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 32 Is Out: Noisy Tabs Indicators, Supervised Users

Soulskill posted about 7 months ago | from the no-more-hunting-for-that-autoplaying-video-tab dept.

Chrome 141

An anonymous reader writes "Google today released Chrome version 32 for Windows, Mac, and Linux. The new version includes tab noise indicators, a new look for Windows 8 Metro mode, and automatic blocking of malware downloads. You can update to the latest release now using the browser's built-in silent updater, or download it directly from google.com/chrome."

cancel ×

141 comments

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

Make mine block all 3 (4, Funny)

tompaulco (629533) | about 7 months ago | (#45958917)

I'd like it to block noisy tabs, block metro 8 and block malware. Maybe I should just go back to lynx.

Re:Make mine block all 3 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45958987)

fuck google

Re: Make mine block all 3 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45959059)

Fuck @thomasatups

Re:Make mine block all 3 (3, Insightful)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 7 months ago | (#45959091)

Google is the panopticon. This is why I don't use chrome and I won't have a nest product.

Re:Make mine block all 3 (3, Insightful)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 7 months ago | (#45959683)

Google is the panopticon. This is why I don't use chrome and I won't have a nest product.

As if Apple and Microsoft are better ...

Re:Make mine block all 3 (1)

lgw (121541) | about 7 months ago | (#45960781)

Microsoft has no social network, nor any general browser habits tracking tied to your identity. Outlook.com will serve you ads based on the content of mail, but AFAIK that's it. MS doesn't track that you read this blog here, and searched for this term there, and shopped for this product over there, and put all that together with what videos you watch and your "real name please". So, yeah, I'd say that's better.

I suspect Apple is the same way, sans the web mail ads.

Re:Make mine block all 3 (4, Insightful)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 7 months ago | (#45962081)

two questions - who has the capability and who has the desire?

Google has the desire. The only way they make money is by tracking everything about you and selling that info. They have the capability - their search is #1, with double-click they can track you on all different sites. Their browser is huge too. Their phone is huge. now they're getting into home equipment too!

MS has some capability too. They have the browser, although that is trending down. they have the search engine, although that is 2nd and smaller. They have the phone, but it is an also ran. They own the living room with xbox. but I'm not sure they have the desire. Ultimately they make money by selling software, and to a small extent hardware. but they don't seem to know what they want to do these days, so I wouldn't be surprised if they're throwing everything against the wall.

apple has amazing capability in mobile but they have zero desire. They know that they make %% through hardware sales, to the extent that they're now giving away OS X, iOS, iLife, and iWork.

I trust apple the most here, because where there's a will there's a way.

Re:Make mine block all 3 (2)

ackthpt (218170) | about 7 months ago | (#45959081)

I'd like it to block noisy tabs, block metro 8 and block malware. Maybe I should just go back to lynx.

Or go back to Gopher.

and the glory which was telnet

Re:Make mine block all 3 (4, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | about 7 months ago | (#45959471)

I'd like it to block noisy tabs, block metro 8 and block malware. Maybe I should just go back to lynx.

This noisy tabs indicator has been running here for weeks.

But basically I agree. I don't want to just Know about noisy tabs, I want the noise blocked by default
until I decide I want to listen.

So close, Google, but you are still protecting the advertisers at the expense of the users.
Shut them UP.

Re:Make mine block all 3 (3, Informative)

dresgarcia (251585) | about 7 months ago | (#45959933)

Its called adblock plus. Familiarize yourself and never go back.
All this cry-baby complaining had me wondering why I don't notice "noisy ads" or, well, ads at all. I realized its because I never see them.

https://adblockplus.org/

...Right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45961181)

So, when I open up a Youtube video in a new tab, clearly I don't want it to play audio unless I go through the additional effort of unmuting that tab.

Re: ...Right (1)

Dzimas (547818) | about 7 months ago | (#45961785)

You have obviously never configured an exception table.

Re:...Right (1)

icebike (68054) | about 7 months ago | (#45962273)

So, when I open up a Youtube video in a new tab, clearly I don't want it to play audio unless I go through the additional effort of unmuting that tab.

