Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Chrome Extensions Are Now Available

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the bloat-your-own dept.

Google 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?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

SRWare Iron and firefoxs addons (2, Informative)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369532)

Even though I'm a little bit skeptical about the bloated aspect, hopefully SRWare Iron [srware.net] will be updated to support them soon too. Iron is Chrome but with all the things that violate your privacy removed.

Hopefully Chrome's extension system is done better than in Firefox though. It becomes incredibly clumsy, and the interface itself is already too. Been the main reason I've stayed with Opera, as it has everything build-in and works fast. But maybe Chrome becomes more useful now.

Re:SRWare Iron and firefoxs addons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30369580)

TripMaster Monkey, how do you know that it's not as privacy-invasive as Chrome is? Just because they say so on their web site?

Re:SRWare Iron and firefoxs addons (2, Informative)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369648)

TripMaster Monkey, how do you know that it's not as privacy-invasive as Chrome is? Just because they say so on their web site?

Iron is free and OpenSource.

So you can check it yourself. Or packet dump, whichever you prefer.

Re:SRWare Iron and firefoxs addons (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369810)

TripMaster Monkey, how do you know that it's not as privacy-invasive as Chrome is? Just because they say so on their web site?

Iron is free and OpenSource.


So you can check it yourself. Or packet dump, whichever you prefer.

How so? It takes more than a "skilled programmer" to audit several 100k lines of code for privacy infringements.
The fact that the software is open source does not change that.

angel'o'spheere

Re:SRWare Iron and firefoxs addons (2, Insightful)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369832)

Then packet dump. A reverse DNS on each packet would be enough information to whittle down the data.

Re:SRWare Iron and firefoxs addons (4, Insightful)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 4 years ago | (#30370018)

try posting that comment in a thread about linux vs windows.

Re:SRWare Iron and firefoxs addons (2, Informative)

mdm-adph (1030332) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369704)

Hey, I think Chrome's great, too, but I don't see how you can call Firefox's extension system "incredibly clumsy" -- you install extensions, you can remove them from an addons panel, and they're upgraded automatically (which is more than you can say for Chrome, I think). That's it -- there's nothing more to it.

Re:SRWare Iron and firefoxs addons (3, Insightful)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369762)

He was clearly talking about the architecture, not the UI.

Personally, I'm skeptical that Chrome will offer significant performance improvements over Firefox once its extension system is up to scratch. Even if Chrome's architecture is better, I would expect the extensions themselves to be of similar quality to those in Firefox.

Re:SRWare Iron and firefoxs addons (1)

mdm-adph (1030332) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369886)

I don't see how you can say that he was "clearly talking about the architecture, not the UI," when he didn't mention either one of those in his post. ;)

Extensions security? (5, Insightful)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 4 years ago | (#30370008)

Hey, extensions are great - but for one detail: Security! The current extensions model is as insecure as hell. All extensions have full access to the browser process - there is NOTHING that stops a rogue extension that was helpfully installed when you tried to punch the monkey and clicked "Yes" to the annoying question from watching everything you do in the browser and send any input you type into a form back to a mother ship you didn't even know existed.

I appreciate that the idea of adding a decent security model into extensions and plugins is a hard, thorny problem to solve. But that is exactly why we really, desperately need it! The browser is, for many computing environments, the "Operating System". Although I write this on a Linux laptop, the computing platform I use for development isn't Windows or Linux or MacOS, it's Firefox/Chrome! I don't personally much care what O/S the end user uses.

Because of this importance, because the browser is fast becoming the only O/S that actually matters, it's vitally important that we develop SOME kind of framework for application level security. The utter lack of a current extensions security model is just begging for disaster!

Re:Extensions security? (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 4 years ago | (#30370272)

there is NOTHING that stops a rogue extension that was helpfully installed when you tried to punch the monkey and clicked "Yes" to the annoying question

Bad example. All the security in the world's not going to have save you from stupid shit like that. By your metric, everything's an incredible security risk because we're all lusers. How's that Mozilla's fault?

