Interesting Software and System News

[Lisandro]

Google Releases Standalone Windows Installer (MSI) for Chrome
http://www.askvg.com/google-releases-standalone-windows-installer-msi-for-chrome/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AskVG+%28AskVG%29

[Asyn]

That is a major factor, but I hate anything forced on me, there are very few applications that I allow to auto update, avast being a notable exception (and even then it isn't forced as you can change that if you wish).

The option seems deselectable...
asyn

Faaborg says that only minor Firefox 4 updates will occur automatically and that users will be able to change the setting via the Options > Advanced > Update menu

[DavidR]

Thanks, I certainly hope so.

[Asyn]

Thanks, I certainly hope so.

No problem, Dave.
asyn

[Hermite15]

Chrome gets "click to play" (should only work with the "dev"/"canary"/"chromium nightly" versions )

just add  --enable-click-to-play --enable-resource-content-settings to the target line of your Chrome shortcut, set to "do not allow any site to use plugins" in content settings (this one was available for a while but wait...)

 Now that you got the arguments added to the Chrome executable, you can allow plugins on a one time basis, just like NoScript or FlashBlock in Firefox. You can still white list an entire page/site permanently, or just once (from the icon in the address bar).

 edit: next step is selective javascript

ps: @ Polonus, "pay to click" hasn't been announced yet

[polonus]

Logos,

Clever solution, just like tabbing the processes separately, and it helps the users that do not trust themselves toggling and tweaking the Google ad tracking machine, well I mean browser application, so it is all to please the broad user base. Again this is not the same as the savvy user of NoScript in Fx that knows how the extension behaves, what surrogate scripts he has to run not to be tracked, what exactly to block and and how to combine it with the actions of RequestPolicy, the latter user will function or have security in a different league altogether,

polonus

[Hermite15]

@ Polonus: I know that this just add a "flashblock" like functionality, but I still consider this as a nice step forward. And not just to please the masses. I do think that a vast majority won't use that, as they don't want to be bothered, which is also understandable. That will be a matter of personal choice. Hmm...did you mean that you found ways to tweak the ad-tracking (not talking about the sending of the uinique ID here) in Chrome without using any extension or known userscript

[Hermite15]

Microsoft readies Beta 2 of Windows Live Essentials 2011
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsoft-readies-beta-2-of-windows-live-essentials-2011/7069

(and IE9 beta is out on sept 15 http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2367787,00.asp )

[bob3160]

Again this is not the same as the savvy user of NoScript in Fx that knows how the extension behaves, what surrogate scripts he has to run not to be tracked, what exactly to block and and how to combine it with the actions of RequestPolicy, the latter user will function or have security in a different league altogether,

What you're describing, might be used by .05% or less of those who have NoScript installed. It certainly isn't something the average person will ever use

[Dch48]

Again this is not the same as the savvy user of NoScript in Fx that knows how the extension behaves, what surrogate scripts he has to run not to be tracked, what exactly to block and and how to combine it with the actions of RequestPolicy, the latter user will function or have security in a different league altogether,

What you're describing, might be used by .05% or less of those who have NoScript installed. It certainly isn't something the average person will ever use

Exactly, how many people even know what RequestPolicy even means?

[Jtaylor83]

Oracle apparently shuts doors on OpenSolaris

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20013687-264.html?tag=topStories3

Rest in Peace. Solaris 11 will be different under Oracle.

[Lisandro]

Intel to Buy McAfee in $7.68 Billion Deal
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/19/intel-to-buy-mcafee-for-7-7-billion/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100819/bs_nm/us_mcafee_intel

Press release:
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20100819005699&newsLang=en

[Asyn]

Intel to Buy McAfee in $7.68 Billion Deal
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/19/intel-to-buy-mcafee-for-7-7-billion/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100819/bs_nm/us_mcafee_intel

Press release:
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20100819005699&newsLang=en

Wow..!! Thanks Tech...!!
Interesting news, but does anyone know, what they want to do with it...??
asyn

[DavidR]

They have more money than sense, I too find it hard to see why they made this decision as it isn't an obvious field for Intel. Mind you over the years they have had their fingers in many pies, sometimes to prevent the competition getting in there.

[Asyn]

Intel to Buy McAfee in $7.68 Billion Deal

Info from the companies...
Intel: http://newsroom.intel.com/community/intel_newsroom/blog/2010/08/19/intel-to-acquire-mcafee
McAfee: http://siblog.mcafee.com/ceo-perspectives/mcafee-agrees-to-be-acquired-by-intel/
asyn