3 ms·
It's possible that's what Google wants, but it's also a terrible idea. Browsers should be reducing their attack surface, not increasing it. If I was to charact
by ocdtrekkie 5y ago
It's possible that's what Google wants, but it's also a terrible idea. Browsers should be reducing their attack surface, not increasing it.
If I was to characterize most of my issues with the Chrome team, it'd be that they need to stay in their own lane. They've injected a botched antivirus app into their releases before, DoH basically sidesteps the OS' networking stack because it was inconvenient for them they couldn't change it, etc.
At what point can we tell the Chrome team to stop feature creeping and just try to make their web browser waste less RAM?
- skybrian 5y agoI disagree that it's a terrible idea, particularly if the alternative is Wifi-enabled devices from dodgy vendors. It would be useful to have devices that don't talk to the network at all unless I plug them in and open a particular web app.
- ocdtrekkie 5y agoThe answer there would be desktop apps, though, not introducing a massive new hole in browser sandboxing. And it's also a dream of something unlikely to return, I think my Vive is the last product I've seen have wireless devices you plug into a desktop to update, and it's kinda a pain in the rear.