Re:Extensions security? (2, Informative)

Thinboy00 (1190815) | more than 4 years ago | (#30370352)

At least mozilla disables the "OK" button for ~5 seconds so that you actually read the warning (and by default doesn't allow installation of extensions from anywhere other than addons.mozilla.org (but you can (easily) change that if you want to so it's not evil)).

Re:SRWare Iron and firefoxs addons (4, Interesting)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 4 years ago | (#30370172)

Chrome updates extensions in the background without prompts. I was actually surprised when I realized this had happened, didn't expect it.

Re:SRWare Iron and firefoxs addons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30369720)

Even though I'm a little bit skeptical about the bloated aspect, hopefully SRWare Iron will be updated to support them soon too. Iron is Chrome but with all the things that violate your privacy removed.

That site reads like a Chinese scam site.

Seriously, it might be OK but it's so unprofessional that I wonder if they even know what they are doing in the first place.

No thanks.

Re:SRWare Iron and firefoxs addons (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369770)

The devs are primarily German. Cut them some slack.

Re:SRWare Iron and firefoxs addons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30370064)

I'm guessing you didn't read much of the site then.

Whats the difference beetwen Iron and Chrome? [srware.net]

Re:SRWare Iron and firefoxs addons (1)

FutureDomain (1073116) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369824)

You forgot that Iron also has a built-in adblocker. It works a lot better than Adsweep.

Re:SRWare Iron and firefoxs addons (3, Insightful)

at_slashdot (674436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369874)

I don't know about you, but I trust more Google than some random guys on the Internet.

Re:SRWare Iron and firefoxs addons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30369996)

As a random guy on the Internet, I care more about a person's privacy than Eric you-have-nothing-to-hide Schmidt's corporation built on advertising.

Re:SRWare Iron and firefoxs addons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30370218)

I don't know about you, but I trust more Google than some random guys on the Internet.

Yes! More Google, more Google, we all need more Google.

Re:SRWare Iron and firefoxs addons (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30370340)

Iron is Chrome, but without the open development process.
I'll consider trusting them when they deploy a public source code repository.

No (5, Insightful)

curunir (98273) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369570)

Does the availability of extensions put Chrome at risk of becoming bloated, like many complain about with Firefox?

No. For a lot of us, that's like asking, "Does the ability to run JavaScript put Chrome at risk of becoming bloated?" or even, "Does the ability to render HTML put Chrome at risk of becoming bloated?"

Extensions are among the core featureset that a browser should support. With extensions, you simply make sure that everything is possible to accomplish with the extension API instead of implementing new features. That way, the user decides how bloated the browser becomes and doesn't have to put up with the bloat of unwanted features.

Re:No (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30369666)

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:No (0)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369694)

It's not just about the ability to run extensions though. The main reason javascript-heavy sites looked bad was because the previous javascript engines we're done clumsy. Thankfully there's been huge improvement there. But if the base browser requires you to install many extensions to be useful and nice to use for you, and the extension engine is done poorly, it starts to become bloated compared to other browsers that have those features built-in.

Re:No (2, Interesting)

windex82 (696915) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369738)

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.

Re:No (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30369848)

I agree with you there - I see some specs of some really old boxes posted here. I'm actually posting from an HP Z800 with 2 quad core processors, 24 GB of RAM, 4 hard disks (2 SAS and 2 SATA), 1.5 GB on the video card - (nVidia Quadro FX 4800). The only reason I got it was because it is too under-spec for our production people to use (they require a minimum of 48 GB RAM).

Re:No (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#30370276)

What the hell are your developers doing to require that much horsepower? Thats almost as big of a horse as the live streaming HD video decoder/encoder/remixer we had at my last job. We had exactly one of these machines.

Re:No (1)

bmearns (1691628) | more than 4 years ago | (#30370106)

The problem isn't bad hardware, it's bad software. The Chrome authors may be the best, brightest, leanest coders in the world, but if someone submits an extension that happens to scarf down your resources doing god knows what, even the best browser on the best hardware will come to crawl. The problem is only escalated when you have multiple extensions running. 5% of my memory may not be a big deal, but if each of 5 extensions eats that much, I'm down by a quarter! Not what I want from a browser.

