# google chrome



## Blaze Redwolf (Mar 14, 2010)

I didn't find a topic about this so i decided to post it. What i'm looking for is your opinion on google chrome. For me it's a very fast browser thats almost as fast as comcast. It's better by comparison to internet explorer cus internet has alot of bugs. Once again this is my own opinion.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 14, 2010)

Pretty much anything is better than IE, but FF has done me very well, for the longest time now. Chrome, I tried, and didn't like. There are many chrome-lovers here, but I simply don't like it.

Plus, the level of Google stuff I use is frightening. My phone is a Droid (the older brother of Nexus One, google phones), I use Google Translator, Google Search, Google Shopping, Google News, Google-Google @_x Oogle-Google, Elgoog, and Boogle-Hoogle.


----------



## Tetragnostica (Mar 14, 2010)

Acid 3 test is scored out of 100 points.  Higher is better.


----------



## WolvesSoulZ (Mar 14, 2010)

I love google chrome, fast, simple, and does what I want it to do. FF is alright too tho.


----------



## Runefox (Mar 14, 2010)

Tetragnostica said:


> Acid 3 test is scored out of 100 points.  Higher is better.



The Acid tests are and always have been meaningless - Browser devs can simply design around the quirks. For that matter, my Google Chrome just passed the Acid3 test with a score of 98/100. That graph is also incredibly outdated, listing Firefox 3.1 Beta, IE8 beta, etc.

As far as the rendering engine is concerned, Google Chrome is on par with everything else out there.

As for speed, it's pretty much on-par with Opera for the fastest browser, hands-down. It also has extensions, which puts it ahead of Opera in terms of usability.

When it boils down to it, it's preference between Chrome, Opera, and Firefox. IE is pretty much something you're going to want to avoid if you can help it, and Safari... Well, why would you use Safari when Chrome uses the same rendering engine and is a hell of a lot faster, with extensions support?


----------



## Blaze Redwolf (Mar 14, 2010)

well what i've used firefox and safari and they dont seem a whole lot different to me. Personaly google chrome is beast but there are some programs that are better. It may not be in speed but in some other aspect like preformance or allowing less viruses to appear idk.


----------



## Jakobean (Mar 14, 2010)

I <3 Chrome. It's a lightweight, good-looking, reliable browser. I converted from Firefox.


----------



## Spawtsie Paws (Mar 15, 2010)

Tried it when it first came out and a second time recently. It just doesn't provide the security people need. Firefox does me well, especially with an added lair of security with AVG.

I blame Chrome for having my credit information jacked a while back.


----------



## Runefox (Mar 15, 2010)

HAXX said:


> Tried it when it first came out and a second time recently. It just doesn't provide the security people need. Firefox does me well, especially with an added lair of security with AVG.
> 
> I blame Chrome for having my credit information jacked a while back.



... Uh? How exactly does it not have security? Frankly, having credit card information hijacked is usually the result of phishing, which any browser would be susceptible to if you aren't paying attention. The browser itself uses the same SSL encryption and so on as everything else out there.


----------



## Spawtsie Paws (Mar 15, 2010)

Runefox said:


> ... Uh? How exactly does it not have security? Frankly, having credit card information hijacked is usually the result of phishing, which any browser would be susceptible to if you aren't paying attention. The browser itself uses the same SSL encryption and so on as everything else out there.



Then Chrome has easier ways to allow phising. I've never had a problem with Firefox. And like I said, AVG and Spybot patch up the browser to recognize malicious content.

Using Chrome just makes annoying spyware appear up on my scanners.


----------



## Furry Gamer (Mar 15, 2010)

I downloaded Chrome, it seems to be better then IE, but I still use IE because it has all my auto completes and I'm just to lazy to type.


----------



## Nollix (Mar 15, 2010)

HAXX said:


> Then Chrome has easier ways to allow phising. I've never had a problem with Firefox. And like I said, AVG and Spybot patch up the browser to recognize malicious content.
> 
> Using Chrome just makes annoying spyware appear up on my scanners.



