So it is indeed doing something in the background, and apparently not needed as you now have it blocked and GE still work I understand(?)
It certainly does many things in the background and who knows what exactly. If you don't have a utility like LS for traffic surveillance, it will send to Google information that collects from your computer without informing you, and this many times a day. I have not seen so far other software doing this.
From what I remember, not letting GE to contact its home did not affect its ability to run correctly, for my use at least. In the meantime I trashed both GE and Chrome.
It certainly does many things in the background and who knows what exactly. If you don't have a utility like LS for traffic surveillance, it will send to Google information that collects from your computer without informing you, and this many times a day. I have not seen so far other software doing this.
From what I remember, not letting GE to contact its home did not affect its ability to run correctly, for my use at least. In the meantime I trashed both GE and Chrome.
I do have LS, so 'safe' there. Chromo I'd never touch; won't ever want them to know ever single site that I have accessed. GE I'll try in a VM, just to be on the safe side, with LS. If the performance is shote I might install it on my main OS.
I don't know if they are "dangerous" but having Little Snitch in my system, I saw two or three (i don't remember exactly) Google binaries trying to call home. I have no idea what information they transmit. I let them alone for some time and they tried to contact the mother ship very often (like many times a day). Then I decided to block them altogether. In fact I don't use any Google standalone application anymore. Even I switched to duckduckgo for the web search. From time to time I may use Google Maps or the translation service. That's all. Google tracks every footstep you make; for your own good.
On the other hand, Little Snitch is one of the top must-have applications for the Mac.
I do have LS, so 'safe' there. Chromo I'd never touch; won't ever want them to know ever single site that I have accessed. GE I'll try in a VM, just to be on the safe side, with LS. If the performance is shote I might install it on my main OS.
Don't want Google to know that fuzynkut69 is your online dating profile name for furry-connection.eu huh. Don't worry your secret is safe with me, still on for Friday right, don't forget I like it ruf.
I started reading the first lines and then, when I saw this:
- If you’re just surfing around the web and clicking on links, that information does not go to google.com
I stopped. Maybe this statement is true but I don't believe it because of the following. I was once logged into my gmail account from my office machine and I did some web browsing with Firefox passing from Google. I clicked some links. The same evening I looked up the same keywords from home using Safari and the Google search engine (different IP, different OS, different web browser). I was again connected to my gmail account. Google showed me the same results, but the links that I had clicked in the office machine were presented as being already visited from my home machine! I repeated the procedure to be sure and always the outcome was the same. So, Chrome or not, Google surely tracks your web browsing habits through your account.
Don't want Google to know that fuzynkut69 is your online dating profile name for furry-connection.eu huh. Don't worry your secret is safe with me, still on for Friday right, don't forget I like it ruf.
OMG, you wrote kut. Nasty little whimper you are, getting all furry wid me.
Anyhoo, great site. Too bad I can't review any pictures.
You really ought to read her other posts as well. She mixes good info, great write-ups on her experience with a boatload of computers, phones et cetera with the most witty and fantastic wordplay in a humorous way that I've been enjoying since, well, ever since.
I started reading the first lines and then, when I saw this:
- If you’re just surfing around the web and clicking on links, that information does not go to google.com
I stopped. Maybe this statement is true but I don't believe it because of the following. I was once logged into my gmail account from my office machine and I did some web browsing with Firefox passing from Google. I clicked some links. The same evening I looked up the same keywords from home using Safari and the Google search engine (different IP, different OS, different web browser). I was again connected to my gmail account. Google showed me the same results, but the links that I had clicked in the office machine were presented as being already visited from my home machine! I repeated the procedure to be sure and always the outcome was the same. So, Chrome or not, Google surely tracks your web browsing habits through your account.
Same here. Not only because he's a Google employee but that the article is also old.
I thought Chrome syncs tabs on all your devices. If that's the case, then they need to store the URL's so they can serve them to you when on another device.
The software being open source doesn't automagically mean it's safe. I think 'Bob' made a good point:
Matt — since this post was a conspiracy-theorist pre-emptive strike, and you mentioned that Chrome is open source, I assume you’ve read that online posts about how Chrome isn’t actually open source, but that Chromium (not what people download and not available to the general public) is actually the browser version from Google which is being referred to as open source. Just wanted to make sure you’d seen that and followed up on it to verify what the truth of the matter is. — Bob Waldron
And this:
David Pogue writes this of Google Chrome in the New York Times:
Will Google ensure that its own services run better in Chrome than in other browsers? Is this part of Google’s great conspiracy?
That’s a no and a no. Chrome is open-source, meaning that its code is available to everyone for inspection or improvement — even to its rivals. That’s a huge, promising twist that ought to shut up the conspiracy theorists.
Why should I have moved a long time ago? I mean, I thought about moving, but I "waited in hope" that Aperture would come up to par soon with Lightroom and I would be able to avoid the pain of migrating a rather large library over and the loss of the unrestricted workflow that Aperture gives you.