But obviously, that's not the browser itself, it's the extensions, which each user decides for themselves whether or not to load. I just think it's kind of ignorant to think that extensions only affect performance if you have crappy hardware.

Re:No (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30370156)

Because only idiots think that everyone should be running dual quadcore 4.32ghz processor with 21gb of ram.

If it cant run on the lowest end netbook, then the app is crap.

Re:No (1)

dq5 studios (682179) | more than 4 years ago | (#30370296)

No. For a lot of us, that's like asking, "Does the ability to run JavaScript put Chrome at risk of becoming bloated?"

I don't know, judging from some NoScript fans, they certainly think so.

No AdBlock? No Chrome for me. (2, Insightful)

Spud Stud (739387) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369576)

It wasn't until I recently fired up Chrome that I realized how spoiled I've become with FF+AdBlock.

Re:No AdBlock? No Chrome for me. (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30369600)

Grow up.

Re:No AdBlock? No Chrome for me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30369714)

It’re good enough for yer pa, and it’re good enough fer yer, dammit.

Re:No AdBlock? No Chrome for me. (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369626)

What sort of masochist would browse without AdBlock?
I would sooner go whoring without condoms.

Re:No AdBlock? No Chrome for me. (1)

darjen (879890) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369670)

I've been using chrome for all my personal browsing with a host file. works pretty well for me.

Re:No AdBlock? No Chrome for me. (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369730)

True, though I prefer an HTML aware solution. Sometimes you need to collapse seizure_inducing_flash_advert.swf AND its associated div

Re:No AdBlock? No Chrome for me. (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369822)

ClickToFlash for Safari is *invaluable* for that sort of nonsense. I use that in combination with a custom stylesheet and have an ad-free life on the net.

Re:No AdBlock? No Chrome for me. (1)

jsdcnet (724314) | more than 4 years ago | (#30370222)

There's adblock for safari on mac. http://burgersoftware.com/en/safariadblock [burgersoftware.com] Works fine on Snow Leopard if you set Safari to 32 bit mode.

Re:No AdBlock? No Chrome for me. (2, Insightful)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369776)

I have a fundamental disagreement with the concept of telling your computer a domain points to a non-existent server simply in order to block advertisements originating from it.

The only entry in my hosts file is a server that was taking ages to respond, and as all it was providing was some stylesheets and javascript, I just mirrored the files on localhost and temporarily linked that server to 127.0.0.1. The hosts entry will be removed as soon as it’s no longer needed.

Re:No AdBlock? No Chrome for me. (2, Interesting)

Tynin (634655) | more than 4 years ago | (#30370310)

Why do you care how it is blocked? In many ways it is similar to how DoS attacks are blocked along major backbone routes. You just blackhole the IP, telling it to go to a local, non-answering IP. In this case you are just blackholing the domain, sending it to an IP that shouldn't be answering (unless you want it to like you did using localhost to answer more quickly for sites you care to mirror). Please elaborate with what is wrong with using the hosts file in a way that is effective? I do understand that using the hosts with a big list can cause DNS resolution slowdowns (as it parses the hosts list, in memory, for every DNS call, prior to making a call to your cache or DNS server), but if the list isn't that big it isn't noticeable. So please, what is this fundamental disagreement about?

Re:No AdBlock? No Chrome for me. (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369734)

I do, over a modem.

I would guess that I do end up avoiding sites with a lot of ads though, and I do use flashblock (which mitigates a lot of the beeping and cpu-grinding and whatnot).

Re:No AdBlock? No Chrome for me. (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369752)

I browse without AdBlock and I'm perfectly happy. I do use Ad Muncher however, as it works system-wide with all browsers (incl Chrome).

