New Chrome Build Supports Javascript Control

Terry Olaes

Terry Olaes

I Used to be the [H] News Guy
Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
4,646
Many of you are fans of Google’s Chrome browser, myself included. ZDNet spotted a new Chrome build in the dev channel that supports Javascript control, similar to the NoScript extension. The author calls it another reason to ditch Firefox. Have you already ditched FF for Chrome or are you sticking with Mozilla or IE?

Google Chrome v5.0.317.0 now officially supports NoScript-like behavior, where you can prohibit all javascript from running, except the scripts you explicitly authorize. This new version also lets you selectively choose which cookies, images, plug-ins and pop-ups are allowed as well.
Click to expand...
 
I tried Chrome this week because I was tired of Internet Explorer thrashing the hearddrive everytime I opened a new tab on my laptop. To my surpise it works very well.
 
Am I the only one who can't find this option? I can disable all JavaScript, and set manual exemptions, but there isn't any sort of "show me what sites are trying to run scripts, and enable them one by one" sort of thing that I can find.
 
This is a good sign for Chrome even if the protection this provides isn't extensive as NoScript.
 
I have not switched from Firefox yet and probably won't in the near future, but it's only a matter of time. I regularly use Google search, Google Maps, Google Earth, Gmail and the Gmail chat thingy.
 
Is there something similar to adblock for Chrome? That's the major thing in the past that's kept me from switching, but if there's something like that now I'll give it another try.
 
Yes, Chrome now has an adblock plus equivalent, which made me jump ship pretty much as soon as it happened.
 
Yea I was waiting for this to happen along with the improved cookie controls. I just need one more thing to move from firefox, the web dev toolbar. i can't live without that.
 
When Chrome starts letting plugins work on all pages including its own plus HTTPS, and the plugins mature to the point of matching Firefox's, I'll consider it.
 
Chrome needs to be optimized for SSDs before I start using it on my main rig.
 
i use chrome for quick look up pages and anything that is flash based as it works Very well under Chrome 1080p is no problem with enough CPU power (Firefox is Very poor on Flash CPU use and uses Loads of ram per page or tab, opera is not far behind but i do have like 45 tabs open in opera and its only using 455MB total i have got loads of tabs but flash playback suffers an little)
i use opera for my permanent tab support something all the other browsers lack or are very limited as well as Chrome it self (permanent as in they stay after an Norm exit or even crash they always come back should still back them up from time to time)
 
Symon14:
There's two good extensions for ad blocking. Just browse around the extension gallery and have at it.
 
I've been using SRWares Iron browser for a while now. It's had AdBlock built into the browser itself for quite a while. If you haven't heard of it, it's basically Chromium with all of the Google-ness and/or things that phone home to Google removed. Just the browser. I like Chromium; I don't like Google using me for data mining.

They have Win, Mac, and Linux builds.

SRWare Iron

-S
 
negated said:
I've been using SRWares Iron browser for a while now. It's had AdBlock built into the browser itself for quite a while. If you haven't heard of it, it's basically Chromium with all of the Google-ness and/or things that phone home to Google removed. Just the browser. I like Chromium; I don't like Google using me for data mining.

They have Win, Mac, and Linux builds.

SRWare Iron

-S
Click to expand...

Will try this just because it's new to me.

Thanks
 
Here's what I think about Chrome compared to Firefox...

Pros:
- Slightly faster
- Smoother installation of add-ons
- Nicer looking default theme
- Built in bookmark sync

Cons:
- Some add-ons aren't as robust as their Firefox counterparts yet
- Hardly any decent looking themes
- Extremely limited layout customization
- No drop down menu for history
- Can't scroll the bookmarks menu with the mouse wheel
- No option to configure how new tabs are handled
- No option to set the size of the cache
- While good for saving space, the popup in the bottom left can get annoying when accidentally moving your mouse over links
- Won't remember passwords for some sites (like this one)
 
Once maybe half of the things in my cons list above are fixed, I'll probably switch to Chrome. That is of course assuming Firefox doesn't fix an equal amount of flaws in the mean time.
 
I'm still waiting to see how Google's Chrome handles features to block flash, scripting, *and* ads. Including their own.

Why would Google have any interest in disabling things that feed their ad-empire? Or the many ways browsers in general can feed their empire when they have source control on it.
 
I'm pretty entrenched in firefox, don't get me wrong chrome seems better in some ways(atleast I like the tab integration with the title bar), but the difference is small enough that I don't want to put any effort into it.
 
Switched to Chrome a few days ago and have been playing with it and am enjoying it alot. Won't be switching back to FF or Opera if Chrome keeps improving.

- Won't remember passwords for some sites (like this one)
Click to expand...

Check your settings. Chrome remembers the passwords for every site of mine, including this one.
 
Finger said:
When Chrome starts letting plugins work on all pages including its own plus HTTPS, and the plugins mature to the point of matching Firefox's, I'll consider it.
Click to expand...

You mean extensions?

Extensions work on HTTPS pages (or they will in new versions; Chrome v.4+, at least),

I don't know why you'd want an extension to work on the extension/theme sites, since that could be a major security issue (imagine extensions replacing all extension install links with links to an extension which installs a malicious plugin. Since it wouldn't have to be hosted on the extension site, it wouldn't have to be checked for malicious intent, and it would be easy to disguise it as the extension you meant to install, because all the text you need is available on that page). So, generally, it's a bad idea (of course, that's just my speculation; I don't know if it's actually possible, but it's something to think about). ^.^
 
Most sheeple cannot see the mountains for the trees it seems. I agree with LonerVamp, Google is trying a 'slight of hand' of sorts to convince users that they are offering the same protection from malicious scripting as Noscript, but I believe they are going to allow "approved" Ads anyway even if they do get settings that allow us to disable scripting on a per-domain basis. They are in it for the money aren't they?

Most Ads still do not have a static image stand-in for when scripting is blocked, so I no longer see 90% of Ads anyway, even here. Sometimes, I load this page in IE just to support this site, but that is tedious, and I will not allow advertisers to run scripting on my PC for every other site as well.

I had to choose between Noscript and Adblock a while back, and decided to stick with Noscipt. I decided that protection was more important than Ad-obstinance. It is not that I just don't want Ads, I don't want pop-up, obnoxious, page-blocking, loud, Ads that move down the page as you scroll trying to avoid them. That, and the fact that malware is so commonly installed using scripting from Ads.

Ads have a place, I just make sure it is a small, safe, controllable place in my browser. I just don't believe Google wants me to have that control. Not in the long run anyway.
 
negated said:
I've been using SRWares Iron browser for a while now. It's had AdBlock built into the browser itself for quite a while. If you haven't heard of it, it's basically Chromium with all of the Google-ness and/or things that phone home to Google removed. Just the browser. I like Chromium; I don't like Google using me for data mining.

They have Win, Mac, and Linux builds.

SRWare Iron

-S
Click to expand...


I thought that chromium itself is the one with none of the google ad/web browsing behavior tracking? I know that SRware iron is as well, but believe chromium is the same...or am I mistaken here?

I've switched to chromium after trying SRware iron, as that one get's updated much faster than iron does.

BTW, is there a noscript avail for chromium/iron?
 
I'll be sticking with Firefox for the foreseeable future due to all of the extensions I use. But if I didn't use so many extensions, I'd quickly switch to Chrome. The thing that annoys me most about Firefox is having the whole browser freeze while it loads a tab in the background.

Once Mozilla figures out how to put tabs and plugins into their own processes so they don't crash or freeze the entire browser, Chrome won't have nearly as big of an advantage.
 
Frankly, with judicious testing and confirmation of addons (to avoid ones that leak memory or slow down Firefox over time), I've still not see too much reason that I would want the hassle of switching over to Chrome from Firefox (I keep all the major browsers but only keep Firefox on at all times).

With a widescreen, Tree Style Tabs make more sense than even title bar tabs (which truncate web page titles anyway) so that's hardly an issue. Speed isn't so far off that it makes any real difference.

Memory leaks don't really exist with a new profile (and avoidance of extensions that leak memory) in Firefox plus Chrome's design exchanges higher memory usage for better isolation (although neither browser is unstable anyway).

What are the showstopping faults of Firefox anyway?
 
Chrome's handling of JS blocking has one major flaw, which you will only find out if you dig through the comments section of the article to find it:

Unlike Noscript, apparently Chrome's handling of domain blocking will allow any 3rd party site trusted by the the domain you already approved to run. This still leaves you wide open for scripting exploits as foo.com (which you approved) could call a .js on foobar.com (which you have not approved) and Chrome will still reportedly allow the script to run from the site, all on the basis of you approving the site that CALLED the script.