Yes, in hindsight, I should have moved. But yesterday I had no way of knowing Apple had dropped future development of Aperture.
Was Apple releasing Aperture support for new cameras' RAW formats recently? That could be a reason to move, I guess.
Not related to your post but in general - I'm pretty sure Lightroom can still be purchased as retail software, no subscription needed..?
If anyone is still following this thread, I'd like to inform them that an independent developer has developed a migration tool from Aperture to Lightroom.
Thanks for that. Yup, still following up on all developments of future software for my current and future photos. I'll await the Mac version of Photos first, see what the responses are and probably run it side by side with Aperture. I won't be migrating till I'm sure I have done my homework, read all reviews and tips.
Thanks for that. Yup, still following up on all developments of future software for my current and future photos. I'll await the Mac version of Photos first, see what the responses are and probably run it side by side with Aperture. I won't be migrating till I'm sure I have done my homework, read all reviews and tips.
Thank you.
I fully agree with your decision. There's no need to jump ship or make any hasty decisions without knowing more about the migration path Apple has planned for the Photos app.
In fact I did argue that I think Photos has the potential to be better than Aperture... and better than Lightroom.... because neither is perfect, especially in regards to syncing and multiple use/user and platform workflow (mobile/desktop) scenarios.
No need for thanks. I'm just trying to back up some of my above commentary, and put the Bitch & Moan Brigade Against Change back in their small little box... :smokey:
"While it may not be broke and doesn't need fixing... it sure doesn't mean that it can't be improved upon", is my motto.
Considering that the world revolves around pictures more than ever, you would think we would be much farther along in how to manage them and make them better, bother faster and easier for everyone to understand... and without alienating those that want the power to push and pull every editing slider on a pixel-by-pixel basis to their heart's content.
All excellent points! Really, home run. I am actually looking forward to tho change. I'm sure there will be quite a few features I use in Aperture dropped in the new Photos software, but with plugins that may not even be a problem. Otherwise I'll simply fill in the feedback form.
I'd love to see them implement:
- import .gpx files (as my DSLR doesn't have that, and I'm certainly not going to tag them by hand while on holiday)
- excellent key wording options. In Aperture they're 'vast and extend'
- smart folders
- 'view/display settings' as in 2 photos side by side, or 4, whatever, multi-monitor support, customise view settings, like the V, U & Y keys I use
- working in Full Screen, in spite of me being a happy camper with my 30"
Looks like #8, 11, 13, 15 on my Aperture WishList will be included with iOS8, which is great.
This just seems like lets hate just to hate and with no valid reason or foresight.... lmao... No one likes change, but don't resist it until you know what exactly companies have planned. Not saying that everyone has great plans but lets just see, give it a chance and then if it doesn't work then you can rebel.
This just seems like lets hate just to hate and with no valid reason or foresight.... lmao... No one likes change, but don't resist it until you know what exactly companies have planned. Not saying that everyone has great plans but lets just see, give it a chance and then if it doesn't work then you can rebel.
Yep, totally aggree, seems to be a real problem around here. People just automatically assume when something is discontinued then that's it, their left alone to find their own way. Though I don't think iPhoto is quite as good as Aperture, I have no doubt that it will be someday, until then there are still many great alternatives, it just takes a little patience and testing but that's the fun part.
Here is a small list of alternatives I have compiled for you to play with this Saturday, enjoy.
It’s free
Extensive functionality
Well documented for an open-source project
Intuitive layout
Previews effects in miniature
Supports layers
Localized adjustments
Negatives
Users need to register before downloading the software
Weak image management tools
Comments
One could also consider using the Tor browser for Mac.
Yes but isn't that the browser letting you to access the deep web? I would be extra careful with such software.
So it is indeed doing something in the background, and apparently not needed as you now have it blocked and GE still work I understand(?)
It certainly does many things in the background and who knows what exactly. If you don't have a utility like LS for traffic surveillance, it will send to Google information that collects from your computer without informing you, and this many times a day. I have not seen so far other software doing this.
From what I remember, not letting GE to contact its home did not affect its ability to run correctly, for my use at least. In the meantime I trashed both GE and Chrome.
I do have LS, so 'safe' there. Chromo I'd never touch; won't ever want them to know ever single site that I have accessed. GE I'll try in a VM, just to be on the safe side, with LS. If the performance is shote I might install it on my main OS.
You’re not going to be navigating to an onion link unless you explicitly do so yourself, so…
Don't want Google to know that fuzynkut69 is your online dating profile name for furry-connection.eu huh. Don't worry your secret is safe with me, still on for Friday right, don't forget I like it ruf.