Exactly.
Maybe you want to read the comments, before you launch a NSFW video in the office.
Its exactly one click more. I'll take that every day over one one annoying ad a week.

Re:Make mine block all 3 (2)

reub2000 (705806) | about 7 months ago | (#45962321)

Blocking flash (or simply not installing it) achieves that goal.

Re:Make mine block all 3 (1)

icebike (68054) | about 7 months ago | (#45962345)

And I could not buy a computer at all.
But there are places I want video. http://www.cnn.com/help/video.html#20 [cnn.com]
Listen, I want it my way. My computer, my way.

Re:Make mine block all 3 (2)

reub2000 (705806) | about 7 months ago | (#45962441)

Chrome/Chromium allows you to create a whitelist of sites that are allowed to use plugins. Flashblock for firefox does the same thing. Since very few ads use the audio or video tags, blocking flash effectively blocks noise.

Re:Make mine block all 3 (2)

borl (586949) | about 7 months ago | (#45963141)

About the noisy tab indicator... It would be an far more useful if clicking the indicator presented a volume slider or at least muted the tab. As it is, if you want to continue reading the page sans noise, your options are exactly the same as they were before.

For all google's "evil" doings (2)

fatgraham (307614) | about 7 months ago | (#45958939)

Noisy tab identification makes up for killing reader. (almost)

Re:For all google's "evil" doings (5, Interesting)

sunderland56 (621843) | about 7 months ago | (#45959115)

Why just identify the noisy background tab? Is there a setting to say "only play audio from the visible tab"?

And if you want evil: the "block malware" is presumably done by sending the name/location of the file you want to download to a google server, where it can be preserved forever and delivered to the government on request.... nice.

Re:For all google's "evil" doings (5, Informative)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 7 months ago | (#45959733)

And if you want evil: the "block malware" is presumably done by sending the name/location of the file you want to download to a google server,

Thats not even a remotely safe assumption. For years now Chrome has created temporary files called "Safe Browsing Bloom" under the profile, which are presumably databases of malicious URLs. They could easily do something similar for malicious files. Either way, its something you can easily turn of with one click of a checkbox, and its something that all browsers do-- but apparently Google is the only one who gets flak for it. Nice.

where it can be preserved forever and delivered to the government on request.... nice.

I get that some people dont like Google's core business (info gathering / advertising), but this is about the stupidest reason to be anti-google ever.
They are the ONLY major search provider who fought against China's requests for data on dissident bloggers
They are the ONLY ones who arent ambiguous about their own privacy policy (Im looking at you, Bing)
And unlike almost any of the other major tech companies out there, they very frequently go to bat for user privacy and rights-- for example, refusing to provide US authorities user information without court-orders or warrants, providing info through the EFF's chilling effects pages on takedowns, and fighting lawsuits to indemnify users against patent trolls.

If this isnt "biting the hand that feeds you", I dont know what is. Have fun with Bing, just hope you arent a dissident in some authoritarian country.

Google sure ain't an angle ... (0, Troll)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 7 months ago | (#45959817)

They are the ONLY major search provider who fought against China's requests for data on dissident bloggers

How about Google's close relationship with the NSA ?

Sure, Google might have protected the Chinese dissidents but it sold out the rights of the American citizens (and citizens of MANY other countries ) !!

Re:Google sure ain't an angle ... (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 7 months ago | (#45960005)

How about Google's close relationship with the NSA ?

They dont have a close relationship with the NSA. You have apparently been reading headlines, and skipping the articles. Heres a hint: the NSA's own documents indicated that the spying was done without the knowledge of the companies (Yahoo, Google, etc); Google responded by encrypting their intra-datacenter comms before any of the other companies did so.

LOL (1)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | about 7 months ago | (#45963047)

Wow, they encrypted their intra-datacenter comms! Awesome! That so totally shows how much they are fighting against the NSA ... as much as the fact that their SSL connections still use unbreakable, military-grade RC4 encryption!

