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!

New Chrome Beta Adds Privacy Controls, Translation Option

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the on-the-campaign-trail dept.

Google 181

billandad writes "Anyone would think the timing was deliberate; just as Microsoft is forced into giving users the option to switch from IE via the browser ballot screen, so Google introduces a new Chrome beta with enhanced privacy features to chisel away at Microsoft's market share. '... you can control how browser cookies, images, JavaScript, plug-ins, and pop-ups are handled on a site-by-site basis. For example, you can set up cookie rules to allow cookies specifically only for sites that you trust, and block cookies from untrusted sites.' The new beta also adds language detection, and will prompt the user to translate a page if it's written in a foreign tongue."

cancel ×

181 comments

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

A bright future for the web... (4, Informative)

levell (538346) | more than 3 years ago | (#31329640)

And Opera 10.50 has just been released [pcworld.com] too, the first version of Opera with <Video> tag support.

With Chrome, Safari and Firefox all evolving quickly, the future of the web is looking good. I just wish they would all support an open, royalty-free codec.

lol Google != Privacy (1)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 3 years ago | (#31329744)

Google doesn't guarantee any privacy.

Re:A bright future for the web... (4, Insightful)

buruonbrails (1247370) | more than 3 years ago | (#31329768)

Yep, the future of the web is looking good, except for IE that is lagging behind. I wonder, why MS wouldn't just get over it and discontinue the development of its monstrous browser. They've lost the browser war, why wouldn't they put their resources elsewhere?
At least IE8 is better than its predecessors and IE9 looks even better, but still..

Re:A bright future for the web... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31329882)

Only if you consider having the largest userbase for the past 10 years as "losing".

I hate IE as much as the next geek, but let's face reality here.

Re:A bright future for the web... (4, Insightful)

jaymz666 (34050) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330078)

Netscape also had the largest userbase when they lost.

Re:A bright future for the web... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31330742)

Actually Netscape was overtaken by IE before they lost.

Re:A bright future for the web... (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 3 years ago | (#31331042)

They lost the moment they made the decision to rewrite everything from scratch, which was prior to IE being the leader. IE became the leader because several major versions of it were released prior to Netscape finishing its total rewrite. IE retained leadership because the new netscape was worse than its prior version.

Re:A bright future for the web... (1, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330066)

I wonder, why MS wouldn't just get over it and discontinue the development of its monstrous browser. They've lost the browser war, why wouldn't they put their resources elsewhere?

At least IE8 is better than its predecessors and IE9 looks even better, but still..

This is like saying:

"I wonder, why MS wouldn't just get over it and discontinue the development of Windows. They've lost the OS war to Linux, why wouldn't they put their resources elsewhere?

At least Vista is better than its predecessors and Windows 7 looks even better, but still.."

IE still has 62% marketshare. Would you really call that a lost war? Besides, if you read slashdot, some of the people working with IE9 have commented here about the standards compliance and bringing IE9 up to bar with other browsers in other areas too. They're at least taking it very seriously and it looks like times have been changing for a few years now. IE8 is still the only browser with sandboxing too, all Firefox, Opera and Chrome are missing that.

Re:A bright future for the web... (3, Interesting)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330156)

I'll believe that IE9 is up to par with the other browsers when I see it; from what I have heard, they have no plans to add things like the video tag to IE9, so that's at least one thing that will not be up to par with the rest of the world. I have a friend who works at MS and he forwarded my complaints about the lack of the video tag and canvas tag, and the IE guys didn't even seem to have that on the agenda.

Re:A bright future for the web... (3, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330250)

Video tag is such a mess currently that I'm not surprised if they didn't spend much of their energy on it. Also, if they did, it means they'll side with Apple and Google to H.264's side. This leaves Firefox and Opera alone with Theora. It's not that IE9 isn't up to par with video tag support, it's that video tag itself is far from ready. We will still be using Flash for a long time.

If I remember correctly, they do have canvas support and improved javascript performance though, and most importantly, they're going for standards compliance.

Re:A bright future for the web... (2, Insightful)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330720)

After their experience with IE6, I think it's very unlikely Microsoft will be the first to implement any yet-to-be-standardised tags.

Re:A bright future for the web... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31331068)

Ie may have the market share but they don't have the mind share.
ask a person who admins windows machines what causes them the most headache
IE.
what program do they wish would go down the throat of a wood chipper?
IE
what program has no real reason to exist anymore
IE

Re:A bright future for the web... (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 3 years ago | (#31331176)

ask a person who admins windows machines what causes them the most headache
IE.

Actually IE is the most easiest one to customize and deploy in organizations with hundreds of workstations. Microsoft understands how business environments work and have ensured the sys admins have good tools available for deployment, group policies, organization-wide settings and other things only needed in organizations. Other browsers completely miss that and are mostly suited towards home users.

Re:A bright future for the web... (1)

buruonbrails (1247370) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330424)

It's not a valid comparison. Windows is the major cash cow for MS, while IE doesn't generate direct revenue. The main reason why they are spending resources on IE is to promote Bing and a number of other products.

Re:A bright future for the web... (4, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330558)

while IE doesn't generate direct revenue. The main reason why they are spending resources on IE is to promote Bing and a number of other products.

So, just like Firefox, Chrome and Opera then?

It doesn't really matter if browsers don't generate direct revenue. Indirect revenue is still revenue just as well. Mozilla cashes in $78.6 million (2008) a year, and they don't even have the marketshare of IE and that was in 2008.

Re:A bright future for the web... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31330522)

Too bad Opera won't be part of that since literally no one uses it.

Re:A bright future for the web... (4, Informative)

Inner_Child (946194) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330650)

Too bad Opera won't be part of that since literally no one uses it.

You don't know what 'literally' means, do you?

Re:A bright future for the web... (1)

jee4all (1735638) | more than 3 years ago | (#31331178)

Translate is a work in progress, so not all of the translations will be clean, crisp and accurate. But as with everything else Google does, Translate is an iterative technology that will Google will advance over time. [eweekeurope.co.uk] http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/new-google-chrome-browser-beta-offers-auto-translation-5605 [eweekeurope.co.uk]

Google? Privacy? (1, Interesting)

Sporkinum (655143) | more than 3 years ago | (#31329702)

I really don't trust Google with privacy. I really wouldn't trust their browser for that. That being said, I like Chrome for the way it can applicationize a website. The only thing I use Chrome for is to run slacker radio as an app in linux.

Re:Google? Privacy? (4, Informative)

TSHTF (953742) | more than 3 years ago | (#31329800)

You don't have to "trust" their browser at all.

The source code [chromium.org] for Chrome is freely available. If you find any features that are unfriendly towards privacy, you're free to modify the source.

Re:Google? Privacy? (5, Interesting)

nellim (1535815) | more than 3 years ago | (#31329844)

Okay - chromium can be made safe, but not Chrome. Chrome + Vbox machine + Wireshark = Proof of concept. Chrome talks to google servers no matter what settings you put them on. Good luck with privacy.

Re:Google? Privacy? (4, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330142)

That's the usual trick. The privacy settings conveniently ignore any such issue and only concentrate on the client side things like "private tab" or cookie handling. Of course, if you don't want to go completely white-list based (and most users don't), there's no way to explicitly block certain domains like google-analytics.com.

Of course it's convenient for Google to call only that privacy and completely ignore the fact that every Chrome installation has identifier about where you downloaded it, when you installed it, an unique identifier, everything you type to browser bar is sent to Google, any domain you visit is sent to Google, and so on...

Re:Google? Privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31330440)

there's no way to explicitly block certain domains like google-analytics.com.

Ahhhh, another clueless post by TripMasterFucktard. Ever heard of Adblock? Privoxy? Host files?

Re:Google? Privacy? (3, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330612)

Within Chrome. Of course you can use some 3rd party apps, but that's not an excuse not to have it.

Also just FYI, Ad blockers on Chrome don't stop the http requests being made, they just hide ads. It's useless for blocking data gathering services because your info is still being sent.

Hidden in plain sight (4, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330196)

You don't have to "trust" their browser at all. The source code for Chrome is freely available. If you find any features that are unfriendly towards privacy, you're free to modify the source.