You’re not going to be navigating to an onion link unless you explicitly do so yourself, so…
I have never used anything similar, so I don't know exactly how this stuff works.
fuzynkut69 is your online dating profile name
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-chrome-communication/
I started reading the first lines and then, when I saw this:
- If you’re just surfing around the web and clicking on links, that information does not go to google.com
I stopped. Maybe this statement is true but I don't believe it because of the following. I was once logged into my gmail account from my office machine and I did some web browsing with Firefox passing from Google. I clicked some links. The same evening I looked up the same keywords from home using Safari and the Google search engine (different IP, different OS, different web browser). I was again connected to my gmail account. Google showed me the same results, but the links that I had clicked in the office machine were presented as being already visited from my home machine! I repeated the procedure to be sure and always the outcome was the same. So, Chrome or not, Google surely tracks your web browsing habits through your account.
OMG, you wrote kut. Nasty little whimper you are, getting all furry wid me.
Anyhoo, great site. Too bad I can't review any pictures.
You really ought to read her other posts as well. She mixes good info, great write-ups on her experience with a boatload of computers, phones et cetera with the most witty and fantastic wordplay in a humorous way that I've been enjoying since, well, ever since.
Same here. Not only because he's a Google employee but that the article is also old.
I thought Chrome syncs tabs on all your devices. If that's the case, then they need to store the URL's so they can serve them to you when on another device.
The software being open source doesn't automagically mean it's safe. I think 'Bob' made a good point:
And this:
David Pogue writes this of Google Chrome in the New York Times:
Was Apple releasing Aperture support for new cameras' RAW formats recently? That could be a reason to move, I guess.
Not related to your post but in general - I'm pretty sure Lightroom can still be purchased as retail software, no subscription needed..?
Yes they do and yes you can buy it from Amazon. $135
It's now in Beta:
[URL=http://apertureexporter.com/]Aperture Exporter[/URL]
*** I said this shouldn't take long or be hard at all... :smokey:
Thanks for that. Yup, still following up on all developments of future software for my current and future photos. I'll await the Mac version of Photos first, see what the responses are and probably run it side by side with Aperture. I won't be migrating till I'm sure I have done my homework, read all reviews and tips.
Thank you.
I fully agree with your decision. There's no need to jump ship or make any hasty decisions without knowing more about the migration path Apple has planned for the Photos app.
In fact I did argue that I think Photos has the potential to be better than Aperture... and better than Lightroom.... because neither is perfect, especially in regards to syncing and multiple use/user and platform workflow (mobile/desktop) scenarios.
No need for thanks. I'm just trying to back up some of my above commentary, and put the Bitch & Moan Brigade Against Change back in their small little box... :smokey:
"While it may not be broke and doesn't need fixing... it sure doesn't mean that it can't be improved upon", is my motto.
Considering that the world revolves around pictures more than ever, you would think we would be much farther along in how to manage them and make them better, bother faster and easier for everyone to understand... and without alienating those that want the power to push and pull every editing slider on a pixel-by-pixel basis to their heart's content.
All excellent points! Really, home run. I am actually looking forward to tho change. I'm sure there will be quite a few features I use in Aperture dropped in the new Photos software, but with plugins that may not even be a problem. Otherwise I'll simply fill in the feedback form.
I'd love to see them implement:
- import .gpx files (as my DSLR doesn't have that, and I'm certainly not going to tag them by hand while on holiday)
- excellent key wording options. In Aperture they're 'vast and extend'
- smart folders
- 'view/display settings' as in 2 photos side by side, or 4, whatever, multi-monitor support, customise view settings, like the V, U & Y keys I use
- working in Full Screen, in spite of me being a happy camper with my 30"
Looks like #8, 11, 13, 15 on my Aperture WishList will be included with iOS8, which is great.
Also, have you seen this?
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2013/08/apple-reveals-a-new-photo-editing-user-interface-for-the-ipad.html
This just seems like lets hate just to hate and with no valid reason or foresight.... lmao... No one likes change, but don't resist it until you know what exactly companies have planned. Not saying that everyone has great plans but lets just see, give it a chance and then if it doesn't work then you can rebel.
Yep, totally aggree, seems to be a real problem around here. People just automatically assume when something is discontinued then that's it, their left alone to find their own way. Though I don't think iPhoto is quite as good as Aperture, I have no doubt that it will be someday, until then there are still many great alternatives, it just takes a little patience and testing but that's the fun part.
Here is a small list of alternatives I have compiled for you to play with this Saturday, enjoy.
Rawtherapee
Positives
Demosaicing feature
RL Deconvolution sharpening tool
Negatives
Complicated workflow
No batch processing option
No localised adjustments
Wobbly image management interface
Phocus
Positives
Mobile app
Intuitive, attractive interface
Negatives
Digikam
Positives
Map integration for geo-tagged images
Facial recognition and fuzzy search capabilities
Negatives
Idiosyncratic workflow
Darktable
Positives
Impressive range of functions, including split toning, film emulation, watermarking
Tethered shooting support
Negatives
Clumsy and confusing image filing system
Undo system could be better
Lightzone
Positives
Extensive functionality
Well documented for an open-source project
Intuitive layout
Previews effects in miniature
Supports layers
Localized adjustments
Negatives
Weak image management tools