Re:No AdBlock? No Chrome for me. (1)

Sparr0 (451780) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369820)

+1 for AdMuncher. Adblock is superior within Firefox, but AdMuncher is a solution for ALL of your web browsing. I used it for years before switching to FF.

Re:No AdBlock? No Chrome for me. (1)

mabinogi (74033) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369952)

what sorts of sites do you visit that ads are such a problem for you?

I wrote one. (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369890)

It took about an afternoon. There are a few downsides, however:

First, it's not actually adblock. It uses jQuery queries. This means it doesn't work at all with your existing filtersets. That's fine with me, since I don't want to block all ads, only the annoying ones -- animations, flash, etc.

Second, it's really cumbersome to use. SQL storage didn't work at the time, so I used CouchDB, which means you need to run a CouchDB server on localhost. I've also been entirely too lazy to add any sort of GUI.

Finally, the filters are applied after the DOM is loaded. They're a bit unreliable in the face of javascript ads, but on slow sites, there can be a noticeable lag. However, it doesn't slow my browsing down noticeably.

If people are still curious, the source is here [github.com] .

The point, though, is that this took me less than an afternoon -- cold, from knowing nothing about Chrome extensions, to having a functional adblocker. In other words: Calm down, people, it really isn't that hard. I'm seeing posts that say things like "if this doesn't get adblock" -- it will.

Yes adblock. GIYF! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30370086)

It has adblock options:

http://adsweep.org/

http://www.chromeextensions.org/appearance-functioning/adblock/

https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/cdngiadmnkhgemkimkhiilgffbjijcie

others...

Re:No AdBlock? No Chrome for me. (1)

rufus t firefly (35399) | more than 4 years ago | (#30370288)

No AdBlock? I've been using the Chromium version of AdBlock Plus for a few weeks now. That chromeextensions.org site has been live for quite some time.

No adblock (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369584)

If this doesn't get adblock I don't think it will ever make me switch, as it is I value to many of my firefox addons in my browser that I'd miss if I did change. Xmarks for example, read me later, stumbleupon....and a myriad of other extensions or addons I don't think I could do with out.

It will never get adblock (5, Informative)

KlaasVaak (1613053) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369828)

Google Chrome doesn't have content policy so all the 'adblock' extensions there are currently are not adblocks but adhides, fine for surfing the web without being annoyed but useless for your privacy and page loading speed.

Re:It will never get adblock (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 4 years ago | (#30370188)

I wouldn't say "never". I am sure we will see new extension apis in the future. Why don't you open an issue report on http://crbug.com/ [crbug.com] and request them?

Re:No adblock (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30370364)

xmarks plugin already available for chrome.

Bloated. (1)

qoncept (599709) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369602)

I don't use any Firefox extensions and I feel like it's bloated. Extensions aren't the problem, they're the solution.

Firefox has slowly become more and more like what really bothered me about IE. Nothing specific -- but it's getting slower and buggier. Just like IE. It's not quick and light like it used to be. I'm ready to try Chrome on my Mac.

Re:Bloated. (1)

Manip (656104) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369652)

I was about to post the same thing. Firefox isn't bloated as a result of addons it is bloated and addons are the reason people still want to use it given that fact. Opera is less bloated but yet isn't popular, why?: No addons.

Re:Bloated. (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369794)

Exactly. And the fact Firefox users try to push it down everyones throats who don't even want to use it (thank god it's not as bad anymore than it was a few years ago).

However Opera pretty much has all the features built-in I need, expect for ad blocking I use Ad Muncher. And since they're built-in, you can be pretty sure they're fast, done with the same quality and are consistent to rest of the browser.

Re:Bloated. (1)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 4 years ago | (#30370140)

I agree. It would be LESS bloated if more functions were moved INTO addons. Things like the Awesomebar should never have been built into the core functionality of the browser. If that was done because addons didn't have the performance necessary, then they need to fix the addon structure.

Re:Bloated. (4, Interesting)

harmonise (1484057) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369696)

Firefox has slowly become more and more like what really bothered me about IE. Nothing specific -- but it's getting slower and buggier. Just like IE. It's not quick and light like it used to be.