If - and only if - you can read and understand the source.

If - and only if - you have the programming skills - and the time - to produce a well-behaved modification.

I am tempted to argue that when a program reaches a certain size or complexity the difference between closed and open source becomes academic.

Re:Hidden in plain sight (3, Interesting)

ChienAndalu (1293930) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330284)

You haven't read all the source code of Firefox I suppose?

Re:Hidden in plain sight (3, Informative)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330288)

Or: if you can have someone do it for you. See SRWare Iron.

Re:Hidden in plain sight (3, Interesting)

Goaway (82658) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330572)

Iron is basically a scam by some guy who bashes Google to drive more traffic to his Google Ads. Don't encourage an asshole by using his browser.

(And why on earth would you trust some random guy on the internet in the first place?)

Re:Hidden in plain sight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31331024)

I started using Iron for the ad blocking (and to avoid having Chrome update whenever it wants + talking to google 24/7). I was unaware that anyone called it a scam - can you provide me with more details for why you would speak so negatively about it? Random advertising on a page for one's pet project hardly seems scam-worthy.

Re:Hidden in plain sight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31331126)

Update - I saw your other posts with the link. I was hoping for more damning evidence than a somewhat shady IRC log - something like examination of the changes that Iron actually makes from Chrome...

Still, I'll take a look into ChromePlus. Have anything negative on that one, perchance?

Re:Hidden in plain sight (1)

kangsterizer (1698322) | more than 3 years ago | (#31331210)

In what way is it a scam? There is no scam AFAIK with Iron.

Do you call ADBlock + a scam? Are you Google CEO by any chance?! (yes, it's sarcasm)

Re:Hidden in plain sight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31331150)

How do you know they've checked the code?

Re:Hidden in plain sight (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330290)

With open source, you can still hire someone you trust to do the analysis and/or modification for you. Yes, this is assuming you have the money (and there is someone you trust), but it's still better than closed, where you have to rely solely on the original provider.

Re:Hidden in plain sight (3, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330674)

You don't have to depend on your own programming skills to understand the source.

If Chromium includes some huge privacy issue - don't you think someone who HAS gone through the source might have mentioned it?

Re:Hidden in plain sight (1)

suomynonAyletamitlU (1618513) | more than 3 years ago | (#31331358)

Or to spell it out more clearly, unless every programmer who's ever looked at the source is part of some kind of conspiracy, in spite of it being out in the freaking open, there's nothing there.

Although, if I recall correctly (and I may not), Chrome is slightly different from Chromium; aside from Google engineers vetting what modifications get into Chrome proper, and branding, they probably have at least some trivial things, optimizations or whatever, that get into Chrome but not Chromium.

Re:Google? Privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31331138)

You and people like you are why the year of the Linux desktop is always n + 1 years away.

Most people do. not. want. to modify source code. This is why people won't use Linux when they have a problem and are suggested to just change the source code. s/Linux/Chrome/, as well.

Re:Google? Privacy? (1)

kangsterizer (1698322) | more than 3 years ago | (#31331190)

Chromium is NOT Chrome. Read again it is NOT chrome. Chrome is BASED on chromium. Large difference!

Chromium does NOT include the Google privacy features and others. Here is a NON-EXHAUSTIVE list of what Chrome has on top of Chromium:
- Google branding and logo's
- Google auto-background-update & phone home (necessary for auto-update)
- Google's detailled browsing usage analysis and RLZ tracking
- Google's own crash report system
- H264 codec support (required for Youtube HTML5. Yep, Chromium does NOT work with youtube.)

source (among others): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_(web_browser)#Differences_between_Chromium_and_Google_Chrome [wikipedia.org]

Re:Google? Privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31329886)

there's Iron [srware.net] , a browser that uses the same codebase (chromium) of google chrome but with the anti-privacy features stripped down.

Re:Google? Privacy? (1, Troll)

lordandmaker (960504) | more than 3 years ago | (#31329924)

I've gotta say, that was my first reaction. I don't see why Google would provide better genuine security provisions, they seem to make a fair bit of money out of people not having privacy.

Google's reputation for privacy is fast approaching Microsoft's for business ethics.

