Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Awesome. Deploying Firefox is still not simple for network administrators due to their lack of official MSIs. If I still ran a network, Chrome would be the default browser just due to the sheer convenience (and that's probably what Google are hoping for).


Agreed, as an Admin having alternate browsers available in in an environment can be incredibly beneficial. Security/patch wise it's a real pain to maintain Firefox so this is a big advantage for Chrome.


Applying updates is nearly painless in Chrome. Just hit "update google chrome" and the update is applied, the browser is restarted in a matter of seconds with all your previously open windows and tabs are retained. The only downside is youtube videos you had open might automatically restart. Firefox has a similar update process but it's so much clunkier that it eats up far more time and effort. IE's update process is a joke in comparison to both (sometimes requiring a full restart of your system).


I think he is specifically refering to updating it in a managed environment. Applications set up correctly (e.g. Microsoft Office) can have updates pushed out over the network to all users, automatically. This isn't so easy with Firefox, but it should now be easy with Chrome.


It's also not suitable for "normal" home users: auto-update of the browser requires admin rights.


Actually, that's not true. Chrome, unlike other browsers, installs in user space so admin privs aren't required. This isn't true for Chrome Frame, which has to be installed using admin rights (ref: https://groups.google.com/forum/#topic/google-chrome-frame/F...).


That's even worse! One of the major points of an application being installed by root is that it's protected from modification by users and programs users run.

Thanks for the heads up.


So you complain when it can't be modified, and then you complain when it can?

What exactly would make you happy?


I don't unerstand why you're being upvoted. See comment below.


apt-get upgrade all


That still normally requires admin rights.


on a corp network you schedule it


nodata was talking about home users.

I think apt-get shouldn't require admin rights for security updates.


Having the program be installed by root but not require admin rights to update, I presume. That sort of system is quite possible with services or scheduled tasks on Windows. In fact MSI can do that already as long as everything is signed.


Exactly this. Thanks.


The MSI offers a number of GPO switches so a domain admin can do things like disable auto-updates, disable extensions from being installed, black- or whitelist individual extensions, etc. You're commenting like you've never actually done this, which is probably why you're being downvoted.

By comparison, Chrome for Enterprise currently offers only about a dozen GPO switches and IE6 offers 1300, but the dozen they chose cover about 90% of possible use cases and the team is working on adding more all the time, as they are justified.


The kind of user who could modify chrome to subvert the will of administrators is the kind of user who could figure out a way around the root restrictions in the first place, most likely.

If it is a virus/exploit issue that you are worried about, my bet is that an auto-updating chrome is better protected from these than a root-restricted but out-of-date browser.


I'm not worried about a user modifying chrome. I'm worried about a program a user runs (spyware, malware, viruses, etc) modifying chrome.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: