The DnD Sanctuary

Just the other day I noticed an icon in my Windows "trash can" or how is it called? The right bottom corner.
"Chrome - Notifications". It's empty. It upgrades itself smoothly and is very useful as a "workhorse" browser.
It has drawbacks, what do you think?

By the by, that icon is nearly the only English language one... Err... There's MSE, of course - also not "localised":up:...

ׂ

1. :lol:
2. :lol:
TROLOLOLOL :lol:

Eureka, we already have a thread on Chrome. I almost started a new one.

So, I see lots of people posting in Chrome. What is your excuse justification sorry, can't find the right word.

Why do you use it? Does it do something better than IE/FF? Is it somehow more convenient? Does it have a nifty feature/extension you can't live without?

How did you first get it? What made it a lasting relationship?

As for me, I heard about Chrome because I was actively following the development(s) on the browser market(s) at the time. As soon as I heard of it, I tried it at version #1. After a few days I uninstalled it and never looked back. About specific reasons later, if anyone's interested. I have meanwhile occasionally encountered Chrome in other people's computers but I still see nothing in it I would want or need.

Chrome is faster than older versions of IE, provided you don't use too many tabs. I don't think my mother would care terribly much one way or the other. (Although, maybe IE bookmarks are easier to use than Chrome's… not sure.)

Chrome is faster than older versions of IE, provided you don't use too many tabs. I don't think my mother would care terribly much one way or the other.

Yeah, as soon as it was released, I figured Chrome would make success among dumbusers as an IE replacement. As such, I thought Chrome would not gain a too threatening market share. How wrong I was. Part of it was due to my misunderestimation of the sheer amount of dumbusers that were soon to be unleashed on the interwebz. However, I also notice sophisticated users using it. I can understand dumbusers, but what the hell attracts nerds to Chrome?

By the way, I have put my own father on Opera 12. E-mail and internet conveniently in one window. He digs it (after I tweaked the interface and behaviour appropriate to his needs and capacity, of course).

Here in the company where I work, workers and customers use Chrome to browse through our enterprise web application, and they feel Chrome runs JavaScript faster than, for instance, Firefox.

However, I also notice sophisticated users using it. I can understand dumbusers, but what the hell attracts nerds to Chrome?

Extensions like Vimium are fairly interesting. But I don't get it either.

Here in the company where I work, workers and customers use Chrome to browse through our enterprise web application, and they feel Chrome runs JavaScript faster than, for instance, Firefox.

Depends a bit on the JS. Are they using a horrible framework like Angular? :P

I use Chrome, it's my workhorse browser for the time being. Maybe I'll poke Firefox with a stick again and see if I get useful life out of it, or maybe Pale Moon. IE is good for--- downloading other browsers.

Am I the only one who thought the thread title was a Futurama reference? :left: :insane:

Opera 12 still rocks.
But the world is running furiously towards a Chrome-a-like kind of hallucination.

There's a problem however for using Opera 12 at work, it's called bad code by website designers.

@Macallan, Bender and Chrome? Nah, see about:robots in Firefox. ;-)

@ersi, Chrome wouldn't be able to gain momentum without huge investments done by Google in marketing and use of their de facto monopoly in search market and intentionally breaking their popular products for other browsers (especially Opera, using small market share as excuse)...
They invested more in marketing than in coding, reusing already available product (well, they did a lot, but had far easier start, especially that they almost completely removed UI ;-)).

Extensions like Vimium are fairly interesting.

More interesting than Vimperator? Or more interesting than UZBL or DWB or Luakit? Of course not.

@ersi, Chrome wouldn't be able to gain momentum without huge investments done by Google in marketing and use of their de facto monopoly in search market and intentionally breaking their popular products for other browsers (especially Opera, using small market share as excuse)...

This is how IE spread too. And this is the reason why web developers hate it.

Chrome sneaked into people's computers by being secretly attached to Flash and Java updates, and to Openoffice installers on Windows. But all this highlights my question. Everything you mention causes strong reactions with geeks. They would not use a sneaky software. Yet many use it anyway. What gives?

Everything you mention causes strong reactions with geeks. They would not use a sneaky software. Yet many use it anyway. What gives?

There are many possible reasons, for example conformity.
Also if someone has to use it to have full access to their services (many companies use their services, because some of them are free) then user might become accustomed and do not want to switch to other browser even if he has freedom of choice (for example after returning from work).

While Chrome is extremely bare (some users love that it is too minimalistic) it is still good enough for many users and definitely it is fast.

For sure they wouldn't achieve domination on this market so quickly without abusing their power...

