German Government Endorses Chrome As Most Secure Browser 174
New submitter beta2 writes "Several articles are noting that the German IT security agency BSI is endorsing Google Chrome browser: 'BSI ticked off Chrome's anti-exploit sandbox technology, which isolates the browser from the operating system and the rest of the computer; its silent update mechanism and Chrome's habit of bundling Adobe Flash, as its reasons for the recommendation. ... BSI also recommended Adobe Reader X — the version of the popular PDF reader that, like Chrome, relies on a sandbox to protect users from exploits — and urged citizens to use Windows' Auto Update feature to keep their PCs abreast of all OS security fixes. To update applications, BSI gave a nod to Secunia's Personal Software Inspector, a free utility that scan a computer for outdated software and point users to appropriate downloads.'"
Yes, because... (Score:2)
Yes, beacuse silent updates let you know which security problems you may have been exposed to.
Re:Yes, because... (Score:1)
If you took a moment to Google this information I think you would find it quite adequate:
For example:
http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/2011/10/chrome-stable-release.html
That is pretty thorough if you ask me. I am not sure what else you would want there.
Re:Yes, because... (Score:2)
Does the silent update give me a link to that page?
Re:Yes, because... (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps not, but the vast majority of users don't care. Many users are not unlike my mother, who constantly clicks "Later" or "Not Now" whenever programs ask to install updates. For this reason, her computer is routinely several months behind the current updates.
Having Chrome auto-update silently and without needing admin rights (as it by default installs itself only for the user that opened the installer, not system-wide) is enormously convienient (and the right choice) for most people.
Re:Yes, because... (Score:2)
My totally unscientific browser test (Score:3)
Since Germany is saying that Google Chrome being the most secure browser, I'd like to bring in a journal I posted the other day, FWIW
http://slashdot.org/journal/277313/journal-unscientific-testing-of-browsers [slashdot.org]
In the test above Mozilla Firefox gave the best result, Google Chrome came a distant 2nd
And an update to my journal above ----
It's been 100 hours since I started that test and only Mozilla Firefox is still running, with 5 taps opened.
Google Chrome stopped running some 80 hours after launch.
Re:Yes, because... (Score:2)
It's kinda new and I've been too busy/lazy to upgrade to Linux.
I see MS fanbois have mod points. They hate being told how much better Linux is.
Re:Yes, because... (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Chrome is more secure, but.... (Score:2)
I take a look at Chrome every few versions or so, but I do not use it, for various 'comfort' reasons; I haven't decided whether it's useful for me to install Chromium since I seem to get by just fine with Opera and Firefox.
Unless it's absolutely needful to run anything from Adobe, I prefer to use open-source alternatives, because they suit my admittedly pedestrian needs.
On Windows systems, I've used Secunia to good effect since their on-line scanner became available; later I used PSI on Vista and Windows 7. I found the later versions in particular to be very useful and easy to use. While I now run Linux, save for a few Windows virtual machines, I continue to highly recommend PSI to any general user running Windows.
Re:Chrome is more secure, but.... (Score:2)
IMHO it should come preinstalled on every new Windows machine.
Re:Chrome is more secure, but.... (Score:2)
I've noticed a number of complaints about PSI, some like yours. I noted it seemed to increase my boot time by about ten seconds, so I set it for delayed start. With a quad-core and plenty of RAM I never noticed any appreciable slow down whilst it scanned or updated. Do you think maybe this is a case of "YMMV"?
Adobe worship much? (Score:5, Interesting)
It would seem to me that "Chrome's habit of bundling Adobe Flash" would be a detriment. But that's just me.
They went on to recommend Adobe Reader X. I agree that pdf readers in a sandbox make a lot of sense, its just that I have no particular reason to trust Adobe, since it was their doing that made PDFs unsafe [adobe.com] in the first place. With Chrome's built in PDF render engine, I find I seldom have to use the adobe plugin at all any more. (And when I do, I'm always suspicious).
If Google wanted to do us all a favor they would to with Flash content what they did with PDF documents, and add their own in-browser render engine.
That being said, I do like the sandboxing that Chrome supplies, and Google Chrome is my browser of choice.
Some people don't like keying search terms in the URL bar, and other minor objections that, when investigated, all amount to "its not firefox". I've seen some reports of incredibly slow page fetches, which are usually traceable to external things (chrome likes to use multiple concurrent connections, and swamps some anti-virus packages that operate as a proxy server).
For me, the speed can't be beat on any of the platforms I use (linux and windows - various flavors of each). I prefer Google's builds to those in the Chromium Open Source project but both work very well.
Re:Adobe worship much? (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:1)
Re:Adobe worship much? (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:1)
Re:Adobe worship much? (Score:2)
Re:Adobe worship much? (Score:2)
I always run Dev channel, and have had very little problems with it.
I'm going to try sandboxing Flash for a while.
Where can we find definitions of "enhanced Low IL sandbox" to see what is or is not allowed therein?
'and add their own in-browser render engine' (Score:2)
it's called HTML5, and it will eventually kill flash
'It would seem to me that "Chrome's habit of bundling Adobe Flash" would be a detriment. But that's just me.'
and you are wrong. people want to see flash. and if a browser did not offer them flash, they simply wouldn't use the browser
so give google credit for meeting users half way: "look, you want flash, and you don't care about your security, so we are going to give you what you want in the most secure way possible, in spite of yourself"
don't hold against google their attempts to maximize security within the parameters of user expectations. of course, there will always be people who will judge google, and others, against absolute ideal security standards. and such people will only be called insightful on slashdot. the rest of us understand the needs of satisfying real world users
Re:'and add their own in-browser render engine' (Score:3)
My comment had nothing to do with giving Google "credit".
It had to do with BSI's decision to cite Chrome's bundling of Flash as a reason for recommendation.
A true security organization would not make that a reason for a recommendation, rather they would cite it as a detriment, a blemish, (even for Flash in a sandbox given Adobe's history).
As for people wanting flash, its value is negative in most people's eyes. People hate it more than you know.
Its nothing but an advertising tool to most people. A source of daily irritation when reading almost any web page due to disruptive graphics dancing around while you try to read. Apple dropped flash both from OSx [computerworld.com] and iOS [cnet.com] , and nobody cared. Even Android users find it mostly an annoyance.
Re:'and add their own in-browser render engine' (Score:5, Insightful)
you're wrong
BSI is 100% right for citing Chrome bundling flash as a reason for recommendation
when adobe pushes a security update, chrome automatically pushes a browser update. and if the user leaves the browser running for days, chrome starts politely reminding them they have to close and reopen the browser. this is as good as you can do to make sure flash is as up-to-date as possible
it is not the most ideal model of security, period. it is simply best-of-the-pack security model. and so it deserves a recommendation for that practice from BSI
Re:'and add their own in-browser render engine' (Score:2)
Actually, the only part of that I like is the Sandboxing of Flash.
The bundling I attribute to clever Adobe Marketing.
If the sandboxing was half as good as Google seems to think it is, keeping Flash up to date would not be that critical, would it?
Re:'and add their own in-browser render engine' (Score:2)
yes, that is true
but the BSI recommendation is still good
not because the BSI is in the business of making absolute security recommendations, but because it is in the business of making best-of-the-pack recommendations
Re:'and add their own in-browser render engine' (Score:2)
right, just stop using youtube
nice way to convince people to focus on security
Re:'and add their own in-browser render engine' (Score:1)
It is the chicken and the egg. If a large sizable audience wont have flash then the bosses who own these websites wont demand their webmasters to include it.
THe reason HTML 5 is not here is because of IE. Old IE actually as even IE 9 is struggling to gain traction a year after it was released. Companies after being burned with IE 6 only sites did not learn their lesson and simply made them IE 8 only which has no HTML 5 support. These users need flash unfortunately.