*sigh*
Generally, getting phished is a result of user incompetence. How about using a little common sense before clicking every single link? You could also use noscript or the like.


----------



## Tetragnostica (Mar 15, 2010)

Runefox said:


> Browser devs can simply design around the quirks.



Urgh.  You're one of the reasons that IE hacks still have to exist.


----------



## ToeClaws (Mar 15, 2010)

So far I'm trying out Chromium (open-source version of Chrome) and it's been really good thus far.  I did notice that on some pages, formatting isn't perfect, and in Linux it seems that flash consumes more resources in Chromium than in Firefox, but that keeps getting better with each of the builds.


----------



## Runefox (Mar 15, 2010)

Tetragnostica said:


> Urgh.  You're one of the reasons that IE hacks still have to exist.



Note *browser devs*, not _web devs_. I'm saying that if a browser developer wanted the browser to pass an Acid test, they could quite easily *program the browser to pass it, specifically* rather than bothering to make sure the browser renders properly in the real world.

Being a web developer, I'm not one to like IE-specific hacks; Thankfully, IE8's renderer is finally sane, unlike IE6/7.



> Then Chrome has easier ways to allow phising. I've never had a problem with Firefox. And like I said, AVG and Spybot patch up the browser to recognize malicious content.


AVG doesn't, and Spybot doesn't really, either - Spybot just adds a list of known-bad hosts to a deny list. You could achieve exactly the same thing system-wide by using a modified HOSTS file (which Spybot ALSO does). If you're giving out credit card information to sites you don't trust just because your browser didn't block it by default, then I think perhaps you shouldn't be blaming the technology for your own stupidity.



> Using Chrome just makes annoying spyware appear up on my scanners.


Chrome is about as bulletproof as Firefox is, to be honest - Any spyware you're finding is by your own hand.


----------



## Spawtsie Paws (Mar 15, 2010)

Runefox said:


> Note *browser devs*, not _web devs_. I'm saying that if a browser developer wanted the browser to pass an Acid test, they could quite easily *program the browser to pass it, specifically* rather than bothering to make sure the browser renders properly in the real world.
> 
> Being a web developer, I'm not one to like IE-specific hacks; Thankfully, IE8's renderer is finally sane, unlike IE6/7.
> 
> ...


B
ullshit. I went to the same sites as I did with FireFox. I have grown tired of fixing viruses/reformatting. That means I don't click everything, if anything at all. 

If your such a damn genius, others must be too! People can hack computers to get a hold of things. Ever figure that out? Atlantico gave me a virus because their .pdf online catalog was compromised.

And yes, I was stupid enough to use PayPal to buy things from Apple Inc.

Jesus, some of you people have everything figured out. Even hackers. Bravo!


----------



## Runefox (Mar 15, 2010)

HAXX said:


> B
> ullshit. I went to the same sites as I did with FireFox. I have grown tired of fixing viruses/reformatting. That means I don't click everything, if anything at all.


Well, clearly, in that case, it wasn't Chrome that did it, then, was it?



> If your such a damn genius, others must be too! People can hack computers to get a hold of things. Ever figure that out? Atlantico gave me a virus because their .pdf online catalog was compromised.


Would you then blame Adobe's PDF reader for allowing a compromised PDF file to infect your PC with a virus when your virus scanner failed to detect it?



> Jesus, some of you people have everything figured out. Even hackers. Bravo!


Don't piss on things when you don't know how they work.


----------



## Spawtsie Paws (Mar 15, 2010)

Runefox said:


> Well, clearly, in that case, it wasn't Chrome that did it, then, was it?
> 
> 
> Would you then blame Adobe's PDF reader for allowing a compromised PDF file to infect your PC with a virus when your virus scanner failed to detect it? I blame the website for their security breach.
> ...



I'm trying to piss on you for walking in all high and mighty when it wasn't required. I would have listened if you were so damn insist all being an ass. 

Yes, that would be a third party. But like you said, AVG/Spybot do point out some known malicious content. That is a big bonus, considering they don't offer that to Chrome yet.


