Live data from Hacker News

Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive

robert.ocallahan.org

251–260 of 310 posts

Re: Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive

#251
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deciding just to cede applications and content to single-vendor platforms isn't that appealing for the open Web.

That implies a binary decision. The war is won in many battles. Deciding which ones to go into is the deciding factor. Bringing your men to each is a sure way to lose, and it’s what is currently happening with the modern web.

If individual browser vendors decide that some feature is not worth the effort, they can just not implement it and not support those apps fully. Maybe change that decision if the feature gets popular. If the feature never gets popular it can be removed. This actually happens all the time.

But vendors getting together and saying "no, we're just not going to compete with native platforms in this space" seldom happens. As a proponent of the open Web, I think that's a good thing.

Re: Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive

#252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused what the move should be then? People want more features and capabilities from the products they use, websites included. What im reading here is a preference for web technologies to be frozen as they were since 2000.

That's a difficult question for which there are probably many answers, so here's my attempt at it. One first insight: we don't need the "semantic web" because Machine Learning can recover semantics. (This is also how Google's webcrawler views the web, so why not apply it to browsers too? People mix up semantics and formatting too often for the "semantic web" to be a useful concept). Another thing to realize is that o…

The semantic Web was always a W3C boondoggle that never became part of the Web as implemented by browsers. So that's a bad example in this context.

It's hard to see exactly what you're asking for. Web specs are already quite modular. The modularity could be improved, but it's not like nobody's trying.

Re: Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive

#253
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…

HTML5 parsing is maybe 1% of the HTML5 spec.

Re: Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive

#254
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 AMO is not doing manual reviews for WebExtensions in general, now that they're sandboxed. Maybe there are targeted manual reviews, I don't know.

Re: Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive

#255

Annual salaries from 2015 (reportable compensation from IRS Form 990): Mitchell Baker, Chair $977,382 + $45,530 Bob Lisborne, Director $92,000 Mark Surman, Exec. Dir./President $170,699 + $40,602 Jim Cook, Treasurer $934,526 + $45,530 Angela Plohman, Secretary/VP Operations $121,322 + $30,342 Christopher Lawrence, VP Learning $153,492 + $62,538 An-Me Chung, Dir. Partnerships 154,946 + $72,672 Daniel Sinker, Dir. Part…

The complexity of the modern Web platform is a problem. Mozilla developers feel this acutely, believe me.

The problem is that if the open Web platform does not expand to meet the needs of modern applications, then modern applications will simply be restricted to single-vendor platforms like iOS, Android and Windows, and over time the relevance of the open Web will atrophy. That is not an acceptable outcome for Mozilla.

If you can convince Web developers to build sites that work on cut-down browsers, great. I don't see any way to make that happen en masse though.

FWIW Mozilla obtaining a monopoly would be inconsistent with their mission and I don't think actual Mozilla developers are aiming for that. Partly because it's not a realistic outcome!

Re: Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive

#256
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There isn't public information on this, but in the past I have heard that Chrome had a lot more engineers than Firefox (though it's a bit difficult to make direct comparisons because of scope differences). I suspect that's still true. I also heard the same thing about Edge at one point, but I suspect that may not be true now. Comparisons with the past are meaningless because browsers are far more complex (and perform…

> There isn't public information on this, but in the past I have heard that Chrome had a lot more engineers than Firefox (though it's a bit difficult to make direct comparisons because of scope differences). I suspect that's still true. I also heard the same thing about Edge at one point, but I suspect that may not be true now. Scope differences make it incredibly hard. Plenty of people on the Blink team work on thin…

Gecko also has its own infra/productivity/etc folks, whereas I bet these folks are from a much larger shared team at the big companies

Re: Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive

#257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are exactly four major engines, each of which has a flagship browser: Blink/Chrome, WebKit/Safari, Gecko/Firefox, and EdgeHTML/Edge.

Wouldn't introduction of Servo make it five? Gecko is not going away yet, IIRC it's used in some browsers, like Pale Moon. https://www.palemoon.org/

I work on Servo, I wouldn't count it here.

