Meh, so let's turn to the savior of the web - Firefox. The browser we Slashdotters can cum on and feel good about. Who do they cooperate with by sending everything you type into the address bar, every search you visit, to check where you go? OH FUCK, GOOGLE! But maybe this is more acceptable, after all it's about the phishing site filter this time, it's about security. Then they can gladly let Google track your browser habits, which they of course do behind the scenes of their phishing filter, logging all queries there, because they're evil.
Dude, if it's in an "Options" dialog we already know that 90% of users will not bother to touch it.
But maybe they read the news? It's been mentioned, it caused a stir, it was evil. But maybe these mysterious users neither read news or look at options despite caring about their privacy a lot. Or maybe they don't care about their privacy much, which turns this into a non-issue for them. <--- MOST LIKELY REASON
Pete LePage is spot on with this. The privacy intrusion by Chrome is outstanding. Every key you type to the address bar is sent to Google. Your Chrome installation has an personal UI number to track where you downloaded Chrome from, wherever you use it and how you use it.
I agree, maybe this is a reason for Chrome's performance with Flash. I always considered that possibility. And it would definitely be worth it for me. That, and the increased likelihood I'm always running the latest and most security-fixed version of Flash.
The inclusion of Flash doesn't generate any issues that every other browser doesn't have. Since 99% of people end up installing Flash, it's probably just as well to include it.
Even better, IF you are going to use Flash anyway, this move will improve security since Google will now be able to push Flash updates transparently, and the Google blog topic on these news also brought up improvements to the sandbox to contain Flash. Instead of having to run it outside of the sandbox, I suppose?
If you set up Chrome to use a script-based whitelist, you essentially have a poor man's NoScript. It's then also easy to to unblock certain sites you come across, by using the rightmost omnibar icon that will show for all pages that have js blocked. (a scroll of paper with a cross mark)
If Chrome had a better ad-blocking solution, I'd agree with you. All the Chrome ad-blockers still render/run the ad in the background
Since Chrome 4.1, I just use the browser blacklist for the annoying domains to prevent running Javascript and plugins (= Flash).
It instantly cleans at least two major newspapers here, as a whole lot of advertising is JS or Flash-based, or both. And makes them faster than I have ever seen too, as a bonus.
Browser black/whitelists with forced includes/exceptions for js/plugins/images is in all OS editions of Chrome since the latest betas for the respective operating systems.
I think I filed, or at least voted on, a bug that says these black/whitelists should do pattern matching though.
Not trying to be an annoying "see, I knew this" jerk, but really, this project was so far reaching and poorly defined in how much it should cover, that it was hard to even grasp what the end result should be, and thus also how to support the project. I'm not sure about others, but I have a much easier time building excitement for a project I know what the end result is supposed to be like, than something where the focus is on writing abstract documents on how the browser should more easily be able to be told what you want, and better ignore technical URL's... or something.
Well, yeah, that's an awesome idea, and so is being able to speak to an OS in a few words, and not have to go through the annoying process of clicking on five different icons and buttons to get there.
But it's also far reaching in scope, and not enough narrowed down. There were some concrete stuff done in it, but it felt like features sprawling in different directions, with no sense of direction. Being able to surf to Google Maps more easily, etc, but really with the extension wanting to do more. Hmm.. The article goes on with this
While conceptually, Taskfox and Ubiquity might seem similar, Raskin noted that Taskfox is actually quite different than Ubiquity.
"Taskfox is integrated directly into the URL bar and has a simplified grammar," Raskin said. "It's more accurate to think of Taskfox as a separate product which is Ubiquity-inspired, which has the potential to evolve towards a richer, more Ubiquity-like interface."
Rephrased, I think Taskfox has the right idea here. Software sometimes need to evolve from something more simple, but with a well-defined feature set, and *then* into something more advanced. Or you'll get software with ill defined scope in terms of features in practice, with less motivated developers behind it. Like Windows Longhorn. Or Ubiquity.
Good riddance? Sounds like you assume this means more than it does. Google won't stop IE6 users on YouTube. It's about future features that may not work.
And I still see less then 1 per month in my Inbox. _THIS_ is the price I am willing to pay to allow Google to filter my email.
Hear, hear. I was very surprised when I recently checked my spam volume. That is, in my Gmail *spam* box, not inbox. The inbox is usually clear of it, but the surprising part was that I had around a third to a fourth of my former spam volume a few years ago! I used to have to have 1.5 pages of spam per day before, now you have around 0.5 pages of daily spam in the spambox.
I'm not sure what Google did if this article is true... Maybe they are so sure of that it's spam, that it doesn't even end up in the spam box? Because, as for my mail address, when it ends up in a register, I don't see why spammers would later remove it. It obviously receives the spam since the mail server doesn't return an error...
