#Chrome secure shell password#
#Chrome secure shell download#

(Note the lack of benefits that usually apply to webapps: multiple browser implementations written in a high-level language, which increases hackability don't need to trust the app page-based paradigm allows deep linking.) It could theoretically be extended to support HTML-based console interfaces - but sticking a web view in a regular terminal would solve this just as well with less overhead.

It's sandboxed - big deal, if sandboxing SSH were a real concern then it's a call to sandbox-exec(1) away. although it's partly implemented in HTML (only partly - even though modern JavaScript engines should be more than capable of handling SSH, the implementation is just OpenSSH in Native Client), this is no citizen of the web, and never can be, as trusting an app to connect directly to arbitrary ports and handle all your SSH connections fundamentally subverts the web's security model. The lack of accounts for the store means that your purchases are bound to the device and are non-transferrable. But ultimately, they're both driving at the same thing, and it's hard to argue with the fact that they're pretty successful at it.Īs for your DSi, I hope you never lose or damage it. Google's implementation of this is worse than Apple's, because they don't demand your credit card information until the first time you try to purchase something.

#Chrome secure shell password#

This is also why installing a free app on your iPhone requires you to enter your password and confirm your purchase.

But if you're required to have an account with a credit card already set up to even get a free thing, then you're more likely to spend money when the time comes. The reasoning goes, if it's painful to spend money the first time, many people will never set things up if they can get away with free stuff. It's about ensuring that the same experience exists whether you're spending money or not. IP address and browser fingerprint is not the same as 'link everything explicitly to my google account,' by the way.Ĭool, and I see what you're saying, but there's a specific reason that these things are set up the way that they are. Sure you can sync but I don't want to and there's no reason you should be forced to sign in that is 100% about data gathering (otherwise there'd be a 'forgo sync' option). Now all the sudden I do, and there's no (clear) method to opt out, and I'm OK with this because why? I'm willing to trade my data for services when the services are valuable (I use gmail & facebook), but this looks like 'give us more info, just cuz' with no value prop.

This is the crux of it for me: I've been installing desktop applications and browser extensions for years, and I've never needed to tell an advertiser and the biggest tracker / data snooper on the 'net what my email address. More info = more value, and you think it's 'conjecture' to speculate that they might push further and further into your experience on their platform? So they are a targeted-ad company whose value is to a great extent commensurate with the amount of information they have on users (another uncontroversial statement, I hope). Well frankly I think my 'they might read my chat in finch' is a stretch, but no, I don't think that assuming google's goal is to stretch their tentacular roots as deeply as possible into the fertile, loamy soil of my private information is 'slippery slope conjecture with no basis in reality.' To the contrary, as you probably know, gathering personal information on users is the primary purpose of all of google's unpaid products and the heart of their business model. Correcting people who have the wrong idea is getting old. This particular absurd line of thought is starting to seriously become an annoyance - even the chans have latched onto it. You'll have to forgive me for being blunt. Oh noes! They know that you downloaded an extension! Complaining about signing in just seems rather silly. That means they have your IP, and a metric ton of identifying information about you via your browser fingerprint (ala Panopticlick).

#Chrome secure shell download#

Or is it further chicken-little, slippery slope conjecture with no basis in reality? Keep in mind that you're connecting to their web store to download this, even sans login. Why expand google's data-gathering 'attack surface'? Is there anything to this ' I suppose next they'll see what email providers I use and whom I correspond with with mutt or whom I chat with on other services with finch etc. >For me this is a bridge too far: I don't care to tell google about every single extension/application (extensplication?) I'm using.