It doesn't support everything to make the web work; i.e. you can't use it as a daily driver (for some sites, perhaps, but not all).

We're getting there.

Re: Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive

#258
post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really disagree with your argument - > -Apple limits what your app can do, e.g. apps can't spawn processes (FU Apple, this is bad for security/pricacy), What's the issue with that? Why would I want some random no-name devleoper randomly spawning processes on my device killing my battery life? How is it exclusively better for privacy? What prevents them from executing privacy-invading code as the separate process? >…

> Why would I want some random no-name devleoper randomly spawning processes on my device killing my battery life? Why do you want Apple to be in control of your device though? Wouldn't you rather be able to let an app do something that it needs to, when you need it to? Or, would you honestly prefer Apple to make all of your decisions for you? If you really want Apple to be in control of your devices and not you, tha…

>Why do you want Apple to be in control of your device though?

I don't but I'm not hesitant to cede some control of my device to Apple in order to not be a technology janitor. I do not want absolute control of my device which is not even possible with any commercially available device anyway. (And no, Android does not give you absolute control of the device)

>Wouldn't you rather be able to let an app do something that it needs to, when you need it to?

Does Apple's current model really hamper any app to do something that it needs to, when I need it to?

>Or, would you honestly prefer Apple to make all of your decisions for you?

Again, I am happy to meet Apple in a middle ground where it makes some decisions for me and I make some decisions. I am happy to decide which apps gets access to contacts, notifications, location etc etc. What gives the assumption that you are in all control of decisions on an android device? Remove the Google Play Services and 3/4th of the ecosystem falls flats on its face.

>If you really want Apple to be in control of your devices and not you, that's fine... but can you understand why other people might not want that?

I totally get that part. I never denied that.

>Are there any Apple decisions that you disagree with?

Plenty. Touchbar is useless. Removal of headphone jack was rushed. Before iOS 8, I was practically in the android camp because iOS devices were severely limited then compared to now. iOS's notification game is weak. There is no need for iOS to block the whole screen for an incoming cellular call. Devices can get very difficult to repair.

>Also, how about a replacement for the most important apps?

You moved the goal posts. Original reply was against the assertion that apple does not permit certain apps because of "competition" which is not true. Otherwise Spotify, Evernote, Todoist etc won't exist. Greater than 3/4th of native apps have proper substitutes available in the App Store. You expanded the argument to include apps whose functionality is not replaceable because of ideological grounds or design choices. I never posited that Apple permits all apps. This would be akin to me demanding an alternative for Google Play Services with comparable functionality. Anyways -

  - Contacts -> Full Contacts
  - Phone Dialer -> Simpler Dialer (Not a true replacement though)
  - Message -> True. No Alternative as in you can't access SMS/iMessage
  - Safari -> Chrome/Firefox. Does an ordinary user care if they are running Webkit or Gecko? V8 or Rhino? As long as you are getting the feature of your favourite browser (chrome syncs your data between devices just like safari would between apple devices) why do you care if its Chakra or v8? OTOH, I'm glad that Apple does not let Google roll it's own javascript engine in iOS Chrome. Otherwise surfing youtube on Chrome iOS would like garnish the battery life. This hits Android devices too which do not have a VPx capable hardware decoder.
>Can you even uninstall those? Are other apps even allowed to receive phone calls or SMS text? (To replace Safari - I'd require that it never get launched from a hyperlink in an SMS text message.) No. You've got a valid point.

>I'd like to replace these because Apple only gives you the most bare-bones features for them and they strong-arm you into using Apple Maps and Safari from them. I'm guessing you're fine with that though.

I just sent a link on iMessage from my desktop to iPhone. Clicking on the link opens the location in Google Maps and not Apple Maps. If there's a specific case which forces Apple Maps I'd like to know. Every app I know and use (Outlook, food delivery, taxi services, online stores) force open Google Maps on my device and not Apple Maps. The only time I actually opened Apple Maps since owning an iPhone for 2 years is when I went to see if navigation is being provided in my area or not. Practically it doesn't exist for me. Even Apple's own Workflow app gives me Google Maps directions (I can choose between both when setting up the workflow)

>Pffft. Do you know the history of Apple? Their whole business model is a shenanigan on the users. I look forward to when their time is over.