What killed IE 6 finally last year was that Google, Facebook, and others finally said enough is enough we wont support your 9 year old crappy browser anymore.
People need a push to upgrade and Chrome is big enough now that they could simply make flash optional. Webmasters and site owners will have to make dual html 5 and flash sites. THis would put pressure to eventually kill flash and give the corps a kick in the butt to follow standards and move to HTML 5 and leave IE 8 behind.
Re:'and add their own in-browser render engine' (Score:2)
It is the chicken and the egg
Would someone please come up with a better cliche? One that actually had merit?
1. The egg came first. Dinasaurs layed eggs millions of years before they evolved into chickens.
2. Who has chicken for breakfast?
Companies after being burned with IE 6 only sites did not learn their lesson
Then they should die. We should not reward mediocrity and incompetence.
and simply made them IE 8 only which has no HTML 5 support. These users need flash unfortunately.
No, they need to use a browser that doesn't suck. There are plenty of them out there, and they don't cost anything. Speaking of which, the <ol> tag is broken in slashdot on FireFox.
Re:Adobe worship much? (Score:3)
Bundling of Flash is a plus because basically everyone ends up installing it, and by having it in the browser, then theoretically it's kept up to date better for non-technical users. I don't know if there's a way to disable it for the very paranoid though, I'd hope so.
Re:Adobe worship much? (Score:2)
Yes, you can disable Flash in Chrome, either by keying in the address bar "about:plugins" with no quotes, /Options / under the hood / Content settings button / Disable link.
or by using the menus and navigating to
On Android, you have the option of running Flash only on demand, (my preferred way), but on Google Chrome you really don't have that option in the same easy way.
I leave flash on most of the time on those platforms that have the horsepower to handle them. I don't like it, its an annoyance, but its not worth the fight to get rid of it everywhere when I still need it in some few places.
Re:Adobe worship much? (Score:1)
I'm not familiar with the Android Flash only on demand feature but Chrome can be configured to run Flash only when you click on it:
1. Type in URL: chrome://flags and enable the
"Click to play" option (Enables a "click to play" option in the plug-in content settings.)
2. Restart Chrome.
3. Type in URL: chrome://settings/content and under "Plug-ins" choose "Click to play" instead of the default "Run automatically".
From now on, Flash will only run if you click on it.
Re:Adobe worship much? (Score:1)
Perhaps Google Chrome is the only browser than can take care of Flash Cookies and (the many) Flash Vulnerabilities in a secure manner. Good thing flash is free. I'd never pay to install a security hole in my computer.
Re:Adobe worship much? (Score:2)
Chrome's built in PDF reader is a proprietary bundled plugin, and I think it's largely developed by Adobe too. Certainly it's not available to users of the open source Chromium; neither is the bundled Flash plugin. (Of course, downloading the Flash plugin installer from the Adobe website will try and install Google's proprietary version Chrome if you're a Windows user and not very careful about which download you choose. Apparently it even does it silently and without prompting unless you manage to find and download the none-Chrome installer.)
Re:Adobe worship much? (Score:2)
Chrome feels fast because the ui stays responsive while the browser is busy. But on rendering any huge and complex pages, Firefox wipes the floor with chrome, not to mention Chrome using obscene amounts of RAM, which makes it an unusable nightmare on machines just a few years older.
saw this coming (Score:1, Interesting)
Maybe... (Score:2, Offtopic)
But this newest update they sent... is blowing my CPU util of the charts...
I can open just Gmail, come back 8hrs later (ie, going to sleep), come
back and my laptop fan is roaring like a jet taking off, utilization is well
above 50%, with kernel involved and both cores.
I don't know if it's new Chrome update interacting with SWF or something
that they (Google) did to their pages. When I run Chrome taskman, it
shows the tabs that have Google apps on them, just smoking the CPU.
This isn't flamebait or trolling... it's a fact. I've made two bug reports,
but it seems that there isn't a "me too" anywhere.
Hoping maybe one of the geek peers here might have a similar issue?