----------



## Oscar Wilder (Mar 15, 2010)

I agree with Runefox on some bits. Chrome is one sexy beast to look at and runs incredibly quick considering its a first time thing from Google.

The drop in/drop out tabs are great and the short keys make it even quicker after you've gotten used to them.

Its great when you are reading a article/ webpage and dont want to divert from that page straight away, open in a new tab and wait till later, its like magic cept it can be explained.


----------



## Rhetorica (Mar 15, 2010)

Hi, Runefox. I'd like to have a long, painful discussion with you, in this very thread, because I disagree with most (if not all) of the opinions you have stated here. To keep things simple, we'll deal with one argument at a time. Allow me to start with the following point:



Runefox said:


> Would you then blame Adobe's PDF reader for allowing a compromised PDF file to infect your PC with a virus when your virus scanner failed to detect it?



1. He didn't say he had an antivirus.
2. The security flaw existed in the PDF reader to begin with. Had it been written correctly, the exploit would have been impossible.
3. Antiviruses can only stop problems that their vendors have been made aware of. It is a mistake to assume that they are responsible for protecting computers from all possible threats, because they cannot be aware of all possible threats.


----------



## Oscar Wilder (Mar 15, 2010)

Isnt not having antivirus like painting a target on your ass and saying "Take me hard"


----------



## Furry Gamer (Mar 15, 2010)

Oscar Wilder said:


> Isnt not having antivirus like painting a target on your ass and saying "please do what you like to me"



That's exactly right. I got my new laptop and had to wait like two weeks to get my antivirus and when it scanned oh boy did I have a lot of crap on there.


----------



## SnowFox (Mar 15, 2010)

Furry Gamer said:


> That's exactly right. I got my new laptop and had to wait like two weeks to get my antivirus and when it scanned oh boy did I have a lot of crap on there.



You're internetting wrong.


----------



## Furry Gamer (Mar 15, 2010)

Oscar Wilder said:


> Isnt not having antivirus like painting a target on your ass and saying "Take me hard"





SnowFox said:


> You're internetting wrong.



What do you mean?


----------



## SnowFox (Mar 15, 2010)

Furry Gamer said:


> What do you mean?



You should be super paranoid like me and block absolutely everything. No spyware!


But I really don't know how you can get so many viruses without being really careless, or just really unlucky.


----------



## Oscar Wilder (Mar 15, 2010)

is that a digimon?


----------



## Blaze Redwolf (Mar 15, 2010)

When surfing the internet there are some surfers that can prevent viruses. But having antivirus programs is needed to be sure your computer is safe. You can't blame one surfing program for viruses. Like firefox helps to protect your computer but it does not stop every virus. However some sites have a built in phishing virus. They do this to get info and most get through. Antivirus programs are best no matter the surfing device you use.


----------



## Furry Gamer (Mar 15, 2010)

SnowFox said:


> You should be super paranoid like me and block absolutely everything. No spyware!
> 
> 
> But I really don't know how you can get so many viruses without being really careless, or just really unlucky.



I've got Viper Antivirus+Antispyware . It blocks everything bad, even the things that seem ok. I don't know how many times it's saved me from seemingly harmless things.


----------



## AMV_Ph34r (Mar 15, 2010)

Ah, Chrome. Chrome is an amazingly fast and aesthetically pleasing browser. I don't use it as much as Firefox, but I definitely use it quite a lot. The main reason I use Firefox most of the time is the extensions/addons. Chrome doesn't yet support the amazing addon capabilities that Firefox has. Other than than, Chrome is really nice, fast, and easy to use.


----------



## Oscar Wilder (Mar 15, 2010)

looks mean alot in a internet browser for some reason, dunno why tho


----------



## AMV_Ph34r (Mar 15, 2010)

Oscar Wilder said:


> looks mean alot in a internet browser for some reason, dunno why tho


Well, no one wants to use a browser that doesn't look nice. Functionality is all well and good, but looks are very important.


----------



## Blaze Redwolf (Mar 15, 2010)

true. Looks are important because it makes people more comfortable when using the browser. They should make a browser that looks nice.


