Google Chrome Extensions Are Now Available 291
kai_hiwatari writes "The Google Chrome Extensions site is now open for Windows and Linux users — but not yet for Mac — and contains around 300 extensions. AdBlock is not yet available, however. (The closest thing to it is Adsweep, but right now it seems to be broken. Who wants to take this on?) Does the availability of extensions put Chrome at risk of becoming bloated, like many complain about with Firefox?"
Re:No (Score:3, Interesting)
Your analogy is more apt than you know, since Chrome extensions are entirely written in Javascript and HTML. They don't pose the same problems as Firefox extensions.
Re:Bloated. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the problem is all the extra javascript that is being added to the average web site. I've noticed sites getting slower and slower even on the same version of Firefox. Then 3.5 came out and sped things up a bit. I suspect that this will encourage developers to use more excessive javascript when it's not necessary and slow down their sites even more.
Re:No (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah, we're all totally pissed that our extensions take up an added 5% of our memory usage and .00000000005% of our disk space, and the extra 00:00:03 of time the processor spent loading them right? /sarcasm
Why is it that the people here, on a computing and technology based site, have the shittiest, low end, antiquated computer equipment around? The actual users of the extensions don't care AT ALL that it takes that tiny fraction more to view their sites without ads or whatever else it is that helps them get their browsing done better/faster.
Waiting for NoScript (Score:5, Interesting)
I actually don't care if a site displays ads at me, so long as they're well-behaved.
But I don't want a site to do ANYTHING that moves unless I give it permission. NoScript handles that pretty well.
There is a Flashblock extension there, which is a good start, but I'm going to hold off switching to Chrome full-time until I can selectively disable Javascript. (There are many good uses of it as well, so I don't want it disabled entirely.)
Bloat... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, I've just dealt with Adblock in another post -- there are several adblocking extensions, and I wrote one myself in an afternoon. Trust me, adblock will happen, whether Google wants it or not.
So now let's talk about bloat...
First, I won't lie. It's a very real possibility. Take something like an adblocker -- in Chrome, that would be implemented as at least a "content script", a script which runs on every page. Every content script is adding some finite but real cost to the pages it effects. And of course, poor extension design would lead to a bloated browser.
On the other hand, no one's forcing you to install extensions, and a bare Chrome is much lighter than a bare Firefox.
Also, consider a properly designed extension -- you're going to have some of it running in the page as a content script, you might have some buttons in the toolbar, but chances are, you're also going to have a bunch of logic in a "background page", doing things like making HTTP requests, talking to your local sqlite database, messing with your bookmarks and tabs, and so on. A background page is essentially an HTML page that gets loaded in the background, and is completely invisible, except that scripts on it can talk to other parts of your extension. Add to that the fact that every popup, even configuration, is a separate HTML page, and communication between all of these happens through a message-passing API.
What does all of that mean?
It means that a fair chunk of every extension, including the glue that ties it together, is happening in a Background Page, which could very well be a separate process. I'm also fairly sure you can have more than one background page per extension. This means that almost by default, you have a certain amount of concurrency built in. So it might bloat, maybe, but it's certainly going to mean less chance for extensions to directly lag you, if they're all in a separate process -- possibly using a separate core.
Plus, v8 just screams.
Re:SRWare Iron and firefoxs addons (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No AdBlock? No Chrome for me. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No AdBlock? No Chrome for me. (Score:3, Interesting)
It’s an ugly hack. That’s all. I put it on a similar playing field with the DNS domain search pages. You’re breaking the internet, or a part of it.
Much more elegant is telling your browser “hey, this object/element... don’t load it.”
Re:SRWare Iron and firefoxs addons (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately I can't stand webkit's middle click behaviour [webkit.org] years of middle clicking on everything are not easily forgotten, so i'm sticking with firefox.
Re:Take on AdBlock? (Score:5, Interesting)
the long term consequence of your point of view seems to be that all ad supported content will either disappear entirely or run to hide behind a paywall.
Right, and it will be replaced with content that doesn't require advertising to support it.
I don't need adblock (Score:1, Interesting)
I use Privoxy. It works with any browser that supports proxies.
Re:Take on AdBlock? (Score:4, Interesting)
To each his own. I like glancing at my home town newspaper without committing to a big subscription. If the ads don't work, though I won't have that option.
If you really want to live in the past, here's the Wayback Machine's take on Slashdot:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.slashdot.org [archive.org]
Note, it didn't exist before ads and it won't exist without them.
Don't complain to us, complain to all the websites that implement ginormous banners that slide right over the article I'm reading and ask me DO YOU WANT TO TAKE A QUICK SURVEY!!!??? FREE PS3 IF YOU DO!!!
I don't mind google ads or picture ads, but the second they start implementing flash and slowing my browsing experience down, it all goes out the window.
Re:You guys want Adblock? You've got Adblock! (Score:1, Interesting)
Trying to install that adblock and it throws up a warning that the adblock extension with have access to your private information on api.flikr........ I shut it down immediately
Re:Extensions security? (Score:3, Interesting)
All mozilla extensions on addons.mozilla.org go through a review process. Stuff might slip through, but its unlikely that unwanted behaviour in popular addons isn't noticed. The addons are distributed over SSL.
And are the updates properly secured with digital signatures? Otherwise dns poisoning or open wireless MITM is all that is needed..
Re:Take on AdBlock? (Score:2, Interesting)
Fuck advertising.
Re:Take on AdBlock? (Score:3, Interesting)
Problem is the Hosts file is still too rough. It blocks ad servers but not only on specific sites. For example, I can block all of DoubleClick or all of Atlas, but I can't block www.annoyingads.com.
For example, what if site A is using DoubleClick and all their ads are well-done and don't annoy me? Meanwhile, site B is also using DoubleClick and its ads are completely irritating? Then I'm screwed again: I can't add DoubleClick or I'm punishing site A for a problem on site B.
The *really* annoying part is that this would be like 5 lines of code for AdBlock, since they already have the reverse behavior coded. It's just irritating that it doesn't do that.
Re:Extensions security? (Score:2, Interesting)
Do you understand how SSL works? At all? Since everything goes through the CA, the channel is secure. The CA *are* the digital signatures.
MITM/DNS poisoning won't work. This is assuming Mozilla mitigates the current SSL hole by disallowing renegatiation.