-AI
Re:Maybe... (Score:1)
Start by upgrading that 40-characters-wide monitor of yours, then we'll talk about your Chrome problems.
Re:Maybe... (Score:2)
I've been using Chromium for a few months with Gmail, and haven't had any problems at all. I wouldn't be too surprised if it's that Flash crap. I used to have all kinds of problems with Flash processes pegging the CPU when I used Firefox. Anything that Flash touches turns to shit.
Extensions can enhance security of Firefox (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Extensions can enhance security of Firefox (Score:1)
Sorta, except that when a security vulnerability is identified and exploited in Firefox that browser doesn't do anything to mitigate the extent of possible damage. Aside plugins themselves there have been vulnerabilities in common image libraries in the past which have been exploitable through a web browser. In Chrome (and IE) such would land arbitrary code within a sandbox, but in Firefox that code runs as the same context as your user and can trash your profile (or set up a zombie, which generally doesn't require any elevated privileges these days).
Are they on Crack! (Score:1)
Adobe in the same sentence as secure?
I do not know what world they are living in but post 2008 since the death of IE 6 the number one infection of the web is not javascript or browser exploits but infected flash, java, and adobe files. They infect all platforms regardless of browser and is a nice run around since browsers generally have huge resources put in security development. I am shocked most geeks still allow flash and java enabled in work computer browsers outside the intranet and allow adobe acrobat to be installed.
At home I use Foxit with javascript disabled by default as my pdf viewer and use lists in IE 9 to block most flash and ads. In Chrome I use adblock.
Also Chrome is that secure because of one glaring feature that is a security risk. Chrome will click for you on every hyperlink and just not render it in front of you in order to *appear* faster when you do click on it. It is called network predictions. So the old tale, do not click on everthing! ... does not apply in Chrome and that scares me. I make sure I disable it under advanced options.
So far I only trust IE 9 for security as Firefox offers no sandbox at all, but even IE 7 had a sandbox and was not secure although better than IE 6.
Re:Are they on Crack! (Score:1)
"urged citizens to use Windows' Auto Update" (Score:1)
Do they have people who know absolutely nothing about computers writing these recommendations?
Go to AskWoody.com first and decide whether that update is going to break your computer! There's nothing good about automatic updating - it just breaks things and adds bloat!
To summarize this dickwaving bitchfest... (Score:1)
If you must know, my browser is made from alien technology and does some of them there fancy things.
Nobody Will Rape You Except For The Prison Guards (Score:2)
Assuming Google doesn't have a "sendCopyOfUsersDataToGoogle()" function buried in the Chrome code base.....which is a very real possibility, Chrome *might* be the most secure browser in that if anyone rapes the user, it will be Google themselves.
If Chrome is that well built, it might be worthwhile to use one of the open source recompilations that check for and remove spy code.
Still, you have to trust that the developers are good enough to spot it.
Re:Nobody Will Rape You Except For The Prison Guar (Score:2)
Additionally, they may not rape you now but can easily add the rape function via silent update.
Oh, right, I can disable updates... and that's more secure? Sorry, no it's not.
I only trust browsers that I compile myself -- Before you ask: Yes, I do read through every line of code & diff-logs of updates looking for evilness therein. I'm actually two of those "many eyes" out there that help improve security and fix bugs... I can't compile Chrome, I don't use it. IMHO, I can't trust Chrome -- It has something to hide, or else I would be able to. Maybe that "something" it's hiding isn't malicious. Can you prove it's not? No, you can't. Since alternative open source software with equivalent features exists It would be quite foolish to NOT use them instead... I need to trust the browser when I enter my credit card numbers online, not saying that Chrome isn't trust worthy, just that the alternatives are moreso.
So, Chromium & Firefox, yes... but never will I use Chrome.
Re:Maybe... (Score:3)
Never underestimates the capacity of politicos to make decisions and pass legislation based upon a knowledge of the subject at hands poorer than that of a 3 year old. Especially high tech subjects...