----------



## incongruency (Mar 15, 2010)

I do not use Chrome because I do not want to be tracked any further by Google than I already am.  Google Chrome has built in phone-home functions that activate at a minimum of every 24 hours.

I would suggest that anyone using Chrome consider this and also consider using Iron instead.  It is based off the same source code as Chrome, but removes the tracking ability of the browser.


----------



## Scotty1700 (Mar 15, 2010)

Google Chrome is awesome, what I'm using now and it beats all competition. Here's my reasoning:

IE - Slow, dumb, shit-ton of viruses
Firefox - Rather good but really slow if you're on an old computer
Google Chrome - Blazing fast, reliable, very user-friendly

I have no personal experience with anything else.


----------



## Furry Gamer (Mar 15, 2010)

Oscar Wilder said:


> is that a digimon?



Indeed it is.



Scotty1700 said:


> Google Chrome is awesome, what I'm using now and it beats all competition. Here's my reasoning:
> 
> IE - Slow, dumb, shit-ton of viruses
> Firefox - Rather good but really slow if you're on an old computer
> ...



I mainly use IE (because it has all my auto-completes and bookmarks), but I'm currently using and testing Chrome for myself.


----------



## AMV_Ph34r (Mar 15, 2010)

incongruency said:


> I do not use Chrome because I do not want to be tracked any further by Google than I already am.  Google Chrome has built in phone-home functions that activate at a minimum of every 24 hours.
> 
> I would suggest that anyone using Chrome consider this and also consider using Iron instead.  It is based off the same source code as Chrome, but removes the tracking ability of the browser.


I have heard about Google tracking people through Chrome, but I don't know too much about it. And as much as I like Google, I don't want them snooping around my browsing history.

I can imagine the guys at Google now: "Oh, look, here's someone. Let's see... Gmail, DeviantArt, oh? What's 'Fur Affinity'? Let's see... OH! Oh god, I did not want to see that. Ew, what's that dog doing? Oh jeez..."
XD


----------



## Furry Gamer (Mar 15, 2010)

AMV_Ph34r said:


> I have heard about Google tracking people through Chrome, but I don't know too much about it. And as much as I like Google, I don't want them snooping around my browsing history.
> 
> I can imagine the guys at Google now: "Oh, look, here's someone. Let's see... Gmail, DeviantArt, oh? What's 'Fur Affinity'? Let's see... OH! Oh god, I did not want to see that. Ew, what's that dog doing? Oh jeez..."
> XD



They do this so that when you search stuff it's customized so that you get what you most look for, of course there is a down side to this as well.


----------



## Runefox (Mar 15, 2010)

Rhetorica said:


> Hi, Runefox.


Hi.



> 1. He didn't say he had an antivirus.


He did. He specifically said AVG/Spybot on multiple occasions.


> 2. The security flaw existed in the PDF reader to begin with. Had it been written correctly, the exploit would have been impossible.


While this is hardly the bulk of my argument, it's also impossible to "write it correctly" so as to _never_ have security issues. There is no such thing as invulnerable code.



> 3. Antiviruses can only stop problems that their vendors have been made aware of. It is a mistake to assume that they are responsible for protecting computers from all possible threats, because they cannot be aware of all possible threats.


This is true; However, it also has nothing to do with the whole topic of discussion, which is in this case "is Google Chrome secure?", which the answer is "just as secure as anything else out there". You seem to have hung up on a passing comment I made in regard to his line of thinking regarding the issue of stolen credit cards and Google Chrome.



> I'm trying to piss on you for walking in all high and mighty when it wasn't required. I would have listened if you were so damn insist all being an ass.


Really? You claim incorrectly that a piece of software had such a horrifyingly bad flaw that it somehow gave out your credit card information without your knowledge nor consent, and you're saying that my calling bullshit isn't warranted? There's far more than one way to get your credit card information stolen, and frankly, saying that a browser did it is baffling. For that matter, you have no way of knowing _when_ your credit card info was stolen, which could very well mean that a virus or keylogger installed on your computer on one of the no doubt many occasions it's happened to you could have harvested it, or perhaps again, one of the sites you use was compromised. You can't say for sure that Chrome was the problem, so spreading FUD about it because you got unlucky is just plain silly.

