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?
The primary reason Google chrome malware has the market share it does is persistent scare/nag campaigns against competing browsers by those using Google.
macOS and iOS, by default, use curly quotation marks -- we support straight quotation. You can change it by going to keyboard settings.
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.
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.
UTF-8 is unicode. It's one method of encoding unicode characters as multi-byte sequences.
The problem is going to be either:
Apple doesn't correctly set the Content-Encoding header when it makes HTTP requests
or
Slashdot doesn't correctly support the content encoding being set.
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!
> 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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
fyi just mute the whole chrome while in office.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.