Re:Maybe... (Score:1)
Re:Maybe... (Score:1)
Google protecting your privacy, FaceBook selling your privacy, and Microsoft leaving your windows open.
Re:Maybe... (Score:2, Interesting)
Google protecting what? If anything, they invade your privacy every day, even more so since the David Drummond asshole rolled out the new privacy policy!
--
Jordyn Buchanan
Re:Maybe... (Score:3)
Re:Maybe... (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh boy, people STILL post about this?
Every single option can be disabled. All of them. Even the ones the "moron" from SRWare said weren't capable of being disabled.
Enjoy your less useful browser!
If you think you have ANY privacy online, you should check again, every single thing you do is being watched for legal requirements.
Unless of course you go out of your way to use something like Tor, Freenet and the like. "In which case you are a durty turrurist!" (still can't believe that was mentioned, how long do you think it will take for it to be outlawed?)
You already don't have privacy from the first day you enter this world.
You really care that some people probably thousands of miles away from you are watching your habits so, GOD FORBID, they can show you something you might LIKE? CALL THE COPS, THEY ARE GIVING ME NICE THINGS!
I'll never understand you paranoid people. Some harmless ads and you almost stroke.
Re:Maybe... (Score:2)
google astroturfer? ..or just completely ignorant about human psychological needs?
Re:Maybe... (Score:2)
posted as a/c?
head asplodes...
just because you have given up your valuable privacy does not mean the rest of us want to join you in subservience to your government and corporate masters.
in fact, I think you're a pussy for giving up so easily.
Re:Maybe... (Score:2)
2) ???
3) Profit!
Re:Maybe... (Score:2)
just because you have given up your valuable privacy does not mean the rest of us want to join you in subservience to your government and corporate masters.
in fact, I think you're a pussy for giving up so easily.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they really are all out to get you.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Maybe... (Score:1)
My experience has been that people who work for Google tend to be particularly touchy whenever the company's ethics come up. I think a number of the engineers who end up working there do so out of an impression that Google represents the moral high ground in th software industry at the moment. And quite a few seem to have left after finding out that isn't so...
the vast majority of features that can exchange any such data are explicitly opt-in.
But there's one significant case where that's not true, isn't there? If I hit a 404, Chrome phones home with the URI I was trying to reach. And what do you do with that data, I wonder?
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Maybe... (Score:2)
Re:Maybe... (Score:2)
There is no "anonymous" when it comes to search phrases and URL. the data in itself can be quite revealing. What's the reasoning behind keeping it around forever? Hubris? Not having anything *actually* interesting to do with HD space? Like, uhm, say, data about the content of public pages, instead of data about your users (talk about dropping the ball real hard). And hey, a simple algorithm to fix common stuff like htt:// or whatever, should be doable quite easily. So what does it need the Google servers for? To check against a list of known URL? Do you really think the benefits outweigh the "costs" of traffic and HD space, not to mention the privacy implications, or you having to basically lie to save face? You come out and call stuff FUD, then talk about opt-in features, which are actually opt-out. What gives? You think you can make up for that by volume of words and condescension? And you even have your astroturf mod posse [slashdot.org] with you, my oh my, haha.
Re:Maybe... (Score:2)
But there's one significant case where that's not true, isn't there? If I hit a 404, Chrome phones home with the URI I was trying to reach. And what do you do with that data, I wonder?
The horror, the horror.
Re:Maybe... (Score:2)
haha, kudos.
Re:Maybe... (Score:3, Insightful)
How exactly is the GP's comment "FUD" when you yourself admit that Chrome does indeed communicate some information to Google?
Re:Maybe... (Score:4, Insightful)
How exactly is the GP's comment "FUD" when you yourself admit that Chrome does indeed communicate some information to Google?
In a default, opt-out fashion, no less.
