Probably the most often requested feature for Google’s Chrome web browser was an extensions framework so that users can expand the functionality of Chrome in the same way people currently do for Firefox. Chrome has had an extensions framework for a while now, but it was turned off by default. They’ve now turned it on by default on the dev channel.
Before this change, you had to specifically tell Google Chrome to enable the extensions framework by the use of the --enable-user-scripts command flag. This is now no longer necessary if you’ve subscribed to the bleeding edge dev channel variant of Chrome.
This means that the feature will now finally receive some more widepsread testing, although it will still need to go through the beta channel before it reaches the stable builds of the browser. There’s a warning attached too, of course. “For this release, we focused on getting most of the basic infrastructure and security pieces in place, in particular our new permission system,” Aaron Boodman, Software Engineer at Google, writes, “However, you should still be cautious and only install extensions from developers you trust.”
Extensions for Chrome will be kept up-to-date the same way as the browser itself: that is, silently and automatically, using the Omaha protocol. “Like Chrome’s auto-update mechanism, extensions will be updated using the Omaha protocol, giving developers the ability to push out bug fixes and new features rapidly to users of their extensions,” Boodman writes.
There’s still some work to be done before the extensions framework is ready for beta; the user interface will likely be changed, and not all APIs are completely finished as of yet. More information on developing extensions can be found in the documentation, and if you’ve developed Chrome extensions before, this information about recent breakage is important.
It’s clear Windows is still the primary target for Chrome, as the Linux and Mac versions lag behind when it comes to the extensions framework. Boodman states that they’ve “enlisted help” to equalise the extensions framework progress across the three different platforms.
My Chrome experience will finally be complete when an AdBlock variant becomes available for it
http://www.adsweep.org/
Experience completed.
Whoops, discontinued.
Edited 2009-09-10 18:36 UTC
I tested Chrome earlier this week. The lack of decent plug-ins, like an ad blocker, were a deal killer for me. I did find several sites promoting Chrome add-ons, but none of them appeared to be officially sponsored by Google-Chrome.
Yes, I did quickly find the application Ad-Sweep. Check out these installation instructions:
If you want to install AdSweep in Chrome, create the C:\scripts directory, extract AdSweep.zip and place the AdSweep.user.js file into C:\scripts then right-click the shortcut icon of Google Chrome, either on your desktop or in your Start menu, and click ^aEURoeProperties^aEUR. Select the second tab named ^aEURoeShortcut^aEUR, and in the ^aEURoeTarget^aEUR field, append –enable-greasemonkey with a space inbetween. For instance:
Before: C:\Users\Charles\AppData\Local\Google\Chrome\Appli cation\chrome.exe
After: C:\Users\Charles\AppData\Local\Google\Chrome\Appli cation\chrome.exe –enable-greasemonkey
Uh… yeah, right. Are they freakin’ kidding me?!?
Two other irritants with Chrome:
Why does the Google Installer continue attempting to access the Internet, even though Chrome is already installed and running? Something fishy going on…
I can’t get Chrome to STOP making suggestions when I type into the address bar. I tried to turn all that crap off through the tools menu. Very annoying.
Because it is checking for updates, which it will apply silently.
Just out of curiosity, why would you want to turn it off?
You don’t need to do this anymore (a long time already…), the User Scripts folder created in your profile dir will do.
It’s updating… all the time if you use the dev channel, every two weeks in beta channel, and whenever a new stable release is available for everyone else. It’s installed for each user, and not into the system, so it’s easy to install even for limited/non-admin users… actually, it’s amazing for web designers/developers too, because the groups of users with the most updated browser currently are Chrome users…
…But, if you don’t like/are afraid of it… it’s okay, just install the Chromium instead. done.
You may want to look into the wrench > Options > Under the Hood items… really, a quick reading into the pane will do.
I actually started using Privoxy for ad blocking and it’s been working out quite nicely, plus it works in all of my web browsers (And I do so like to play with way too many of them at once). I personally like this method of blocking ads instead of using a plug-in for a web browser that has to be maintained to keep pace with said browser. Not saying AdBlock ever lags behind much but it eliminates the possibility of that being a problem too.
I refuse to install adblock – the whole concept seems unethical to me. If I am enjoying the content of a site, the site owners have every right to try to make some money off me*.
If the ads get annoying, I will simply stop visiting.
Saying that, sites that use popups and popunders should be punished somehow.
*As long as they do not go beyond acceptable limits such as popups, popunders, resizing windows etc.
Acceptable limits is a subjective term.
Dude, you are like the one other person on the whole internet I have ever seen say that.
Consuming content that is subsidized with advertising while blocking the advertising is unethical, plain and simple. Whether or not it is legal or illegal, or if you will get caught or not is completely irrelevant.
Edited 2009-09-11 00:38 UTC
Sorry, I call bullshit.
I suppose you watch every trailer on the movies you buy, and every advertisement on the shows you “tivo” (ok, that one might be a leap, perhaps you don’t own a DVR).
If the content providers rely so heavily on their advertisements, perhaps they shouldn’t use a medium that is so easy to avoid them with.
All I have to do is blacklist a select few domains (I refuse to accept content from said domains), and I’ve thwarted their plans. Damn…too bad for them.
Or better yet, all I have to do is disable javascript or flash or images altogether and I’ve immediately thwarted their plans.
