Howdy, stranger! Ready to join the community? [log in]

Mozilla backs Microsoft against Google’s Chrome plugin for IE

Robert Hallock September 30, 2009 1:15 AM ET in Tech

firefoxComputerworld is reporting that Microsoft has an unlikely ally in the form of Mozilla which yesterday blasted Google for releasing a plugin which replaces Internet Explorer’s renderer with that of Chrome’s.

The former CEO of Mozilla and current Mozilla Foundation chair Mitchell Baker expressed her disagreement in a personal blog update.

“The overall effects of Chrome Frame are undesirable,” she said. “I predict positive results will not be enduring and — and to the extent it is adopted — Chrome Frame will end in growing fragmentation and loss of control for most of us, including Web developers.”

Baker claims that slipping Chrome into Internet Explorer will confuse users by giving them conflicting destinations for browser control.

“Once your browser has fragmented into multiple rendering engines, it’s very hard to manage information across Web sites. Some information will be manageable from the browser you use and some information from Chrome Frame. This defeats one of the most important ways in which a browser can help people manage their [Web] experience.”

Microsoft, meanwhile, complained that adding Chrome to IE would pose an increased security risk. The Redmond firm said that users would now have to patch vulnerabilities for two browsers instead of one. Microsoft also pointed out that the plugin also disabled Internet Explorer features like the private browsing mode which blocks history and cookies from being recorded.

The Mozilla Foundation’s VP of Engineering Mike Shaver also echoed security concerns. “The user’s understanding of the Web’s security model and the behavior of their browser is seriously hindered by delegating the choice of software to the developers of individual sites they visit,” he said.

Google has not yet responded to Mozilla’s criticisms. Users interested in replacing the Internet Explorer rendering engine with the safer, faster, and newer Chrome engine can do so for free.

Share |

4 Comments:

  1. lordbean
    404 Brain Not Found
    30 Sep '09, 11:19 am

    I hate to sound like I don't support google, but I agree with M$ and Mozilla on this one. I don't think it's reasonable to start plugging one browser core into another browser. That puts too many demands on both the software and the user, and in the end, simply gets confusing. If google wants people to use Chrome, they should be finding ways of promoting the standalone Chrome browser, not creating addons to turn other browsers into Chrome.

    "We are google.com. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile."

  2. jared
    Howdy Damnit
    30 Sep '09, 11:48 am

    Yeah I think the whole thing is stupid.

    I don't see why you any reason why you would install this plugin INSTEAD of just upgrading the browser.

    It's applying a shitty patch on top of a shitty browser.

  3. bs
    Guest
    1 Oct '09, 10:40 am

    If Chrome is selected as the users preferred, then it's properly enforcing user preferences. If Chrome deceptively installs plugins/addons/etc. to other software (like Adobe, Apple, Microsoft, etc. do) in spite of user preferences and without their consent or knowledge, that's not right.

    Personally I would be happy if my preferred browser (Firefox) took over all internet rendering regardless of the 'shell' used to initiate the connection. Many 3rd party applications ignore user preferences in favor of Internet Explorer. Internet Explorer can't be removed from XP, so I adjust its security setting for some zones and add the sites necessary for Windows updates to the trusted zone. Of course this causes the links from 3rd party apps that ignore my preferences to display an error message at most.

    So, blame Google if you want, but I point the finger at Microsoft's facade implementation of user preferences.

  4. Robert Hallock
    Cad
    1 Oct '09, 10:54 am

    I completely agree with you, bs. I believe the standard model for rendering should be for the system to adopt the renderer of the system's default browser. I have, like you, run into situations where programs explicitly rely on Trident for rendering (Steam is a good example), and they freak out when they can't access it.

    I can see what Mozilla is saying here: Using Chrome as the renderer means you have to change options for Chrome to make changes to the way the page is displayed. You can't do that from Internet Explorer's option menus, because there's obviously no control there. At the same time, I think users who would be taking Chrome into IE explicitly know what they're doing (i.e., premeditation) or have administrative oversight to resolve any issues.

    I well and truly believe Mozilla's response is a tempest in a teapot reaction that tries to mask jealously with legitimacy. The Foundation's sole purpose is to spread their browser's influence, and Google developed a plugin which would prevent IE users from ditching IE to try Firefox... Is it really about the users, or about money?

    My cynic sense is tingling.

Hey, be nice. Icrontic is full of good people, we promise.

New Features on Icrontic: