I needed to reinstall Firefox on this computer, so I started up Chrome to download the latest version and it blocked the download as unsafe! I had to manually tell it to download anyway.
Fuck Chrome. I’m glad I only used it to download one file and went back to Firefox.
Firefox thinks Chrome is unsafe as well.
Well thats true though…
Enshittification is everywhere.
*knows
sniff sniff is that a class action lawsuit alleging monopolistic business practices?!
iirc there’s a mac setting in systems prefs where you can allow apps to be downloaded from the app store or the app store and unverified developers. by default i believe they have it set to app store only. (system prefs > security & privacy > general)
https://www.goodcore.co.uk/blog/how-to-install-apps-on-mac-from-unidentified-developers/
(edit: unverified, in this case, means people who don’t pay the apple developer subscription to release in the mac app store)
Yeah Gatekeeper
So, have you filed a complaint yet? https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/report-antitrust-violation
I will now, thanks!
Safari and Firefox are good enough for me, especially since I started using the SSD 3 years ago.
And duckduckgo is good enough too instead of google.
And the free RSS reader NetNewsWire is good enough for me instead of the automated recommendation system of google.
Does it show up when you download other .dmg packages?
Nope. Downloaded GIMP and no problem.
What happens if you download a different executable file?
Started it up and downloaded Gimp. No issue.
The irony. I use Vivaldi Browser now and may consider switching to Fennec if Firefox ever implements tab stacks.
I use an extension in Firefox for this
What are tab stacks?
deleted by creator
Just reproduced it here-
Are you using a company (work) laptop? Chance that it’s a rule configured by your company’s sysadmin. Chance that they configured it to block downloads for executables. Try downloading other apps to confirm.
No, although I did use it for work, which is the only reason Chrome is on the computer. But the sysadmin didn’t touch it.
If you have a good functioning IT dept, that laptop was fully configured to their specifications long before you got a hold of it and it certainly happens automatically.
I didn’t get it from work. It’s my personal machine. I just used it when I had a hybrid schedule. But I don’t log in with that account because it doesn’t exist anymore since I don’t work there anymore.
Gotcha
Perhaps the download was corrupted? Like maybe the checksum didn’t match. Did it happen a second time or after you did a force refresh?
Actually, the second time I did it on a Macbook. A separate machine. However, they are both Intel Macs, so they are older and running an older OS (Monterey). Could that be it?
They don’t need to touch it. If you login using your company’s google account, they automatically has access via their MDM console.
I don’t. I don’t even work there anymore. I quit a couple of weeks ago.
I just tried to reproduce this and couldn’t either. I’m also using a mac. Had to download a fresh copy of chrome since I didn’t already have it on my machine and it let me download 121.0 without hiccup. I’m curious what blocked it on yours.
deleted by creator
Huh. Me too. Very weird. It’s not a problem obviously, but I’m curious too.
Apple MDM. You can lock down a computer in all sorts of ways.
Source: I manage thousands of Macs.
Your safe browsing was disabled, as another commenter said. Either you had it disabled manually, or it was momentarily down and couldn’t fetch the list. Either way, it marks all downloads as unsafe just to be sure in that case.
You sure have a lot of tabs for something that you use only once.
I used it for work before I quit my job because the backend required Chrome. Believe it or not, I didn’t bother to close out all the work tabs when I quit the job.
Did you really quit the job because you had to start making a Chrome product?
Chad move. 💪
No. I really quit my job because I’m suffering from a mystery illness.
Ah, okay, I’m sorry to hear that.
But also this just opens up even more intrigue.
I agree. It makes no sense.
You sure have a lot of tabs for something that you use only once.
Don’t download programs off the internet. Use scoop.sh
Dont download, use apt or winget.
Don’t use winget as its controlled by Microsoft so it is likely to start pushing edge. Also winget isn’t a proper package manager as its just a installer program.
apt only works on Debian bases.
*apt or distro specific package manager
Nice
Does scoop.sh just magically make it appear? Does it use pigeon transport?
It all uses the internet, using a browser to download things that are only available using HTTP anyways is and has always been harmless and completely fine.
Scoop is a proper package manager so it installs the binaries and adds shortcuts to them.
As for where it gets the binaries it comes from a manifest that gives a source URL and a checksum. This is way better as it provides better protection and doesn’t require a web browser. You can just run one command and you are done.
That sounds suspiciously like scoop.sh would be downloading the program from the internet, and a wise person once told me “Don’t download programs off the internet.” Not today, Satan!
Off the internet is trusting your browser and search engine not to mislead you. Not to mention a direct download is much faster and more efficient
And why should we trust Scoop not to mislead us? Are you their CEO or security advisor?
And why should we trust you? You are also on the internet.
It’s funny because in reality for someone who is capable enough to use/want scoop, it’d come with or add a whole new layer of things where security and such could go wrong.
Or flatpak.org if you use Linux
homebrew/linuxbrew works on linux too!
So does many other things. Its better to use proper Linux tools.
If you like it use it but there are better options.
Remember when the meme was about Internet Explorer?
IE: What is my purpose?
