1 Sep 2011 03:18
Re: Where's the Outrage? Where's the Mob?
Ron Hunter <rphunter <at> charter.net>
2011-09-01 01:18:27 GMT
2011-09-01 01:18:27 GMT
On 8/31/2011 5:22 PM, Sailfish wrote: > My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on > 8/31/2011 2:58 PM: >> On 8/31/2011 4:51 PM, Sailfish wrote: >>> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on >>> 8/31/2011 2:38 PM: >>>> On 8/31/2011 3:41 PM, Sailfish wrote: >>>>> REF: >>>>> http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2011/08/chromes-most-important-feature.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [excerpt quote =" >>>>> Chrome's rapid release cycle works well because of the autoupdater. >>>>> Annoying users with notifications about the new releases makes people >>>>> delay updating their browser. Some of them will find ways to >>>>> disable the >>>>> updater and will continue to use an old version of the browser. Ben >>>>> Goodger thinks that making the updater invisible is very important: >>>>> " /] >>>>> >>>>> snicker, yuk! yuk! >>>>> >>>> I believe that Google Chrome and Firefox have a vastly different >>>> userbase. Going 'stealth' with updates would result in a backlash >>>> against Mozilla that would be seen/heard on Mars! Mozilla devs WISH >>>> they could 'force' updates, but understand that would be fatal to >>>> their user confidence. Another case where what GC does Firefox can't >>>> get away with. I HATE double-standards! >>>> >>> Yeah, but I also think that Google's extension API model somewhat >>> bullet-proofs them from claims of add-on breakage, too. >>> >> Only because they restrict their extensions to ONLY what the API >> allows. No messing with the core code. I like extensions that DO >> something. >> > Not all extensions that DO something require one to touch core code. For > example, Chrome offers an extension to change the UA string, which is > quite helpful for being able to access banks that break because of their > faulty browser sniffing methodology. I'm certain there are many other > useful ones. > > Also, as ChrisI pointed out, there are a growing number of such > core-touching add-ons now for Firefox, more: > https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/tag/restartless > and > https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/tag/jetpack > > That being said, I do like core-touching extensions like TMP, > Status-4-EVAR and DOM Inspector very much. > There is a great difference between being able to manipulate the way the browser works, and being able to only manipulate the way it handles/displays data. I haven't done an indepth analysis of Chrome add-ons, but the ones I looked at all only handle DATA, not the way the browser works. That, and the inability to customize the interface to any significant degree causes me to avoid it. As long as Firefox allows me to make the interface look like I want it to, and to use add-ons that change the way it works, I will be sticking with it.