Or maybe it's what I heard being rumored once - that certain spam networks avoid Gmail to save costs, because it's so inefficient to spam those mail boxes.
I can sort of understand it now. Just imagine the Slashdot bandwidth cost for him now, and the maintained costs to run that service with the media attention, with a minimal number of actual users. I think he's thinking of this when making that statement, and that's why he's saying the costs may be lowered in the future. He quite obviously realizes it is a high percentage, but how is he otherwise going to get it on its feet?
Why does it matter how often it phones home? Isn't the only concern what *information* is transmitted? Sure, I can see it being a nuisance if you rarely have an Internet connection, but I doubt that.
This tab thing makes Slashdot front page and the following didnt? Windows 7 way hotter than Vista off the line, now more popular than all OS X versions [engadget.com]. Okay then...
That was obvious news to come true after a while, given 7's popularity. This is not obvious news.
And Google Chrome from 1.5% to 4.6% last year according to Hitslink. That's huge too, in this fierce business. It ran past Opera like it wasn't even there, and is starting to grab Firefox users next. It's BS to say Android + Chrome aren't successful - quite the contrary. The mobile business isn't exactly a business you can just step into and expect easy gains in either.
And now Bing keeps gaining marketshare faster than ever before [slashdot.org].
You're talking about the US market alone.
According to Hitslink, Bing even dropped a chunk of market share back in November, and didn't regain it in December. It hasn't seen as much popularity internationally, perhaps because it's lacking international features, such as online shopping. The Swedish Bing for example just use a third-party site for that, not anything integrated to it in their "decision engine". It's just a simple search engine here.
Slashdot Mirror
Meh, so let's turn to the savior of the web - Firefox. The browser we Slashdotters can cum on and feel good about. Who do they cooperate with by sending everything you type into the address bar, every search you visit, to check where you go? OH FUCK, GOOGLE! But maybe this is more acceptable, after all it's about the phishing site filter this time, it's about security. Then they can gladly let Google track your browser habits, which they of course do behind the scenes of their phishing filter, logging all queries there, because they're evil.
It's all about the DEFAULT behaviour of a program that determines the software company's evil or not evil motives.
If convenient options are turned off by default, Google Chrome instead becomes annoying in the press.
Dude, if it's in an "Options" dialog we already know that 90% of users will not bother to touch it.
But maybe they read the news? It's been mentioned, it caused a stir, it was evil. But maybe these mysterious users neither read news or look at options despite caring about their privacy a lot. Or maybe they don't care about their privacy much, which turns this into a non-issue for them. <--- MOST LIKELY REASON
Pete LePage is spot on with this. The privacy intrusion by Chrome is outstanding. Every key you type to the address bar is sent to Google. Your Chrome installation has an personal UI number to track where you downloaded Chrome from, wherever you use it and how you use it.
WTF is this all about. Microsoft is doing the same thing with their search suggestion feature in IE 8. What was it called again? AutoSuggest(tm)? Anyway, yeah, something like that: http://www.ghacks.net/2008/09/05/take-back-your-privacy-by-disabling-auto-suggest-in-ie8/
And both can be turned off!
I agree, maybe this is a reason for Chrome's performance with Flash. I always considered that possibility. And it would definitely be worth it for me. That, and the increased likelihood I'm always running the latest and most security-fixed version of Flash.
Or if you don't like unstable browsers, try renaming the included Flash DLL. It's not like it's baked into the executable or something.
The inclusion of Flash doesn't generate any issues that every other browser doesn't have. Since 99% of people end up installing Flash, it's probably just as well to include it.
Even better, IF you are going to use Flash anyway, this move will improve security since Google will now be able to push Flash updates transparently, and the Google blog topic on these news also brought up improvements to the sandbox to contain Flash. Instead of having to run it outside of the sandbox, I suppose?
If you set up Chrome to use a script-based whitelist, you essentially have a poor man's NoScript. It's then also easy to to unblock certain sites you come across, by using the rightmost omnibar icon that will show for all pages that have js blocked. (a scroll of paper with a cross mark)
If Chrome had a better ad-blocking solution, I'd agree with you. All the Chrome ad-blockers still render/run the ad in the background
Since Chrome 4.1, I just use the browser blacklist for the annoying domains to prevent running Javascript and plugins (= Flash).
It instantly cleans at least two major newspapers here, as a whole lot of advertising is JS or Flash-based, or both. And makes them faster than I have ever seen too, as a bonus.
Browser black/whitelists with forced includes/exceptions for js/plugins/images is in all OS editions of Chrome since the latest betas for the respective operating systems.
I think I filed, or at least voted on, a bug that says these black/whitelists should do pattern matching though.
Don't change all the time like Windows seems to do.
Thankfully, they aren't. The "Human" theme started becoming long in the tooth, and it was not even very liked. What is not to like about this?