Re:Google sure ain't an angle ... (4, Interesting)

swillden (191260) | about 7 months ago | (#45960249)

They are the ONLY major search provider who fought against China's requests for data on dissident bloggers

How about Google's close relationship with the NSA ?

As a Googler, I'd say the best description is of Google's relationship with the NSA is "antagonistic". The news that the NSA had been tapping fiber between Google's data centers really pissed people off.

Google has publicly denied providing the NSA with any access, and there's no evidence that the denials are false. From my internal point of view (working on security infrastructure stuff), I also see zero evidence, and I think I would see it if it existed.

Re:Google sure ain't an angle ... (1)

LoztInSpace (593234) | about 7 months ago | (#45961435)

Maybe you can answer the question prompted by the post above - why were the intra-datacentre comms links ever unencrypted?

Re:Google sure ain't an angle ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45962113)

It pissed some engineers off -- it didn't piss off the higher-ups who got the kickbacks/NSLs, otherwise it would have all been encrypted in the first place, as others have commented. These sorts of sellout decisions are made by the CxOs without any input from the peons, before anything's implemented -- or during implementation where business requirements change for 'other reasons'.

Re:For all google's "evil" doings (1)

relisher (2955441) | about 7 months ago | (#45960605)

They are the ONLY ones who arent ambiguous about their own privacy policy (Im looking at you, Bing)

I don't know if you've heard about DuckDuckGo, but --

Re:For all google's "evil" doings (5, Informative)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 7 months ago | (#45959925)

I just did some research; No, they do not submit it to Google. From their docs:
https://developers.google.com/safe-browsing/ [google.com]

The Safe Browsing API is an experimental API that enables applications to download an encrypted table for local, client-side lookups of URLs that you would like to check. ...
The Safe Browsing API v2 has the following advantages:
  * Better privacy: API users exchange data with the server using hashed URLs so the server never knows the actual URLs queried by the clients.

And of course, you can actually see said database tables under your profile as files beginning,..
"C:\Users\[USER]\AppData\Local\Google\Chrome\User Data\Safe Browsing*"
And if you were truly paranoid and / or wanted to stop spreading FUD, you could wireshark your connections to confirm that they do not, in fact, send those URLs to google to block malware.

Re:For all google's "evil" doings (2)

chihowa (366380) | about 7 months ago | (#45960343)

But they're comparing the hash that you send with the hash that they have generated from a list of malicious sites, right? So the server certainly knows which site you are visiting if it's on the "malicious" list. Which is good, because you want a YES or NO on whether the site is malicious.

So the only thing that Google, indexer of the internet, needs in order to know all of the other sites you visit is a hash of every other URL on the internet. It is not at all unreasonable to assume that they have this, since they probably use it internally (and why would they use a different hashing algorithm for Safe Browsing than they use internally?).

The Safe Browsing API v2 has the following advantages:
    * Better privacy: API users exchange data with the server using hashed URLs so the server never knows the actual URLs queried by the clients.

The fact that the doc you quoted specifically mentions protecting your privacy from Google itself is what makes their assurance less comforting. When someone claims to have taken steps to protect you from themselves (and those steps don't seem to offer much protection on further inspection), it's natural to be suspicious.

Re:For all google's "evil" doings (3, Interesting)

zlogic (892404) | about 7 months ago | (#45962315)

Background sound is a big thing for online radio and music players. What would be nice is an option to disallow sites from playing music until they're approved, kind of like Chrome does with webcam access.

Re:For all google's "evil" doings (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 7 months ago | (#45959399)

Indeed. I get to uninstall a plugin tonight, and get to enjoy my memory footprint dropping accordingly.

Popup blocker that works (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45958971)

It would be so nice if it could actually block popups.

Re:Popup blocker that works (1)

dresgarcia (251585) | about 7 months ago | (#45959949)

Please see: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4668171&cid=45959933

(Hint. . its called adblock plus)

Boycott it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45958983)

Google builds DRM into their browser:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7055403 [ycombinator.com]

Boycott them until they remove it. Mozilla is one of the few browser vendors that can be trusted.

