Live data from Hacker News

Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive

robert.ocallahan.org

141–150 of 310 posts

Re: Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive

#141
post #110

How do Firefox and Chrome compare in respect of security?

With Firefox 57, they're now essentially equivalent in terms of the security architecture. There's a small architectural difference with how tabs are sandboxed against one another. That is, Chrome starts a new process for every tab, unless it's on the same domain as another tab. Firefox by default only uses as many processes for tabs as you have processor cores and then round-robins tabs across those. This achieves e…

I believe Chrome has for a while been using much the same model as Firefox has recently taken up, not a new process for each tab.

AMO’s lack of malware problem is simply because it’s not so popular—making addons was, before WebExtensions, decidedly harder, and the browser’s not as popular as Chrome, so why bother targeting it when there are bigger fish you can catch more easily?

Re: Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive

#142
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a third major independent option: Microsoft Edge. I assume (like me) a lot web of developers aren’t using Windows, but we can at least help people out by making sure our applications work fine on those browsers. Since IE 9, with a polyfill, most things just work unless you need some very recent HTML5 APIs. Microsoft provides free VMs for testing different browsers here: https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/…

The situation with Microsoft Edge is strange. Not only is Microsoft Edge not available for older versions of Windows, it is not supported on Windows 10 IoT Enterprise, Windows 10 LTSB, or, most importantly, Windows Server editions. Virtual desktop hosting (VDI/terminal servers) has to be based on Windows Server (licensing requirement). This means that Edge can't actually be the only supported Microsoft browser for Wi…

This is pure speculation. Maybe they're doing something shady with edge that would get them in more trouble(or found out) if they put in enterprise systems, but they see the regular consumer market as easy targets who can't defend themselves. That might explain why they're pushing edge so hard.

Re: Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive

#143
post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which part of the HTML5 spec, though? A parser? Or the whole thing, including DOM APIs and all the features like media elements and so on? Even an HTML5 parser is harder than it looks to implement to the level needed for a browser. You have to build a proper DOM, you have to be secure against all kinds of fuzzing, you have to implement off-main-thread parsing and speculative readahead for performance, you have integr…

The parser. Once for properly parsing HTML content, for a search engine, and the other for a framework used for saving pages (For an Instapaper like service). So it wasn't a big deal, but in both cases, a DOM was constructed and operations were executed against the DOM. Nothing about that or the JS engine is impressive really. That was my point, more or less. Of course, there's a difference between building something…

Implementing an HTML parser is not hard—the spec is a book of instructions on what to do.

Implementing a fast HTML parser that will produce a fast DOM is a little harder.

Tying it in with a fast CSS engine is harder still.

Tying it in with a JavaScript engine is a bit more work as well.

Implementing layout is moderately fiendishly difficult to do and get right.

And it just gets harder the more of the web platform you add, and the more it has to be fast.

Re: Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive

#144
post #67
post #59

Mozilla does not need 1200 people to make Firefox. Mozilla has 1200 people because they blow all of their money irresponsibly, and that's apparently how many people you can hire with the bribes/revenue from Google it pays to maintain its monopoly. The chairwoman takes over $1M year? Why would an open source project need anyone who would be so unethical? This is like a city councilperson paying themselves $1M/year. It…

> The chairwoman takes over $1M year? Why would an open source project need anyone who would be so unethical? This is like a city councilperson paying themselves $1M/year. The Mozilla Corporation is 100% owned by the Mozilla Foundation. The Foundation determines the loan of the chairperson. And they pay the chairperson so much, because the industry pays chairpersons so much. Mitchell could find an even better paying…

The question is not that whether Mitchell could find a better paying job, but rather if Mozilla could find a chairperson as good as her for $100k.

Re: Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive

#145
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference between static web documents and web apps isn't the set of HTML they use, it's just that the latter are designed to deeply integrate javascript (and/or, to futureproof this comment, WebAssembly) into their UI, rather than do all of the logic on the server between requests. The only way to ship a browser that doesn't render "web apps" would be to simply not support scripting of any kind. That would perm…

There is a subset of web pages that only use a subset of features - Hacker News is an example, but better examples would be Wikipedia, many news sites, documentation of all kinds, and so on. You have basically static HTML, and use JavaScript for 1) progressive enhancement and decoration (what used to be called "DHTML"), 2) ads, and 3) more and more for client side rendering. You can't do much about 3 right now, but I…

> I don't think this is hostile to developers at all, unless AMP is already hostile.

I think the prevailing opinion on Hacker News is exactly that.

Re: Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive

#146

How do Firefox and Chrome compare in respect of security?

tptacek mentioned a while back that while sandboxing for Firefox and Chrome are converging towards equivalence, there was still significant difference (in favour of Chrome) with regards to hardening measures.

Re: Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive

#147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The iOS version is a WebKit wrapper by necessity (Apple mandates that all alternative browsers use the system-bundled WebKit for user experience reasons), and while it’s possible they’ve ported Edge’s engine to Android I’d bet that Edge for Android either wraps WebKit or Blink/Chromium. The primary value proposition for Edge on mobile is syncing of tabs/bookmarks/history/etc, not its engine.

