Well, most browser extensions relate to browsing. Google, on the other hand, is trying to turn the browser into an OS. This is a really big shift that may very well determine the future of computing, so I think there's plenty here for people to get legitimately angry about. Not really the same kind of "hate train" that occasionally shows up on project posts, I think.
Are people angry about building an OS that incorporates Chrome? Or are they angry about Web apps shipping on the desktop, turning Chrome into an application platform? These are separate things (Linux does not ship with your desktop browser, for example), and frankly, criticizing either is ignoring the couple of years' worth of successful desktop applications running mostly in embedded WebKit. Making this environment useful through a centrally-controlled and sandboxed runtime and, now, a development toolkit, is simply not worth being angry about at this point.
What's wrong with the Chrome browser becoming an OS? What you get is a fast and secure OS. Most users spend most of the time on the browser anyways - why not leverage that to make user's lives easier?
I don't know about others, but for me, it just doesn't make any conceptual sense. Would you use Excel as a word processor? Would you use Lightroom for mapping? The modern operating system offers so many amazing frameworks and features; why throw that all away and start anew on a shaky foundation of Javascript, HTML, and insanely complicated rendering code, all originally designed for a completely different purpose?
I prefer my software to adhere to the single responsibility principle as much as possible.
EDIT: Why are you downvoting me? If you disagree, that's what the reply button is for. I'd like to think that HN is better than Reddit.
In fact, that was one of the most common attack vector for viruses: web browser exploits, from applet bugs to native web browser code buffer overflows and other issues.
Do I really have to spell things out in legalistic precision to make what should be a very obvious point?
Are you really going to argue that native apps and web apps are equally secure because web browsers can occasionally be compromised to give you the permissions that native apps give you by default?
Are you really going to argue against the security of today's web browsers because security of browsers used to be comparatively atrocious?
If I give you the choice of either running my malicious native app or visiting my malicious website, are you really going to say that they are equally risky?
>Are you really going to argue that native apps and web apps are equally secure because web browsers can occasionally be compromised to give you the permissions that native apps give you by default?
By default in which system? Because sandboxing for native apps has been a default on OS X for the last 2 OSes at least.
Plus, there's another differentiator at play.
People don't only stick to a few large websites (like Google and NYT). People visit THOUSANDS of sites every month, and each can be an attack entry point if there's a browser/applet/etc exploit.
OTOH, with apps the situation is different. People use far fewer third party apps (say, less than 20 for the average user), and have the option to get them from legit (and verified/encrypted) sources, like several App Stores, the services of official vendors like Adobe etc, official software sites and such.
I never had a virus from a legit app purchase/download. How many cases are there were the upstream sources is poisoned?
> Google, on the other hand, is trying to turn the browser into an OS
This isn't new, not since Marc Andreessen said "[Netscape will soon reduce Windows to] a poorly debugged set of device drivers" - in 1995. Which I take to mean he fully intended to make everything above device drivers the domain of the browser.