Please give me concrete examples of "Their whole business model is a shenanigan on the users." There are few ups and downs but overall, interaction with Apple is much more pleasant than dealing with other tech companies. That they are expensive is not a shenanigan. You know what you are in for when you're purchasing an apple device. I've yet to see Apple engage in deceptive practices or misleading claims or gotachas like Sony which claimed all multimedia support on my TV but turns out only mp4 and mkv are supported on only an NTFS formatted partition. And if you are using a hard drive you can only use specific USB ports because not all ports provide maximum current. Half of this info was buried in the manual and half I had to figure out manually by taking a USB Voltmeter to my TV. Or like Canon which claimed "full compatibility across all Operating Systems" but turns out duplex printing is not supported on mac os or linux which was confirmed to me in a forum post. Or like Dell which claimed 2560x1440p @ 60hz on my monitor but conveniently failed to mention, on the box or in the quick start, that it's supported only on DP and if you've got to use HDMI then you have to go out of your way to create custom profiles and what not. This was not even mentioned in the manual and I had to scavenge for it in the dell forums.

The closest I've come to a "gotcha" with Apple is the lack of DP MST support in mac OS some years back and which was not readily confirmed in apple support article. The only other egregious issue I can remember is the refusal to acknowledge and fix the iPhone 6 bending issue. For all other issues, Apple generally came forth with an acceptable solution (like free bumper case for iPhone 4 cellular connectivity problems, free display replacements for the staingate thing, free motherboard replacements for the 2011/2012 Macbook Pro Graphic Card issues, 6s free battery replacement even after 3 years if you have the "defective" first batch phones). Unlike, say LG which threw a tantrum on replacing the motherboard of my mother's nexus 5x, or OnePlus which quoted a repair bill higher than the cost of a new device, or HTC which promised to repair the device in 3 days but delivered only after a fortnight, or Logitech which claimed to process a refund within a week but took 45 day. OTOH, I have had exactly one interaction with Apple support over the past 5 years and they replaced my phone in 24 hours (while claiming 7 days). And this is when Apple does not even sell directly to consumers in my country. I can only image what the support would be like when the middle men are removed. This is compounded by the fact that every other person in my close circle, who has interacted with Apple support, speaks highly of them. So my one single interaction is not an outlier.

>I look forward to when their time is over. I look forward to that time too but alas, I'm pretty sure that I'd be gone from this earth by then.

Apple has its fair share of issues (tax avoidance, being stingy with new product launches etc; I can jot down a whole list) but hands down the products are a joy to use and the company pleasant to interact with, for an average consumer, compared to any other option available on the market.

Re: Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive

#259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There isn't public information on this, but in the past I have heard that Chrome had a lot more engineers than Firefox (though it's a bit difficult to make direct comparisons because of scope differences). I suspect that's still true. I also heard the same thing about Edge at one point, but I suspect that may not be true now. Scope differences make it incredibly hard. Plenty of people on the Blink team work on thin…

Gecko also has its own infra/productivity/etc folks, whereas I bet these folks are from a much larger shared team at the big companies

The Chrome team has a lot of its own infra due to policy that a lot of Chromium stuff be public (its bug tracker system now code.google.com is dead and its CI infra are all done by the Chrome infra team).

I imagine to some limited degree it's true for WebKit (though I suspect they don't have anyone whose sole job is infra) given Apple don't have any general public bugtracker or CI system, and totally untrue for Edge.

Re: Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive

#260
post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note those releases were based on an entirely different codebase to the Windows version of IE.

When you say "entirely different" you mean they didn't even share the same rendering engine?

The sibling suggests that non-Mac ports shared the Trident rendering engine with IE/Win. IE/Mac used Tasman, which was totally different (and was the first implementation of many CSS 3 features); as far as I'm aware there was no code shared at all between IE/Win and IE/Mac.
Post reply on HN