Re:Google? Privacy? (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#31329994)

it helps to actually have logic behind why you try to compare google to MS. You have provided: 0.

Meanwhile, why does google provide better tools? Simple. So you can have better control over your own data. Since when is that a bad thing?

Re:Google? Privacy? (1)

lordandmaker (960504) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330090)

it helps to actually have logic behind why you try to compare google to MS. You have provided: 0.

I wouldn't have thought I'd need to provide much to back up a claim that Google's reputation for privacy is bad and getting worse on Slashdot of all places.

Meanwhile, why does google provide better tools? Simple. So you can have better control over your own data. Since when is that a bad thing?

I didn't say the lack of privacy was necessarily a bad thing. I use several Google tools precisely *because* Google knows enough about me to generally show me what I want to see.

Re:Google? Privacy? (0)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330212)

Meanwhile, why does google provide better tools? Simple. So you can have better control over your own data. Since when is that a bad thing?

Whoa, now hold on there. Better control over data? Have you forgotten that all of your data with Google is in the cloud? Is it really that wise to put everything there, everything available for Google? With desktop applications everything remains on your computer.

Also remember one thing. If Google happens to get subpoena or court order (and there's thousands of those filed every day without an actual good merit), they have to hand over all of that data. Your searches, your documents, your pictures, your emails, possible other datamined data. All because you rather saved them in the cloud instead of your own computer.

Re:Google? Privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31330660)

Better control over data? Have you forgotten that all of your data with Google is in the cloud?

Your searches, your documents, your pictures, your emails, possible other datamined data. All because you rather saved them in the cloud instead of your own computer.

TripMasterFucktard is on a roll! Ahhhh the mindless psychotic frothing without having spent 0.2 nanoseconds to actually read and *gasp* understand the article (Yes, I am new here).

You do realize that GoogleDocs accepts every single kind of file. You do realize that there is *NOTHING* stopping you from encrypting those files? You do realize that you are complaining about fucking files stored in the cloud when this thread is about fucking privacy controls in a browser ... right? Are you pretending to be dense or are you really a fucking clueless moron? If you store data in the cloud that isn't encrypted guess what? There are downsides. Oh and even if you roll your own mail server, what guarantees you have that your ISP won't sniff your packets?

Fucktard.

Re:Google? Privacy? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 3 years ago | (#31329968)

I'm a bit the same. On technical grounds, I'd like to use Chrome instead of the increasingly bloated Firefox, and given sufficient privacy and security safeguards I could live without the other plug-ins I use.

But Chrome comes from Google, and releases often with an auto-updating mechanism. Given both Google's form for being wildly off-target on privacy issues (Buzz, etc.) and the openly dismissive/arrogant attitude exhibited by some of their senior executives, I just don't trust them not to pull a fast one and start logging every page I visit, or sneaking in ads at the browser level, or something along those lines.

Perhaps this could theoretically be avoided by careful checking of the small print before each update, or adjusting certain settings so things don't happen automatically, but I don't want to have to do that sort of thing just to be able to update my web browser safely and make sure no-one's sneaked anything in. I'll just use another browser instead.

Re:Google? Privacy? (3, Interesting)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330262)

Look at SRWare Iron [srware.net] - Chrome without the Google tie-in

Edit: There is an HORRIFIC flash slide-in advertisement in their site. Easy to close, innocuous content, but it appears on Every. Single. Page. I just decided not to update my version of Iron.

Re:Google? Privacy? (4, Informative)

Goaway (82658) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330646)

Good choice. Iron is a very questionable project, and the developer has admitted that he's just spreading FUD about Google to drive traffic to his site to make money off ads.

Also, http://neugierig.org/software/chromium/notes/2009/12/iron.html [neugierig.org]

Re:Google? Privacy? (2, Insightful)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330796)

But Chrome comes from Google, and releases often with an auto-updating mechanism

To be fair, Firefox comes with a very aggressive, annoying (IMHO) update mechanism built in and enabled by default.