At any rate, can we drop this silliness?


----------



## AMV_Ph34r (Mar 15, 2010)

Furry Gamer said:


> They do this so that when you search stuff it's customized so that you get what you most look for, of course there is a down side to this as well.


Ah, that makes sense. And I guess it's better than plenty of other companies who shamelessly track everything you do through their software. I've had far too many run-ins with those...


----------



## Furry Gamer (Mar 15, 2010)

AMV_Ph34r said:


> Ah, that makes sense. And I guess it's better than plenty of other companies who shamelessly track everything you do through their software. I've had far too many run-ins with those...



As far as I know they don't share that information with third-party's.


----------



## AMV_Ph34r (Mar 15, 2010)

Furry Gamer said:


> As far as I know they don't share that information with third-party's.


Hope not. I like Chrome, and wouldn't want to have to stop using it because of spyware.


----------



## Blaze Redwolf (Mar 15, 2010)

I've taken a few computer classes. I know some things about how they track you if they do. They don't see who you really are. what ive learned is that every time you surf they see a track number for your computer. They can't really track you by it. This is all in real time so all they see is the number and then your browser is redirected to your link. You can correct me if i'm wrong but thats what i learned. They can't really track you.


----------



## incongruency (Mar 15, 2010)

Furry Gamer said:


> They do this so that when you search stuff it's customized so that you get what you most look for, of course there is a down side to this as well.


You are both correct and incorrect.  Yes, they do track you when you search, not that is not the only way they do so.  I already know they do this, but they also have another phone-home procedure that uses an encoded identifier that is sent back to Google.


AMV_Ph34r said:


> Hope not. I like Chrome, and wouldn't want to have to stop using it because of spyware.


Again, I would suggest Iron[/url[; it is basically Chrome minus the tracking.


			
				Blaze Redwolf said:
			
		

> 'I've taken a few computer classes. I know some things about how they track you if they do. They don't see who you really are. what ive learned is that every time you surf they see a track number for your computer. They can't really track you by it. This is all in real time so all they see is the number and then your browser is redirected to your link. You can correct me if i'm wrong but thats what i learned. They can't really track you.


Unfortunately, as much as I would like to believe that they cannot identify you, it is quite common that they can, especially if you use any sort of social networking, or at any time give up your real name, even if privately.  Google makes their profit off ad revenue, and as such they build profiles of your usage statistics, and can even track it back to you.  Real time has nothing to do with it, if you think it does, you grossly underestimate Google's collective processing power, or even their ability to store information for later processing.


----------



## Blaze Redwolf (Mar 15, 2010)

hmmm well i've been using google chrome for about 2 years and i've never gotten a call from them


----------



## incongruency (Mar 15, 2010)

Blaze Redwolf said:


> hmmm well i've been using google chrome for about 2 years and i've never gotten a call from them


I don't think you understand the concept of "phone home", it has nothing to do with actual phones, and it certainly does not mean that Google will call you.  The term in this usage means that Chrome will connect to and send information to Google servers, as in the program will "phone home" by connecting to the serves of the creators of the program.


----------



## Spawtsie Paws (Mar 15, 2010)

Runefox said:


> Hi.
> 
> 
> He did. He specifically said AVG/Spybot on multiple occasions.
> ...



1. Well, as long as you don't release the source to a program or operating system (such as Windows), they wouldn't have any good to work with. Mac for example. But this is a different beast.
2. I never said it magically gave out my information. A browser should help to prevent others from picking up my information. Whether that be on my computer, encrypting information from user to server, and from server to other servers. Then again, I honestly don't know if that is writable. It doesn't matter at this point, but i'll take a deeper look into your side anyway via research.

I just don't believe it to be a virus or keylogger unless my software wasn't aware of it. I am so paranoid about that stuff now, I scan before most transactions online.


----------



## Runefox (Mar 16, 2010)

> 1. Well, as long as you don't release the source to a program or operating system (such as Windows), they wouldn't have any good to work with. Mac for example. But this is a different beast.