Re:Maybe... (Score:5, Interesting)
I, for one, am grateful for the Chrome browser because it works as a very effective sandbox for everything Google. Ever since Google decided to track me through Google+ +1 buttons added to every page I browse, I've had to remove google.com from my whitelist. I've also switched to Bing as my primary search engine in Firefox, and I have to say, I don't mind getting Xbox Live! points for searches I do.
The features that bother me in Chrome include the very coarse scroll bar, which requires me to manually scroll down when reading longer articles instead of just using my touchpad. I have yet to figure out how the search bar/address bar is supposed to function (the awesome bar and search bar in FF is best I've come across). Last I checked, Chrome equivalents of NoScript do not truly block scripts because they allow them to load briefly before stopping them, giving probably enough time to identify the computer or even run an exploit. I also haven't found a cookie manager like Cookie Monster. I regularly see ads in YouTube videos even with AdBlock installed, most especially in embedded videos (I have no memory of ever seeing ads in YouTube in FF).
At this point, for me, Chrome is not very private and a bigger PITA to use than FF. I don't care what the Germans claim.
Re:Maybe... (Score:3)
I don't care what the Germans claim.
- they said something about security:
"Your internet browser is the key component for the use of services on the Web and thus represents the main target for cyber-attacks," said BSI in its published advice. "By using Google Chrome in conjunction with the other measures outlined above, you can significantly reduce the risk of a successful IT attack." ... "This [sandbox] protection is implemented most consistently in Chrome...[and] similar mechanisms in other browsers are currently either weaker or non-existent," explained BSI.
Chrome is not very private
- and this is correct, they said nothing about privacy.
Re:Maybe... (Score:2)
- they said something about security:
"Your internet browser..
My browser runs NoScript, and the Germans didn't include this, so they're still wrong.
Re:Maybe... (Score:2)
Ever since Google decided to track me through Google+ +1 buttons added to every page I browse, I've had to remove google.com from my whitelist.
How do you reconcile your statement with Google's stated policy on what the +1 button tracks: http://support.google.com/plus/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1319578 [google.com] ?
I've seen the claim that the +1 button tracks you in a lot of places, and as one of the people responsible for making it not track you [I work for Google], I'd like to understand better why this claim persists. Thanks!
Re:Maybe... (Score:1)
Re:Maybe... (Score:2)
Perhaps the GP posted anonymously because of a previous moderation?
Re:Maybe... (Score:2)
Steve Yegge still works at Google, after penning a rant which was well-known enough to be covered on slashdot and wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Yegge#Accidental_posting [wikipedia.org]
https://plus.google.com/112678702228711889851/posts/eVeouesvaVX [google.com]
Here's the "aftermath" where not only did nothing bad happen, but some folks listened to him:
https://plus.google.com/110981030061712822816/posts/AaygmbzVeRq [google.com]
Now, a lot of folks didn't agree with the content of his post or characterization of why things were the way they were. However, there were definitely parts that rang true, and people wanted to share how they were trying to tackle those problems and invite others to join such efforts.
Steve's post also provides a window into how open and vocal the debate is internally at Google.
So, do you think that'd fly at the company you work for? How about at Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, or Facebook?
I have spent time at both Microsoft and Google. For a software engineer both are good places to work IMHO, but there is/was a huge difference in how much the rank and file could speak up regarding company policy. You can't always change things you don't agree with (there are often multiple sides to an issue) but you can usually get them modified for the better.
Re:Maybe... (Score:5, Informative)
I haven't read TFA, but headline says "most secure browser", not most private.
Re:Maybe... (Score:1)
Re:Maybe... (Score:2)
Aye. And how is bundling Flash an advantage to security? Does it somehow provide security over not having it installed at all?
Re:*yawn* (Score:4, Informative)
You don't actually know what the BSI [wikipedia.org] is, do you? They're one of the most respected security and privacy organizations in the world.
Re:*yawn* (Score:4, Informative)
Back in the day they started out as an offshoot of the BND (if you want a good laugh dig deeper into the story of how that one came to be and why it shouldn't be trusted) but nowadays they usually serve as a mouthpiece for damage control if some government branch has screwed up again (e.g., electronic identity card).