Chrome 64 (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45958985)

How long until the 64-bit version is released?

Re:Chrome 64 (4, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | about 7 months ago | (#45959065)

How long until the 64-bit version is released?

A more worthy question!

The world continues to wait.

Re:Chrome 64 (1, Troll)

pjbgravely (751384) | about 7 months ago | (#45959397)

I have been running 64 bit Chrome browser for years now.

Stalking your prey (2)

antifoidulus (807088) | about 7 months ago | (#45962923)

And if you will look up for a moment, you will see the joke that sailed over your head. Beautiful isnt it, it's subtleness protects it from the clueless. Lets watch!

Re:Chrome 64 (2)

KiloByte (825081) | about 7 months ago | (#45959235)

How long until the 64-bit version is released?

"apt-cache show chromium-browser|grep ^Architecture:" says "amd64" for me.

Re:Chrome 64 (1, Insightful)

donaldm (919619) | about 7 months ago | (#45960773)

How long until the 64-bit version is released?

On my machine (Fedora 20):

13:15:29 > file /opt/google/chrome/chrome
/opt/google/chrome/chrome: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.24, BuildID[sha1]=74ebd85bfc06b9bb44a2dac8f221edef5b09dbcc, stripped

Been running 64 bit Chrome and Firefox for some years now. As for a 64bit Google Chrome running on a 64 bit Microsoft OS (you can't expect 64 bit binaries to run on a 32 bit OS) I can't say and really don't care.

Why use Mute... (2)

ackthpt (218170) | about 7 months ago | (#45959049)

When you can do a bunch of code to detect which tab has the auto-page refresh which brought up an auto-play blatherskite advertisement.

Re:Why use Mute... (2)

pjbgravely (751384) | about 7 months ago | (#45959417)

I just use flash block, nothing makes noise unless I let it.

Re:Why use Mute... (2)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 7 months ago | (#45960279)

this.

flashblock and the other adblockers make 'nosy tabs' 100% unnecessary.

all flash should be left dormant unless the user clicks on it. and that is exactly what flashblock does.

I never have my sound card 'connected' to my browser anyway. if I want to play music, I'll unmute the sound output and re-bind it to audio. having a few diff sound devices also helps (the default built in audio is never connected and that's the 'live' audio connection as far as linux or windows is concerned. my real audio 'card' is audio device #2 and you have to select it for any client to bind to it.)

problem solved, and no need to involve google or their spybrowsers.

Re:Why use Mute... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45961295)

flashblock and the other adblockers make 'nosy tabs' 100% unnecessary.

I disagree with that 100%.

Start playing a music video (on YouTube, Vimeo, whatever).

Switch tabs to do other things. Music keeps playing.

Now you change your mind, want to stop the music, which tab was that again? Your boss just walked in, you want to stop the music...

Why wouldn't you want a "noisy" indicator to help you find the tab with the audio?

I'll agree that most of the actual problem is auto-play junk. But I won't agree that this feature is 100% useless.

Re:Why use Mute... (1)

shentino (1139071) | about 7 months ago | (#45962003)

I thought the sandbox was supposed to STOP nosy tabs from snooping on each other.

Re:Why use Mute... (1)

kiddygrinder (605598) | about 7 months ago | (#45962751)

block plugins until clicked is a menu option in chrome

Only indicators? (4, Insightful)

StripedCow (776465) | about 7 months ago | (#45959101)

Besides an indicator, I'd expect a per-tab _mute_ button.

Re:Only indicators? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 7 months ago | (#45959609)

Simply put, if the offending tab in the window, is not the one to the fore it should clam up.

Re:Only indicators? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45959909)

I'm not sure I agree. I like to have music running in a background tab in a window I don't necessarily have focused. However, I don't like having random videos/music start up just because I either start my browser or open a tab that I'll check at some point later. Nothing should auto-play unless I intend it to.

Re:Only indicators? (5, Insightful)

gman003 (1693318) | about 7 months ago | (#45959911)

I see a lot of people playing music in a Youtube (or whatever) tab while doing other things in the other tabs. Automatically muting any background tabs will break that usage.

Re:Only indicators? (2)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about 7 months ago | (#45960557)

Not really. Mute background tabs by default (with a mute icon already "clicked") on the tab, then you can click it if you want sound from that tab if it is in the background. If you don't like it on the actual tab, put it next to the bookmarks/download/home icons

Re:Only indicators? (1)

gman003 (1693318) | about 7 months ago | (#45960775)

That could work, but I think that might still be too extreme a break in what the user expects. Unmuted by default should probably be the default, for now at least.

Or perhaps it could default to muted unless you do something to trigger the sound (pushing "play" on a video, for instance). That would cut out the annoying autoplay ads, at least.

Re:Only indicators? (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 7 months ago | (#45961925)

Not really. Mute background tabs by default (with a mute icon already "clicked") on the tab, then you can click it if you want sound from that tab if it is in the background. If you don't like it on the actual tab, put it next to the bookmarks/download/home icons

Except Safari on Mac used to do something similar. In an effort to save CPU cycles and give a better user experience, when a tab was idle, Safari stopped running plugins.

It lasted for all of a few months because feedback was immediate - people were using idle tabs and windows to listen to internet radio and other stuff in the background.

So unfortunately, most users expect noisy tabs by default because they're using it for pandora or spotify or whatever else. It's just that one tab that's playing an annoying ad that can be the issue

Perhaps the default should be if no tab is making noise, the first one that does keeps making noise, and new tabs are auto-muted until the noisy tab stops playing (then the next tab open is unmuted - i.e., if there's something playing, all new tabs are muted. If there's nothing playing, all new tabs are not muted).

But I suppose the nicest thing would be to have no plugins run or the ability to stop a plugin. Namely how YouTube always is set to autoplay if you de-embed a video (lots of reasons why - e.g., that website is horrible and busy and consumes too much CPU, etc). If someone can fix YouTube so it doesn't autoplay... (or is there a ClickToFlash extension now?)

Re:Only indicators? (1)

Megol (3135005) | about 7 months ago | (#45963291)

You are assuming that your preference is the common one. It isn't mine and it sure isn't for all normal people I've interacted with (judging by use patterns).

Re:Only indicators? (1)

Rich0 (548339) | about 7 months ago | (#45961041)

I see a lot of people playing music in a Youtube (or whatever) tab while doing other things in the other tabs. Automatically muting any background tabs will break that usage.

Yup - I know somebody who went nuts over the fact that he couldn't get his Android tablet to do that no matter what. There was what amounted to a podcast in video form that he wanted to listen to, and the video was superfluous. He wanted to still do other things on the tablet while it was playing. It was impossible, because he couldn't find an app that would let you play a video in the background.

Granted, this was a few years ago - perhaps the situation has changed since. I haven't gone looking for video players that work in the background on Android.

In any case, seems like the defaults should be configurable. There should be a default on-vs-off setting, and a default for what happens when you switch tabs. Then there should be the ability to override any of this for any site.

Noise indicators nice. Mute / Stop buttons nicer. (1)

jerryasher (151512) | about 7 months ago | (#45959107)

The noise indicators are nice, I would have preferred a small control to stop playing, stop recording.

very (-1, Offtopic)

Berkay Deniz (3500023) | about 7 months ago | (#45959173)

isminin Anlami [ismininanlami.biz] Zahide isminin Anlami [ismininanlami.biz] dinçer isminin Anlami [ismininanlami.biz] aynur isminin Anlami [ismininanlami.biz] bengi isminin Anlami [ismininanlami.biz] öykü isminin Anlami [ismininanlami.biz] ceylan isminin Anlami [ismininanlami.biz] rukiye isminin Anlami [ismininanlami.biz] yelit isminin Anlami [ismininanlami.biz] yüksel isminin Anlami [ismininanlami.biz] yüa isminin Anlami [ismininanlami.biz] yalçin isminin Anlam [ismininanlami.biz]

Why does anyone use this spyware? (-1, Flamebait)

iliketrash (624051) | about 7 months ago | (#45959187)

Do any Slashdot readers use this spyware, and if so, why?

