4 ms·

Of course. Chrome isn't really good for power users due to the less-powerful extension setups (can't even do true ad blocking). And it's of much less interest

Of course. Chrome isn't really good for power users due to the less-powerful extension setups (can't even do true ad blocking). And it's of much less interest to companies due to the per-user installation setup and not being self-contained (it relies on the host OS for encryption, proxy handling, etc).

justinschuh 15y ago
Chrome has had a system installer for years: http://www.google.com/support/chrome/bin/answer.py?answer=118663 http://www.google.com/support/chrome/bin/answer.py?answer=11... I'm also not sure what you mean by "not being self-contained." Chrome relies on OS subsystems where appropriate because it simplifies management and provides a consistent user experience--that's why we use the OS certificate store and proxy configuration settings. We've also seen quite a bit of enterprise uptake because Chrome is the only browser that provides full centralized management on all supported platforms (via Windows group policy, Puppet, etc.).
- andylei 15y ago
  > OS certificate store and proxy configuration settings these things are awesome! firefox just doesn't work with most sites on my company's intranet (particularly with authentication), but when i use chrome, everything just works.
  - zobzu 15y ago
    that sounds odd. details?
    - justinschuh 15y ago
      Just guessing here, but it's pretty common for enterprises to set up a lot of configuration via some sort of centralized policy mechanism. So, you'll have custom certs and a proxy PAC pushed at the system level via GPO or Puppet. If a browser (or any application) re-implements these features entirely, it won't pick up any of that context.
jonknee 15y ago
> And it's of much less interest to companies due to the per-user installation setup and not being self-contained (it relies on the host OS for encryption, proxy handling, etc). I don't run an IT department, but the self-updating browser seems like a pretty good win. Doubly so when it's very secure.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

justinschuh 15y ago

Chrome has had a system installer for years: http://www.google.com/support/chrome/bin/answer.py?answer=118663 http://www.google.com/support/chrome/bin/answer.py?answer=11... I'm also not sure what you mean by "not being self-contained." Chrome relies on OS subsystems where appropriate because it simplifies management and provides a consistent user experience--that's why we use the OS certificate store and proxy configuration settings. We've also seen quite a bit of enterprise uptake because Chrome is the only browser that provides full centralized management on all supported platforms (via Windows group policy, Puppet, etc.).

andylei 15y ago
> OS certificate store and proxy configuration settings these things are awesome! firefox just doesn't work with most sites on my company's intranet (particularly with authentication), but when i use chrome, everything just works.
- zobzu 15y ago
  that sounds odd. details?
  - justinschuh 15y ago
    Just guessing here, but it's pretty common for enterprises to set up a lot of configuration via some sort of centralized policy mechanism. So, you'll have custom certs and a proxy PAC pushed at the system level via GPO or Puppet. If a browser (or any application) re-implements these features entirely, it won't pick up any of that context.

jonknee 15y ago

> And it's of much less interest to companies due to the per-user installation setup and not being self-contained (it relies on the host OS for encryption, proxy handling, etc). I don't run an IT department, but the self-updating browser seems like a pretty good win. Doubly so when it's very secure.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]