Re:Google? Privacy? (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330890)

I don't have a problem with auto-updates being enabled by default, as long as the behaviour is openly stated and can be made to prompt or completely disabled by those who prefer to do so. On-by-default is sensible for something like a browser, given that probably most users would otherwise not update the system, which causes problems for them and, if their system gets compromised as a result, everyone else.

But this only works if you trust the source of the updates. Mozilla have never, to my knowledge, tried to impose the sort of thing that would worry me. Google have.

Translation Option (0, Offtopic)

tonycheese (921278) | more than 3 years ago | (#31329720)

This translation option is particularly interesting to me and begs the question: can anyone recommend a good extension with similar functions (automatic detection, etc) for firefox?

If it is google's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31329944)

Honestly, machine translation is OK if you want a quick look into a website. Actual meaning is not aviable.

Re:Translation Option (1)

pmontra (738736) | more than 3 years ago | (#31331270)

How annoying that would be? Being a developer 90%+ of the web sites I browse are in English which is not my native language. Hopefully it will respect the browser language settings (I use an English browser) or it can be switched off.

Answering to your question, maybe this is what you're looking for https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/918 [mozilla.org]

Beta products from Google! (-1, Troll)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 3 years ago | (#31329726)

Hooray for another beta product from Google! I wonder how many years this one will be in production before they call it v1.0.

Re:Beta products from Google! (2, Informative)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 3 years ago | (#31329818)

They passed 1.0 a long while ago. Chromium is up at 5.0 and Chrome is already beyond 4.0!

Re:Beta products from Google! (0, Offtopic)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330464)

Of course, they have some catching up to do. All browsers try to have big version numbers because user look at it like "oh, this must be more advanced than this other browser". Silly, but true. It dates back to IE/Netscape days, when Netscape completely skipped over version 5.0 because IE was already at 6.0 and they wanted to be "up to par".

Re:Beta products from Google! (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330924)

Opera have quite a lead, then, and Firefox aren't making big pushes to catch up from 3.x.

Or maybe it is uglyness rating: Opera scores over 10 for having a hideous default UI that looks out of place on all desktops; IE scores an 8 for...well, being IE with those stupid shiny buttons; Firefox is slowly moving up as it tries to look more like IE; Chrome perhaps over-rates itself, but it still gets points for not quite understanding that "GTK theme" shouldn't mean "pick the colours and use them in random places, then ignore parts of controls".

Re:Beta products from Google! (1)

slack_prad (942084) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330308)

Soon. This isn't like the usual google product. The beta is 4.1.x.x. The stable version I think is 3.x. And the daily developer version is at 5.x.

Re:Beta products from Google! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31330314)

lawl flamebait fail. Troll elsewhere scrub.

I Hate Chrome (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31329736)

Chrome's file upload looks different than any other web browser.

Naturally it's impossible to style, and calls on the developer to implement browser-specific hacks.

Why can't Chrome be more like internet explorer or firefox?

Doesn't Google ever leave well enough alone??

Re:I Hate Chrome (1)

dancingmilk (1005461) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330338)

Yes, lets create a browser that is EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE REST! That'll win us the browser war for sure!

Choices (3, Insightful)

eeg3 (785382) | more than 3 years ago | (#31329750)

I am glad to see Chrome coming along so well, it's nice having 5 legitimate choices to use (IE, Firefox, Opera, Chrome, Safari). The competition is driving improvements, and it's the users that are benefiting. There are still some WebApps that I have to use IE or Firefox for, but now that Chrome has extensions (delicious bookmarks, IEtab, etc.) it has been my browser of choice.

Re:Choices (2, Interesting)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330184)

Coming along so well?

They haven't even implemented simple things such as a bookmark manager or extensions on a Mac yet. It has a looong way to go.

Re:Choices (3, Interesting)

cerberusss (660701) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330526)

They haven't even implemented simple things such as a bookmark manager or extensions on a Mac yet. It has a looong way to go.

Extensions work on the Mac beta version. I don't use bookmarks, so can't comment on that.

Re:Choices (2, Informative)

Skip1952 (122013) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330966)

Bookmark manager works on my Mac version 5.0.335.0 dev, so it's coming to a Chrome near you soon I would guess.

