Live data from Hacker News

Chrome Won

andreasgal.com

491–500 of 583 posts

Re: Chrome Won

#491
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be a placebo effect, but I find that I switch back and forth between Chrome and Firefox every 6-12 months after the one I'm using feels slow and the other feels faster. Maybe they're actually leapfrogging each other in performance, maybe not. I'm currently on my Chrome phase.

One thing that I think could be an interesting variable is how many tabs you've accreted. Browser A with 100 tabs open versus Browser B with 1 tab.

I don't go crazy with tabs and I like to clean up my tab bar by closing old tabs. It's rare that I have more than 20 at a time open.

Re: Chrome Won

#492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Unlike IE and FireFox and Safari it comes from a company that is notorious for wanting to know everything about you. That's not true. Microsoft has now gotten into the spying business, and is infamous for the Windows 10 telemetry. They're basically copying Google. Firefox and Safari are the only ones that come from companies that aren't notorious for wanting to know everything about you. And Firefox doesn't try to g…

Firefox sends the DOM hashes to Google just like Chrome.

There's a lot of FUD about this, though.

https://feeding.cloud.geek.nz/posts/how-safe-browsing-works-...

Re: Chrome Won

#493
As a long time Firefox users, ( back to Netscape Netvigator Era ) I think what Firefox / Mozilla end up now were faults of their own, and personally I think it was their Management's problem.

From My Memory:

If we look back now from a grand Overview, IE5, IE6 and IE 7 wasn't that much difference. And these browsers were formed and used widely during the Internet explosive growth era. M$ didn't care about Web Standard, and they dont want to improve either. So in the very early stage of Web and Internet we have a Industry Giant stopping all the improvement to make the Web usable.

And the Firefox "movement" started, not only is Firefox leaner, faster, better and there were a lot of love and organisation pushing for it, at least from a Web standard prospective, they ALL wanted something better then IE. From Macromedia, Adobe, Yahoo, etc.

And Firefox wasnt that good of a browser, it was simply better then IE. So you could argue Mozilla were simply in the right place at the right time. And it didn't really succeed like Chrome had now, at its best Firefox only had 30% of the market share.

We all wanted a faster browser. And Firefox didn't deliver, somewhere around 2008 Google show the world what a fast browser really meant. In reality we already knew how fast it was possible looking at ( old ) Opera. ( Opera failed to gain traction because it wasn't playing well with old IE code. ) Being Google they get a lot of press about it. And since Google being the Gateway to the Internet, we all knew if your site dont play well with Chrome, what the possible consequence were.

If I remember correctly, 2008 was around Firefox 3 time. Lot of bloat were already added to Firefox. People wanted a Multi Process ( a la Chrome ) and a much faster browser. And e10s ( Electrolysis ) were born. What was suppose to be an Firefox 4 features nearly became Duke Nukem Forever, shipped sometimes this year, in Firefox 5x.

Reading from the post and comment, Mozilla never intend Firefox to win the browser war and hence it didn't matter. Sometimes in 2010 or 2011, Firefox 4 was released, If I remember it was a long delay at the time when Chrome was rapidly improving. But Mozilla didn't give a damn, they thought offering an alternative was enough. And they were happy with their market share. They thought both Firefox and Chrome will both eat into IE's market.

They thought they were safe on the Desktop, or they didn't care, or they really think they could do another Firefox in Mobile Market. So they decide to neglect the much needed attention of Desktop Firefox, and start chasing the Firefox OS for Mobile. Only this time, their oppenont is no longer Microsoft sitting still with IE, it was Apple who has a head start of nearly 10 years if you include the R&D spent before the release of first iPhone. And Google who has a head start of nearly 5 years with 100x the resources of Mozilla, and Google actually has an Engineering company culture compared to Microsoft.

You could argue Mozilla were very noble to put up a fight ( if it was ever a fight at all ), or they were, silly. Not only did they choose the worst possible tools to develop on, ( They wanted EVERYTHING to be Javascript ) they also aimed at the WORST possible market segment, the low end $25- $50 dollar Smartphone. So they want to use an inefficient system + tools with the lowest end Smartphone. And they thought it was an good Idea.

Fast forward a few years where they still could not accept defeat on their Mobile OS, no pivot, their Desktop Firefox was making a slow death. Browser Market share used to an Interesting Story, Ars used to run an article on it every month, and now no one cares.

And Later Firefox OS was stopped, my guess were the new Desktop Firefox finance wasn't enough to continue it. Mozilla relent and supported H.264, which it didn't support for the longest time it could. The Never Firefox on iOS became an Abandoned Firefox Sync, discontinued, and reappeared on iOS again.

So Mozilla, by putting it Values and Ideals first, even if it is against its own users' interest or UX, lost its user base, and with that also lose the influence it onces ( barely ) had on the Web.

Re: Chrome Won

#494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both, since browser these days don't even show the number of connections and download speed for a loading page, much less an indicator for high CPU usage. I'm not saying displaying this stuff would be enough by itself, but hiding what is going on just so we can have a slightly bigger viewport into unicolor surfaces with huge padding and line spacing certainly doesn't help. I know there are all sorts of flags etc, but…

F12 has becomes something of the universal key for Dev Tools in the browsers. It's not compact, but it is super useful and does have all the information and more. Most browsers even offer Profilers to get detailed stats on CPU and Memory usage. Sure, it doesn't explain to average users why the webpages they view might be slow, but average users don't care.