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:Bloated. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30369930)

Not to mention the amount of extra Javascript that's being added to slashdot.

Re:Bloated. (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 4 years ago | (#30370098)

i seriously can't wait till FF gets a new JS engine - sorry but the erata for it is horrid in how you can deal with the dom - it's almost to the point where you have to make exceptions for it as often as you do for IE

oh and the forcing you to update on start - no question just "i'm doing shit come back later" is god damn annoying

Alternate Universe Post Title: "Features." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30369852)

I wish Firefox had extensions and I don't think they could impact its speed. Extensions add features, they're the solution.

Firefox is not like IE at all. It just doesn't have any good features that make me want to use it. Unlike IE, it doesn't have tabs and there are no extensions to do things like block advertising. I'm ready to try Chrome on my Mac.

Re:Bloated. (1)

jsdcnet (724314) | more than 4 years ago | (#30370348)

I don't use any Firefox extensions and I feel like it's bloated. Extensions aren't the problem, they're the solution. Firefox has slowly become more and more like what really bothered me about IE. Nothing specific -- but it's getting slower and buggier. Just like IE. It's not quick and light like it used to be. I'm ready to try Chrome on my Mac.

I thought Firefox was getting slower, so I disabled all the auto-update checking on launch. That made it start up as fast as Safari on my Mac. I've switched between Safari and FF for day to day browsing and I don't really feel any speed difference to be honest.

addons make firefox bloated? (1, Redundant)

forgottenusername (1495209) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369604)

Someone doesn't understand the concept of modular design. Lately stock it's reasonably snappy. If you choose to put in a bunch of addons and it gets slow, whose fault is that?

Normally I would let it slide but I've had my quota of stupid this afternoon. Cursed MySQL!

Anyway, Chrome actually performs scads better on my girlfriends netbook. Firefox is kind of a dog on it. So good news for her!

adthwart (3, Informative)

GrumpyOldMan (140072) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369608)

I'm in the process of trying out Chrome, and was looking for adblockers. Right now, I'm using adthwart (http://qux.us/adthwart/). It uses EasyList, just like AdBlockPlus on firefox. So far, it seems to work nearly as well as AdBlockPlus, but is not as configurable.

Re:adthwart (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 4 years ago | (#30370216)

I'm using this [chromeextensions.org] , which appears to be more configurable and takes AdBlock Plus subscriptions (it doesn't appear to be related to AdBlock Plus, just rips off the name).

Bloated? Give me a break. (0, Redundant)

harmonise (1484057) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369634)

Does the availability of extensions put Chrome at risk of becoming bloated, like many complain about with Firefox?

Are there really people so dumb that they use that line of reasoning? The only reason something would be bloated once you installed extra software is because you installed extra software. If you don't want to "bloat" your program, then don't install any addons. Problem solved.

"Doctor, it hurts when I do this!"

"Then don't do that."

Re:Bloated? Give me a break. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30369718)

Are there really people so dumb that they use that line of reasoning?

And remember, the people who frequent slashdot tend to have a whole lot more experience dealing with logic than "regular" people.

Firefox bloat comes not from extensions... (0, Redundant)

Tokerat (150341) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369678)

...but from the fact that too many features that should be included as extensions (to be enabled and disabled at will) are hard-coded. There would be no controversy about the "Awesome Bar" if it was just an included Add-On that could be disabled/removed, and likewise for a slew of other features people complain about.

If Chrome keeps the browser to a bare minimum and implements fancy features through extensions, I think they'll have a huge advantage over the current Firefox implementation on this merrit alone.

Re:Firefox bloat comes not from extensions... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30369866)

The backend for awsomebar comes from moving the history into an sqlite database, a needed feature for anybody who tried to use history beyond a week, once that was done the UI is a very minimal change, so if you have a fucking clue what you were talking about you'd know that Awesome Bar isn't really bloat at all, but hey i guess your just yet another fucking awesomebar troll!

