nanotec89 wrote:For those curious as to why people are waiting for NoScript to be ported to Chrome before they bail on Firefox, I think I can sum it up here:
(snip)
2. Smooth, clean interface (i.e. tab moving and tearing)
That's strictly personal taste. I liked Fx 2's GUI much better than 3, and 3 infinitely better than 4+, after a few CSS hacks to clean up 3.
3. Extensions don't break. If an an extension works in Chrome 5, it will work in Chrome 15.
Probably because there are far fewer of them; tightly-restricted API (may be a safety advantage, admittedly). Fx has literally thousands of add-ons, and anyone can write one to suit a particular niche. There are downsides to that, of course, but you should consider both sides of the coin.
I felt inclined to post because I feel the majority of online comparisons between Chrome and Firefox fail to acknowledge point 3, considering how Firefox's rapid release schedule has been criticized for breaking addon's with each version.
IMHO, Firefox did the rapid-release thing to copy Chrome, a huge mistake, again IMHO. *But* -- they still maintain the 3.6 branch, which they've been threatening to discontinue since April 2011, and yet... Indicating that they're responsive to some users' preference for relative stability vs. bells and whistles. If they're smart, they'll continue to keep the workhorse running while they play with the shiny toys.
dhouwn wrote:I hope you find that the rapid release process in Google Chrome just as disappointing.
(On other forums, I have read about people proclaiming that they are unhappy about the rapid-release process for Firefox or the fact that there is no more separate feature and bugfix branch, and that they therefore plan on switching to Chrome or Opera, which is kind of amusing.)
Yep.
I have heard the question asked "What is more secure, Firefox with NoScript or Default Chrome?" If both had full NoScript functionality, would you consider one more secure than the other?
I've seen some very informed opinions that Chrome plus full NoScript would be "safer", but I personally will never trust a browser, OSS or not, made by a company that gets 99% of its revenue from selling targeted advertising, or even worse, collecting dossiers on every user and selling the data to any buyer, and is the target of constant lawsuits for violation of data-privacy laws and ethics. IMHO. YMMV.
nickr wrote:-Chrome integrates searching from the URL-bar by default. And typing Ctrl + K allows users to search a web address itself.
Undoubtedly locking the user into Google searches, which no matter what the *browser* Privacy Policy says, when you search, you're subject to the Google Search policy, which is known to store logs of all your search queries, by IP and other data, collate them, and keep them for two years or more. No one really knows. You are comfortable with that? ... You do a school assignment to research AIDS. A few months later, no one will hire you, rent you an apartment...
-Chrome tabs blur the end of the Tab's Title instead of using an ellipsis (...). A nice feature.
Blurring sounds worse, though I haven't tried it. And what's so hard about hovering the mouse pointer over a tab to see the full address?
3. Chrome has built-in Flash and PDF reader. everything the user needs for the web is present.
There was an entire thread about adding a PDF extension to Firefox. In the name of all that is -- WHY??? I have a 4 MB desktop program, Foxit Reader, that I need anyway to open pdfs on the desktop. With absolutely no effort on my part, Firefox detected that, and offers it as the (only, since I don't have Adobe
) choice to open or to save to disk.
Idk about Chrome's Flash setup. Can one block it by default, as with NoScript?
4. Chrome auto-updates itself and all its components, e.g., Flash, PDF, plugins, extensions. This improves security and lessens the burden on the user.
Firefox updates itself with all components, plug-ins, and extensions, if configured to do so. I prefer only to be notified. I don't want to be in the middle of online banking, and have something suddenly d/l-ing and prompting me, etc.
As for the pdf reader, the older version of Foxit is safer, because it has *no* native support for *any* executable content. Kinda' hard to exploit that. Not saying impossible, but waaay harder than new readers, of whatever brand, that support not only JS, but embedded Flash, Java, Silverlight, Trojans....
5. Chrome gives Linux more attention than Firefox. For example, Firefox gave Microsoft Windows users super-neat STRATA themed toolbar buttons, but Linux distros are stuck with crappy GTK buttons. Chrome gives Linux users a choice of GTK or the Microsoft Windows Themed buttons in the default install. How come Firefox didn't do the same for its Linux users?
OMG, the buttons are fancier! I gotta change browsers immediately!
Anyone can create a theme for Firefox. You want different buttons, write them yourself, and offer them to the pubic, if you like.
(IDK what a STRATA or GTK button is. So long as I know where to click, who gives a flying flea what the "style" is? ... I'll bet you have a $500 doorbell.
)
And, uh, don't all these fancier themes and images consume more resources, while others are complaining about increased resource use? Do the math ...
6. Firefox users have been complaining for a long while that things can install plugins without user permission. Plus some plugins get installed without user permission and then they can't be easily uninstalled.
MS did that, in a MS Update. They were severely chastised, won't do it again, and MZ has tightened that process.
We're back to Chrome's limited API and limited add-ons. (including stalling for more than *two years* on supporting NoScript, still with no definite date in sight.) You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
... people asking for mozilla to implement functions similar to what Chrome ended up implementing in its FIND function. Chrome has them implemented. Firefox still hasn't, yet this is a major tool that users use on a daily basis while surfing the web (at least I do).
You and five other people don't represent all users, any more than I do. "De gustibus non disputandum est". (good one to look up if Udk it.)
See above about locking into Google. I don't *want* my address bar sniffed, or my browser fetching things for me from some pre-determined source. I've chosen my source:
https://ssl.scroogle.org. If I can't break Chrome's lock on searches, that's a deal-breaker right there, AFAIC.
I look forward to returning to Firefox. At least I hope too. But they need to address many issues where they've fallen behind. I think the rapid-release cycle is a smart move on Mozilla's part. I think Chrome woke Mozilla up. Thankfully
I think it's a dumb one, and responsible for much of what you complained about, but then, difference of opinion is what makes horse races.
Cheers.