Average users don't care about encryption either, yet we still have the padlocks for those who do. More importantly, average users are not creating browsers, and the people who know better can't hide behind them.

The average smoker probably doesn't want to hear smoking is unhealthy. Does that mean doctors should adjust their advice respectively? At what point does "professional" really mean nothing other than "gets money for it, like a carpenter or a thief or a drug dealer might"?

We don't even have the right to "just give people what they want without any judgement on our part", but we certainly don't have the right to ignore those with legitimate concerns because ignorant or apathetic people are more in numbers. That goes for everything, everywhere. That goes to how you are supposed to look out for little siblings when parents are away, and it goes for expert knowledge or intellect.

Re: Chrome Won

#495
post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm with you on everything, but atm the most secure browser is Chrome. Of course I mean "secure" as in "difficult to exploit".

Almost every Chrome install I see on laypeople's PCs contains malicious extensions (officially hosted on the Chrome Web Store!) which have permission to see and modify all page content and collect data and/or inject ads. Google may focus on specific types of exploits, but they let everyone bad just walk right in the front door.

They cracked down on this awhile ago and removed the ability to sideload extensions. Firefox is just as vulnerable to that attack. It's just a less common browser so why bother. In any case it's not the browser makers' responsibility. If you run malicious code on your computer, it can do way worse things than put toolbars on your browser.

Re: Chrome Won

#496
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is we're moving extremely fast to a chrome only world. If it wasn't for corporate sites and the success of the iPhone chrome would probably be dominating the way IE used to. I definitely run into sites that only work on chrome and not in any other browser. In my opinion chrome isn't doing a good job either. It's a massive energy hog and waste more CPU than it needs to. Unlike IE and FireFox and Safari it…

"I definitely run into sites that only work on chrome and not in any other browser." You spend too much time working lurking around HN sites and young web developers.

Or using Google web properties: https://www.ghacks.net/2017/04/18/google-makes-the-new-googl... https://support.google.com/hangouts/answer/7334146?hl=en https://www.theverge.com/2015/2/19/8068697/google-inbox-emai... (4 months after launch)

Re: Chrome Won

#497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, except that "best viewed with IE" was there (at least initially) as part of a campaign where Microsoft was paying web sites to put in stuff that was incompatible with Netscape/Mozilla, and "best viewed in Chrome" is there because web developers are lazy.

> as part of a campaign where Microsoft was paying web sites to put in stuff that was incompatible with Netscape/Mozilla I'd be interested to see the evidence for that....

Sorry, a quick search doesn't turn it up. This is from memory. Microsoft's strategy - from their own memos (maybe the Halloween memos?) - was to "try to make using Netscape a jarring experience". They were paying (maybe in equipment or some kind of freebies) websites that included at least three IE-only elements in their pages.

This was not just competition. This was a deliberate campaign to break the web in a way where IE would work but Netscape would not.

As I said, this is from memory, and I can't find the source. I have read a copy of the Microsoft memo, though (but you only have my word for it...)

Re: Chrome Won

#498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost every Chrome install I see on laypeople's PCs contains malicious extensions (officially hosted on the Chrome Web Store!) which have permission to see and modify all page content and collect data and/or inject ads. Google may focus on specific types of exploits, but they let everyone bad just walk right in the front door.

They cracked down on this awhile ago and removed the ability to sideload extensions. Firefox is just as vulnerable to that attack. It's just a less common browser so why bother. In any case it's not the browser makers' responsibility. If you run malicious code on your computer, it can do way worse things than put toolbars on your browser.

It sounds like you do not understand. This is not a problem with sideloading. This is a problem with the Chrome Web Store itself having hundreds or thousands of malicious extensions (Google refuses to either implement an approval process for extensions or police reported malicious extensions in an expedient manner), and a browser that is easily exploitable to trick people into installing them.

You can hit a single accidental click on a malicious Google ad (yes, there are many), and end up with a voice telling you to click the "Install Extension" button to regain control of your browser, which alternates between a JavaScript alert popup message and the extension installation prompt to make it hard to get out of any other way (it's doable, if you're not a layperson). Approving it installs an extension which can inject ads into web pages and collect data on everything you visit and anything you type into Chrome.

Sure, it's removable, but most of the victims of this behavior don't even know what Chrome extensions are, much less how to remove them.

This is absolutely something Google has failed to address, and it's really not accurate to refer to Chrome as "the most secure browser" while this is so rampant and unhandled.

Re: Chrome Won

#499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm. I use Pale Moon and rarely have problems. Maybe I'm just not creative enough about the websites I visit.

And meanwhile I've been having no trouble with Firefox, but had to stop using Palemoon because too many websites were breaking consistently.

Firefox is my next item up the chain if PM has trouble. Trouble with individual browsers isn't my biggest problem; my work blocks so many things. Youtube has stopped working. Most of the cool ShowHN demo projects don't work (when they do once I get home, I mean).

Re: Chrome Won

#500
post #63

So Mozilla lost Firefox OS. And their browser share is smaller then Chrome, and then it was, but still top tier and winning from M$. I'm much less pessimistic. Besides a cross platform and extensible browser we see also the following coming out of Mozilla: * Rust, a modern low-level programming language with cutting edge "safety" build in at zero runt time cost, luring many system programmers. * Servo, tomorrow brows…

> I dont need the "most popular" browser, I need the most secure one.

then you really ought to be using chrome

Post reply on HN