They have no right to tell me I must download the ads, so if they want to prevent me from viewing their content, they better find a different way to do so
I can always whitelist ads on those sites I feel its worth it…
The important difference here is that you have already paid for the movie while you pay nothing to view these sites. The ads are the only means of income.
If you dont like the ads, perhaps you should not consume their content.
Oh yes, thwarted their plans of making a little money in exchange for providing you informaton. You’re a regular samaritan.
Edited 2009-09-11 07:29 UTC
I don’t watch tv. As for movies, the requirement is that it is displayed, not that you watch it. The equivalent here would be to rip the movie and edit out the commercials.
It is their server, their bandwidth, and their content that you are consuming. It is their choice both whether or not, and also how, they want to subsidize their content. As a consumer of that content, you have no right in the ethical sense to make those choices for them.
You can do it, you can get away with it, it is legal, and nobody will ever know. To me, situations like this are what really test the ethical fiber of a person.
Personally, I try to be the best person I can be. For me, that means going beyond what is required of me by law, and doing the thing I know is right.
You are completely correct that this is a risk free, legal thing to do, and if you choose to do it that is totally up to you. However, that was not what I was talking about, I was talking about doing the right thing, which is not exploiting a loophole just because it is there.
Do you ever go to the toilet during the commercial breaks of a television show?, If so, I think you are being very unethical.
I don’t watch tv
I don’t have Flash installed, does that make me a criminal?
Flash is an optional install. If advertisers choose to use a delivery mechanism that I don’t have, that’s their problem, not mine.
Flash, and the adverts that use it are a *major* security threat and I won’t have it installed on my computer.
Not least that under fair use the bits and bytes that arrive at my computer are mine to interpret and render how I damn well please. There is no legal precedent that a browser *must* render a site in a particular way.
Or even that one might want to choose which bits even arrive at their computer. Adblock simply doesn’t download content from URLs that match a given regex… I think that’s pretty fair. If I don’t want to receive content containning “doubleclick.net” or otherwise in the URL, I think that’s my perogative. Everyone who claims otherwise can go to hell, it’s my computer, my internet connection, and not my problem if the content providers rely on such a flaky and easily avoided mechanism to deliver their advertisements.
First of all, like I said, there is a difference between being a criminal and an ethical person. There is nothing legally wrong with blocking ads, and it would be really hard to legislate around that.
Secondly, I agree with you in regards to flash, I actually do not have flash installed for pretty much the reasons you outlined. If they choose not to market to the people who browse the web in those ways, that is their choice. There is a difference between not installing something and filtering though.
Thirdly, I probably came off a little strong. These are MY ethics, and they do not necessarily belong to everyone, and I’m sorry about that. My problem is that I have yet to see a justification for filtering advertising that doesn’t boil down to “well, i’m not going to get in trouble for it”. I know what is involved in running a website, and even if the goal with advertising is just to break even, page views are not free to the person who is hosting the site.
I have no problems with advertisements on the website to pay for the content; what I does get me pissed off is when they make the advertisements so intrusive that it destroys the experience of being able to enjoy the content.
Sure, have a banner ad at the top but don’t have it flashing or blinking so that it is distracting and most importantly, don’t allow scumbags to advertise on your website; sorry, I don’t care about ‘Rich Jerk’ or some other annoying ad. I’ll continue blocking the ads until they realise that without me the viewer they have no potential customer base which they can then tell their advertisers about.
As a complete shill, I feel I have to pimp the Ubuntu PPA for chromium again:
https://launchpad.net/~chromium-daily/+archive/ppa
As ff 3.5 becomes slower and slower as you use it, Chromium will save the day and preserve the sane browsing experience…
Yep, running it right now. Pretty decent, though there are times when a site does not display at all or the whole thing just goes poof…
AdBlock is a necessity though I tend to block just those flash popups.
The other possibility is Arora which can be set up to ignore flash altogether and display buttons instead – if you absolutely have to see the flash object.
The –enable-extensions option enables extensions, not the –enable-user-scripts option.
Extensions and user scripts are not the same thing. The former is primarily for modifying the browser itself, and the latter for modifying web page content on-the-fly.
I’m not sure how many people are aware of it, but Chrome is based on Chromium, which is a native Linux app (doesn’t use Wine!). It’s still in alpha stage and doesn’t support plug-ins, but it’s already very usable and very fast, well worth trying. I do most of my browsing with Chromium now.
The procedure for installing it on Linux isn’t obvious since it isn’t in the archives yet. Here are instructions for installing it on Ubuntu:
http://www.stefanoforenza.com/chromium-on-ubuntu-how-to/comment-pag…
cheers,
Oz
Edited 2009-09-11 00:15 UTC
It does support plug-ins, you just have to pass the –enable-plugins parameter.
More great news: Some changes recently implemented in Webkit allows easier implementation of Adblock functionality and the Gnome team have already taken advantage of it in Epiphany-Webkit.
http://blog.kov.eti.br/?p=88
Free (as in speech).
Content providers are free to CHOOSE to put ads on their sites.
Network admins/end users are free to CHOOSE how to allocate incoming bandwith in terms of what content they consider relevant and what content they consider junk.
Are ACLs on routers “unethical”?
IMHO the web is so much more cleaner and efficient with ads blocked. I find web ads themselves to be unethical