Re: Chrome processes vs. threads
- From: usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Woody)
- Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:27:39 +0100
Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Woody <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Woody <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jim <jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip]
Some of the issues are: No way to password-lock the remembered
passwords. No scripting management of any kind - you can't even turn
it off. Cookie management is very poor - no whitelisting for
example. Third-party cookie restrictions are feeble - blocks coming
in but not going out.
Granted it's early days yet, but even so.
Its not even early days, it is a beta,
A beta test version of software is hardly *late* days, is it? First you
get the alpha versions - they're first - and then you get the beta
versions, the earliest versions that are supposedly fully featured, if
not quite fully functional.
How can you possibly claim that a beta test version is anything but
early days for software?
I would refer to early days as after the release of a 1.0. Before that
it is effectively a demo
The reality is that the first released version is the earliest version,
no matter how you like to categorise things.
ok, why does it need to be released if it is the earliest version then
if you want to catagorise it like that?
So I guess the earliest version is when you select Project->New...
and most people dont need or want
any of that.
Most people do need that sort of thing even if they're so poorly
informed that they don't know. The fact that most don't want it is due
to being poorly informed as a matter of policy because `those who give
us this stuff' want us to be as insecure as possible to permit them to
make more money out of us.
Those who gave us this stuff would be happy for us to be as secure as
possible because then we will spend a lot more money.
The proof that that idea is nonsense is MS's development of Windoze,
which paid either no attention to security or merely lip service right
up until Win XP SP2.
OK, so now somehow Google produced Windows did they? As far as I can
see, although there are other people involved,
And if now we are extending cookie problems with Chrome to include all
versions of windows prior to XP SP2, then it is still wrong.
There have been many updates purely for security in windows long before
windows XPSP2 was even thought of (in fact a long time before XP was
thought of). Whether it was enough is another matter. It would have been
certainly a better idea for microsoft to throw windows away and start
again, but that is hardly going to happen, or is it an indication that
they were only paying lip service to security.
--
Woody
Alienrat Design Ltd
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Chrome processes vs. threads
- From: Rowland McDonnell
- Re: Chrome processes vs. threads
- References:
- Chrome processes vs. threads
- From: Richard Tobin
- Re: Chrome processes vs. threads
- From: Rowland McDonnell
- Re: Chrome processes vs. threads
- From: Jim
- Re: Chrome processes vs. threads
- From: Rowland McDonnell
- Re: Chrome processes vs. threads
- From: Jim
- Re: Chrome processes vs. threads
- From: Ben Shimmin
- Re: Chrome processes vs. threads
- From: Jim
- Re: Chrome processes vs. threads
- From: Woody
- Re: Chrome processes vs. threads
- From: Rowland McDonnell
- Re: Chrome processes vs. threads
- From: Woody
- Re: Chrome processes vs. threads
- From: Rowland McDonnell
- Chrome processes vs. threads
- Prev by Date: Re: No sound...?
- Next by Date: Re: Chrome processes vs. threads
- Previous by thread: Re: Chrome processes vs. threads
- Next by thread: Re: Chrome processes vs. threads
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|