Well... Both Windows and Mac OS are closed-source, and both Google Chrome (Chromium) and Mozilla Firefox are open-source. The idea of open source software is that with enough eyes, bugs will be tracked down more quickly; In reality, this may or may not be the truth, but where Windows is concerned, there have been cases where vulnerabilities in Windows XP and Vista have existed since Windows 95, though I'm hard-pressed to recall specifics. As for the idea that access to the source code equals more opportunities to find exploits, this may also be true, but it didn't stop Internet Explorer (closed-source) from still being the main target of drive-by downloads from version 6 all the way until the release of 8 (and I'm still not too sure about that one).

I'm not really sure where I was going with that, really. I guess I'll let it stand like that.


----------



## Spawtsie Paws (Mar 16, 2010)

Runefox said:


> Well... Both Windows and Mac OS are closed-source, and both Google Chrome (Chromium) and Mozilla Firefox are open-source. The idea of open source software is that with enough eyes, bugs will be tracked down more quickly; In reality, this may or may not be the truth, but where Windows is concerned, there have been cases where vulnerabilities in Windows XP and Vista have existed since Windows 95, though I'm hard-pressed to recall specifics. As for the idea that access to the source code equals more opportunities to find exploits, this may also be true, but it didn't stop Internet Explorer (closed-source) from still being the main target of drive-by downloads from version 6 all the way until the release of 8 (and I'm still not too sure about that one).
> 
> I'm not really sure where I was going with that, really. I guess I'll let it stand like that.



Well, it intrigued me that's for sure.


----------



## Taralack (Mar 16, 2010)

AMV_Ph34r said:


> Ah, Chrome. Chrome is an amazingly fast and aesthetically pleasing browser. I don't use it as much as Firefox, but I definitely use it quite a lot. The main reason I use Firefox most of the time is the extensions/addons. Chrome doesn't yet support the amazing addon capabilities that Firefox has. Other than than, Chrome is really nice, fast, and easy to use.



Seconding all these, for me. Right now I pretty much just use it as an extra browser for websites I have multiple accounts on, so I don't have to keep logging in and out.

Though if Chrome implemented a Twitter widget like echofon for Firefox, I would switch to Chrome in a heartbeat.


----------



## Oscar Wilder (Mar 16, 2010)

Correct me if I'm wrong but, 

Google can receive information on your search topics from the Google chrome browser, This information could be used to guess roughly at certain aspects of your life and details about you.

If you searched for car parts relating to a 1979 Gran Torino in the city of Baltimore, then information on dockworker union membership and finally Fly fishing trips to some place somewhere. Google could workout roughly a picture of who you are. IF they wanted to.


----------



## AMV_Ph34r (Mar 16, 2010)

Toraneko said:


> Though if Chrome implemented a Twitter widget like echofon for Firefox, I would switch to Chrome in a heartbeat.


Here. Though your post implies that you're looking for something made by Google. If that assumption is incorrect, then that's a good Twitter extension.


----------



## Taralack (Mar 16, 2010)

AMV_Ph34r said:


> Here. Though your post implies that you're looking for something made by Google. If that assumption is incorrect, then that's a good Twitter extension.



Oh shit, finally. THANKS!


----------



## AMV_Ph34r (Mar 16, 2010)

Toraneko said:


> Oh shit, finally. THANKS!


No problem. I made a Chrome convert! Yay!


----------



## Blaze Redwolf (Mar 16, 2010)

incongruency said:


> I don't think you understand the concept of "phone home", it has nothing to do with actual phones, and it certainly does not mean that Google will call you.  The term in this usage means that Chrome will connect to and send information to Google servers, as in the program will "phone home" by connecting to the serves of the creators of the program.


 oh ok i see what you mean


----------



## Lazydabear (Mar 18, 2010)

Internet Explorer can't play zShare streaming Flash player but Google Chrome can.


----------



## AMV_Ph34r (Mar 18, 2010)

Lazydabear said:


> Internet Explorer can't play zShare streaming Flash player but Google Chrome can.


Internet explorer can do one thing well: Download viruses without your knowledge.


