Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Chrome The Internet

Google Chrome 67 Released for Windows, Mac, and Linux (bleepingcomputer.com) 85

Posted by msmash from the marching-forward dept.
An anonymous reader shares a report: Google released earlier today Chrome 67, the latest stable release of its web browser. According to changelogs released with Chrome 67, this version adds support for a Generic Sensors API, improves AR and VR experiences, and deprecates the HTTP-Based Public Key Pinning (HPKP) security feature. Probably the biggest change in Chrome 67 is the addition of the Generic Sensors API. As the name implies, this is an API that exposes data from device sensors to public websites. The new API is based on the Generic Sensor W3C standard. This API is meant primarily for mobile use, and in its current version, websites can use Chrome's Generic Sensors API to access data from a device's accelerometer, gyroscope, orientation and motion sensors. Another API that shipped with Chrome is the WebXR Device API. Developers can use this API to build virtual and augmented reality experiences on Chrome for mobile-based VR headsets like Google Daydream View and Samsung Gear VR, as well as desktop-hosted headsets like Oculus Rift, HTC Vive, and Windows Mixed Reality Headsets.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Chrome 67 Released for Windows, Mac, and Linux More

Google Chrome 67 Released for Windows, Mac, and Linux

Comments Filter:
  • The last time I installed Google Chrome browser, years ago, it installed 3 OS system services. Google Chrome had more control over my computer than I did when using it as a limited user!

    Does Google Chrome browser still install system services? If so, I would never use it.

    • Re:More control for Google? (Score:5, Informative)

      by SoonerSkeene ( 1257702 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @10:12AM (#56699284)
      On Windows, if you have UAC enabled, you'll be asked if you want to let the installer elevate. But if you say "no" on that prompt, it will install without creating system services (since the installer never received the privilege escalation to do so). This is also how non-admins can install it on a per-user basis.
      • Thanks for the reply.

        I never would have guessed that. I thought if I didn't say yes to a UAC request, Google Chrome browser would not install.

        My opinion: Google is becoming more and more badly managed. Now, when a Google map is displayed, the map shows hotels! To me, that might be useful: I know that any CEO of a hotel that displays on Google maps is not a sensible person. I would never stay at that hotel, no matter where it is located.

        • Please remember that whatever your choice, Google makes the bucks; when hotels are displayed as in the case you mention.

          What you do with your knowledge, (the knowledge that such and such a hotel has been displayed), is immaterial.

          I will give you some advice:

          If you want to be of consequence, you and those who think like you do, will need to stop using the damn browser in big enough numbers, and from critical markets.

      • For a long period of time Google was exploiting vulnerabilities to install Chrome with admin privileges despite the user not having admin privileges or not granting them to the installation process.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by antdude ( 79039 )

        What about in Mac OS with its annoying background self updater?

    • Use it on Linux.

    • Does Google Chrome browser still install system services? If so, I would never use it.

      Or you could educate yourself on what it means to have a system service vs a normal program, what they do, and why they run as a service. But no ignorance is far easier.

      • You are indicating that you think you are more knowledgeable than someone else.

        This is the issue: A system service could possibly do anything, including changing what it does at any time. Most people don't want to spend the time to investigate.

        There is NO good reason why a browser should include a system service. If there is a system service, there is no certainty of privacy or control over the entire computer by the owner and user. Somewhat like Google's Android operating system.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by antdude ( 79039 )

      All Google programs seems to do this like Earth. :(

  • Mission creep, featuritus syndrome (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @10:18AM (#56699316) Journal

    Virtual reality? It's a web browser, not Emacs.

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @10:22AM (#56699352)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • That is a one-sided way of putting it. It also has the effect of making applications "os-agnostic" at less expense.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by kqs ( 1038910 )

          Also, since the browser usually limits access, you can run untrusted applications with some chance that they will not successfully attack every other computer in the room.

          We tried letting people download and run random programs from the internet on the bare OS. Now we're trying something different.

      • The OS is simply a support for something called a web browser in which people try to replicate what the OS does anyways but in the most complex and resource-hungry way possible.

        A Brand New! plug-in coming SOON to a browser near you: SystemD.CRX (or XPI for FF).

        You just THOUGHT your browser was slow and bloated now. Just wait -- for all of you that leave your browser up for weeks at a time, this will start it perhaps 1 microsecond faster while completely changing Every Single One of the native plug-in APIs and configuration files.

        Just imagine what you can do with all of that time saved! Soon we'll ALL have the same identically-responding browser. A glorious utopia will have

    • Virtual reality? It's a web browser, not Emacs.

      What is this a post from the 90s? The web browser stopped being used to display generic graphical and text based content some 20 years ago. Get with the times.

      Unlike using Emacs as an OS, Chrome OS actually is a thing.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Tablizer ( 95088 )

        Chrome's claim to fame used to be simplicity and a light footprint. That's largely why people ditched IE and Firefox for it. It was sort of predictable Google would start using their browser market share for bloatWare and lockinWare.

        • Chrome's claim to fame used to be simplicity and a light footprint.

          The computer's claim to fame used to be it's ability to spit out number on an orange and black screen able to run accounting software. Should we go back to that too because that was the claim to fame?

          It was sort of predictable Google would start using their browser market share for bloatWare and lockinWare.

