5 ms·

This is why I started using Chromium instead of Chrome -- Chrome forces you now to use (and pay for!) the web store (it's impossible to install extensions not h

by gergles 13y ago

This is why I started using Chromium instead of Chrome -- Chrome forces you now to use (and pay for!) the web store (it's impossible to install extensions not hosted by Google, if you're running on Windows because "think of the users!"[1]) and if your extension doesn't get along with any of their policies (i.e. the extensions listed here), then Chrome users can't use it at all. Super-awesome, Google. Chromium doesn't (at the moment) have these restrictions. [1]: The post with this fucking Newspeak title: http://blog.chromium.org/2013/11/protecting-windows-users-from-malicious.html http://blog.chromium.org/2013/11/protecting-windows-users-fr...

zobzu 13y ago
I'm just using Firefox instead. Because the browser is just as good, and seems to genuinely push for http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/
k-mcgrady 13y ago
>> "Chrome forces you now to use (and pay for!) the web store" Huh? Seems free for me to use. What specifically do you have to pay for?
- tokenizerrr 13y ago
  I think he means for developers. There's no way to distribute extensions for free now, where before they could be self-hosted.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > There's no way to distribute extensions for free now, where before they could be self-hosted. Unless I misunderstand the blocking of non-web-store extensions, you can distribute extension for free, just not to Windows users.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - iamjustin 13y ago
      > Just not to Windows users. Oh okay, so you'd just lose out on ~90% of the market?
  - hansjorg 13y ago
    They can still be self-hosted, but you're not able to install just by clicking on them. You have to download the crx file and then drag it into the extensions window.
    - tokenizerrr 13y ago
      Currently, yes. But in the article linked [1] above they claim that that too will be prohibited starting january [1]: http://blog.chromium.org/2013/11/protecting-windows-users-from-malicious.html http://blog.chromium.org/2013/11/protecting-windows-users-fr...
- akurtzhs 13y ago
  It costs $5 to get a developer account for the Chrome Web Store. Cheap compared to an iOS developer account, but still...
  - k-mcgrady 13y ago
    Yeh, that seems pretty reasonable especially when you consider the price of other dev programs (just had to renew my iOS membership today).
    - untog 13y ago
      No, let's not go down the path of saying things are OK because they're better than the worst option out there.
      - cwp 13y ago
        Ok, it seems pretty reasonable, when you consider how easy it is to obtain five dollars.
        jamesaguilar 13y ago
        I can see it MAYBE being an issue in countries where income isn't as high as the U.S., but at least for any American, or anyone in any industrialized country, the $5 fee to get an account is not a significant impediment.
        PavlovsCat 13y ago
        "at least for any American, or anyone in any industrialized country" Yeah, nobody can't possibly be that poor, eww! And who needs talented people in the third world making great extensions and possibly finding better jobs or at least global recognition that way.
        victorhooi 13y ago
matchu 13y ago
If it's important that your extension not be hosted on the Web Store, Windows users can still install it as an unpacked extension and perform updates manually. But it's definitely designed to be much more of a pain.
- cpleppert 13y ago
  EDIT:Apparently this doesn't work on windows at all. Wow The process is much more difficult(you have to actually drag it onto the extension page or open the downloaded file) and unlike in safari it won't automatically update so you need to design your own update system. You also lose the permissions systems when you do that.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > The process is much more difficult(you have to actually drag it onto the extension page or open the downloaded file) I'm pretty sure that was the manual process before they actually disabled non-webstore extensions. Before they disabled them earlier this year, Chrome would download them in the background but refuse to install them with a message indicating that you could not install non-Web Store extensions unless you did that, but would allow you to install them by that means; what you have to do now is use the preferred method for development, which is unpacking the extension and adding it after turning on the developer mode -- which allows using unpacked extensions -- option in Chrome settings.)
- guiambros 13y ago
  As part of our continuing security efforts, we’re announcing a stronger measure to protect Windows users: starting in January on the Windows stable and beta channels, we’ll require all extensions to be hosted in the Chrome Web Store. We’ll continue to support local extension installs during development as well as installs via Enterprise policy, and Chrome Apps will also continue to be supported normally. [1] My understanding is that you won't be able to sideload extensions locally anymore, unless you're using the dev channel. Yes, this sucks big time. [1] http://blog.chromium.org/2013/11/protecting-windows-users-from-malicious.html http://blog.chromium.org/2013/11/protecting-windows-users-fr...
manicbovine 13y ago
You seem to care about this a lot more, and I'm honestly ignorant about these issues. But I'd just add that nearly every casual computer user is running some unwanted extension, toolbar, DNS hijacker, or worse. For whatever reason, it seems like this shit software ends up on a lot of computers through extensions Wouldn't Google's decision this help to eliminate that problem?