And if they're not too busy they use some of their idle time to find discover new ways to make themselves look like idiots (e.g., the recent "DNS OK" story).
Re:*yawn* (Score:2)
So you are saying they have managed to crack Chrome and are using it to track people, and are recommending people use Chrome to make their job easier?
Re:OT Question: Assburglar Syndrome. (Score:2)
Tell him to watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAr-xYtBFbY [youtube.com]
Re:Chrome still crashes sometimes (Score:2)
Sometimes it crashes hard to the point where you need a hard reset of your computer. It even happens on major sites such as Boing Boing. Even though I switched to Chrome from Firefox after all it's "changes" from 4.0+ I still don't like crashes. I also feel that Google is trying to force Chrome on people similar to IE did to squelch Netscape with their over advertising and bundling.
The browser war is getting too rough, I hope once HTML5 is finally finished in 2014 the browser scene can stabilize again.
How is Google forcing chrome?
You have to go out and download it to get it on your computer. Your computer didn't come with Chrome.
As for Chrome crashing, I suggest you wipe your (most likely horribly compromised) computer and re-install your OS and then Chrome.
I haven't had Chrome crash in many months, and never had to restart because of Chrome.
Maybe part of your problem is your reference to version 4.0.
The current release of Chrome is version 16.0.912.77 (January 23, 2012).
Falling behind a little perhaps?
Re:Chrome still crashes sometimes (Score:2)
I think he means Firefox 4.0, where a lot of drooling retards didn't realize that just because the version number changed faster didn't mean it was somehow impossible to keep up.
Re:Chrome still crashes sometimes (Score:1)
He is complaining about the HUGE Chrome ad in Google if you go there not on Chrome. Infact he has a point as 2011 was the year IE took a significant nose dive. But Firefox usage went down too (not nearly as large). Most of the new Chrome users this year were from IE users and not FF. IE lost over 10% according to g.statcounter.com. That ad in Google is probably the reason as well as Chrome being bundled everywhere.
Most people are scared to install software or mess with their computers. The Chrome ad made it convenient for people who knew their browser was shitty but didn't want to do anything extreme about it.
Personally I experienced the flash crashes on Chrome a lot. I wiped my computer 3 times least year at least and Chrome after 12 or 13 started having issues on youtube with the plugin crashing. I like more competition as innovation froze for 10 years thanks to the death of Netscape and IE 6. Only last year did it thaw when IE received less than 5% of all US users. The more browsers the better as standards define the level of innovation again.
Re:Chrome still crashes sometimes (Score:2)
He is complaining about the HUGE Chrome ad in Google if you go there not on Chrome. The Chrome ad made it convenient for people who knew their browser was shitty but didn't want to do anything extreme about it.
Personally I experienced the flash crashes on Chrome a lot.
So you are saying he visits a Google site and complains about an Ad for a google product? I certainly didn't read that in anything he wrote. There is a big X in that chrome ad, and you click that X you won't see that button show up again, regardless of browser.
One ad does not "forcing" make. (Checking: Ford, yup, Sunkist, yup, Nikon, yup. It seems just about any company website I visit I see ads for their products. The Gall of some of these people!!!)
He wasn't complaining about Flash crashing, he was complaining about Chrome crashing. I never notice Flash crashing, although sometimes it would be a blessing.
Re:Chrome still crashes sometimes (Score:2)
It's not just on Google sites. From what I've seen Google has been pushing huge numbers of ads about Chrome through pretty much every single site that uses Google ads, though this presumably depends on which browser you're using.
Re:Chrome still crashes sometimes (Score:2)
Ads don't Force you to use it.
Re:Chrome still crashes sometimes (Score:1)
Yep I agree.
I am glad its there to help some Grandma who wants to use a better browser.
The only thing I can think of I do not like about Chrome is that they support proprietary things like Dart and SPDY or whatever they call it in place of http and some proprietary javascript apis. But unlike MS they do not own 90% of the market so it wont turn into another IE 6.
