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.
Do you honestly believe if Mozilla had 99% market share, they wouldn't be abusing it?
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.
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!