
More on Chrome updates and headers (2018) - Ratanay
https://unsearcher.org/more-on-chrome-updates-and-headers
======
CharlesW
Is there such a thing as "CleanChrome", meaning the good technical bits
without this kind of Google business-driven terribleness?

As background, I feel like I've given Firefox enough chances, and am not
interested in Brave given their history of anti-creator choices. (I'd consider
Safari, but its extensions model seems too limited for "Tabs Outliner"-style
extensions.)

~~~
hackerbrother
edge, right?

~~~
JetSpiegel
It's the circle of life.

------
_jomo
I keep wondering why people who seemingly care about their privacy continue to
use Google products/services, doing all their online activity while logged in
to their Google account.

~~~
muststopmyths
As much as I want to use Firefox more, it doesn't "just work", unlike Chrome.

Every other update it destroys my containers and I have to recreate them. Or
it will just stop responding to keyboard input after an update. I have to go
in and disable all add-ons, restart and enable them. I get it, add-ons are
hard.

I'm just afraid that if I start syncing my bookmarks etc that I do with
Chrome, Firefox will destroy them someday and I'll be left spending half a day
recovering.

I do want to use it more, but I also need it to just work every time.

~~~
gruez
>Every other update it destroys my containers and I have to recreate them.

I've used containers since Firefox 52 and this never happened to me.

------
srbby
>As, the Verge already explained, Chrome is turning into the new IE6 (in case
you wonder, that’s not a compliment). Not only is Google making some services
running faster on Chrome, the browser also sends information only to Google.

Did Microsoft make their services run faster on IE6? Did IE6 send information
only to Microsoft?

~~~
JimDabell
> Did Microsoft make their services run faster on IE6?

Yes. Internet Explorer used to send out-of-spec TCP packets during the initial
handshake that IIS would respond to also in an out of spec way. This had the
effect of speeding up subsequent requests, but only in the case of IE talking
to IIS.

~~~
muststopmyths
I presume you are referring to this sort of thing:
[http://grotto11.com/blog/slash.html?+1039831658](http://grotto11.com/blog/slash.html?+1039831658)

It is perfectly within spec to send data on a half-closed TCP connection, from
the other end. That is exactly what the shutdown(SD_SEND) socket call is for.
It signals the stack to send a FIN so that the other side can send data but
knows to not expect more.

They were probably implementing a version of HTTP 1.1 (before it became a
formalized standard) that did not break existing clients (or servers) but
speeded up theirs.

BTW, I find it hard to believe IIS was sending more data after sending a FIN.
Let's just say I worked in the vicinity of the Windows networking org in those
days.

I know it's not a popular history to believe among the SV crowd, but Microsoft
in those days would bend over backwards for ISVs (Independent Software
Vendors, or companies that wrote software for Windows) if they just whispered
"your products are using undocumented APIs that I don't have access to".
Regardless of whether that claim was true or not, they would work overtime to
dispel the notion.

The were just getting put under the anti-trust microscope, with a consent
decree signed in 1994 and a bigger suit was obviously coming soon.

Of course, when google does something similar with QUIC/SPDY, it's the second
coming of Christ. Definitely not a way to boost their browser/core business.

edit:typos

