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."
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.
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?
Thrax
🐌Austin, TX Icrontian
Comments
"We are google.com. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile."
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.
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.
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.