----------



## Furry Gamer (Mar 18, 2010)

I was using Chrome today when it stopped displaying the web pages correctly, but I restarted my computer and it's fine now. Chrome is still the fastest browser I've ever seen and I plan to keep it.


----------



## Rhetorica (Mar 18, 2010)

AMV_Ph34r said:


> Internet explorer can do one thing well: Download viruses without your knowledge.



This is not exactly true, barring users who suffer from the Dread Clickitty Disease. IE'S ability to harm machines is generally overstated; although there are plenty of exciting vulnerabilities.

I think it's time to add a good HOSTS file to the tweaking thread.


----------



## Runefox (Mar 18, 2010)

Rhetorica said:


> IE'S ability to harm machines is generally overstated; although there are plenty of exciting vulnerabilities.


Well, at least since IE8 rolled around. IE6 is still just as swiss-cheesed as ever, and its vulnerabilities are basically what made it possible to coin "drive-by download" in the first place.


----------



## AMV_Ph34r (Mar 18, 2010)

Runefox said:


> IE6 is still just as swiss-cheesed as ever, and its vulnerabilities are basically what made it possible to coin "drive-by download" in the first place.


Oh, and don't I know it. My school still has IE6. The computers have so many random viruses... it's crazy/


----------



## Rhetorica (Mar 18, 2010)

One of the things that seems to be utterly absent from this discussion is the fact that the distribution of malicious sites is not uniform. IE6's vulnerabilities are not going to be exploited by most websites, no matter how exploitable they are, simply because those sites don't harbour malicious code. If, in this day and age, someone on the Internet can't use IE6 without collecting malware, the route of the problem is much more likely to be the user's inability to tell a legitimate site from a sketchy one. There is a lot of pressure on advertising networks to not push anything truly malevolent, and so generally the only conditions under which problems will arrise are compromised sites (can't be blamed just on IE) and sites just trying to screw you over.


----------



## AMV_Ph34r (Mar 18, 2010)

Rhetorica said:


> One of the things that seems to be utterly absent from this discussion is the fact that the distribution of malicious sites is not uniform. IE6's vulnerabilities are not going to be exploited by most websites, no matter how exploitable they are, simply because those sites don't harbour malicious code. If, in this day and age, someone on the Internet can't use IE6 without collecting malware, the route of the problem is much more likely to be the user's inability to tell a legitimate site from a sketchy one. There is a lot of pressure on advertising networks to not push anything truly malevolent, and so generally the only conditions under which problems will arrise are compromised sites (can't be blamed just on IE) and sites just trying to screw you over.


Fair enough, and actually quite true. While IE6 does have loopholes, so do other browsers. Safety ultimately ends up in the hands of the user.


----------



## Rhetorica (Mar 18, 2010)

Anyway, though, on some earlier hilarity in this thread: Yes, Runefox, the acid3 tests _do_ mean things. Even Microsoft is taking them seriously. Also, there are much more rigorous tests like the CSS3 selector test where the only way to pass is a correct implementation.

Soâ€”standards _do_ matter, even if you don't want them to.


----------



## Runefox (Mar 18, 2010)

Rhetorica said:


> Soâ€”standards _do_ matter, even if you don't want them to.



I don't believe I said standards don't matter.



			
				Very first sentence I've posted in this thread said:
			
		

> The Acid tests are and always have been meaningless - Browser devs can simply design around the quirks.



I'm not totally sure what you were reading exactly. I said the test doesn't matter. Browsers that pass the Acid test(s) don't necessarily meet the standards the test is meant to test for; Browser developers can design around the quirks that it tests for, and by doing so pull publicity coups revolving around supposed standards-compliance, when in reality, it may be quite different. I believe this happened with the Acid2 tests back when those were the Big Thing(TM), particularly with Safari/Webkit.

I believe I've already said this two or three times now, but thanks for noticing anyway.

