6 ms·
I hope they'll include a "Stop the nanny" flag in chrome://flags as well. I mean you can't even change the new tab page to a custom .html, without Chrome naggi
by tdkl 11y ago
I hope they'll include a "Stop the nanny" flag in chrome://flags as well.
I mean you can't even change the new tab page to a custom .html, without Chrome nagging you at every launch if the settings are correct. If you make a manifest.json and load as an unpacked extension, it will moan about that.
FFS, I know what you're trying to do with Joe/Jane Noob, but at least give me something to skip that if I know what I'm doing.
[edit] This wouldn't be even needed if new tab page was customizable. Now it it's just a Google billboard.
- derefr 11y agoThe hard part here is that, wherever you'd decide to persist a "don't bug me any more about this" flag, malware could also potentially write that same flag to that same place. For example, Windows UAC is frequently set to the "don't bug me about this, just auto-elevate" setting by malware.
- mschuster91 11y ago> The hard part here is that, wherever you'd decide to persist a "don't bug me any more about this" flag, Build a new binary - offer users to install a "developer" build of Chrome which is exactly the same as the mainstream "release" build, except it allows disabling the protections.
- derefr 11y agoYou don't actually have to go that far; there are plenty of Chrome settings controlled by command-line options, and that's usually safe enough—it's actually really hard for malware to "sneak in" command-line options (if the user is a regular user, while the the Chrome shortcuts in the Start Menu et al were installed under elevation, which is the usual case.) There's a command-line option to Chrome that entirely disables the sandboxing protections, for instance. My distinction was just that there's absolutely no way to have a UI-based mechanism for disabling nags, since behind any UI is a persisted flag. If you're up for editing your shortcuts to add command-line options, that's fine.
- kuschku 11y agoAdding a command line option that allows disabling the nags via a UI would be solution.
- mschuster91 11y ago> (if the user is a regular user, while the the Chrome shortcuts in the Start Menu et al were installed under elevation, which is the usual case.) Nope. Windows allows deletion of "protected" shortcuts e.g. from your desktop and launch bar.
- derefr 11y agoYou mean shortcuts placed in the All Users Desktop/QuickLaunch/StartMenu folders? (I'm guessing it's just "hiding" them with a Desktop.ini entry, rather than truly deleting them?) That's probably fine, actually, as long as the user (i.e. malware) isn't allowed to create their own shortcuts to replace the deleted ones. I assume there's a GPO to disable the per-user Desktop/QuickLaunch/StartMenu folders, so that only the results from the All Users ones show up?
- userbinator 11y agoSo you're saying we should just obey Big Brother Google and not try to do anything it doesn't approve of? As the old saying goes, "Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither."
- Piskvorrr 11y agoAt least theoretically, it should be possible to build Chromium with such customizations; you'll lose the benefits of the Google walled garden, but you'll gain a bit of user freedom as well (probably won't be point-and-click, alas).
- tdkl 11y agoSadly Chrome sync is one of the major thing that keeps me on Chrome, it just works and syncs everything.