5 ms·

And one would have thought the commentators would actually do a better job than the O(1) work put in by the tech pundits. Do people NOT get the fact that Chrom

by ashu 18y ago

And one would have thought the commentators would actually do a better job than the O(1) work put in by the tech pundits. Do people NOT get the fact that Chrome is open-source JUST LIKE firefox, and to the extent that Adblock Plus is NOT A DEFAULT EXTENSION on firefox, the same will carry forward for Chrome, no matter what the distribution mechanism?

sutro 18y ago
I'm sorry to have disappointed you with my poor commenting skills, ashu. Unfortunately, if you didn't like that last comment, you probably won't like this one either. - Open source maintainers / hosts have significant control over the direction of their projects. - Adblock Plus and CustomizeGoogle may well become default extensions or even core Firefox features in the future. It is my belief that Google's influence over the Firefox project has thus far prevented that from happening, even though Firefox users would have appreciated it. Now that Google is promoting a Firefox competitor, their influence over Firefox may wane (although their re-upping of the default search deal may forestall that). I doubt your claim that Chrome and Firefox will evolve in lockstep on this issue has any basis in fact. - There is currently no extension mechanism and no way to block ads (Adblock Plus) or prevent profile tracking (CustomizeGoogle) in Chrome. Rather, Chrome goes in the opposite direction, sending every one of your keystrokes in the search/location bar back to the mothership. So the two browsers are not "JUST LIKE" one another at all.
- unalone 18y ago
  -They do, but that refers (again) to the CORE. Developers can do whatever they damn well please. -Citation needed. CustomizeGoogle makes Google ugly. I see no reason why Firefox would do that. And AdBlock is a big deal, but at the same time, it's a bulky implementation and Firefox needs, more than anything, to slim down. Meanwhile, Google and Firefox programmers have similar motives and a similar system to work from. Firefox will copy Chrome, Chrome will get plug-ins, and then it's likely they'll stay as much in tandem as all the big compliant browsers are now. -Most people don't CARE about profile tracking, first-off. Google, meanwhile, has announced that they'll be making a system for plug-ins, by which we assume they mean extensions, and one of the first ones that always gets made is an AdBlocker. Your Chrome argument is stupid: you can choose NOT to send data to Google if you choose, and if you do then you're totally off the loop. Like Google Toolbar for, what's the name again, Firefox. Bonus comment: -I understand that Ashu made a relevant comment that happened to knock yours back, but if somebody argues with you, don't get snipy. It pisses us third-party viewers off. Just argue back with your points and with minimum arrogance, and hopefully people will upvote you if what you're saying is relevant at all. In your case, though, you're arguing a fairly moot case and you're doing it in a pretty factless way, so you'd do best to reassemble your argument if anything.
  - sutro 18y ago
    Developers can do whatever they damn well please. Of course developers can modify open source. My point was that as the project sponsor and checkin-approver, if Google wants to make Chrome friendly to their business model, they will be able to. Sure, rebellious developers could fork and start a new browser project, but it would be very difficult for them to compete with Chrome given Google's technical and marketing backing. Citation needed. Like you and ashu, I am speculating about the future of Firefox and Chrome, hence my use of the word "may." Do all HN speculations now require citations? Where are your citations? CustomizeGoogle makes Google ugly. If seeing clean, ad-free versions of Gmail, Google Search, and all the other Google webapps is "ugly" to you, then I can only assume that you like to look at web ads. If that's the case, then I can see why you wouldn't like CustomizeGoogle or AdBlock Plus. Bonus comment Thanks for letting me in on your secrets for how to win friends and influence people. You're a regular Dale Carnegie.
    - unalone 18y ago
      - But see, the wonderful thing about open source is that you're not DOING it for a profit. If you don't WANT ads, you don't have to GET ads. And it doesn't MATTER how unpopular your browser is, it WORKS. - I attempt to make logical assumptions about what's going on. You're spreading FUD. There's a difference. - CustomizeGoogle doesn't merely remove things. It adds other options. And it doesn't do it particularly nicely. What would Mozilla benefit, furthermore, from blocking ads on Google, when they make 80% of their profit from Google? You're not thinking logically. You're being ridiculous. - I didn't say what I did to help you get friends. I told you to stop bitching because you being a bitch is irritating and unnecessary. But you're still going at it, so I'll assume there's no help for you. My sympathies.
      - sutro 18y ago
        I've learned a great deal from this Socratic exchange of ideas, unalone. I've learned that I am stupid, snipy, arrogant, and that I piss you off. I'm factless. I spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt. I don't think logically. I'm ridiculous. And I'm an irritating, unnecessary bitch. Your artful ad hominem has shown me how wrong I was to think that our conversation was not about me but about browsers. Thank you for presenting such a dignified example of how one should argue, and thank you for not letting the topic of this thread get in the way of your helping me better understand my many personal faults.

