SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
Google made a change in Chrome 57 that removes options from the browser to manage plugins such as Google Widevine, Adobe Flash, or the Chrome PDF Viewer.
If you load chrome://plugins in Chrome 56 or earlier, a list of installed plugins is displayed to you. The list includes information about each plugin, including a name and description, location on the local system, version, and options to disable it or set it to "always run".
You can use it to disable plugins that you don't require. While you can do the same for some plugins, Flash and PDF Viewer, using Chrome's Settings, the same is not possible for the DRM plugin Widevine, and any other plugin Google may add to Chrome in the future.
Starting with Chrome 57, that option is no longer available. This means essentially that Chrome users won't be able to disable -- some -- plugins anymore, or even list the plugins that are installed in the web browser.
Please note that this affects Google Chrome and Chromium.
Source: http://www.ghacks.net/2017/01/29/google-removes-plugin-controls-from-chrome/
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:01PM
Indeed, I have tried many free browsers.
Firefox: Full featured, but they keep breaking it.
Chromium: Full featured, but keeps taking a lot of memory vs. other browsers.
Pale Moon: Full featured; used it for months; found that there were a lot of pages that would load in Firefox and Chrome but not Pale Moon. That's a no-go.
Midori: Small, fast, no features.
Dillo: If it's a joke, I don't get it.
For the past several months I've been using Firefox+theme plugins+modify-behavior plugins, but not 100% happy with it.
Today, I finally imported all my bookmarks into SeaMonkey and decided to give that a go.
Posting this reply from SeaMonkey.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:06PM
Vivaldi [vivaldi.com]! Arrggh!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by requerdanos on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:33PM
I understand and appreciate that $PROPRIETARY_BROWSER may be someone's preferred solution, but as long as free software does the job for me, I am not likely to look beyond the free world. Fair enough?
(Score: 2, Disagree) by takyon on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:38PM
I look forward to your series of code audits!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:54PM
I fail to see the point of your comment. To me, freedom is important in and of itself and it's a great injustice if software denies users their freedoms.
Regarding audits, if the software respects my freedoms, I can audit the code myself (as you suggested), hire someone to audit the code, choose to trust someone who already audited the code, etc. And of course, you can modify the code and share the modifications, and the entire community can do so as well. With proprietary software, you are dependent upon a particular developer, and they could far more easily abuse their powers. Free software simply gives you far more options, and that's undeniable.
Your comment is pretty much an example of the nirvana fallacy. No software can be 100% secure and free of backdoors even if it respects your freedoms, but freedom-respecting software is still far better than proprietary software, and that's good enough.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jmorris on Wednesday February 01 2017, @02:06AM
It isn't just code audits, it is the forks. When a closed product goes bad or changes revenue models you are simply boned. See Windows 10. Or more on topic, Opera. Contrast to Firefox or Debian.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Tuesday January 31 2017, @09:21PM
I do not understand your arrggh!. Are you annoyed everyone is ignoring Vivaldi? Are you telling me it's terrible? Are you you complaining because it is proprietary? Is it even proprietary? Is it too heavy to run in a mere two gigabytes of RAM?
Please explain.
-- hendrik
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:11PM
I decline.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Tuesday January 31 2017, @11:17PM
It does seem odd that you so strongly thought it should be on the list of
that were tried.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 01 2017, @05:19PM
Well yes, but one would think that you must eventually reach bottom.
(Score: 1) by charon on Tuesday January 31 2017, @07:25PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 01 2017, @05:21AM
My bank's website would not recognize it as a compatible browser
Crazy question: You did try a User Agent Switcher to spoof the site and tell it you were using something on their brain-dead list. Right?
...and proper sniffing[1] only looks for the rendering engine--not the browser name.
[1] Browser sniffing is mostly unnecessary.
If a site is built to be standards-compliant, any standards-compliant browser will work on it.
Setting up their landing page so that you can't get through it with a non-standards-compliant browser should do the trick without stupid shit like browser sniffing.
(I'm flashing back to Acid2 & Acid3 here.)
Does your bank's front page even pass the validator? [w3.org]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by charon on Wednesday February 01 2017, @09:43AM
Yes and it still didn't work. There was something lacking in the browser until somehow it was there in an update I had skipped. And it's not that it was a huge amount missing, the only thing it balked at doing was some crazy javascript thing for transferring money between accounts. Displayed everything just fine.
It seems to validate except for a couple missing alt text on img errors.
(Score: 2) by number11 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:22PM
PaleMoon has worked just about everywhere for me. There are a few websites that don't like the user-agent string, but I use SecretAgent to lie about the user-agent anyhow. There remain a few websites that are problematic, but it's hard to tell if the fault lies with PaleMoon, SecretAgent, NoScript, AdBlock Latitude, my VPN, or something else. Some of those sites give problems with Chromium-based browsers as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:48PM
The fault generally lies with the third party script libs a lot of sites embed, they have faulty UA sniffing in them to determine script capabilities instead of querying if something is supported directly which will break them for any UA they fail to recognize.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Wednesday February 01 2017, @02:25PM
How is a site supposed to query support for essential HTML elements and CSS selectors and properties before sending the HTML and CSS to the browser, particularly if the user has disabled script? IE 8 is unsupported and therefore presumed vulnerable, but IE 9 is still supported for a few more months.
And even if you have convinced the user to allow script on your domain, how is a site supposed to query support for new language features introduced in ECMAScript 6? You can't catch a SyntaxError, and the commonly used snippet involving a new Function violates any Content Security Policy that doesn't include 'unsafe-eval'.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 02 2017, @03:40PM
The site is supposed to send 1 html file and 1 css file to the browser
The browser then figures out which part of the css to use
Their is absolutely no *need* for 90%+ of all sites to script anything, the scripting may add some nice shiny-ness but that's about all for the vast majority of sites (of course thanks to braindead frameworks lots of site don't work at all without scripting, but that's under control of the one making the site)
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Wednesday February 01 2017, @05:35AM
"there were a lot of pages that would load in Firefox and Chrome but not Pale Moon. That's a no-go."...change the user agent string so it read Firefox instead of Pale Moon, works like a charm and any page that will load in FF will then load in PM. Its in about:config , easy peasy.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.