*Again, it isn't the standards I'm saying are meaningless, it's the Acid tests*, just in case you missed it every other time I've said as much. Being a web developer, I'd be a complete idiot to say that standards are meaningless (though during the IE6 days, they certainly were in practice; The most widespread browser the world over didn't support any real standard but what Microsoft figured was standard, which means hacks on top of hacks on top of hacks to maintain standards-compliance while also maintaining IE6 compatibility).

CSS3 is also currently meaningless, as it's still under development. The selectors, in particular, are currently still only at the proposed recommendation stage, which while largely complete, isn't *exactly* complete, which means that there may be future changes. It's also worth noting that its status was only just changed to proposed recommendation as of December.


----------



## Rhetorica (Mar 18, 2010)

Yeah, okay, that was gross bullshit.

CSS3 matters because most vendors support it. While the details are not rubber-stamped in stone yet, the likelihood of them changing is minimal. It's already a de facto standard, and one based in a largely consistent document. You can't say "standards matter" and then exclude CSS3. All of the major browser vendors plan on adapting to CSS3 as it changes, so willingness to conform as things evolve is fairly significant.

The Acid tests focus on important and hard-to-manage details of the standards they reflect. While they don't equal standards compliance, they _do_ equal good performance in many JS tasks, and passing them means a significant improvement in browser quality, given how low browsers scored when Acid 3 was created. Since no vendor seems to be taking the "they could just cheat" approach you so irresponsibly suggested, Acid 3 compliance most certainly does matter.


----------



## Runefox (Mar 18, 2010)

Look. You know what? I had this big long-winded post written out, but I just don't care. I'm not sure why this is such a sensitive issue for you or why you're taking the tone you're taking (especially considering practically the first thing you said to me in general was "bullshit"), but I just can't be bothered to argue "YES IT DOES" "NO IT DOESN'T" with you endlessly over something like this. I've got enough shit raising my blood pressure, and arguing about *browser standards* and *the accuracy of tests thereof* is just not helping, not to mention it's stupid as all hell. In the end, all I have to say is, that's how you feel about it? Fine. However, I still stand by my position.


----------



## Carenath (Mar 18, 2010)

HAXX said:


> I'm trying to piss on you for walking in all high and mighty when it wasn't required. I would have listened if you were so damn insist all being an ass.


Welcome to the Internet. There are other members on this forum who would have been far more less 'nice' about it than Runefox.



HAXX said:


> 1. Well, as long as you don't release the source to a program or operating system (such as Windows), they wouldn't have any good to work with. Mac for example. But this is a different beast.


This is a fallacy, known as "security through obscurity". It's been proven to be a load of horseshit. Read up on DeCSS.


----------



## Spawtsie Paws (Mar 19, 2010)

Carenath said:


> Welcome to the Internet. There are other members on this forum who would have been far more less 'nice' about it than Runefox.
> 
> 
> This is a fallacy, known as "security through obscurity". It's been proven to be a load of horseshit. Read up on DeCSS.



That MAC gets viruses as well considering its based off of UNIX?? It has back doors as well?

Reading DeCSS now..


----------



## Rhetorica (Mar 19, 2010)

_HAXX: _The connection between OS X and the actual Unix kernel is strenuous at best. It's true that it's afflicted by vulnerabilities in the GNU toolchain just as much as everything else, but the consequences of following the Unix system architecture are pretty limited. OS X's XNU/Darwin kernel derives from a microkernel called Mach, which was written to replace the traditional Unix kernel in the mid-eighties.

_Carenath:_ Now, DeCSS is a special story. That's honest-to-goodness encryption right there; in fact the absolute basic principle of CSS and many other DRM algorithms is much like conventional encryption. However, it's significantly simpler than real encryption, and that's really what the problem is. Ultimately, all user-authentication mechanisms (RSA keys, passwords, et cetera) are security through obscurity in the same way; it just takes expontentially longer to crack them and is thus infeasible.

_Runefox:_ Your blood pressure does not have a major bearing on factual reality or the quality of an argument. I apologise that my original post neglected some context, but you seem to have a very warped perspective of what constitutes good software engineering. We'll start things off on a new foot and see if we can fix some misconceptionsâ€”because my god most of your posts read like bad trolling on Slashdot.


----------