Re:Chrome still crashes sometimes (Score:2)
> You have to go out and download it to get it on your
> computer.
As it happens, this is not true, and was even less true last year, before Microsoft bought Skype. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome#Bundling_practices [wikipedia.org] for a brief summary, but there's plenty of information on this out there if you go to look for it.
Re:Chrome still crashes sometimes (Score:2)
Technically I've almost never had Chrome crash either... however, after I leave Chromium open for a few days, every single new page I open or existing page I try and view freezes, a message pops up about the process handling that page not responding, and nothing short of completely restarting it will make it usable again - killing the offending subprocesses does nothing. Also, it used to have a similar bug for ages where after leaving it open for a while every page turned white. Plus, on opening it up again it's essentially unusable for several minutes until every page has loaded - the tab bar is responsive, but every page I turn to strobes white and stays there.
I believe - from having seen other people complain about some or all of them on Slashdot - that these are common bugs. (Oh, and Google Chrome is of course entirely capable of crashing your entire PC, though thankfully I doubt it even tries to enable hardware-accelerated rendering on mine.)
Re:Endorsed as Most Secure? Must have a back door (Score:3, Insightful)
It's open source, where the fuck are they going to put the backdoor? If you're really paranoid, compile it yourself after reading the source code over.
Re:Endorsed as Most Secure? Must have a back door (Score:4, Interesting)
Chrome is not in fact open source. It includes a bunch of open source code but also various closed-source components. Perhaps you confused Chrome and Chromium? They're not the same thing.
If you compile Chrome yourself, you're not using Chrome, of course (and in particular, some features that this particular security evaluation ticks as positives, like the bundled Flash, will be missing).
(There's the side issue that compiling yourself gives you no particular guarantees either if your compiler is in cahoots with the code you're compiling, but for now the chances of that for Chrome are low.)
Re:GERMANY (Score:2)
Chrome isn't proprietary you fuckerlord, if you don't want Flash bundled, then get the source and unbundle it.
Re:GERMANY (Score:5, Informative)
Even easier, just download Chromium. No Flash, no auto-updating, no phone-home, fully open source. Complaining about these things in Chrome when its completely open-source counterpart Chromium is available as a free download (binary or source) seems pretty stupid to me.
Re:GERMANY (Score:2)
No PDF reader in Chromium either, and unlike with Firefox I don't think anyone's figured out a way to integrate a non-proprietary one with it.
Re:GERMANY (Score:2)
Use the mozplugger package - then it automatically embeds an instance of okular (or whatever PDF reader you use).
Re:No PDF reader? (Score:2)
Exactly. I use Linux/KDE with Chromium, and it just opens the PDF in an external Okular window. I don't give a rip that it's not "integrated" into the browser.
Re:GERMANY (Score:2)
These days, a fair few links I open on the web turn out to be PDFs for whatever reason and it's a lot more convenient to view them in a browser tab than having to open a seperate application with another window.
Re:GERMANY (Score:2)
Thankfully, most websites haven't started casually expecting people to be able to open DOCX files in the same way that they do PDF files. What's more, Chrome seems to be worse about viewing files in external programs than Firefox - either I let random websites dump whatever files they like in my download directory with no prompt first (that's the default) or I have to mess about waiting for a save dialog to open and save them to disk manually and then open them. Unlike Firefox, Chrome doesn't give you the option to just open the file with an external program without downloading it somewhere permanent first.
Re:GERMANY (Score:2)
Because people are misinformed. [hybridsource.org] Especially paranoids, apparently.
Re:GERMANY (Score:2)
Neither. Who cares? Just get the open source code and compile it. I guess you were too much of a retard to figure that one out huh?
Re:Wow (Score:3)
From TFA "Germany's cyber security agency today recommended that Windows 7 users run Google's Chrome browser". They didn't write the summary, you can't really blame them for that.
Re:Wow (Score:1)
The part I cited was in the article.