Re:Choices (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330998)

Certainly Google is going after the low hanging fruit that we know as MS. For those of us who use MS for serious work, as well as Apple for other serious work, it is unclear why any of this Google paraphernalia matters. I have looked at Chrome on the PC. On my machines I can't get java or flash to run reliably. As far as the Macs, Camino already has all this stuff plus Flash Control. I don't know why the Google folks are so afraid of Adobe that they won't include the same functionality.

I'm still looking for another feature.. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31329774)

..where some websites have allowed cookies that don't get deleted on browser exit [firefox]
I have the clearing history enabled (for cookies and logins only), but every time not only the "untrusted cookies" are deleted, but also the "trusted" ones. Default rule is to store cookies until I close Firefox.

I searched for extensions, but no luck.

A whitelist based on some cookies criteria (regexp or such) would be the icing on the cake.

Re:I'm still looking for another feature.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31330368)

What is a trusted cookie? I have never heard of such a thing. Are you saying that cookies *you* choose to trust are persistent, and if so, isn't that the point?

If you are referring to Flash cookies, they are another monster, but can be taken care of reasonably well with extensions.

Dear Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31329838)

I'm sure those are nice and good features, but could you fix http://dl.google.com it basically hungs up my apt-get update everyday and it's quite annoying.

Will we ever have control over flash cookies? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31329850)

It seems no browser offers the functionality to wipe those out, and yet they can contain malicious code (there was a recent infection at the office).

*praying for the demise of flash*

Re:Will we ever have control over flash cookies? (1)

Haxamanish (1564673) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330190)

You can set the flash settings here [macromedia.com] for any browser.

Re:Will we ever have control over flash cookies? (1)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330618)

Having an HD display, I can't read anything in that settings thingie and it's not sizable either, just like lots of sites, IOW unusable.

Re:Will we ever have control over flash cookies? (1)

Haxamanish (1564673) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330678)

You can also right-click on any flash-component and select "settings".

Re:Will we ever have control over flash cookies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31331064)

Just use 'desktop zoom'. Both gnome and KDE have it.

Re:Will we ever have control over flash cookies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31330200)

Just disable plug-ins.

Re:Will we ever have control over flash cookies? (3, Informative)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330422)

It seems no browser offers the functionality to wipe those out, and yet they can contain malicious code (there was a recent infection at the office).

You might be interested in the BetterPrivacy plugin [mozilla.org] for Firefox.

adblock? ADBLOCK!! (enchantments!) (2, Interesting)

araczynski (265221) | more than 3 years ago | (#31329998)

just saw that there's an Adblock for chrome too! definitely have a reason to try the new browser now...curious to see how it compares to firefox.

Re:adblock? ADBLOCK!! (enchantments!) (1)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330202)

There have been several anti-ad plugins available for Chrome for some time. I use AdThwart, for example, which has been around for a while. I also have FlashBlock.

Re:adblock? ADBLOCK!! (enchantments!) (1)

araczynski (265221) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330280)

haven't bothered with Chrome since it came out, figuring google would fight tooth and nail to prohibit the blocking functionality, with it being their blood and all, guess they bit their tongue on the issue, for now. haven't heard of adthwart before, but will install flashblock. thanks.

Re:adblock? ADBLOCK!! (enchantments!) (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330680)

They never, ever did anything remotely like fighting it. They explicitly listed ad blocking as a use case while developing their extension system.

Re:adblock? ADBLOCK!! (enchantments!) (0, Redundant)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330482)

Just remember that they don't actually block any requests or such to the ad servers, they merely hide the advertisement.

And this is news? (1, Insightful)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330104)

[with Chrome] you can control how browser cookies, images, JavaScript, plug-ins, and pop-ups are handled on a site-by-site basis.

.

Opera has had this ability for years, FireFox nearly as long.

The headline should be more along the lines of, " Chrome finally starting to catch up to the competition "

It's news because Goodbye Firefox (1)

metamatic (202216) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330342)

It's news because there are people like me who've been waiting for this functionality before switching.

The Firefox developers basically refused to make an interface for per-site permissions part of the core product [mozilla.org] , forcing everyone to use CS Lite and NoScript or similar. They do the job, but every time there's a new version you have compatibility problems.

