5 ms·

Awesome. Deploying Firefox is still not simple for network administrators due to their lack of official MSIs. If I still ran a network, Chrome would be the defa

by ZoFreX 16y ago

Awesome. Deploying Firefox is still not simple for network administrators due to their lack of official MSIs. If I still ran a network, Chrome would be the default browser just due to the sheer convenience (and that's probably what Google are hoping for).

rnernento 16y ago
Agreed, as an Admin having alternate browsers available in in an environment can be incredibly beneficial. Security/patch wise it's a real pain to maintain Firefox so this is a big advantage for Chrome.
- InclinedPlane 16y ago
  Applying updates is nearly painless in Chrome. Just hit "update google chrome" and the update is applied, the browser is restarted in a matter of seconds with all your previously open windows and tabs are retained. The only downside is youtube videos you had open might automatically restart. Firefox has a similar update process but it's so much clunkier that it eats up far more time and effort. IE's update process is a joke in comparison to both (sometimes requiring a full restart of your system).
  - ZoFreX 16y ago
    I think he is specifically refering to updating it in a managed environment. Applications set up correctly (e.g. Microsoft Office) can have updates pushed out over the network to all users, automatically. This isn't so easy with Firefox, but it should now be easy with Chrome.
nodata 16y ago
It's also not suitable for "normal" home users: auto-update of the browser requires admin rights.
- eitally 16y ago
  Actually, that's not true. Chrome, unlike other browsers, installs in user space so admin privs aren't required. This isn't true for Chrome Frame, which has to be installed using admin rights (ref: https://groups.google.com/forum/#topic/google-chrome-frame/FlIMZ1-vFP0 https://groups.google.com/forum/#topic/google-chrome-frame/F...).
  - nodata 16y ago
    That's even worse! One of the major points of an application being installed by root is that it's protected from modification by users and programs users run. Thanks for the heads up.
    - nl 16y ago
      So you complain when it can't be modified, and then you complain when it can? What exactly would make you happy?
      - sid0 16y ago
        Having the program be installed by root but not require admin rights to update, I presume. That sort of system is quite possible with services or scheduled tasks on Windows. In fact MSI can do that already as long as everything is signed.
        nodata 16y ago
        Exactly this. Thanks.
        eitally 16y ago
        The MSI offers a number of GPO switches so a domain admin can do things like disable auto-updates, disable extensions from being installed, black- or whitelist individual extensions, etc. You're commenting like you've never actually done this, which is probably why you're being downvoted. By comparison, Chrome for Enterprise currently offers only about a dozen GPO switches and IE6 offers 1300, but the dozen they chose cover about 90% of possible use cases and the team is working on adding more all the time, as they are justified.

by ZoFreX 16y ago

rnernento 16y ago

Agreed, as an Admin having alternate browsers available in in an environment can be incredibly beneficial. Security/patch wise it's a real pain to maintain Firefox so this is a big advantage for Chrome.

InclinedPlane 16y ago
Applying updates is nearly painless in Chrome. Just hit "update google chrome" and the update is applied, the browser is restarted in a matter of seconds with all your previously open windows and tabs are retained. The only downside is youtube videos you had open might automatically restart. Firefox has a similar update process but it's so much clunkier that it eats up far more time and effort. IE's update process is a joke in comparison to both (sometimes requiring a full restart of your system).
- ZoFreX 16y ago
  I think he is specifically refering to updating it in a managed environment. Applications set up correctly (e.g. Microsoft Office) can have updates pushed out over the network to all users, automatically. This isn't so easy with Firefox, but it should now be easy with Chrome.

nodata 16y ago

It's also not suitable for "normal" home users: auto-update of the browser requires admin rights.

eitally 16y ago
Actually, that's not true. Chrome, unlike other browsers, installs in user space so admin privs aren't required. This isn't true for Chrome Frame, which has to be installed using admin rights (ref: https://groups.google.com/forum/#topic/google-chrome-frame/FlIMZ1-vFP0 https://groups.google.com/forum/#topic/google-chrome-frame/F...).
- nodata 16y ago
  That's even worse! One of the major points of an application being installed by root is that it's protected from modification by users and programs users run. Thanks for the heads up.
  - nl 16y ago
    So you complain when it can't be modified, and then you complain when it can? What exactly would make you happy?
    - sid0 16y ago
      Having the program be installed by root but not require admin rights to update, I presume. That sort of system is quite possible with services or scheduled tasks on Windows. In fact MSI can do that already as long as everything is signed.
      - nodata 16y ago
        Exactly this. Thanks.
        eitally 16y ago
        The MSI offers a number of GPO switches so a domain admin can do things like disable auto-updates, disable extensions from being installed, black- or whitelist individual extensions, etc. You're commenting like you've never actually done this, which is probably why you're being downvoted. By comparison, Chrome for Enterprise currently offers only about a dozen GPO switches and IE6 offers 1300, but the dozen they chose cover about 90% of possible use cases and the team is working on adding more all the time, as they are justified.