Re:Firefox bloat comes not from extensions... (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 4 years ago | (#30370038)

Except that Chrome includes the "awesome bar" by default, yet manages to be far less bloated than Firefox.

You guys want Adblock? You've got Adblock! (5, Informative)

icannotthinkofaname (1480543) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369686)

You can find Adblock right here [chromeextensions.org] .

Works with SRWare Iron 4.x.

Now, quit complaining that Chrome doesn't have Adblock.

Re:You guys want Adblock? You've got Adblock! (4, Informative)

hackel (10452) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369784)

I've been using this Adblock+ extension in Chromium for a while and it works well and even supports (Firefox) Adblock Plus subscriptions. However, Chromium doesn't yet support content filtering so all this extension does is *hide* ads, it does not stop them from loading...

Re:You guys want Adblock? You've got Adblock! (2, Informative)

fluffy99 (870997) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369924)

I've been using this Adblock+ extension in Chromium for a while and it works well and even supports (Firefox) Adblock Plus subscriptions. However, Chromium doesn't yet support content filtering so all this extension does is *hide* ads, it does not stop them from loading...

So it's not really blocking webbugs then. Hmm.

Bloat is fine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30369732)

As long as my software is bloated with things I use and installed personally, I don't care.

This is something Windows should take advantage years ago, install a minimal system specifically for my current configuration and worry about modifications as they come... Meanwhile I'd just install the apps I want.

sigh (0, Redundant)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369782)

Does the availability of extensions put Chrome at risk of becoming bloated, like many complain about with Firefox?"

If you think extensions make your browser "bloated" then you are free not to install them. The one major stumbling block that keeps me and presumably many others from ditching Firefox for Chrome is the complete lack of useful extensions like Noscript, Adblock and several others. Customization is a hue reason why Firefox is the leading competitor against Internet Explorer.

Only as bloated as you let it (1, Insightful)

jbarr (2233) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369812)

From the article:

"Does the availability of extensions put Chrome at risk of becoming bloated, like many complain about with Firefox?"

The availability of extensions has nothing to do with potential bloat. It's how many extensions you add. Adding extensions for adding's sake will certainly cause bloat, but smart, targeted extension selection can keep things very lean. My Firefox install is efficient (for me) and lean.

is there a proper chrome build for mac yet? (0, Redundant)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369842)

There's some hacks but nothing that I've seen fully supported by Google yet. It's still considered beta, no integrated update, etc. Is this still correct or can someone more clueful share some love?

Re:is there a proper chrome build for mac yet? (2, Informative)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369940)

is there a proper chrome build for mac yet?

Seriously? Four articles previous to this one: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/12/08/177232 [slashdot.org] is titled "Google Upgrades Chrome To Beta For OS X, Linux"

Re:is there a proper chrome build for mac yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30370236)

i am pwning you on a "hacked" osx chrome beta build with integrated update, etc you assminge.

Making available != the thing itself (0, Redundant)

BForrester (946915) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369898)

Available extensions don't make a product bloated. They provide the opportunity to bloat it up if the user so desires it.

Similarly, my offer of companionship last night doesn't make your mom a whore. What - huh? We're only supposed to do car analogies? Well, we were in her car when opportunity knocked.

Hold on, Hold on... (1)

Azureflare (645778) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369918)

What is all this talk about how Google Chrome violates your privacy? Does it send a list of everything I type and every site I go to, to Google?

Is there an option to turn it off? If there isn't a way to turn it off, I'm going back to Firefox. I don't want to use some third party hack of Chrome, thanks.

GlimmerBlocker (1)

WarpedCore (1255156) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369920)

If you're on a Mac, GlimmerBlocker works (as it's a non-browser-dependent proxy which filters out ads).

No Script (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30369954)

Screw Ad Block, What I want is NoScript.