As soon as these new functions hit the Linux and Mac versions of Chrome, I'm saying goodbye to Firefox. It's slow, bloated and crashy, and I've only been sticking with it because of the lack of CS Lite and NoScript on other browsers. I suspect Firefox is going to pay the price for valuing advertisers at the expense of users.

Re:It's news because Goodbye Firefox (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330626)

OK, my bad. The headline should be Chrome finally catching up to Opera . But I should revise the rest of my comment to say that Opera has had this ability for years.

Re:And this is news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31330860)

Opera has had this ability for years, FireFox nearly as long.

And IE even longer. See lists of Trusted/Untrusted sites (which can work both as black lists and whitelists) where you can disable just about anything (including scripting). Cookies have been per-site rejectable in IE for years too. But I guess it's not sexy to mention IE.

Privacy (2, Insightful)

Mr_Silver (213637) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330144)

... so Google introduces a new Chrome beta with enhanced privacy features to chisel away at Microsoft's market share.

I'm guessing that the "enhanced privacy features" doesn't yet extend to being able to turn off the RLZ identifier [wikipedia.org] ?

(Good job we have SRWare Iron [srware.net] instead)

Re:Privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31330476)

+1 for Iron.

  [chromeplus.org]
http://www.chromeplus.org/ is also looking good. There are portable versions of Iron and ChromePlus as well.

Re:Privacy (3, Interesting)

Goaway (82658) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330702)

Iron was created by a person who's admitted that he's spreading FUD about Google just to drive traffic to his site so he can make money off his ads. Is that the kind of project you want to cheer for?

Re:Privacy (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#31331274)

You protesting people who do the right thing for the wrong reasons? Do you cheer or protest people who do the wrong things for the right reason?

Or are you so noble that you can only cheer for people who do the right things for the right reasons? If so, you must be awfully lonely sitting on top that ivory tower.

Personally, I'd root the guy on to continue development of this product and change his reasoning later. Otherwise you'll end up with no development and another broke developer.

I've never heard of Iron, or that guy, but this is the second post on this thread that said the same thing about motivations. Now I'm going to download and install it, and tell all my friends about it. Who cares if he wants to make a buck? I sure don't.

(PS, Flash ads suck, please change that to something less intrusive)

Omni web (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31330148)

Sounds a lot like Omni Web

And still no real adblock support (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330270)

Once the new chrome beta offers true blocking support - where plugins can prevent undesired material from loading - then I'll give it another try. (If I can give up my "live bookmarks" in ff, that is.) Currently, plugins can prevent it from *displaying* - but the material still loads.

Security changes won't make me switch (2, Interesting)

odin84gk (1162545) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330272)

Security features are nice, but they aren't a selling point. I won't change browsers to prevent tracking cookies. I don't know that much about javascript, and I don't mind most of the ads that I see. Ad block plus has been doing just fine with the pop-ups, and I don't care about those other things.

Translating foreign pages? That is interesting. I run into a fair amount of Chinese datasheets.

Just give me the web page as fast as possible, and keep my videos as smooth as possible. After that, I don't really care.

Re:Security changes won't make me switch (2, Insightful)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330666)

Security features are nice, but they aren't a selling point.

They may not be a selling point for you, but they are for some other people. You wouldn't want the content of your bank account transparently transferred to some criminal's bank account by some malicious JavaScript running due to an XSS attack on your bank's web site. Just to give an example what JavaScript can do.

Already possible in IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31330304)

Hmm, doesn't IE already have site-specific blocking using trusted and restricted (etc) zones. In the settings you can choose between a lot of options what you want to allow, disallow or prompt. It may not be the best user-interface around, but it does the job. Basically I only use it to restrict google cookies and scripts, so it would be kind of ironic to start using chrome for blocking Google :)

Interface (1)

cerberusss (660701) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330358)

The main reason I use Chrome is because of the excellent interface. When maximized, the tabs push right against the screen edge. I've not seen any app that makes such efficient usage of screen real estate. I've tried to configure FireFox, using TinyMenu to reduce the amount of white space. But it's still not as efficient.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding... (1)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 3 years ago | (#31331086)

But doesn't firefox offer "F11", which is essentially full screen, hiding everything but the browser window? Move your mouse to the top of the screen and controls become visible. Move the mouse away, you have the full browser window.