Me: You download Chrome!
IE: Oh…my god!
Now Chrome isn’t trusted. Even duck duck go is getting dubious. It seems there’s almost nowhere to turn. Your data is their data, and if you dont like it, you can lump it.
What’s up with ducky?
deleted by creator
Ok, seems it’s time to seek next search engine.
Kagi.com is pretty good
deleted by creator
That looks great at first until I tried searching and I got hit with a low-res captcha asking me to choose pictures about minecraft because /g/tards bots are stressing the server. I don’t get that on SearX.
Also, the server is in the US, privacy-wise, that’s quite bad.
deleted by creator
The safety of tor browser is great, but I usually use the private mode of safari or firefox, I am lazy to wait for the tor… unless I do some important things.
Browser private modes are not really private, it’s just an isolated window that won’t save your search to the browser history. Google and other trackers would always link your private session back to you.
Read Mozilla’s take on browser private modes.
It’s just a balance between performance and safety. Everyone in different situations needs to consider whether it’s suitable for themselves to make different decisions. The most safe usage doesn’t always mean the best usage for every situation, OK?
Don’t google block your tor browser?
Google serves me captcha and those are not much of a problem since I rarely use it.
Nothing. Just a misunderstanding that blew up.
Nothing to see here, you say? Gotcha. 🙈
Thanks. Sorry you feel providing a source for claims is unfair, but it is what it is.
All I really needed was context, to be honest, in this particular case. I got that, so thanks again.
Asking for a source isn’t unreasonable in a more important setting.
It’s more an issue that no one asks for source for the original accusation.
It’s the kind of action that lets baseless and faulty accusations get more traction than the truth.
I think they were just curious and should’ve probably said “What happened? And do you possibly have a link to more information?” I don’t think they were questioning the claim, itself. That’s just my interpretation.
Context and source?
Is it fair that I have to post a source when someone criticizing doesn’t?
I’m just a passing stranger that just happens to have good knowledge about a significant misunderstanding that happened a year ago.
I don’t walk around with ‘sources’ to all of the knowledge I’ve ever gained hanging out of my back pocket.
This is why “source?” posts are stupid and unreasonable, double so when in response to something where a source was never provided.
Now… that all said, I do have a moment now that I didn’t have previously to provide additional information.
This article… https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31490515 …Is a starting point, and more info can be found with your own search.
The basic gist was that it was claims DDG pass user data that could identify a user to Microsoft from searches, however this was never the case.
I have to allegiance with DDG… they do an ok job. But I do indeed think it unfair they get continuously accused of wrongdoing, even still to this day as evidenced here.
This is just another case of bad, negative or incorrect information getting more publicity than the facts.
Someone did provide a source in response when asked instead of writing a diatribe, not that I disagree with you, but your complaint was unnecessary. Someone made a claim and was asked for more information, you made an opposite claim in response to that and were asked for more information.
The person that made the claim never responded. I don’t know what you’re talking about.
However I did respond, when I could.
So point stands, an accusation was made without evidence, and that accusation is still there, and now mine and one other post responds to that accusation… that again is without evidence.
My issues is, when I made that last post, why was I asked for a source, but no one asked the person making the claim against DDG for a source?
If the people asking me for a source had also asked the original claimant for a source I’d have no issue.
The practice of asking the counter claimant for a source and not the claimant is rife, unfair, unreasonable and needs to be called out.
If seems far too common to accept a say so when an accusation is made online.
Is it fair that I have to post a source when someone criticizing doesn’t?
If you’re trying to debunk a myth or call someone’s BS, then yes a source should be your opening statement. Is it fair? No. Is it necessary? Absolutely.
With all that said thank you for providing the source. A very well written one it was. I am going to debunk this myth now too, if and when I see it.
those also blew up, no traces left
Even duck duck go is getting dubious.
Tried Kagi?
Eyy! You took the words out of my mouth! I don’t mind paying for a search engine if it’s good lol
It’s the whole “if you’re not paying for the product, you are the product.” But I guess the downvoters are perfectly fine with having their data harvested for “free.”
deleted by creator
Not as easy of a choice when I’m struggling to get a job :/
You have disabled Safe Browsing. That prevents files from being checked for malware, so all downloads are blocked by default (nothing to do with Firefox). As you noted, you can override the warning to download anyway, but it is an extra step to try to reduce the chance of someone accidentally running a malicious program.
People who use chrome instead of Firefox with “betterfox” profile have no idea what they are missing out. Surfing experience is so smooth, and it’s privacy friendly
Well, one way to upgrade Firefox to Betterfox is to upgrade it to a wolf instead and call it Libre.
Haven’t tried the Librewolf, because I’m satisfied with Firefox profile, but looks looks like a great alternative.
what exactly does it change?
It’s on GitHub, anyone can check for themselves
Librewolf ftw
This is a bit of an aside, but google releases a lot of security updates for Chrome. Sometimes 2-3 a month. Not sure if Firefox does the same since I only see the notices about Chrome. Not sure if it is a good thing that they fix problems quickly or a bad thing that there are so many problems.
