Mozilla does not approve Google Chrome Frame
Yeah, Mozilla messed up in earnest. It is not clear how the argument is really justified. Users still mostly click Yes, of course! when they are offered to install something. Something does not seem to me that Chrome Frame somehow completely destroy their brain. Although there may be some reason for this ...
Below is a slightly abbreviated translation:
Mozilla stands on the side of Microsoft against Google IE
An ever less knowable web
Mozilla joined Microsoft, questioning the wisdom of releasing a new Google plugin that turns Internet Explorer into Google Chrome. But unlike Redmond, the open source company presented well-founded arguments.
')
Last week, Google released a plugin that complements Internet Explorer's rendering and JavaScript mechanisms. Known as Google Chrome Frame, this plugin greatly speeds up JavaScript processing and gives Microsoft’s dominant browser browser HTML5 capabilities.
Shortly after, Mozilla’s vice president of development, Mike Shaver, wrote on his blog that, like Google, he dreams of a world in which IE works just as well as Chrome, Safari, Firefox and Opera. But he firmly believes that Chrome Frame is the wrong way to achieve this goal.
“The execution of Chrome Frame in IE hinders the functioning of many browser features or makes them less effective,” says Shaver, “This concerns confidential web browsing and other security tools, accelerators and extensions working in content areas, and even accessibility.”
The statement of Shaver was supported by the second post from the representative of Mozilla . The head of Mozilla, Mitchell Baker (Mitchell Baker) found that the plug-in from Google splits the web rather than unites it. “In general, using Chrome Frame will lead to undesirable results,” she writes. “I foresee that the positive effect will be short and, depending on the degree of distribution, the Chrome Frame will eventually increase fragmentation and reduce the degree of controllability for all of us, including web developers.”
Despite the fact that Microsoft has finally seriously begun to move towards HTML5 , IE has yet to accept the proposed standard. For Google, such competitor sluggishness is a problem, as the company intends to expand access to the preliminary version of Google Wave, which is largely based on HTML5 .
When Internet Explorer users access the Google Wave Trial Release, the company recommends either installing Chrome Frame or using another browser. Moreover, Google also encourages other developers to get into this so that their web apps run in the Chrome Frame.
Microsoft quite predictably negatively responded about the plugin, but the message from the corporation contained more FUD than specific details. “Taking into account the security problems in the plugin and especially in Google Chrome, using Google Chrome Frame doubles the visibility of the browser for malware. We would not recommend to our friends to take such risks, ”- said in this message.
Mozilla's Mike Schever avoids intimidation tactics, arguing instead his negative assessment of the plugin that Chrome Frame not only bypasses Internet Explorer’s built-in security tools, but also confuses users ’security perceptions. “A side effect of using the plug-in is that users’ understanding of the web security model and their browsers will be undermined by delegating software choices to developers of certain sites they visit, ”says Shaver. “We constantly encountered this problem in the case of Flash, Silverlight and Java plug-ins, and I don’t think we should repeat all this again under the HTML5 mark.”
Mitchell Baker thinks the problem goes even further: “If you visit a site that uses Chrome Frame, then the way you handle passwords, security settings, personalization, and other things that a person installs in his browser, suddenly become unknown. For example, will the sites you bookmarked while working with one rendering engine appear in another? Since the various elements of the browser are no longer related to each other, the results of your actions in the browser, which you think you are using now, may in fact be very different from what you get, due to the actual use of the browser-in-Chrome browser . ”
Next, Mitchell draws an almost apocalyptic picture of the world, in which others will follow Google’s example: “Imagine that some websites will use Google’s browser-in-browser, Facebook will use your browser-in-browser for Facebook Connect, Apple’s An option for iTunes, for WAP sites, mobile operators will invent something of their own, and all this will be implemented into a single software, about which the user naively thinks of his browser. As a result, we will get some porridge from browsers, and in it every response of the user will correspond to a response, only the result will be unpredictable. This makes the web less understandable and cognizable and certainly much less manageable. ”
In its first comments, Google at least protects the security of the plugin itself. “Using Google Chrome Frame provides IE users with a level of security that is available in Google Chrome, providing robust protection against phishing and malware (which does not have IE6), as well as new online threats that are not far off,” Google said.
But for Mozilla, the problem is not in the security of the plugin, but in the plugin itself. Turning the Microsoft browser into a Google browser is a bad idea from the start, according to Mozilla.
However, it would be an exaggeration to say seriously that the open source developer has sided with Microsoft. “It would be better for the entire web if developers who want to use Chrome Frame simply inform users that the sites work better under Chrome and provide instructions on how to install it,” says Shaver. “In this way, users would learn about the advantages of an alternative browser, they would better understand the choices they make, and the recognition of Chrome’s performance would deservedly go to Google rather than Microsoft.”
UPD 07.10 On the advice of experienced moved to the thematic blog.
Below is a slightly abbreviated translation:
Mozilla stands on the side of Microsoft against Google IE
An ever less knowable web
Mozilla joined Microsoft, questioning the wisdom of releasing a new Google plugin that turns Internet Explorer into Google Chrome. But unlike Redmond, the open source company presented well-founded arguments.
')
Last week, Google released a plugin that complements Internet Explorer's rendering and JavaScript mechanisms. Known as Google Chrome Frame, this plugin greatly speeds up JavaScript processing and gives Microsoft’s dominant browser browser HTML5 capabilities.
Shortly after, Mozilla’s vice president of development, Mike Shaver, wrote on his blog that, like Google, he dreams of a world in which IE works just as well as Chrome, Safari, Firefox and Opera. But he firmly believes that Chrome Frame is the wrong way to achieve this goal.
“The execution of Chrome Frame in IE hinders the functioning of many browser features or makes them less effective,” says Shaver, “This concerns confidential web browsing and other security tools, accelerators and extensions working in content areas, and even accessibility.”
The statement of Shaver was supported by the second post from the representative of Mozilla . The head of Mozilla, Mitchell Baker (Mitchell Baker) found that the plug-in from Google splits the web rather than unites it. “In general, using Chrome Frame will lead to undesirable results,” she writes. “I foresee that the positive effect will be short and, depending on the degree of distribution, the Chrome Frame will eventually increase fragmentation and reduce the degree of controllability for all of us, including web developers.”
Despite the fact that Microsoft has finally seriously begun to move towards HTML5 , IE has yet to accept the proposed standard. For Google, such competitor sluggishness is a problem, as the company intends to expand access to the preliminary version of Google Wave, which is largely based on HTML5 .
When Internet Explorer users access the Google Wave Trial Release, the company recommends either installing Chrome Frame or using another browser. Moreover, Google also encourages other developers to get into this so that their web apps run in the Chrome Frame.
Microsoft quite predictably negatively responded about the plugin, but the message from the corporation contained more FUD than specific details. “Taking into account the security problems in the plugin and especially in Google Chrome, using Google Chrome Frame doubles the visibility of the browser for malware. We would not recommend to our friends to take such risks, ”- said in this message.
Mozilla's Mike Schever avoids intimidation tactics, arguing instead his negative assessment of the plugin that Chrome Frame not only bypasses Internet Explorer’s built-in security tools, but also confuses users ’security perceptions. “A side effect of using the plug-in is that users’ understanding of the web security model and their browsers will be undermined by delegating software choices to developers of certain sites they visit, ”says Shaver. “We constantly encountered this problem in the case of Flash, Silverlight and Java plug-ins, and I don’t think we should repeat all this again under the HTML5 mark.”
Mitchell Baker thinks the problem goes even further: “If you visit a site that uses Chrome Frame, then the way you handle passwords, security settings, personalization, and other things that a person installs in his browser, suddenly become unknown. For example, will the sites you bookmarked while working with one rendering engine appear in another? Since the various elements of the browser are no longer related to each other, the results of your actions in the browser, which you think you are using now, may in fact be very different from what you get, due to the actual use of the browser-in-Chrome browser . ”
Next, Mitchell draws an almost apocalyptic picture of the world, in which others will follow Google’s example: “Imagine that some websites will use Google’s browser-in-browser, Facebook will use your browser-in-browser for Facebook Connect, Apple’s An option for iTunes, for WAP sites, mobile operators will invent something of their own, and all this will be implemented into a single software, about which the user naively thinks of his browser. As a result, we will get some porridge from browsers, and in it every response of the user will correspond to a response, only the result will be unpredictable. This makes the web less understandable and cognizable and certainly much less manageable. ”
In its first comments, Google at least protects the security of the plugin itself. “Using Google Chrome Frame provides IE users with a level of security that is available in Google Chrome, providing robust protection against phishing and malware (which does not have IE6), as well as new online threats that are not far off,” Google said.
But for Mozilla, the problem is not in the security of the plugin, but in the plugin itself. Turning the Microsoft browser into a Google browser is a bad idea from the start, according to Mozilla.
However, it would be an exaggeration to say seriously that the open source developer has sided with Microsoft. “It would be better for the entire web if developers who want to use Chrome Frame simply inform users that the sites work better under Chrome and provide instructions on how to install it,” says Shaver. “In this way, users would learn about the advantages of an alternative browser, they would better understand the choices they make, and the recognition of Chrome’s performance would deservedly go to Google rather than Microsoft.”
UPD 07.10 On the advice of experienced moved to the thematic blog.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/71631/
All Articles