Other than the color refresh, the widgets are still very similar, and much more consistent than how the road has been from Windows XP to Vista/7.
Not trying to be an annoying "see, I knew this" jerk, but really, this project was so far reaching and poorly defined in how much it should cover, that it was hard to even grasp what the end result should be, and thus also how to support the project. I'm not sure about others, but I have a much easier time building excitement for a project I know what the end result is supposed to be like, than something where the focus is on writing abstract documents on how the browser should more easily be able to be told what you want, and better ignore technical URL's... or something.
Well, yeah, that's an awesome idea, and so is being able to speak to an OS in a few words, and not have to go through the annoying process of clicking on five different icons and buttons to get there.
But it's also far reaching in scope, and not enough narrowed down. There were some concrete stuff done in it, but it felt like features sprawling in different directions, with no sense of direction. Being able to surf to Google Maps more easily, etc, but really with the extension wanting to do more. Hmm.. The article goes on with this
While conceptually, Taskfox and Ubiquity might seem similar, Raskin noted that Taskfox is actually quite different than Ubiquity.
"Taskfox is integrated directly into the URL bar and has a simplified grammar," Raskin said. "It's more accurate to think of Taskfox as a separate product which is Ubiquity-inspired, which has the potential to evolve towards a richer, more Ubiquity-like interface."
Rephrased, I think Taskfox has the right idea here. Software sometimes need to evolve from something more simple, but with a well-defined feature set, and *then* into something more advanced. Or you'll get software with ill defined scope in terms of features in practice, with less motivated developers behind it. Like Windows Longhorn. Or Ubiquity.
WTF. This is a moon! Use it for huge stuff that aren't what they seem, but not for actual moons!
OK, I'm done. ;)
Now, as for what it will be used for!
Good riddance? Sounds like you assume this means more than it does. Google won't stop IE6 users on YouTube. It's about future features that may not work.
First post...that would be you sir.
That was a demand?
What's this story doing in "Mobile"?
Besides, a beta bug? Front page news? Come on... :-S
No one I know even use Office 2010 in a production system yet.
And I still see less then 1 per month in my Inbox.
_THIS_ is the price I am willing to pay to allow Google to filter my email.
Hear, hear. I was very surprised when I recently checked my spam volume. That is, in my Gmail *spam* box, not inbox. The inbox is usually clear of it, but the surprising part was that I had around a third to a fourth of my former spam volume a few years ago! I used to have to have 1.5 pages of spam per day before, now you have around 0.5 pages of daily spam in the spambox.
I'm not sure what Google did if this article is true... Maybe they are so sure of that it's spam, that it doesn't even end up in the spam box? Because, as for my mail address, when it ends up in a register, I don't see why spammers would later remove it. It obviously receives the spam since the mail server doesn't return an error...
Or maybe it's what I heard being rumored once - that certain spam networks avoid Gmail to save costs, because it's so inefficient to spam those mail boxes.
Reading labs.adobe.com more closely, the news here is that an alpha refresh has been released.
I can sort of understand it now. Just imagine the Slashdot bandwidth cost for him now, and the maintained costs to run that service with the media attention, with a minimal number of actual users. I think he's thinking of this when making that statement, and that's why he's saying the costs may be lowered in the future. He quite obviously realizes it is a high percentage, but how is he otherwise going to get it on its feet?
Why does it matter how often it phones home? Isn't the only concern what *information* is transmitted? Sure, I can see it being a nuisance if you rarely have an Internet connection, but I doubt that.
This tab thing makes Slashdot front page and the following didnt? Windows 7 way hotter than Vista off the line, now more popular than all OS X versions [engadget.com]. Okay then...
That was obvious news to come true after a while, given 7's popularity. This is not obvious news.
And Google Chrome from 1.5% to 4.6% last year according to Hitslink. That's huge too, in this fierce business. It ran past Opera like it wasn't even there, and is starting to grab Firefox users next. It's BS to say Android + Chrome aren't successful - quite the contrary. The mobile business isn't exactly a business you can just step into and expect easy gains in either.
Steve Jobs even introduced Internet Explorer for the Mac once upon a time. Shipping with OS X.
This is an example of how far he is ready to go for profits. That was the same Steve Jobs as is running Apple today.
And now Bing keeps gaining marketshare faster than ever before [slashdot.org].
You're talking about the US market alone.
According to Hitslink, Bing even dropped a chunk of market share back in November, and didn't regain it in December. It hasn't seen as much popularity internationally, perhaps because it's lacking international features, such as online shopping. The Swedish Bing for example just use a third-party site for that, not anything integrated to it in their "decision engine". It's just a simple search engine here.
Oh, fuck me for not even reading the summary properly. :p
Ignore the above, it's clearly not about 64-bit CPU's.