Re:Why does anyone use this spyware? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45959253)

because firefox used to be good, now it sucks (although you can restore functionality using ~10 addons and infinite settings tweaks making firefox handle like a hog). With chromium I need 2 and works like a charm.

Re:Why does anyone use this spyware? (1)

TsuruchiBrian (2731979) | about 7 months ago | (#45959563)

Firefox loads images really slowly.

Don't believe me? Create a local html file with 500 pictures in it, and open it. Depending on how fast your computer is (mine is a $300 Ivy Bridge whatever it was) It will take firefox like 10 seconds to open, and chrome opens instantly.

I actually still use firefox as my default browser because I am used to it, but I can see the appeal of using chrome.

because I do some web development I actually will use firefox, chrome, and IE on various pages to see if they have different behavior.

Re:Why does anyone use this spyware? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45961711)

Sounds quite bad. Please file a bug report.

Automatic? (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 7 months ago | (#45959203)

How are they automatically blocking malware without submitting every link you try and download from to Google's servers first?

I personally turn off all the intrusive features I find on any browser and this seems like another one.

Re:Automatic? (5, Interesting)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 7 months ago | (#45959845)

Id imagine they download the file into "C:\Users\[USER]\AppData\Local\Google\Chrome\User Data\Safe Browsing Download" like theyve done with the rest of their safe-browsing features for the last 5 years.

But hey-- why be informed when you can complain about issues that dont exist?

Re:Automatic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45960833)

Why be civil when you can be a douchenozzle instead!

Wrong approach (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45959231)

Why would any web browser begin autoplaying audio, video or flash content? Only user whitelisted sites should be able to do so.

Re:Wrong approach (2)

mythosaz (572040) | about 7 months ago | (#45959421)

Seems a reasonable thing to do if you, say, go a page with a song or video on it.

Re:Wrong approach (2)

Arker (91948) | about 7 months ago | (#45960667)

No, actually, it does not seem reasonable at all.

If I go to a page with a song or video on it, the browser should ideally give me a visible control that indicates the media file and gives me an *option* to start playing it, or to save it. It should under no circumstances whatsoever simply start playing the file.

Re:Wrong approach (1)

istartedi (132515) | about 7 months ago | (#45959567)

Amen. I'd also like to see it give high priority to media when the user permits it. I don't mind if my text takes a few extra seconds to render while music is playing in the background. I do mind if the music burps because I've loaded a new document.

Re:Wrong approach (1)

MurukeshM (1901690) | about 7 months ago | (#45960985)

It's usually called "Click-to-play". You can whitelist/blacklist sites as you like. The feature is supported in Chrome since forever and I use it. Since the majority of users just want youtube to start playing without added clicks, it's a sane default to allow auto-play.

it also breaks startpage.com (1)

meeotch (524339) | about 7 months ago | (#45959255)

If you're a user of startpage.com (google-based search that doesn't track you), you'll no longer be able to use the "POST vs GET" option, which I believe is the default, and which keeps websites from tracking your search terms.

For whatever reason, chrome 32 with POST vs GET will cause startpage searches to redirect back to the startpage.com home page with no results.

To use the previous version of chrome on Windows, look in your %APPDATA%/Local/Google directory. There should be an old_chrome.exe that you can run that links to the previous version.

Of course, when chrome auto-updates again, you'll lose that version. I've disabled the update plugin in about:plugins, but I'm not sure if that's sufficient to prevent updates.

Re:it also breaks startpage.com (1)

icebike (68054) | about 7 months ago | (#45959645)

So how is startpage.com (acting like a proxy and therefore tracking you any better than Google tracking ?

I know what Google is going to do with the tracking.
I have no idea what startpage might do. Their Privacy policy is no more impressive then Google's.