Again, not having used Chrome (on Linux), maybe I'm misunderstanding.

The features I want (1)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330782)

Since everyone seems to be listing off what they think Chrome should and should not be doing for new features, here's my list:

Add an option to make it look like every other window i've got. Maybe some people like the round-cornered title bar-less window, but i find it annoying. Not only is it aesthetically annoying to have it so different from everything else, but i often have trouble finding it amidst all the other windows i've got open because i mentally locate everything by the title bar. I often have to select Chrome from the task bar just to find it when it turns out that the part which should have been the title bar was already visible.

The folder tab bar needs to be relocatable to the "normal" position just above the pages themselves. They can use whatever structural hierarchy behind the scenes that they want, but when i look at Firefox i visualize a filing cabinet full of files. When look at Chrome i can't help but visualize an entire row of filing cabinets, one cabinet for each individual file folder. In a related usability comment, i often do a google search for a term, open up multiple tabs from that search, and then do a text find on the search term on each of the pages. In Firefox this is easy because the search box is part of the browser so i can just switch pages and hit the "next" button. In Chrome the search box is (of course) part of the tab, so i have to open a new search box every time i switch to a new tab. This is not a helpful feature.

I do appreciate that unlike with Firefox i can actually reclaim memory by closing old tabs. (Despite repeated claims of memory improvements in every version of Firefox, after a couple days of use it's still sucking up a gig and a half of memory, and closing individual tabs has almost no affect on the usage.) However in the 24 hour trial i did Chrome ended up using 886 megs of private memory to Firefox's 911 megs, which is a pretty even comparison, but _5275_ megs of virtual memory to Firefox's 1038 megs!

They also need to add a drop-down menu to let you jump to a specific tab, like Firefox, and they need to add a minimum width for the tabs, like Firefox, and they need to add a scrollable tab bar, like Firefox. The Chrome developers have made a blog post explaining why those are all bad design decisions. [chromium.org] They admit that their current system causes problems, but they don't want to implement a "bad" design choice, and they they don't want to give the user options (because that's another "bad" design choice.)

Okay guys, you made that post a YEAR ago. You STILL haven't figured out a better way to fix those problems. Perhaps you ought to let us use Firefox's "bad" solutions rather than trying to convince us to continue using an admittedly broken product while you sit around failing to think of the "right" way to do it.

And i don't care how much you value your opinions as designers or how much you think reducing options "forces you to come up with the right approach," no single system is going to be the "right" one for everyone, and giving the users options to customize software to fit their own needs is not a failure! This is the same mindset that resulted in minimizing the options for privacy in Buzz, because you were so sure you'd come up with the perfect way to handle privacy. It turns out that not everyone thinks the same as you. Of course in that case everyone had the choice between canceling their gmail account or complaining loudly until you fixed things. It's "too bad" for you that in the case of Chrome everyone who disagrees with your design choices can just quietly go back to Firefox or Safari or IE or whatever else they were using before without voicing loud complaints.
And as a final note, i'm also annoyed by the stupid behaviour of tabs getting opened right after the tab you opened them from. I read their reasons about why they did that in the above post. It doesn't fit my usage. It would have been nice if they'd made it an option, but at least i found a plug-in to fix it. I'm also annoyed that Firefox decided to copy that behaviour in their latest version, but at least they were kind enough to give me an option to turn it off (even if that option is only in the about:config page.)

Now if they would just... (1)

GigG (887839) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330824)

Now if Google Chrome would just either add the functionality of Google's own toolbar's bookmarks I would switch to it full time.

Master Password (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31330830)

How about a master password so that all of my passwords aren't stored unencrypted? Even better, add a timeout option so that it relocks the password database after a specified period of inactivity.

Privacy and translation don't really mix (1)

somejeff (825047) | more than 3 years ago | (#31330976)

I can imagine me visiting my online banking and every page I hit gets sent to Google to detect my language and offer to translate my transactions and balances. Does anyone else wonder how much Google knows about my spending habits?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?