Chrome sneaked into people's computers by being secretly attached to Flash and Java updates, and to Openoffice installers on Windows.

I knew that Flash and Java had turned into malware (yes, installing unrequested junk makes you malware), but OpenOffice?! Of course everyone's already switched to LibreOffice years ago, but still.

I knew that Flash and Java had turned into malware (yes, installing unrequested junk makes you malware),...

There's a subtle distinction, if I remember my Windoze daze correctly. Flash was outright malware in the sense that it began updating itself behind the curtains. You accept the update and you won't see what else will be installed. Occasionally, it installed Chrome (and other similarly distributed junk) with the update this way.

Java updates always had a more explicit walkthrough when offering updates. Junk sneaked into the system with Java updates when you forgot to untick the junk at the right moment.

...but OpenOffice?! Of course everyone's already switched to LibreOffice years ago, but still.

With OpenOffice, what's so surprising? The same distributor as Java.

And I have my doubts about LibreOffice also. They share the same extensions and they tend to require Java. Simple extra dictionaries and spellcheckers should not require Java.

Java updates always had a more explicit walkthrough when offering updates. Junk sneaked into the system with Java updates when you forgot to untick the junk at the right moment.

Either way, you're better off without it. Flash is the worse malware then. Fair enough.

With OpenOffice, what's so surprising? The same distributor as Java.

My shock was at the Apache foundation. The only software I recall it (optionally) including in the Sun days is Java. Now Java, I suppose that might've pulled in who knows what if you weren't paying attention.

And I have my doubts about LibreOffice also. They share the same extensions and they tend to require Java. Simple extra dictionaries and spellcheckers should not require Java.

LibreOffice has been removing Java dependencies, and even OpenOffice 3 already ran fairly well without having any Java installed.

http://en.libreofficeforum.org/node/7170#comment-29223

LibreOffice has been removing Java dependencies, and even OpenOffice 3 already ran fairly well without having any Java installed.

http://en.libreofficeforum.org/node/7170#comment-29223

Good that they do, but there was no reason to make them dependent in the first place. Certainly not the disctionaries and spellcheckers. That was just malicious imposition.

Anyway, back to Chrome. One of the prominent "features" that turned me off immediately was the translation feature. Chrome wants to translate foreign pages and throws up a bar with the options Translate, Never this domain, Never this language.

There was no option Never throw up this freaking bar, EVER! Dear kind users of Chrome, has such option appeared? Is there perhaps an extension (giggles) to turn the translation bar off?

@ersi, apparently some users like it...
https://github.com/Emdek/otter/issues/112

Personally I haven't seen it in Chromium at all or very long time ago.

Good that they do, but there was no reason to make them dependent in the first place. Certainly not the disctionaries and spellcheckers. That was just malicious imposition.

Is that really true when you place it in an early to mid-'90s perspective? At the time it was simply a decent way of creating software that ran on a variety of platforms. Whatever dictionaries and spellcheckers you're talking about I don't know; to my knowledge anything bundled with LO/OOo has been Hunspell-based for almost a decade. There's definitely no Java requirement for that. I (probably) still have a late-'90s version of StarOffice on a CD-ROM somewhere. I got it for free with a magazine. I wonder how much it still feels like the latest release.

There was no option Never throw up this freaking bar, EVER! Dear kind users of Chrome, has such option appeared? Is there perhaps an extension (giggles) to turn the translation bar off?

Hah, I remember being annoyed by the same thing. Btw, I just visited Google Translate and guess what it said?

Try a new browser with automatic translation. Download Google Chrome Dismiss

@ersi, apparently some users like it...
https://github.com/Emdek/otter/issues/112 (https://github.com/Emdek/otter/issues/112)

Frankly the thought of an extension is pretty stupid too. In Opera you could add a custom menu entry if you wanted, but a bookmarklet will work in probably every browser (http://www.7is7.com/software/bookmarklets/translate.html). In Opera/Fx/Otter it's doubly useful because you can assign a nickname/keyword. For instance my QR code bookmarklet has a nickname of "qr" and if I had a translate bookmarklet it'd probably be something like "t" or "tr". You could also use custom search engines for similar purposes, and of course Opera has its built-in translation menu on text selection too.

What's missing here is remembering auto-translation for a certain site, I suppose. That's not something I've ever desired.

@Frenzie, sure, let me run my What-if machine (http://theinfosphere.org/What-If_Machine) to describe possible outcomes. ;-)
Possibilities:

• extension - we don't care at all,


• built-in (Chrome way) - UI similar to that of one for asking for permission to use geolocation etc. (horizontal bar with question, and combo box to decide what to do next time with ability to kill it off completely),


• built-in (Opera way) - special type of search engine, with custom action with menu to be placed anywhere.