I perfer the look and feel of chrome, But there are times I can't live without noscript

Waiting for NoScript (4, Interesting)

jfengel (409917) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369976)

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... (4, Interesting)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 4 years ago | (#30370002)

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:Bloat... (2, Informative)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 4 years ago | (#30370300)

Some of my own real observations:

You are limited to one background page per extension. There is no need for more than one. If you want concurrent code you will probably be able to use an HTML5 web worker or something like that, or at least fake it by using setTimeout.

Separate process implies separate threads, which can run on any core that the OS decides to assign them to. So yeah the more cores you have the more efficient Chrome will be, extensions or not.

AdBlock+ has not noticeably affected my browser speed (single core proc here).

I wrote an extension that uses what's probably on par with a "typical" extension's usage of localStorage. Again, no noticeable browser slowdown that I've seen.

No, and if you say it does, you get an F- at logic (1, Insightful)

thisnamestoolong (1584383) | more than 4 years ago | (#30370010)

Complaining that your extensions make Chrome bloated is like complaining that your car weighs too much after you fill the trunk with cement -- if you want to keep it fast, just don't add extensions! If you would rather sacrifice a little speed for added functionality, go for it! Hell, if you want to install every single extension you find until your browser barely runs, that's your choice too! I can't see why anyone with half a brain, however, would suggest that the option to add extensions puts the browser at risk of becoming bloated.

Re:No, and if you say it does, you get an F- at lo (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 4 years ago | (#30370342)

This was my approach to Firefox. I usually only kept a handful of my must-have extensions enabled. It also was my logic to abandon every single one of my extensions and move to Chrome... the startup time was simply unbeatable. I had up to 30 seconds in Firefox... later I would find out 33% of that was a malfunctioning AdBlock Plus, but even with managing to cut it down to 6-10 seconds it was still slower than Chrome.

Scam site is google-ranked higher than google's. (1)

stevenm86 (780116) | more than 4 years ago | (#30370034)

Well... It appears that the first google hit for 'chrome add-ons' links to mychromeaddons.com
This site is made to look like google's, but is LITTERED WITH ADS. The whois information reveals it's a third-party site.
The OFFICIAL chrome add-on site also does list an AdBlock extension, but something is fishy about it. When trying to install it, Chrome warns that "this extension is trying to access your data on api.flickr.com." What the hell?

We'll see if and how Google will try to combat these issues...

Re:Scam site is google-ranked higher than google's (1)

dorkinson (1615103) | more than 4 years ago | (#30370190)

I saw that too and immediately canceled. Some horny developer is going to be sadly disappointed when all the pictures he steals are of neckbeards in battle gear.

Take on AdBlock? (3, Insightful)

peterwayner (266189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30370044)

As someone who makes his living selling content through the Internet, I want people to think several times before building a tool like AdBlock. If the content industry can't make money from ads, we'll either go out of business or put our information behind a paywall. That may happen whether or not you create the ad block extension because ads don't generate enough money to pay for the kind of reporting that newspapers used to do, but it will definitely happen if a tool for blocking ads gets adopted by any non-trivial subset of society.

I understand that advertisements can be annoying and often temperamental, but tools like this are rarely as precise as they should be. They usually end up blocking far more unless the user spends more time monkeying with the config files than it would take to actually glance at the ads or wait for them to finish their flash animation.

Also I want to remind people that some open source projects like Firefox depend on advertisements for their support. Google itself depends almost entirely upon ads for their revenue. While I recognize that many of their ads were historically unobtrusive, they are selling more and more display ads.

An ad blocker for Google chrome will not only hurt Google but slice into Google's revenues and undercut their ability to pay for more development. Okay, you say, let's be selfish and ensure that the ad blocker won't block Google ads. That's clever, but it still hurts Google because it hurts the free information ecosystem which is what drives Google. If there's no free information, there's fewer and fewer things for Google to index and thus fewer and fewer reasons to look at Google ads.

Please consider the long term consequences for building such a tool. The information ecology is much more fragile than you can imagine.

Re:Take on AdBlock? (5, Insightful)

MORB (793798) | more than 4 years ago | (#30370120)

You can't force people not to develop and deploy solutions to filter out ads any more than you can force them to look at them.

