Posted by: [deleted]
Posting time: 5.3 years ago on
Last edit time: never edited.
Archived on: 2/12/2017 1:51:00 AM
Views: 301
SCP: 26
27 upvotes, 1 downvotes (96% upvoted it)
~3 user(s) here now
NSFW: No
Authorized: No
Anon: No
Private: No
Type: Default
Sort: Top
[–] Womb_Raider 0 points 6 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago
I don't like this. Don't conform to Google standards by any means. This feels like a security flaw and I don't know why they're making this decision.
[–] Kookus 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Talk about marching in the wrong fscking direction...
[–] kontroll 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Sure, we might be able to run Chrome extensions... but we'll be unable to run Firefox addons! This sounds like a truly brilliant move to me! /s
[–] effusive_ermine 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
It should have been this way from the beginning. In the bad old 1990s it was common to see a web page prompting to install an "plugin" or "codec" to play back desired content. There were dozens, if not hundreds, of unique plugin+codec combinations which users were conditioned to install to view content. You guessed it, lots of malware exploited this. When Flash video became a defacto standard it actually solved this problem from a user perspective, but we now know that Flash itself is a vector for malware.
[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
[–] AreWeHuman ago
Sounds like they're also switching to webkit...