kubicle;
I'll concede that Chrome is based on Chromium and not the other way around. However, the "taint" runs both directions.
I do use script blockers which default to blocking all scripts. I then selectively enable some scripts, even some Google(r) scripts, to run if I absolutely need to use a particular website. That practice limits my window of vulnerability.
This does not change the problem with Google(r), nor make it more "safe" to use.
Have you ever seen a script blocker list of which third party scripts are running on individual websites? I find it appalling and dangerous. Far too many of those scripts are linked from Google(r) servers. It's not that the website designers could not build their own version of these functions, but that Google(r) makes it (too) easy to simply plug in a tool. That is a dangerous habit, In My Opinion.
Your quoted "fact" that Google(r) is a large contributor of Linux code does not make them a wiser choice. Yes, I do rely on Open Source to (partially) ensure that Linux code is not malicious, and that it does not report back to Google(r).
If I understand you correctly, you're advocating in favor of Google(r)... It is, of course, your choice, but I, personally, will not invite the wolf into my house for tea (I use a euphemism to avoid saying something which would get myself or this post banned).
Ok, I'm done stirring this particular pot.
I'll concede that Chrome is based on Chromium and not the other way around. However, the "taint" runs both directions.
I do use script blockers which default to blocking all scripts. I then selectively enable some scripts, even some Google(r) scripts, to run if I absolutely need to use a particular website. That practice limits my window of vulnerability.
This does not change the problem with Google(r), nor make it more "safe" to use.
Have you ever seen a script blocker list of which third party scripts are running on individual websites? I find it appalling and dangerous. Far too many of those scripts are linked from Google(r) servers. It's not that the website designers could not build their own version of these functions, but that Google(r) makes it (too) easy to simply plug in a tool. That is a dangerous habit, In My Opinion.
Your quoted "fact" that Google(r) is a large contributor of Linux code does not make them a wiser choice. Yes, I do rely on Open Source to (partially) ensure that Linux code is not malicious, and that it does not report back to Google(r).
If I understand you correctly, you're advocating in favor of Google(r)... It is, of course, your choice, but I, personally, will not invite the wolf into my house for tea (I use a euphemism to avoid saying something which would get myself or this post banned).
Ok, I'm done stirring this particular pot.
Comment