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: John Corliss on 8 Jun 2010 04:09 �Q� wrote: > Bear Bottoms wrote: >> Mike Gasson wrote: >>> >>> Should I be concerned about using Chrome considering what Google >>> are reputed to do with people's history and browsing data? >>> >>> Before I give it a try. >> >> Google deveopers are always busy fixing bugs in Chrome. They make >> sure you have a good browsing experience. > > Iron developers are busy taking the spyware out of Chrome. > > <http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_chrome_vs_iron.php> I think the one thing I object to the most in Chrome is that it checks for updates automatically whether or not you want it to. -- 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: John Corliss on 8 Jun 2010 04:10 Spamblk wrote: > VanguardLH wrote: > >> As I recall, Google doesn't give users the ability to disable their >> automatic update of Chrome > > According to the Chrome promo video titled "Browsers, privacy and you" this > is stated: > > : Chrome helps protect you and your personal information from malicious > : websites through our safebrowsing technology. And to make sure that > : Chrome is up to date with the latest security updates, Chrome > : automatically checks for updates on a regular basis. > > Or put another way Chrome automatically phones home, with its unique ID, on > a regular basis. Excellent observation! -- 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 8 Jun 2010 06:30 On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 10:23:14 +0000 (UTC), Bear Bottoms wrote: > Yeah, I hate my software to be up-to-date. Mr Bottom, there are good reasons to want to update manually. For instance you want to know /when/ updates occur, so if issues arise you can trace it back to the time of the update, and not just flail around like a headless chicken. -- zakAT(a)pooh.the.cat - Sergeant Tech-Com, DN38416. Assigned to protect you. You've been targeted for denigration!
From: Man-wai Chang to The Door (33600bps) on 8 Jun 2010 06:38 > To me, speed is not the most important factor. Yes, FF is still a bit > slower compared to Chrome or Opera but it remains my first choice. Firefox has a lot more add-ons.... -- @~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY. / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you! /( _ )\ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.34 ^ ^ 18:38:01 up 20 days 21:49 3 users load average: 0.04 0.08 0.03 不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
From: Mike Gasson on 8 Jun 2010 07:50
On 07/06/2010 23:30, VanguardLH wrote: > Poutnik wrote: > >> mtg says... >> >>> Should I be concerned about using Chrome considering what Google are >>> reputed to do with people's history and browsing data? >> >> Well, Chrome was installed on my Pc for a while only. after realizing >> it had installed itself into my profile even without asking for >> location and it had installed a service just for google updates. only >> one thing left - to say "it was nice to meet you" > > Installing under your %userprofile% path is how Google gets around > permissions in Windows. It allows non-admin accounts to install > software. That's because you have write permissions in your profile > path. They dump their files there to get around security in Windows. > It is a known security hole. Some users will change permissions on > their %userprofile% folder, including child objects (subfolders and > files), to remove execute permissions because it was supposed to be > storage for data, not executables. That means neither Google's Chrome > or Earth will install or run there anymore. Because they won't install > under the expected %progdir% path, and if not allowed to install or run > under %userprofile%, they aren't usable. Their deliberate attempt to > thwart Windows security is why I only trialed Chrome but wouldn't leave > it on my host. > > As I recall, Google doesn't give users the ability to disable their > automatic update of Chrome (unless you uninstall/remove some software). > They auto-check every 4 hours (I hear there is an extension that can > change the interval). They want to push their updates onto your host > which changes its state and without your permission. It doesn't take > long under Windows users realize they need to change the AU service to > "notify only" for Windows updates rather than leave the default of > "download and install". You don't get a choice with Chrome. They will > push out a new version with permission onto your host despite you had a > working setup and now you get their new-but-yet-to-be-discovered bugs. > Not only does Chrome may an unprompted update check, they also allow > auto-updates of extensions (i.e., of some non-Google software); see > http://code.google.com/chrome/extensions/autoupdate.html. So not only > is Google shoving updates onto your host for Chrome but it will also > shove updates onto your host for 3rd party software. Oh joy. You can > regulate when updates are allowed for Chrome using GPO but I don't know > a lot of corporations that are even putting Chrome on their authorized > software list or including it in their sysprep images. In the past, an > update to fix a vulnerability left the vulnerable code on your host, so > the update didn't remove the vulnerability. I don't know if you're > still stuck with having to uninstall to do a fresh install to get > cleaned code. > > Users reporting installation problems had to shut down their firewall > (Windows or 3rd party). So they had to reduce security for a local > installation. > > http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Google-Chrome-internet-explorer-ie8-Privacy,10050.html > > Regarding privacy, Chrome sends info on every keystroke in the Address > bar back to Google. Nothing gets sent in IE8 until you hit the Enter > key and then they only places that info goes is to your DNS server and > the site to which you wanted to connect. However, IE8 also has its own > Search bar and you'll notice it has immediate lookups as you type. You > have to disable the Suggestions feature of the search providers > installed in IE8. However, whether you get suggestions as you type or > not, that info goes only to the search provider, and only to Google if > that is your search provider. Then there was the privacy issue of > assigning your Chrome install with a unique ID (ClientID) to track you; > http://www.ghacks.net/2009/11/29/google-chrome-privacy-protector/ and > http://www.downloadsquad.com/2010/03/12/google-to-strip-unique-client-id-from-future-google-chrome-insta/. > There is an "Iron" version of Chrome that strips out some items that > generate concerns about privacy > (http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_chrome_vs_iron.php). > Never used Iron so I don't know if they stay current with Chrome (and > Chromium on which Chrome is based) to take advantage of the latest speed > enhancements. > > Google doesn't care about your privacy, security, or stability. That's > not their goal. WoW! I think that is enough for me to remove it. Pity, as it is very fast on my system, but kie you say, I want to retain -some- control. Thanks for the detailed info. |