by ashu 18y ago

sutro 18y ago

I'm sorry to have disappointed you with my poor commenting skills, ashu. Unfortunately, if you didn't like that last comment, you probably won't like this one either. - Open source maintainers / hosts have significant control over the direction of their projects. - Adblock Plus and CustomizeGoogle may well become default extensions or even core Firefox features in the future. It is my belief that Google's influence over the Firefox project has thus far prevented that from happening, even though Firefox users would have appreciated it. Now that Google is promoting a Firefox competitor, their influence over Firefox may wane (although their re-upping of the default search deal may forestall that). I doubt your claim that Chrome and Firefox will evolve in lockstep on this issue has any basis in fact. - There is currently no extension mechanism and no way to block ads (Adblock Plus) or prevent profile tracking (CustomizeGoogle) in Chrome. Rather, Chrome goes in the opposite direction, sending every one of your keystrokes in the search/location bar back to the mothership. So the two browsers are not "JUST LIKE" one another at all.

unalone 18y ago
-They do, but that refers (again) to the CORE. Developers can do whatever they damn well please. -Citation needed. CustomizeGoogle makes Google ugly. I see no reason why Firefox would do that. And AdBlock is a big deal, but at the same time, it's a bulky implementation and Firefox needs, more than anything, to slim down. Meanwhile, Google and Firefox programmers have similar motives and a similar system to work from. Firefox will copy Chrome, Chrome will get plug-ins, and then it's likely they'll stay as much in tandem as all the big compliant browsers are now. -Most people don't CARE about profile tracking, first-off. Google, meanwhile, has announced that they'll be making a system for plug-ins, by which we assume they mean extensions, and one of the first ones that always gets made is an AdBlocker. Your Chrome argument is stupid: you can choose NOT to send data to Google if you choose, and if you do then you're totally off the loop. Like Google Toolbar for, what's the name again, Firefox. Bonus comment: -I understand that Ashu made a relevant comment that happened to knock yours back, but if somebody argues with you, don't get snipy. It pisses us third-party viewers off. Just argue back with your points and with minimum arrogance, and hopefully people will upvote you if what you're saying is relevant at all. In your case, though, you're arguing a fairly moot case and you're doing it in a pretty factless way, so you'd do best to reassemble your argument if anything.
- sutro 18y ago
  Developers can do whatever they damn well please. Of course developers can modify open source. My point was that as the project sponsor and checkin-approver, if Google wants to make Chrome friendly to their business model, they will be able to. Sure, rebellious developers could fork and start a new browser project, but it would be very difficult for them to compete with Chrome given Google's technical and marketing backing. Citation needed. Like you and ashu, I am speculating about the future of Firefox and Chrome, hence my use of the word "may." Do all HN speculations now require citations? Where are your citations? CustomizeGoogle makes Google ugly. If seeing clean, ad-free versions of Gmail, Google Search, and all the other Google webapps is "ugly" to you, then I can only assume that you like to look at web ads. If that's the case, then I can see why you wouldn't like CustomizeGoogle or AdBlock Plus. Bonus comment Thanks for letting me in on your secrets for how to win friends and influence people. You're a regular Dale Carnegie.
  - unalone 18y ago
    - But see, the wonderful thing about open source is that you're not DOING it for a profit. If you don't WANT ads, you don't have to GET ads. And it doesn't MATTER how unpopular your browser is, it WORKS. - I attempt to make logical assumptions about what's going on. You're spreading FUD. There's a difference. - CustomizeGoogle doesn't merely remove things. It adds other options. And it doesn't do it particularly nicely. What would Mozilla benefit, furthermore, from blocking ads on Google, when they make 80% of their profit from Google? You're not thinking logically. You're being ridiculous. - I didn't say what I did to help you get friends. I told you to stop bitching because you being a bitch is irritating and unnecessary. But you're still going at it, so I'll assume there's no help for you. My sympathies.
    - sutro 18y ago
      I've learned a great deal from this Socratic exchange of ideas, unalone. I've learned that I am stupid, snipy, arrogant, and that I piss you off. I'm factless. I spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt. I don't think logically. I'm ridiculous. And I'm an irritating, unnecessary bitch. Your artful ad hominem has shown me how wrong I was to think that our conversation was not about me but about browsers. Thank you for presenting such a dignified example of how one should argue, and thank you for not letting the topic of this thread get in the way of your helping me better understand my many personal faults.