4 ms·

I think the article said the disabling of view source is an enterprise feature that's limited to specified URLs. Prior, the bug was, it wasn't working. That is,

I think the article said the disabling of view source is an enterprise feature that's limited to specified URLs. Prior, the bug was, it wasn't working. That is, you could not disable view source for list of URLs. I agree. View source is generally a good thing. But if an org wants to disable it for some limited set of URLs that's not really an issue. This feature doesn't effect everyone. My takeaway of the news here was that this bug was open for so long and was finally fixed. But perhaps I read with the wrong lens.

alpaca128 5y ago
Can someone tell me a reason why an organization would want to block this feature? And blocking this in Chrome wouldn't be enough; they'd also need to whitelist execution for programs so people can't just use a portable browser. Then whitelist permitted websites and network connections to prevent use of other online workarounds. This all can't be easier than solving the root issue.
- grayhatter 5y ago
  It's not, they're not trying to solve all issues. Just the ones they're aware of. You're thinking too deeply if you're trying to understand their motivation. Occams' Razor also applies to understanding motivation. Students are cheating by viewing source -> block viewing source. Is much easier to understand than fixing the actual problem, which looks like. Students are cheating by reading the source code -> the source code contains the test -> the test shouldn't also contain the answers -> the source code shouldn't contain the answers -> we need to remove the answers from the source code.
- chromanoid 5y ago
  It is easier, because apparently companies like Google shit on scenarios like that for schools for software like Google Forms Quiz. As a school either you buy expensive software that sometimes still has such problems or you simply block access to source - immediate problem solved. This feature is just an improvement over not being able to see sources at all. A portable browser comes on a storage device which is not allowed in this scenario. Otherwise you could simply have a crib sheet on it. Maybe the whitelist is just for a local intranet (wikipedia mirror whatever).
grayhatter 5y ago
> I think the article said the disabling of view source is an enterprise feature that's limited to specified URLs. Prior, the bug was, it wasn't working. That is, you could not disable view source for list of URLs. Yes, but my problem isn't fixing this bug. My problem is now that this bug is fixed, Chromium is worse. The feature is bad, and actively user hostile. It shouldn't exist, thus contributing to make something that should not exist, function is bad. > I agree. View source is generally a good thing. It's always a good thing. There's no case I can think of where software has a built in ability to diagnose and fix problems with it is a bad thing. > But if an org wants to disable it for some limited set of URLs that's not really an issue. This feature doesn't effect everyone. But it does effect some people? Who cares if it's bad, it only hurts people I don't care about right? What about me? This user hostile design mistake COULD effect me. My sister is a school teacher. I help her with technical support all the time. Now she could come to me ask me why this site looks broken, and instead of being able to quickly tell her what's wrong, I now have to spend hours trying to unbreak the web browser on her school laptop. Things like this bother me so much because all it does is punish the smart people. Oh, you know how to fix your problems? Well fuck you, now it's harder! > My takeaway of the news here was that this bug was open for so long and was finally fixed. But perhaps I read with the wrong lens. Sounds like you're thinking to narrowly. Everyone is complaining because this is does make everything more complicated for no good* reason. And is likely to break work flows for a lot of people. *: for most definitions of good reason.
- chiefalchemist 5y ago
  This isn't for everyone. It's limited to Enterprise, who very well might have good reason to use said feature.

alpaca128 5y ago

Can someone tell me a reason why an organization would want to block this feature? And blocking this in Chrome wouldn't be enough; they'd also need to whitelist execution for programs so people can't just use a portable browser. Then whitelist permitted websites and network connections to prevent use of other online workarounds. This all can't be easier than solving the root issue.

grayhatter 5y ago
It's not, they're not trying to solve all issues. Just the ones they're aware of. You're thinking too deeply if you're trying to understand their motivation. Occams' Razor also applies to understanding motivation. Students are cheating by viewing source -> block viewing source. Is much easier to understand than fixing the actual problem, which looks like. Students are cheating by reading the source code -> the source code contains the test -> the test shouldn't also contain the answers -> the source code shouldn't contain the answers -> we need to remove the answers from the source code.
chromanoid 5y ago
It is easier, because apparently companies like Google shit on scenarios like that for schools for software like Google Forms Quiz. As a school either you buy expensive software that sometimes still has such problems or you simply block access to source - immediate problem solved. This feature is just an improvement over not being able to see sources at all. A portable browser comes on a storage device which is not allowed in this scenario. Otherwise you could simply have a crib sheet on it. Maybe the whitelist is just for a local intranet (wikipedia mirror whatever).

grayhatter 5y ago

> I think the article said the disabling of view source is an enterprise feature that's limited to specified URLs. Prior, the bug was, it wasn't working. That is, you could not disable view source for list of URLs. Yes, but my problem isn't fixing this bug. My problem is now that this bug is fixed, Chromium is worse. The feature is bad, and actively user hostile. It shouldn't exist, thus contributing to make something that should not exist, function is bad. > I agree. View source is generally a good thing. It's always a good thing. There's no case I can think of where software has a built in ability to diagnose and fix problems with it is a bad thing. > But if an org wants to disable it for some limited set of URLs that's not really an issue. This feature doesn't effect everyone. But it does effect some people? Who cares if it's bad, it only hurts people I don't care about right? What about me? This user hostile design mistake COULD effect me. My sister is a school teacher. I help her with technical support all the time. Now she could come to me ask me why this site looks broken, and instead of being able to quickly tell her what's wrong, I now have to spend hours trying to unbreak the web browser on her school laptop. Things like this bother me so much because all it does is punish the smart people. Oh, you know how to fix your problems? Well fuck you, now it's harder! > My takeaway of the news here was that this bug was open for so long and was finally fixed. But perhaps I read with the wrong lens. Sounds like you're thinking to narrowly. Everyone is complaining because this is does make everything more complicated for no good* reason. And is likely to break work flows for a lot of people. *: for most definitions of good reason.

chiefalchemist 5y ago
This isn't for everyone. It's limited to Enterprise, who very well might have good reason to use said feature.