          So to be clear you don't want Google to support web standards and prefer the days of IE6 where a website may or may not work in your browser? Got it.

          You have a very screwed view of both bloatWare and lockin, neither of which have anything to do with Chrome.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Tablizer ( 95088 )

            Should we go back to that too because that was the claim to fame?

            I'm just saying why it gained market share. Whether those consumer choices were wise is a different issue.

            From a marketing standpoint, they gained popularity by doing X; but once popular, stopped doing X. Sounds like a risky strategy. Firefox took a hit when it wandered too far from its roots.

            My opinion is many of these side features not directly related to browsing or niche preferences should be add-ons, not hard-wired into the base browser.

            • I'm just saying why it gained market share.

              Nope, You're assuming why it gained market share / popularity. And you'd be wrong. The reason it gained market share was aggressive adherence to standards, providing very good functionality and impressive speed (all the while actually being a very heavy browser from the onset), combined with aggressive advertising across the entire Google platform, combined with woeful mismanagement by both its main competitors. It was never very good on resources, and has been pumping in more and more features even back in

              • Re: (Score:1)

                by Tablizer ( 95088 )

                The reason it gained market share was aggressive adherence to standards

                Hogwash, consumers don't know standards from a hole in the wall. (Plus, many of the standards are ambiguous and confusing. The standards bodies are shitty writers. Their "reason" for deprecating "b" tag is some of the worse {intended} technical writing I have ever seen.)

    • I, for one, am happy that most stuff is done in a browser nowadays. My Chromebook convinced me (even though I obviously also have full fledged Linux running on it)
      Now, It is way easier to recommend Linux or even tablets to companies, because most things will simply just work. No hassles with permissions, interoperability and cross-platform-ness.
      HTML5, and IE's deserved demise makes it completely acceptable to simply require Firefox or Chrome/Chromium (or maybe Safari), and send other people away to get wi
  • From an ad company deep into your OS. For free.

  • What? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Probably the biggest change in Chrome 67 is the addition of the Generic Sensors API. As the name implies, this is an API that exposes data from device sensors to public websites.

    Why the fuck would I want a web browser to do any of that shit?

    I want websites to have less information about me, not more.

    Honestly, make a fucking web browser, the rest is just bullshit we don't want.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Joce640k ( 829181 )

      Why the fuck would I want a web browser to do any of that shit?

      When did you become the spokesperson for the human race?

      Don't like it? Don't use it.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Bengie ( 1121981 )
        Because many apps would work just fine as a web app, except that they need access to sure information to work, like augmented reality. So what you're saying is instead of just being able to go to a webpage and accepting or denying access to these sensors, you'd rather every company to have their own app that you have to install to use? Of course you might not want to install the apps, but there are people who want/need these features and they'd rather not have to go so far as installing apps for something t
  • I expect the sensors will be used to make forced interactions with ads and tracking. It's time a web browser gets released that says we won't add any more APIs, just a plain text browsing experience. A modern gopher basically
  • ... that all important benchmark value, 69! Highest version number wins! Remember that, kids.

  • Certificate transparency = Lifelock commercial.

    There is no equivalence between the two systems.

  • On the positive side, PWAs will now have access to sensors and there's even less need for native apps.

  • Where are the features that would make the browser immune to malware? Defend from pop-under, javascript exploits, malware of all ilk. THOSE are the priorities that everybody and their dog cares about. VR, generic sensor API... it's just bloatware we didn't ask for.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Merk42 ( 1906718 )

      Where are the features that would make the browser immune to malware? Defend from pop-under, javascript exploits, malware of all ilk.

      In the minor, security updates, that happen all the time, aren't major feature versions, and therefore don't get articles made about them.

      THOSE are the priorities that everybody and their dog cares about.

      Sadly, that's not the case.

      VR, generic sensor API... it's just bloatware we didn't ask for.

      Maybe you didn't, but this isn't the browser solely made for blind baker.

      • but this isn't the browser solely made for blind baker.

        Did you misspell my handle on purpose? Or is blindness contagious via Slashdot posts?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Merk42 ( 1906718 )
          Just a typo. Though I guess technically correct since the browser isn't solely made for blind baker either.

    • it's just bloatware we didn't ask for

      So to be clear you want browsers to not implement standards, and not have functionality needed as more and more software moves to a browser based platform? Got it. May I interest you in Lynx? It's immune to those other things you complain about too.

  • But you need to run OS X 10.10 for some magical reason because the new version of the browser uses... eh, what exactly?

    Why does it need 10.10?

    • But you need to run OS X 10.10 for some magical reason because the new version of the browser uses... eh, what exactly?

      Why does it need 10.10?

      Because that is that is the oldest version still supported by Apple. Getting things to work on OS versions abandoned by their maker is difficult.

      But yes, it is an entirely artificial limitation, but one mainly set by Apple.

  • Mostly garbage posts below, sad seeing slashdot reduced to a hosting platform for trolls.

  • Probably the biggest change in Chrome 67 is the addition of the Generic Sensors API. As the name implies, this is an API that exposes data from device sensors to public websites.

    HOLY F'CK! Seriously? The audacity!

    I am glad I read this so I know to uninstall and never look back.

Slashdot Top Deals

Genius is ten percent inspiration and fifty percent capital gains.

Close