Comodo Dragon Beta Version 43.2.2.157 Beta preview is now available:
Enjoy,
Shane.
Glad to see CD updated! The BETA is beautiful! Thanks for all your good work!
Shane, this is indeed great news for CD users. I had all but given up on a major update of this outstanding browser. :-TU
Awesome! Thanks Comodo team!
Any plans when to release the stable? 
Hi and welcome Z3R07,
Kind regards.
Great news, thank you!
That quote from Shane reads “The GA release of Comodo Dragon 42 will follow at the beginning of next week.”
But you are beta testing Comodo Dragon 43.2.2.157 …
So there are two development versions in the works at the moment, why not just release 43.2.2.157 when happy ?
I would say we’re seeing the new process at work. It is a bit confusing though.
It is not unusual though, most browsers (chrome/ium, opera, firefox and more) have multiple version streams.
And it is a good thing, it allows for multi-stage development, which (hopefully) will bring users a shorter chrome-to-dragon updates delay.
I think I understand it to be a bit like Google Chromes Beta and Stable channels
My thoughts were along the lines of … If we install Beta ( potentially unstable ), and then an older version which we have been waiting over 6 months for - But is stable - is released and we then do not get the option to upgrade to the stable version because we have a much newer version installed.
My conclusion is I dont think I want to participate in beta testing if that is the case … And considering we are expecting the update any time very soon ( we are already just about passed “early next week” ) …
… Unless we compare the promise of “early next week” with the promise of “within a couple of weeks” back before christmas then we are still looking at another possible 5 months wait for stable v42 in which case this beta would be very desireable.
I have seen mention of the beta installer installing something called adsanitizer instead of PrivDog
Personally I would not want either after Privdog was found to be undermining our ssl connections, and would rather install my own choices for plugins / extensions …
… So question :
Is the Installer of CD going forward going to offer us the choice of not installing plugins or extensions that we might not want ?
Or are you taking the windows 10 approach - Users are having it whether they like or not without being forewarned.
The PrivDog extension didn’t have the SSL issue you mention, only the stand-alone version did and it was patched quickly after discovery.
You can not choose which extensions you want during install but it’s easy to disable/uninstall after installation.
Yes I recall only one version of it had the problem. I still have not trusted it since, and this does not answer my question.
You can not choose which extensions you want during install but it's easy to disable/uninstall after installation.
And that has always been the way with CD - My question is will this installer behaviour of including packages we may not want become reformed, and at least warn people for a change, with tick boxes at install time so that we may deselect them.
I personally know how to get rid of just about everything that CD installs ( previously including a service which had to be disabled with a registry key setting ) as unwanted extras … but most people do not, and indeed are more than likely to not be aware of everything the installer is doing.
For a Privacy and Security respecting browser, that behaviour really ought to change.
Sorry I misunderstood the question, thought you asked about the current installer.
Thank you for trying to help - Other people trying to help is about the best response I get with those questions.
I think I have asked similarly formed questions of the dev team about three times in the last 2-4 years.
And the more times it falls off the front page in old topics no longer extant the more I believe they do not want the behaviour to change.
Its not something that would be hard to implement in the installer either, its very similar to an NSIS installer, so an extra installer page with tick boxes for all the extras to be denied installation ( by default selected to be installed ) would take the programmers about an hour tops, even with brief descriptions of the options and what they do when installed.
And where has that information about the default installed extras ever been documented in CD ?, online help pages for the browser itself are very good ( even if they are a copy / paste of the Chromodo documentation these days ), but the default installed extras documentation are never anywhere to be found.
Edit : For readability
[attachment deleted by admin]
I agree, having the option to choose extensions during the installations should be implemented. :-TU
Hi w33d3r,
Documentation about the extra features included can be found in the help documentation.
Extensions like ‘AdSanitizer’ help towards making Comodos browser unique in regards to privacy, an added benefit with the option to remove.
Use Ad Sanitizer to Stop Websites Tracking Your Activity-Comodo Help
Tools and other Features-Comodo Help
I have always said, at least we are lucky that Comodo are thoughtful enough to be adding most extra features as an add-ons and not fully integrated.
Most browsers are created with their own unique features, we are just lucky that Comodo are adding them in this way so they can be removed if not required.
If the extra features were fully integrated there would be no concern an probably little mention, but as soon as the words add-on (Extension/Plugin) are used users seem concerned.
I personally prefer the add-on solution over fully integrated for obvious reasons.
Just my thoughts, thanks.
O_o Holy cow they have been documented, I see the Share pages and other .crx installations documented too … well colour me shocked and apologetic, they did listen eventually.
Thank you for pointing that out - I will, at last, stop griping about documentation now
( I am obviously a bit behind the times - Did that occur during Chromodo’s introduction over the last 6 months ? ah disregard that question, you linked the Chromodo documentation not Dragons so obviously it did )
I have always said, at least we are lucky that Comodo are thoughtful enough to be adding most extra features as an add-ons and not fully integrated. Most browsers are created with their own unique features, we are just lucky that Comodo are adding them in this way so they can be removed if not required. If the extra features were fully integrated there would be no concern an probably little mention, but as soon as the words add-on (Extension/Plugin) are used users seem concerned. I personally prefer the add-on solution over fully integrated for obvious reasons.
Fair points, but being able to deselect at install time I still think would be better, instead of having to know where the latest dragon:\Plugins / Extensions pages are ( I think they are now going to be chrome:\ pages again in the new version ) and all users would be aware at an early stage what has installed in case they go installing other extensions which may internally conflict trying to duplicate tasks another plugin / extension is already doing.
If there are conflicting plugins could such things break security / privelege levels / result in buffer overflows ?
I always remember how clunky firefox could get the more plugins you installed, so much so that browsing performance was seriously impaired.
Less plugins / extensions to me = Better performance and less footprint for things to go wrong. I use MVPS Hosts file and EFF’s Privacy Badger, so what benefit in comparison does adsanitizer have for me … just as an example, its something I will be immediately un-installing, as I will also be doing for Web Inspector, Share Page, Drag&Drop, Media Downloader and Flash_Download_Helper, HTTPS Enforcement.
I mean, most of that has nothing to do with Privacy or Security, does it ? - Web Inspector, okay, there are online solutions do the same without installing an extension. AdSanitizer, prefer EFF Privacy Badger. The rest ? Apart from HTTPS Enforcement ( which I am really going to have to study before deciding to keep it ) are just fluff we dont need, more things to go wrong or possibly make things go wrong.
The concern comes from here Google Chrome
Read from page 26 until page 31 ( page controls top right of the page )
You see people all over the net with multiple plugins doing pretty much the same jobs, under a misguided idea that maybe more plugins doing similar jobs = better defences. When actually they could be introducing serious security problems.
This browser is installing extensions without even telling such users they have a solution for any given threat already.
But … and this is a big but … I do realise that such users would probably not even read anything an installer would tell them, and just impatiently click next … 88).
Edit : I get AdSanitizer now, its PrivDog renamed.
If you don’t wish something, simply uninstall it or deactivate it.
I am all for leaving it there, as it is.