by gergles 13y ago

zobzu 13y ago

I'm just using Firefox instead. Because the browser is just as good, and seems to genuinely push for http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/

k-mcgrady 13y ago

>> "Chrome forces you now to use (and pay for!) the web store" Huh? Seems free for me to use. What specifically do you have to pay for?

tokenizerrr 13y ago
I think he means for developers. There's no way to distribute extensions for free now, where before they could be self-hosted.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > There's no way to distribute extensions for free now, where before they could be self-hosted. Unless I misunderstand the blocking of non-web-store extensions, you can distribute extension for free, just not to Windows users.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - iamjustin 13y ago
    > Just not to Windows users. Oh okay, so you'd just lose out on ~90% of the market?
- hansjorg 13y ago
  They can still be self-hosted, but you're not able to install just by clicking on them. You have to download the crx file and then drag it into the extensions window.
  - tokenizerrr 13y ago
    Currently, yes. But in the article linked [1] above they claim that that too will be prohibited starting january [1]: http://blog.chromium.org/2013/11/protecting-windows-users-from-malicious.html http://blog.chromium.org/2013/11/protecting-windows-users-fr...
akurtzhs 13y ago
It costs $5 to get a developer account for the Chrome Web Store. Cheap compared to an iOS developer account, but still...
- k-mcgrady 13y ago
  Yeh, that seems pretty reasonable especially when you consider the price of other dev programs (just had to renew my iOS membership today).
  - untog 13y ago
    No, let's not go down the path of saying things are OK because they're better than the worst option out there.
    - cwp 13y ago
      Ok, it seems pretty reasonable, when you consider how easy it is to obtain five dollars.
      - jamesaguilar 13y ago
        I can see it MAYBE being an issue in countries where income isn't as high as the U.S., but at least for any American, or anyone in any industrialized country, the $5 fee to get an account is not a significant impediment.
        PavlovsCat 13y ago
        "at least for any American, or anyone in any industrialized country" Yeah, nobody can't possibly be that poor, eww! And who needs talented people in the third world making great extensions and possibly finding better jobs or at least global recognition that way.
        victorhooi 13y ago

matchu 13y ago

If it's important that your extension not be hosted on the Web Store, Windows users can still install it as an unpacked extension and perform updates manually. But it's definitely designed to be much more of a pain.

cpleppert 13y ago
EDIT:Apparently this doesn't work on windows at all. Wow The process is much more difficult(you have to actually drag it onto the extension page or open the downloaded file) and unlike in safari it won't automatically update so you need to design your own update system. You also lose the permissions systems when you do that.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > The process is much more difficult(you have to actually drag it onto the extension page or open the downloaded file) I'm pretty sure that was the manual process before they actually disabled non-webstore extensions. Before they disabled them earlier this year, Chrome would download them in the background but refuse to install them with a message indicating that you could not install non-Web Store extensions unless you did that, but would allow you to install them by that means; what you have to do now is use the preferred method for development, which is unpacking the extension and adding it after turning on the developer mode -- which allows using unpacked extensions -- option in Chrome settings.)
guiambros 13y ago
As part of our continuing security efforts, we’re announcing a stronger measure to protect Windows users: starting in January on the Windows stable and beta channels, we’ll require all extensions to be hosted in the Chrome Web Store. We’ll continue to support local extension installs during development as well as installs via Enterprise policy, and Chrome Apps will also continue to be supported normally. [1] My understanding is that you won't be able to sideload extensions locally anymore, unless you're using the dev channel. Yes, this sucks big time. [1] http://blog.chromium.org/2013/11/protecting-windows-users-from-malicious.html http://blog.chromium.org/2013/11/protecting-windows-users-fr...

manicbovine 13y ago

You seem to care about this a lot more, and I'm honestly ignorant about these issues. But I'd just add that nearly every casual computer user is running some unwanted extension, toolbar, DNS hijacker, or worse. For whatever reason, it seems like this shit software ends up on a lot of computers through extensions Wouldn't Google's decision this help to eliminate that problem?