability ought to strive to do the same (it betters YOU too + the world for others AROUND YOU).
APK
P.S.=> JOOgle's PERFIDIOUS (proving it now in fact) - they only serve themselves & THEIR CAUSE (which isn't their own & that's ALL I am saying - they aren't here to SERVE YOU - they'll serve you for DINNER instead)... apk