I'll stick with FF.
 
think saving passwords or keep logged in is an issue with this site, as opera i have to log back in 1 an week i guess,

still Opera for Prime browser and Chrome for very quick look ups or Flash sites (bbc iPlayer, youtube)

in Opera i don't see how this will ever change due to the way Permanent session tab support in opera works that no other Browser natively supports, also no plugins are needed, but does lack no script like blocker, but does have an Block content option (right click) Very useful at blocking the dam CPU Hog O2 ads, you can also disable javascript completely per site as well for sites that use them or fake your Browser ID as Firefox or Internet explorer for sites that Force you to use IE6 or higher or firefox

only down site to opera is when you have like 40-50 sites open is it takes like 10-15 secs to open them all on an SSD (think it was more like 30 secs on an HDD but if Superfetch was left to fill the ram first it norm loads as fast as an SSD would as Superfetch would preload all the pages that opera uses was was quite neat)
 
Hopefully this will be and have the same functionality like noscript, then I'm almost ready to switch over. Although I hope also for a better session manager, like the one in tab mix plus.
I think some annoying things or behaviors are still also keeping me away, Firefox just feels more comfortable to use right now.
 
I made a complete switch to Chrome a while ago. I love the variety of addons in FF, but it was simply too slow/buggy for me. Some of that is probably addon bloat, but if I can't have addons what's the point of FF? Chrome hasn't crashed on me in some time, and even loading large amounts of tabs on startup takes seconds. A few websites are incompatible with Chrome (annoying) but I imagine as fast as Chrome is growing, support for it will become more standard.
 
Finger said:
When Chrome starts letting plugins work on all pages including its own plus HTTPS, and the plugins mature to the point of matching Firefox's, I'll consider it.
Click to expand...

+1 yea, adclock does not work in youtube, so I will be sticking with firefox.
 
Until Chrome has an addon that works as well as adblockplus with an easylist subscription I wont even try it. I can't help but think that having that sort of addon for a browser like chrome is not in googles primary interest which is ad revenue, this conflict of interest will become more of a problem as adblocking becomes more popular, and hopefuly mainstream.
 
wcmaxi said:
Symon14:
There's two good extensions for ad blocking. Just browse around the extension gallery and have at it.
Click to expand...

PrincessFrosty said:
Until Chrome has an addon that works as well as adblockplus with an easylist subscription I wont even try it. I can't help but think that having that sort of addon for a browser like chrome is not in googles primary interest which is ad revenue, this conflict of interest will become more of a problem as adblocking becomes more popular, and hopefuly mainstream.
Click to expand...

Actually all the adblockers/flashblockers for Chrome suck right now even though some do use things like Easylist. According to NoScripts creator Giorgio Maone, the Chrome adblockers are mere shells of what they are in FF because Chrome (4.xx) still doesn't have what it needs to allow selective script disabling and object blocking.

Here is what Giorgio has to say about Chrome:

http://hackademix.net/2009/12/10/why-chrome-has-no-noscript/
http://forums.informaction.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1676&start=0

I'll wait to hear what Giorgio says about Chrome's 5.x code base for their NoScript like functionality before I'll even consider giving Chrome another look. I have a feeling it'll be completely subpar to what NoScript does because giving a user that kind of control isn't in Google's best interests based on their business model.
 
gtg465x said:
Here's what I think about Chrome compared to Firefox...

Pros:
- Slightly faster
- Smoother installation of add-ons
- Nicer looking default theme
- Built in bookmark sync

Cons:
- Some add-ons aren't as robust as their Firefox counterparts yet
- Hardly any decent looking themes
- Extremely limited layout customization
- No drop down menu for history
- Can't scroll the bookmarks menu with the mouse wheel
- No option to configure how new tabs are handled
- No option to set the size of the cache
- While good for saving space, the popup in the bottom left can get annoying when accidentally moving your mouse over links
- Won't remember passwords for some sites (like this one)
Click to expand...

Slightly faster?! Really? In what OS, in XP - Win 7, Chrome blows away Firefox for me.
 
Where do I download this version? I currently have 4.0.249.78 beta (36714).
 
pretty sure all you people saying you use an adblocker are going to get banned from H lol.


p.s. I do not use an adblocker :D
 
negated said:
I've been using SRWares Iron browser for a while now. It's had AdBlock built into the browser itself for quite a while. If you haven't heard of it, it's basically Chromium with all of the Google-ness and/or things that phone home to Google removed. Just the browser. I like Chromium; I don't like Google using me for data mining.

They have Win, Mac, and Linux builds.

SRWare Iron

-S
Click to expand...

yup been using it here - it's great without Google's (anti) privacy policy. Recommended by a fellowe [H]er.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top