> Apple mandates that all alternative browsers use the system-bundled WebKit for user experience reasons Not entirely true: Every browser developer is free to use whatever engine they like on iOS. Mozilla could use Gecko, Google could use Blink. They just don’t do it, because what’s not allowed is JITs (because security), thus 3rd-party JS-engines would always be slow. So the reason everybody uses WebKit on iOS is no…

I believe you're incorrect. First of all: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/

2.5.6 Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript.

The JIT thing was true, but a few years back, they lifted this restriction, see "4.7 HTML5 Games, Bots, etc." for its current incarnation which also says "your app must use WebKit and JavaScript Core to run third party software".

Re: Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive

#148
post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that alternate reality, there would be no Rust and no Servo, which would mean there would be no Firefox Quantum (as well as no ripgrep, fd, exa, Parity, etc.)

Rust and Servo doesn't have much to do with Firefox 57/Quantum, it is still mostly Gecko inside.

Following pcwalton’s line of thought: in that alternative reality, Firefox would be doomed, because it would be stuck where it is, unable to leapfrog the competition and eternally playing catch-up, and falling steadily further and further behind.

In Firefox 57 the CSS engine is the only part that’s been replaced, but the Quantum project is a lot more than that—integrating Stylo is just the beginning. WebRender, for example, is basically about fixing rendering issues once and for all, including things like making it possible to switch tabs instantly. (There’s a video floating round of holding down Ctrl+Tab and having it render each tab completely as it rapidly cycles through them. In that alternative reality, this could never happen.)

Re: Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive

#149
post #4

A reminder that, as article points out, a healthy web needs multiple independent client implementations and we're already down to less than a handful major ones. Ideally they should hold equivalent usage share which implies that as currently usage is heavily tilted towards Google Chrome, the best way in which you can help Mozilla is to use their browser and get your friends and family to use it too, unless there's a…

I switched back to Firefox 57 about a decade after abandoning it for Opera. I remember the advocacy movement around Firefox 1.0 which I was quite involved in. I thought (and still think) it was great. I don't plan to go quite as far this time, but do plan to try and convince all my friends and family to get on board. It'll be a harder task for sure since Chrome is not IE6, but as the resident IT guy that everyone ask…

I started before it was called Firefox, and it was similar story.

I abandoned Firefox last year to the Chrome Opera, So i have been bitting my fingers for years, Firefox was slow, and I knew Chrome was better, and I had waited.

I used to force the usage of Firefox as the resident IT, with over 150 computer's default browser and later grew to 250. But every year since the introduction of Chrome, I have had more resistant, Chrome was faster, and better from those employees who knew IT, and may be 4 years ago, someone who is absolutely computer Illiterate came and asked if she could use this Google thing (Chrome). I asked for a reason, because I was curious how she knew, it turns out someone helped her using Chrome, and the speed was much better. She since then loved using it. And that wasn't only case, there were many other similar examples. And others from friends and family as well.

It was at that time I gave up.

Before then many within the Mozilla communities were begging for a better, more performant browser. That was right after Firefox 3, the goal of Firefox 4, the project of e10s. We thought JS was the problem, we advocated Spidermonkey being faster in benchmarks, but not much in UI or general feel of the Browser.

Mozilla then literally gave up making a better browser and its users, and went on to built Firefox OS. Their ideology of Javascript is the best, build an OS with JS. It was pure luck they had a small group of people crazy enough to work on Rust, and Servo as an experiment which later turned into what we had today, Quantum.

From the outside it was what i call a management and vision issue. And Mozilla left a very bad taste in my month. There used to be Article from Ars every month showing the decline of Firefox usage. I kept wondering at some point they should become worry as with less market share means less money from Search Engine, I dont think they see that as a problem until fairly recently.

It wasn't until a month ago, someone on HN posted an comment on Mozilla that helped me Grief. It was never their intention to have the best browsers, or to care for user experience, that wasn't their main Goal. Their goal, as it always has been, is an Open Web; all others are secondary and merely the results for their first goal. They weren't here to compete, they were merely here to make sure the Web is open.

It is good they are now back to Focus on Firefox. With WebRender, more Quantum parts, Firefox's future is bright. I am using Firefox now, but I wont be advocating for it any more, I guess everyone just choose what they want.

Sorry for a long rant, but that is the results of someone who has been following them since Netscape era.

Re: Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive

#150
post #40

This begs the question: Is it healthy that one of the most important technologies today (web) is also very complicated (=expensive) and thus effectively limiting number of players.

It is not healthy, but it is not trivial to fix -- I think building a modern spec compliant browser is expensive (=complicated).

One way would be to create a browser architecture from truly independent pieces that would allow one to pick implementations from different sources. That would split complexity and hopefully increase choice.

To get this off the ground one would need an architecture and a functional reference implementation, which is a lot of work. If you get that, others will improve it from an OK state to greatness, but it must be end to end OK to start with for people to notice

Post reply on HN