You have to accept this, and if your business model can't work because of it then it simply means that it's not viable.

Re:Take on AdBlock? (1, Troll)

peterwayner (266189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30370274)

Really? It's hard enough to force people in my town not to steal or murder, some do it every day. But that doesn't mean that the police give up.

Okay, perhaps the business model can tolerate a small amount of free riding, but 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.

Is that what you want? If so, go write an ad blocker. I just want to point out that it's a very political act that has consequences for more than just the author. It will erode a very useful business model that's spread knowledge widely with few barriers.

Re:Take on AdBlock? (2, Insightful)

revlayle (964221) | more than 4 years ago | (#30370162)

This is why i never use adblockers. If a site has a terrible ad-display model, i simply never go to the site again (or a terrible content splitter, where a 2 page article is split among 10 pages, for example, i find that a deal breaker for a web site too). I go to many other sites where ads are only a minor side-annoyance, if this helps a website just a wee-bit more, I am more than OK with that.

Re:Take on AdBlock? (3, Insightful)

peterwayner (266189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30370320)

I'm grateful for this kind of attitude. Believe me. The competent websites watch for this kind of loss and they work hard to ensure that the ads don't damage their long term viability.

Re:Take on AdBlock? (5, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#30370164)

So, in summary, if we block the ads, we'll have the internet of 1992, which I rather enjoyed?

Re:Take on AdBlock? (4, Insightful)

peterwayner (266189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30370338)

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.

Re:Take on AdBlock? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30370356)

Its a war. An arms race. Advertisers (caring not about their viewers but their profits instead) find new and more clever ways to force ads into your face. Often times, advertisements are abrupt and disruptive, ruining the experience. Often, ads like this sway my opinions in a negative fashion than positive.

If an advertiser cannot sell their product WITHOUT abusive tactics, is it really a product worth buying? Sites that allow these types of ads to be displayed obviously are not screening their content, or they do not care about their consumers. The worst ads I have seen lately are:

1) Large, in-window popup flash (with sound usually) that has the exit button hidden somewhere in a non-standard location, and obscures the content completely
2) Fake links in the text of the site that popup crap on mouseover (usually while using the scroll wheel to move down the page)
3) Banners and footers that are a screen-size each, or similar on the margins that obscure the content as well.

I have never disabled a Google ad (though now that they own Doubleclick, thats not entirely true), but high context value ads that are parallel to the content instead of obscuring it has never bothered my browsing habit and often left a positive attitude towards the content provider and the advertised product. The other types of ads (the ones I actively attempt to disable or avoid sites altogether for using trash like that) are worse than the 20 db gain on TV commercials, and 100x as annoying.

If you offer your goods and/or services via advertisements, please be aware of the signals you are sending to your customers. If you cant be bothered to keep the consumer in mind, why do you deserve any of their time / money?

Re:Take on AdBlock? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30370388)

I'd have to say I agree with you. I really don't care about ad's, I don't run Adblock and survive somehow. Frankly if a site has horrible ad's I just wont visit them... What a concept. Why would a site change if they keep getting traffic to their site?

Don't Want Bloat? (0, Redundant)

TheNinjaroach (878876) | more than 4 years ago | (#30370048)

Don't install any extensions.

Uh.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30370370)

The idea that Firefox is this sluggish beast seems to be a false idea implanted by Chrome fans, IMO. I use Firefox, my pages load up almost instantly. I'm using AdBlock, FlashBlock, IE Tab, FasterFox Lite, Image Zoom, Real Downloader, and FireFTP. When I hit the Firefox button on my Win7 taskbar Firefox is there almost instantly displaying a blank tab for me to begin working with. When I click a certain site, it loads up almost instantly, and the only times I ever have slowness is when the sites themselves are slow. The browser doesn't slow down, you can still interact with it and other tabs fine, only that site is slow loading, and that's not bloat, that's a slow server. I tried Chrome, it runs just as fast, but nothing so much faster than FF that it's going to make me immediately switch over.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?