Personally I would go for Opera-like variant (I'm considering categories for search engines anyway, as validators will work the same way anyway) although horizontal bar may appeal to some users...
I'm not planning to work on that topic until important stuff will be done.

Am I the only one who thought the thread title was a Futurama reference? :left: :insane:

The title reflects the proclivities of the member that remains to be banned. I was about to change it to be something more in line with our other threads, but your comment gave me a little pause.

I am not sure what kind of software product Google Bender would be, but I would like to test it.

@Macallan, sorry for total off topic (my only excuse is that I'm a bit drunk right now), but see beginning of "Starring" part (well, entire clip is worth watching):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTfBH-XFdSc
I have no idea why I needed so much beer to notice that such obvious reference to Futurama (watching that clip for the third time), I definitely need to re-watch entire series again, as I'm starting to forget names of secondary characters. ;-)

the only reason i have chrome of my desktop / laptop is its the only browser right now to play Netflix on a linux system [shame no other browsers have the html5 codecs right now, i hope it will change soon]

if anyone is interested..

Its in the "History" file combined with browsing history. It looks like its in Sqllite format.

Vista:
C:Users<username>AppDataLocalGoog... DataDefaultHistory

XP:
C:Documents and Settings<username>Application DataLocal SettingsGoogleChromeUser DataDefaultHistory

Chrome never forgets..

Extensions like Vimium are fairly interesting.

In a private window, all Chromium extensions are disabled. IMHO, this makes the entire system of extensions irrelevant. I suspect that Mozilla makes the same decision at some point - disable all extensions in private window/mode. Maybe the current transition already implemented this? 

In a private window, all Chromium extensions are disabled. IMHO, this makes the entire system of extensions irrelevant.

I don't use Chrome or any of its forks myself but AFAIK you have to enable extensions for private browsing in Chrome.
As soon as you do so, your extensions will be enabled in private mode as well.

Quote from: ersi on 2017-11-23, 12:24:12

In a private window, all Chromium extensions are disabled. IMHO, this makes the entire system of extensions irrelevant.

I don't use Chrome or any of its forks myself but AFAIK you have to enable extensions for private browsing in Chrome.
As soon as you do so, your extensions will be enabled in private mode as well.

I looked around and you're right. However,

Not all extensions can be enabled in Incognito mode. You will know which ones can and cannot when you view your list of extensions. Only those with the “Allow in Incognito” box are the ones that will work.

Chrome 69 is out. It's also 10 year anniversary for the thing.



Look at that, they are bringing square tabs back! Is it only an aesthetic deja vu or is there more? Yes, there is more.

Though not an exhaustive list of user-reported problems, we’ve read user reports indicating that Chrome downloads SWF files instead of playing them, notification blocking doesn’t work, problems exist with lags when scrolling with touchscreens, websites won’t load, and there are sync issues, crashes and freezes, problems with logging in, displaying of the wrong language, inability to save passwords, and crashing when opening bookmarks or tabs.

It's deja vu a la Internet Explorer: Grab market dominance and then halt development.

It's deja vu a la Internet Explorer: Grab market dominance and then halt development.

There was comment somewhere recently about Chrome using a lot of memory.

A presumably Chrome-affiliated person replied that's why Chrome is so fast.

I refrained from commenting.

Google's Proposed Changes to Chrome Could Weaken Ad Blockers

https://www.wired.com/story/googles-proposed-changes-chrome-could-weaken-ad-blockers/

I personally have noticed several signals lately that Google is actively developing its products, such as Android apps and Google websites, particularly Youtube, towards outright adware. My VPN Android app, something I pay for, said in an update that Google demanded that they remove their adblock feature. And Jon von Tetzchner also mentioned something about Google having turned evil (and that Vivaldi complied with it).

More of the same:

And, for nearly a decade, Google did in fact keep DoubleClick’s massive database of web-browsing records separate by default from the names and other personally identifiable information Google has collected from Gmail and its other login accounts.

But this summer, Google quietly erased that last privacy line in the sand – literally crossing out the lines in its privacy policy that promised to keep the two pots of data separate by default. In its place, Google substituted new language that says browsing habits “may be” combined with what the company learns from the use Gmail and other tools.

The change is enabled by default for new Google accounts. Existing users were prompted to opt-in to the change this summer.

Chrome deploys deep-linking tech in latest browser build despite privacy concerns • The Register

Google has implemented a browser capability in Chrome called ScrollToTextFragment that enables deep links to web documents, but it has done so despite unresolved privacy concerns and lack of support from other browser makers.