There is also http://www.epicbrowser.com/ [epicbrowser.com] they beat google with google's own stick. (they support either a direct mode or a proxy mode, and you can switch with one click).

Re:it also breaks startpage.com (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45959651)

Websites? The only website that can see your POST/GET request is the one you send the request to. Although if you mean intermediate network devices, then both GET and POST are equally visible to anyone who is in position to intercept your network traffic.

Of course, this only applies if you aren't visiting an encrypted page. HTTPS completely obfuscates all headers and content, including the request path.

Re:it also breaks startpage.com (1)

foobar bazbot (3352433) | about 7 months ago | (#45962679)

It's a referer thing.

If you use GET, the search query is in the URL, thus when you click a link on the result page, the website can get the search query from the referer header (at least in typically-configured browsers -- naturally if you turn off referer sending, this doesn't happen). If you use POST, the search query is in a field, thus it's not available via the referer header.

But the ONE thing I want... (1)

Jethro (14165) | about 7 months ago | (#45959325)

PLEASE let me have the options of deciding how long I want cookies saved for. Firefox has an "Ask me everytime" options for cookies - I want and need it. Chrome for some reason still doesn't have that (to the best of my knowledge - I check from time to time after updates).

Haven't been able to find any plugins that add that functionality, either.

I really want to switch to Chrome. It's so much zippier that Firefox. But not without my per-session cookie settings...

Re:But the ONE thing I want... (1)

Kelson (129150) | about 7 months ago | (#45960401)

Do you actually need that question *every* time, or do you just want to build a list of sites that are allowed to persist cookies and let the rest drop off at the end of your browsing session?

Chrome doesn't have the ask-every-time option, but you can set it to only keep cookies until you close your browser, then add exceptions for the sites you want to persist. It's a bit clunkier to build up the list, but unless you're adding to it frequently, once you have the list it'll just stay out of your way and work.

Re:But the ONE thing I want... (1)

Jethro (14165) | about 7 months ago | (#45960445)

It's a heck of a lot clunkier, so yeah, I'd prefer to be prompted every time. Especially since that's how I set it up for less technologically inclined people, and I can't really put them in charge of whitelisting stuff...

Re:But the ONE thing I want... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45961353)

You set up less technically people's browser to prompt every time for cookies? Am I understanding that right?

Re:But the ONE thing I want... (1)

nyquil superstar (249173) | about 7 months ago | (#45961359)

Oops, that was me. Wasn't logged in.

Re:But the ONE thing I want... (1)

Jethro (14165) | about 7 months ago | (#45961645)

Yes. Disable all 3rd party cookies, ask about the rest. "If you see this question and it's a website you KNOW, USE REGULARLY and need to be logged in to use, say YES. If it's a website you DON'T KNOW or TRUST, say NO. If you're NOT SURE, click "Allow for session".

I give them the tools. I will even give them notes. But I won't treat them like idiots without good cause!

Re:But the ONE thing I want... (1)

KiloByte (825081) | about 7 months ago | (#45962199)

"keep cookies until you close your browser" means you can't elect to keep a cookie. I for one don't want to type in my Slashdot login every time, yet I don't want to allow 95% of sites to set permanent cookies. In Firefox, you can do it (clunkily) even with no extensions, or comfortably (defaulting to session cookies) with Cookie Monster.

Chrome has no equivalent for this functionality, with or without extensions.

Google knows best? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45959365)

What was wrong with asking the user whether to keep a suspicious file? Especially considering their malware detection algorithm has been known to act overly paranoid at times.

Scroll bar steppers are gone from Chrome (4, Interesting)

Megawatt-hour (9425) | about 7 months ago | (#45959473)

You know those little arrow buttons at each end of the scroll bar? The ones that scroll the content one line at a time? Gone as of Chrome 32. Anyone else think this is a terrible idea? Bug report here [google.com] .

Re:Scroll bar steppers are gone from Chrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45959895)

Can't get worked up about this one, sorry.

Re:Scroll bar steppers are gone from Chrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45959927)

Son of a bitch, you're right. Yet more change for change's sake. Thanks a lot, you stupid fuckers at google.

