this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2024
1018 points (98.8% liked)

linuxmemes

21047 readers
1199 users here now

Hint: :q!


Sister communities:


Community rules (click to expand)

1. Follow the site-wide rules

2. Be civil
  • Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
  • Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
  • Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
  • Bigotry will not be tolerated.
  • These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
  • 3. Post Linux-related content
  • Including Unix and BSD.
  • Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of sudo in Windows.
  • No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
  • 4. No recent reposts
  • Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.

  • Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

    founded 1 year ago
    MODERATORS
     
    you are viewing a single comment's thread
    view the rest of the comments
    [–] [email protected] 244 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    They 100% would stop you if they could.

    It's why Google's website DRM thing was so scary.

    [–] [email protected] 51 points 6 months ago (1 children)

    Was? What did I miss? Even if it was discarded, there will aways be another attempt.

    [–] [email protected] 91 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Basically Google wanted to put checksums in webpages and then not render the page period if the checksum didn’t match and said checksum could only be verified by “approved” browsers that had the correct certificate (which surprise was Chromium only browsers such as Chrome and probably Edge). As such you wouldn’t have been able to run any adblockers as that would change the checksum and the way the page was rendered. They could also then go one step further and do a Denouvo type set up to make sure the OS wasn’t being altered.

    [–] [email protected] 48 points 6 months ago

    Super useful technology for security purposes!

    Super scary technology for literally everything else.

    [–] [email protected] 23 points 6 months ago

    Yes, I know about what they attempted (actually published some of it already in an official repo).

    But why you talk in past tense? Have they reverted the changes and publicly pinky-promised not to do it?

    [–] [email protected] 20 points 6 months ago (1 children)

    not was, is.

    i dont think they dropped it.

    [–] [email protected] 14 points 6 months ago (1 children)

    Okay, so I originally was going to go in a long rant about how they're still doing it, but decided that it didn't really add much to the comment, so removed it.

    Afaik they've, for now at least, shelved it in browsers, but are still going ahead in Android webviews (as part of their war on Youtube Vanced).

    [–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

    i guess they will probably try again with a new name later when the dust settles. can never trust them.

    what about android webviews, i thought it isnt related to vanced? how do they plan to kill vanced this time?

    [–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago

    MV3 is still happenning