> 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 i

> 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.