Why does Google want to kill urls?

Nobody is telling us why it's better to keep it and is just getting mad over a simple design decision.

Isn't Safari worse? Doesn't it only show domain instead of full URL?

Why are you using Chrome?

Because it's objectively better than Firefox and its clones.

uh oh u gon don it

No you are

say cheese!

Attached: 1532833176999.gif (1080x793, 1018K)

I think Firefox takes the best approach to this.

Attached: file.png (288x20, 1K)

>Because it's objectively better than Firefox and its clones.

Attached: 1536036633453.png (675x506, 490K)

>he unironically uses chrome anything

Attached: 1529429997507.jpg (480x480, 23K)

>le "normies do not understand things I know very little of" meme
kill yourself, faggot

t. triggered brainlet

my name is url

t.ivory tower poorfag

>type search terms in the address bar
>Chrome thinks its a website because there's a period in it
>Website doesn't exist!
Progress

URLs are shit, but I don't think they can make something better.

Attached: 1499221890471.png (314x306, 38K)

hello friend please come visit me at rakeeshrai.com.in

God damn it, fuck you, Google.

Attached: 1515249675306.png (738x131, 14K)

Because they want everyone behind proprietary apps.

They fear what they do not understand

No wonder cybercrime is so fucking common

firefox does this too but you can just put your search keyword in front of the term to stop it

What does ftp do?

Because minimalism

based

kys

based
anything is better than sorosfox

I have this on Vivaldi already and there's literally nothing wrong with it... it lets you know if you're on HTTP or HTTPS as well as if the HTTPS certificate is wrong..

fag

W-why is mine Not secure ... being hacked?

Attached: Capture.png (558x54, 7K)

You can still tell what kind of connection you have by looking at the icon, whether it's an exclamation or a lock.

RIP, user.

>not using HTTPS Everywhere

debian chromium does not have this problem

>Nobody is telling us why it's better to keep it
I dunno, they have pretty strong arguments
bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=881410

Wrong.

t. fellow Deb-lesbian maining Chromium.

Attached: 1523253071109.png (755x241, 15K)

Exactly. This is the reason why Apple sells so much in America.

>living someplace you have to give a shit that your Jow Forums shitposting goes over https

This, it's The Dictators Handbook in action. Keep your population just educated enough to generate wealth for you, but not educated enough to dissent. Just like literacy in North Korea is 100% but almost nobody learns civics, Google wants the entire population to know how to use their products and nobody to know how computers work (except for their own loyalist technicians).

Attached: https_chromium69.png (1438x37, 9K)

Did you manipulate chrome://flags?

Because they are overpaid retards who develope products for even bigger retards, kinda like Gnome.

>go to site with invalid ssl cert
>no way to bypass
thanks google

nope except for "strict site isolation"

>Deb-lesbian

Where does this meme come from?

r/anime

I went back to firefox on desktop.

also this news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17942252

Attached: linux for lesbians.png (2133x1200, 1.01M)

Disable "Omnibox UI Hide Steady-State URL Scheme and Trivial Subdomains" in flags.
This isn't an issue because you can change it, it's just a symptom of a larger problem.

I'm more worried that they'll eventually remove this option.

Debian 9.5 stretch

Attached: Screenshot from 2018-09-09 21-02-23.png (1914x34, 10K)

Did you forget about browser.urlbar.trimURLs ?
Firefox may not be as bad but they are not without fault.

Hiding the "" makes "" stand out more when it's there, which is what Google and Firefox have been pushing for in recent years. Pretty soon (it's already in some of the dev editions) they're going to start displaying a nice red "Not secure" warning next to "" links.

All of that said, I would prefer if they still displayed the "" because A) consistency and B) so I'm not caught off guard when it silently prepends "" to the URL when I copy/paste from it.

Because you are supposed to search for sites, not just type in the URL. How else will Google get the chance to show you adds and filter your browsing experience.

Literally when have URLs been trimmed by default?

>browser without GUI interface
Why?

They should hide the top level domain as well. For average user it only brings confusion. Even better, replace the whole url bar with an app icon, text doesn't cut in the touch first world.

Can I stop FF from adding .com to every word I type in the address/search bar? It's never what I want it to do.

Even worse, image editing software without GUI would be pure cancer.

>>browser without GUI interface
>Why?
What?

>The visible graphical interface features of an application are referred to as chrome or GUI (pronounced gooey).
inb4
>autism
Just a joke, don't get to assblasted.

That never happens to me.

By default, yes. Can obviously change that in preferences.

how long before urls are as scary to the average computer user as IP addresses

Single words (e.g. when I'm googling definitions) sometimes do this (cat -> cat.com), though not always, only if the website is more popular I guess. I can't seem to recreate it now, so maybe they fixed it.

Firefox does the same thing

Attached: Capture2.png (519x144, 6K)

It's cause your retarded. My router uses an unsigned cert and Google Chrome can access it.

Attached: Capture+_2018-09-09-12-28-07.png (1440x2392, 433K)

Just don't update

but then

Attached: but then.png (492x77, 5K)

They already are
>search facebook
>click first result
instead of entering facebook.com

But how can you use the catalog?
Please don't tell me you surf the web with JS enabled...

Attached: how.png (808x106, 16K)

ITT overreacting future boomers

https everywhere now hoovers all your data.

nowhere to type the "s"

just f my s up f

Really? Fuck me

>future

you didn't notice the permissions creep?

Dunno why Chrome doesn't just try https first by default

It doesn't try https because it might cause issues. They're different protocols with different ports. The best thing to do is let the site decide, which is just one line of fucking code.

if(not https) location = https...;

That can be implemented in the JS or server side. Why Jow Forums doesn't do it automatically is a fucking mystery, especially with the "anonymous" posting it's ubiquitous for.

Why does it matter if irrelevant redundant shit gets eliminated?

>bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=881410
>The subdomains reappear when editing the URL so people type the correct one. They disappear in the steady-state display case because this isn't information that most users need to concern themselves with in most cases.

That's more because apple got in really early over here. The apple ][ was the debatably first microcomputer sold in the US, giving them a pretty strong head start

It should be a user configurable option at the very least. Requiring an extension leads to bad security, as in this case.

What's so bad about JavaScript? Websites work fine. If anything I have a lot of problems without it enabled.

Attached: 1502486162802.jpg (400x533, 51K)

>search amp in thread
>no results
It's because they're going to push their AMP service again real hard and they want to make sure that people don't know that the content is being served from either google or some sketchy site aliased as a google subdomain (via AMP). Hilariously, if your subdomain contains any of the 'blocked' bits it will automatically be rewritten and your shit will not load.

Sasuga, abc-pajeet san.

Since Firefox 7 came out about 7 years ago.

>one good post every 100's
feels like Jow Forums allright

Not all sites have that shit. Some of them just have a "more info" thing that gives you an error code and nothing else.

It only has one permission for me. Are you using a knockoff version or something?

You must be fairly new here.

Name one

HTTPS without a signed cert is worse than HTTP