Re:Scroll bar steppers are gone from Chrome (2)

ahabswhale (1189519) | about 7 months ago | (#45961049)

You could just use the arrow keys to go up and down one line at a time...

Re:Scroll bar steppers are gone from Chrome (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45962203)

http://xkcd.com/1172/

Re:Scroll bar steppers are gone from Chrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45962149)

This is not a problem; I'm glad to see them go. I wished I could coherently allow myself to use Google Chrome.

Re:Scroll bar steppers are gone from Chrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45962463)

>I'm glad to see them go

They don't even occupy any additional space, man.

How about better memory usage (1)

wjcofkc (964165) | about 7 months ago | (#45959863)

Does Chrome still spawn a new instance of itself for every tab you have open and every extension you have running? I like Chrome and I use it, but I upped my system to 12GB ram in order to use it to the extent that I need to. I realize that they do this so if one tab crashes, it doesn't take down the whole system. But the only thing that makes Chrome unstable in the first place is this behavior. Don't believe me? run this command:

ps -eo pmem,comm | grep chrome | cut -d " " -f 2 | paste -sd+ | bc

Now start opening more tabs with content and run the command again. Open more tabs and run it again. Memory usage sky rockets. Now try the same command but replace chrome with firefox, midori, or whatever else you have. Big difference.

Why do I have the feeling modding isn't going to go my way with this post. Oh well.

Re:How about better memory usage (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 7 months ago | (#45959975)

Because all other browsers are furiously trying to implement the exact same thing because its a zillion times better for stability. It does increase memory usage, but do keep in mind that a lot of the memory usage is due to the sheer complexity of pages today. If you compared memory usages for X tabs across browsers, I think youd find that they were roughly the same-- perhaps one would be higher or lower, but generally in the same ballpark.

Re:How about better memory usage (1)

wjcofkc (964165) | about 7 months ago | (#45960989)

but generally in the same ballpark.

Not remotely. But I still use Chrome due to its advantages for my work. Hence the 12GB of memory. And yes, I have compared them all.

Re:How about better memory usage (1)

dresgarcia (251585) | about 7 months ago | (#45960041)

This is an unfortunate result of the sandboxing. This is really "the big trade off" between firefox and chrome beside all the little things. Do you want memory usage or sandboxing?

Its pretty rare that I find Chrome with 5+ tabs using less than about 1GB of ram. I have an image somewhere in which when firefox is prompting to close 157 tabs, it is using ~1.5GB.

Re:How about better memory usage (1)

wjcofkc (964165) | about 7 months ago | (#45961021)

I have hit 10GB of memory usage with Chrome. I use it due to its many advantages for my work, but before I upped my RAM to 12GB Chrome would elegantly crash once it started scraping swap space. The logic behind the trade-off needs further consideration. Regardless, I still use it.

Re:How about better memory usage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45961743)

Please file a bug report. Being swapped out by the OS should not crash any application.

Re:How about better memory usage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45962077)

I don't buy it. Compare Opera 15's memory usage to Chrome's on Tom's Hardware benchmarks. I think there's more to the story here. I'm assuming Chrome just uses more memory for services, caches, and other things that Opera is tinkering with to reduce memory use, as opposed to feeling faster to end users.

And of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45961301)

Tighter NSA integration.

Chrome Metro mode is broken (2)

RR (64484) | about 7 months ago | (#45961557)

I had been using Chrome in Metro mode, because I wanted to have experience in Metro, and I had to go back to desktop with this release.

The new Metro mode doesn't integrate well with the rest of Windows 8. It doesn't resize with Snap View, so you have to keep it full-screen. It adds an app switcher bar, but the bar only switches between Chrome apps, which I generally don't use. It has an app launcher button, but if you use a mouse then the Windows Start button appears and overlaps it.

Furthermore, the latest version of Chrome crashes more. So, I not only have to be in desktop, but I have to be in Firefox. Sometimes I wonder if the Chrome team runs their own product on Windows.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>