Google Chrome 5.0 vs Mozilla 3.x
in [Freeware]
|
Prev: alt.comp.freeware links at Mon Jun 7 21:20:01 2010
Next: alt.comp.freeware newsgroup statistics for 05/2010
From: Spamblk on 10 Jun 2010 17:59 VanguardLH <V(a)nguard.LH> wrote in news:huq16k$mhg$1(a)news.albasani.net: > Depends on whether you already have Chrome installed or not. For a > fresh install (which is what I did in a VM to look for the ClientID > variable definition), that variable is not defined. For an update, the > variable's definition gets deleted (removed). Not having Chrome myself, I based my opinion on the basis of articles such as the register that stated Chrome was "changing" (their word) the way Chrome would use its unique ID. Would be glad to be proved wrong and that the unique ID is totally removed from all future Chrome versions.
From: Spamblk on 10 Jun 2010 18:07 John Corliss <q34wsk20(a)yahoo.com> wrote in news:rJudnSA9M9Y45pLRnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d(a)posted.ccountrynet: > This alone is good enough reason > for me to not want companies to be able to screw around with my computer > without my permission, but there are other reasons. Sometimes an update may consist of, IMHO, more unwanted bloat. For this reason I prefer an older version of FOXIT reader.
From: Ari on 10 Jun 2010 18:12 On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 21:34:07 +0000 (UTC), Spamblk wrote: > NB It is fairly clear that once a datagram leaves your computer, you lose > control of it. Only if you don't know how to track and reclaim it, FYI -- Talk about F-Cars - www.ferrarichat.com/forum/member.php?u=89702
From: John Corliss on 10 Jun 2010 18:15 Spamblk wrote: > John Corliss wrote: > >> This alone is good enough reason >> for me to not want companies to be able to screw around with my computer >> without my permission, but there are other reasons. > > Sometimes an update may consist of, IMHO, more unwanted bloat. For this > reason I prefer an older version of FOXIT reader. IMO, a good example is when I went over to my brother's place, looked at his computer and discovered that MS had installed dotnet 3.5 on his system without asking. I removed it with his permission. And now, God help us, there's dotnet 4. Since each version of dotnet may or may not be backwardly compatible with previous version, these idiotic runtime environments are like hardening of the arteries ...clogging systems into unparalleled levels of bloat. -- John Corliss BS206. Because of all the Googlespam, I block all posts sent through Google Groups. I also block as many posts from anonymous remailers (like x-privat.org for eg.) as possible due to forgeries posted through them. No ad, CD, commercial, cripple, demo, nag, share, spy, time-limited, trial or web wares OR warez for me, please. Adobe Flash sucks, DivX rules.
From: za kAT on 10 Jun 2010 18:20
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:12:32 -0400, Ari wrote: > On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 21:34:07 +0000 (UTC), Spamblk wrote: > >> NB It is fairly clear that once a datagram leaves your computer, you lose >> control of it. > > Only if you don't know how to track and reclaim it, FYI LOL -- zakAT(a)pooh.the.cat - Sergeant Tech-Com, DN38416. Assigned to protect you. You've been targeted for denigration! |