It comes with "Terms of Service" update.

Chrome is not a browser. It is a service. (Serving its master, of course.)

I proposed something similar for Opera in my time, but with a XPath(-lite) syntax. For my purpose (and I think many other purposes), the node tree was/is more useful than merely string-to-string.

Webbrowsers have evolved over my head meanwhile, in a very bad way. They have stopped doing simple things, also stopped providing some obvious necessary features, and now mainly provide the wrong "service" to users. Many smart people have written about the phenomenon better, but here is my take from the perspective of a few simple needs and limited understanding.

Webbrowsers used to show webpages. Webpages used to be static text and images. The only glitzy-flashy parts were ad popups and embedded video-audio files. The ad popups were usually popouts. To prevent them, popup blockers were invented. Then ad popups moved into webpages. In fact, there are more popups than just ads that deserve to be blocked - most notoriously the cookie popups bureaucratically demanded by the EU despite all the harm it predictably caused to humanity for zero benefit - so the need for popup blockers is more acute than ever, yet there are no reliable popup blockers any more. The best I have seen out of the box in the area of ad/cookie/consent popup blockers is Brave browser. Something like /etc/hosts approach works to block the content of ads, but not their placeholders, so it is not real popup blocking.

When Opera went Chrome, smarter people had already noticed that the era of webbrowsers, as browsers of webpages, was over and the era of YT/FB apps had arrived. On FB you don't have a page. You have a service where you need to log in. The FB serves you a content feed interface and a chat-with-contacts interface. Both are somewhat customisable and provide notifications with limited reliability. This service would really be better provided by a specialised app - and it is - but in this day and age we have webbrowsers - all webbrowsers - built to serve it. If a webbrowser cannot do FB, the webbrowser is said to be not working. Which is ironic, because without logging in there is nothing to do on FB. A web address that only functions for logged in members should not dictate the webbrowser industry.

YT provides videos. I have never (never intentionally) been logged in to YT, but when logged in, you can subscribe/bookmark and comment and upload and have your "full experience" more or less like with FB. Different from FB, YT also works when not logged in. But the main content is videos - multimedia, not readable text. Again, since YT is not a standard webpage, it is sad to have it dictate the definition of webbrowsers.

So, one feature lost over recent years is popup blocking. Adblocking by means of adprovider addresses works, but it does not block their popups. This problem is superacute when it comes to the cookie popup madness. Webbrowsers still allow an internal setting to block all cookies, but this does not block cookie popups. The EU demands that people must get cookie popups regardless of the choices they make regarding cookies, so everybody gets cookie popups. This is a modern form of torture imposed on people who browse the web as a matter of their profession. Employers aid and abet the torture by preventing employees from using browsers of their choice, extensions of their choice, particularly self-developed extensions. No. All choices are done by the employer, whose sole choice is to limit all choices to MS defaults in compliance with the EU directives.

Another feature on the verge of extinction is the ability to work offline. In non-Chromite webbrowsers the button or menu item is still there, but websites increasingly fail to function when there is no live internet connection. Also when you block Javascript. Javascript used to be a tiny extra enhancement, but some webpages think it is fully legit to show nothing when Javascript is off, even when the actual content has no inherent dependence on it.

Chromites do not think RSS is a thing. To be honest, I never liked RSS as a protocol. I think it should have been designed as something of a content grabber, e.g. look at the webpage, take <h2> element and then all <p> elements until next <h2> element, and present the result to me, instead of a separate protocol with its essentially distinct content which apparently does not need to duplicate or be related to the webpage content in any way. But RSS is there, it is an internet protocol, and despite its inherent independence and unrelatedness it more or less serves webpage content in a specific format, so as such it should be a built-in webbrowser feature.

The same for other internet protocols: FTP, IRC, email, and whatnot. Chromites don't let people know about them, and the industry and legislators think this is perfectly fine. Let Chromites dictate what people know or don't.

I am most disappointed with simple formatting in modern internet. On my computer, on my screen, I should be able to see things the way I want or need, whether black on white or white on black, any colours I choose, any widths or lengths I choose. It is an obvious accessibility thing. But the industry and the legislators think that accessibility means adding zoom buttons to webpages, despite zoom buttons being a prominent eternally present and easily accessible built-in feature in all browsers. And of course making cookie popups and other consent and notification request unavoidable and obnoxious - this is awesome accessibility in the mind of legislators and the industry.

Formatting is most easily fixed with text-based webbrowsers, such as Elinks or W3m, but every now and then they are denied content due to Javascript. Again, an accessibility issue that the industry and legislators should care about. They care in words, but their actions demonstrate the opposite.