5 ms·

Why the hard requirement on Google Chrome?

by asymmetric 10y ago

espes 10y ago
Because it uses PNaCl
- Aaargh20318 10y ago
  AKA Google ActiveX. This was a bad idea when Microsoft did it and it's still a horrible idea now.
  - blowski 10y ago
    Bad idea for whom? Developers, users, shareholders?
    - pilif 10y ago
      users. it's terribly hard to secure.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - Aaargh20318 10y ago
      Users. It's a security nightmare.
  - espes 10y ago
    It's ActiveX, but completely secure and open source. Sounds like a good idea. Regardless, it's pretty much already been killed. Too bad it's taken 8 years for a web standard (WebAssembly) to match it.
    - Aaargh20318 10y ago
      > completely secure Yeah, there has never been a case of software breaking out of a sandbox or VM. Fact is it allows running native x86 code downloaded from the internet, it's orders of magnitude more dangerous than e.g. Javascript running inside a sandboxed runtime.
      - espes 10y ago
        Why do you think that? There's been way more bugs in V8 over the years than the NaCl core sandbox.
        Aaargh20318 10y ago
        I'm not sure why you're trying to say ? Two wrongs make a right ? For the record: I think that JS is a horrible idea too. What happened to the old rule of thumb that once you let someone else run their own code on your machine you should consider it compromised ?
        Dylan16807 10y ago
        Depending on your requirements, it can be really easy to sandbox code. I could write a simple virtual machine in an hour or two that's more secure than your typical jpeg decoder. So it's really worth looking at exactly what kind of sandboxing and complexity is involved.
        VMG 10y ago
        > What happened to the old rule of thumb People realized it's a stupid and impractical rule and ignored it.
        phkahler 10y ago
        >> People realized it's a stupid and impractical rule and ignored it. If by "people" you mean developers, and by "stupid and impractical" you mean inconvenient.
- markdog12 10y ago
  Was wondering why it seemed so much faster. Looks like they're serving gzipped dds (gpu compressed textures) for the tiles as well. Would be interesting to see a WebAssembly version of this.
Kurtz79 10y ago
Maybe they made it so it can run on ChromeOS also ? It's not so different than downloading a Windows application that requires JVM or some .NET distributable, or a Linux package with additional dependencies, IMHO.
- satysin 10y ago
  I respectfully disagree. [P]NaCl is bad for the web just like ActiveX was. They have a Google Earth desktop client if you want a desktop application. As this is sitting on the open web it should use open standards.
  - Karunamon 10y ago
    I also disagree. There is nothing even sorta objectionable about Google software on Google servers requesting you use a Google browser to access them because it uses Google-developed browser features that aren't even part of web standards, and wouldn't be for years even if that was the goal. The alternative would be a moral stance that "no non-RFC stuff on port 80", and that makes zero sense to me. What, they're not allowed to innovate unless they run through the bureaucracy first? I'd love it if you clarified what you're asking for here, because as stated, it seems alien to me.
    - satysin 10y ago
      What I want is for a web site to use standard web technologies so I can use it with my browser of choice. I have no issue with Google putting things over the wire via HTTP but if it only works with a specific client it isn't, to me, a web site but an internet-based application akin to Microsoft ActiveX-based sites which were awful for the web. The whole point of the web is that it was developed as an open platform and we had to fight with Microsoft to stop them turning it into an Internet Explorer only platform. I don't want the same thing to happen with Google/Chrome. I want an open web where I don't have to use one particular browser for certain services. I should also say I do think Google do a lot of good though. They do work with the web standards committee and they do a pretty good job of making their innovations open so I am not quite as worried as I was about Microsoft but, to me, it is better to stop it before it happens than fight to get it back.

Why the hard requirement on Google Chrome?

espes 10y ago

Because it uses PNaCl

Aaargh20318 10y ago
AKA Google ActiveX. This was a bad idea when Microsoft did it and it's still a horrible idea now.
- blowski 10y ago
  Bad idea for whom? Developers, users, shareholders?
  - pilif 10y ago
    users. it's terribly hard to secure.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - Aaargh20318 10y ago
    Users. It's a security nightmare.
- espes 10y ago
  It's ActiveX, but completely secure and open source. Sounds like a good idea. Regardless, it's pretty much already been killed. Too bad it's taken 8 years for a web standard (WebAssembly) to match it.
  - Aaargh20318 10y ago
    > completely secure Yeah, there has never been a case of software breaking out of a sandbox or VM. Fact is it allows running native x86 code downloaded from the internet, it's orders of magnitude more dangerous than e.g. Javascript running inside a sandboxed runtime.
    - espes 10y ago
      Why do you think that? There's been way more bugs in V8 over the years than the NaCl core sandbox.
      - Aaargh20318 10y ago
        I'm not sure why you're trying to say ? Two wrongs make a right ? For the record: I think that JS is a horrible idea too. What happened to the old rule of thumb that once you let someone else run their own code on your machine you should consider it compromised ?
        Dylan16807 10y ago
        Depending on your requirements, it can be really easy to sandbox code. I could write a simple virtual machine in an hour or two that's more secure than your typical jpeg decoder. So it's really worth looking at exactly what kind of sandboxing and complexity is involved.
        VMG 10y ago
        > What happened to the old rule of thumb People realized it's a stupid and impractical rule and ignored it.
        phkahler 10y ago
        >> People realized it's a stupid and impractical rule and ignored it. If by "people" you mean developers, and by "stupid and impractical" you mean inconvenient.
markdog12 10y ago
Was wondering why it seemed so much faster. Looks like they're serving gzipped dds (gpu compressed textures) for the tiles as well. Would be interesting to see a WebAssembly version of this.

Kurtz79 10y ago

Maybe they made it so it can run on ChromeOS also ? It's not so different than downloading a Windows application that requires JVM or some .NET distributable, or a Linux package with additional dependencies, IMHO.

satysin 10y ago
I respectfully disagree. [P]NaCl is bad for the web just like ActiveX was. They have a Google Earth desktop client if you want a desktop application. As this is sitting on the open web it should use open standards.
- Karunamon 10y ago
  I also disagree. There is nothing even sorta objectionable about Google software on Google servers requesting you use a Google browser to access them because it uses Google-developed browser features that aren't even part of web standards, and wouldn't be for years even if that was the goal. The alternative would be a moral stance that "no non-RFC stuff on port 80", and that makes zero sense to me. What, they're not allowed to innovate unless they run through the bureaucracy first? I'd love it if you clarified what you're asking for here, because as stated, it seems alien to me.
  - satysin 10y ago
    What I want is for a web site to use standard web technologies so I can use it with my browser of choice. I have no issue with Google putting things over the wire via HTTP but if it only works with a specific client it isn't, to me, a web site but an internet-based application akin to Microsoft ActiveX-based sites which were awful for the web. The whole point of the web is that it was developed as an open platform and we had to fight with Microsoft to stop them turning it into an Internet Explorer only platform. I don't want the same thing to happen with Google/Chrome. I want an open web where I don't have to use one particular browser for certain services. I should also say I do think Google do a lot of good though. They do work with the web standards committee and they do a pretty good job of making their innovations open so I am not quite as worried as I was about Microsoft but, to me, it is better to stop it before it happens than fight to get it back.