Is there a possibility of an alternative to Mozilla with the kind of backing that Mozilla enjoys now?
GNU project?
Apache web browser?
Linux Foundation?
Heck, I'm sure privacy conscious people will happily pay for a quality browser that they can trust. I don't have the technical prowess to build a browser. If I did, I would.
Chrome is Not the Standard
41–50 of 465 posts
Re: Chrome is Not the Standard
#42Chrome just screwed the pooch, at least for me... blocking .dev domains ended my use. I'm not going to setup ssl on all my development environments for all the sites I have. I'll just dev in firefox, and move to firefox completely.
Re: Chrome is Not the Standard
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same experience here. Safari is my daily driver for casual browsing because it feels smoothest and integrates well with the OS, iPhone, etc. The only times I can remember it being a problem are when I see a bleeding edge tech demo posted somewhere like HN.
flexbox isn't a bleeding edge technology, and it's supposed to work properly on safari, but it really doesn't. Annoying as hell, and garbage on their organization to be honest.
Have you submitted a bug report about it?
Re: Chrome is Not the Standard
#44"Safari ships new features on a much slower cadence, but they’re usually solid and always perform incredibly well." I really don't agree at all with this, Safari is the new Internet explorer ... https://www.safari-is-the-new-ie.com/
As an example, anyone remember the glaring indexedDB and flexbox bugs in Safari?!
That's my issue. I've basically learned (as a developer) to not use any new features in Safari until the version after they come out.
IndexedDB was broken so badly it literally wouldn't work, flexbox is much better now, but I wouldn't have called it "supported" by safari for a while, and now while their WebRTC APIs work, they are really flakey and have a lot of extra "restrictions" tacked on that aren't really explained anywhere (like they won't work in a WebView, or if the page is bookmarked on the homescreen).
I like what they are trying to do, and I absolutely think there is a place for a browser that is fast, low resource usage, and more stable, even if it means it's single platform, slower to add features, and doesn't have as many customization options. But Safari is falling short of their goals while still having those downsides and on one platform is the only browser that is allowed.
Re: Chrome is Not the Standard
#45I know they screwed up recently with the Mr. Robot malware, but I think it's really important for developers to get behind Firefox again. As the American government fails to provide any sort of check on its behemoth corporations (Apple, Google, and Microsoft) and to protect consumer privacy, Firefox is basically the last contender for real consumer protection standing.
The Mr. Robot thing was not "malware". It was an easter egg, just like about:mozilla. You may say it was poor taste on Mozilla's part, since it was essentially a paid-for promotional tie-in with a TV show, and I would probably agree with you. But it did not damage anyone's computer, compromise any data or do anything that could put it on the "Malware" category.
Something similar that noone has complained about are the Android version names which are promotional tie-ins: Kit Kat and Oreo. Mozilla's biggest screw up IMO was failing to disclose properly what was going on.
Re: Chrome is Not the Standard
#46I believe in free markets. If Chrome is winning, so be it. I for one am on the wagon.
Re: Chrome is Not the Standard
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
They didn't just screw up once . They've screwed up many times over the years with many projects and attempts that run counter to the core values that Mozilla claims to uphold. Bryan Lunduke articulated this very well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMALm1VthGY At this point Mozilla has to prove to us that they are worthy of our usage
Lest we forget: A third party company (funded by venture capital) created something called "Pocket", which allowed you to save any article you were reading to their service. Pocket had an extension that you could choose to download & enable on your Firefox browser. For apparently no reason at all, in June 2015, Mozilla integrated the proprietary Pocket into their open source browser, not just as an optional extension…
> The only way to disable Pocket was to go into "about:config", as the option was not available in the "Extensions" toolbar.
This isn't exactly correct. The Pocket integration did absolutely nothing at all until and unless you tried to use it. So by "disabling" it from about:config all you did was to remove the icon.
Re: Chrome is Not the Standard
#48I can't agree with the title more.
I use a rather obscure browser full time (qutebrowser) and they use Qt native bindings.
Due to compatibility issues Qt has _two_ backends for rendering HTML content.
One is based on webkit (qt-webkit), the other (unintuitively called qt-webengine) is actually chrome underneath.
Why chrome? because the web is now owned by chrome.
Before qutebrowser I was a heavy firefox user, but I always had chrome installed for those sites which rendered bizarrely and were obviously only tested in chrome. Too much market share is toxic in this industry I feel.
Re: Chrome is Not the Standard
#49"Safari ships new features on a much slower cadence, but they’re usually solid and always perform incredibly well." I really don't agree at all with this, Safari is the new Internet explorer ... https://www.safari-is-the-new-ie.com/
No and I think your opinion is harmful. IE literally refused to implement standards, rendered broken dom elements, allowed for proprietary native extensions and had many different apis for them. They had 90% of the market share and no other viable platforms. This meant developers built things which exploited these broken features causing huge compatibility issues when they aren’t (every other browser). A simple lack…
Chrome is implementing a standard that pretty much all other modern browsers are also implementing. For example, service workers - implemented by Chrome initially and pretty heavily integrated into Android/PWAs - but Firefox and Safari are also shipping this feature currently. And also most features, such as service workers, can be effectively used with progressive enhancement, still providing a working experience to the user when they are using an older browser. Most sites I've seen that say "Must be used in Chrome" or whatever really have no reason to do that. There is more nuance to the progression of the modern web platform than the OP article gives off.
Re: Chrome is Not the Standard
#50The only relevant Web standard in every era is "does it work in the browser most people are using". So Netscape in 1995, IE in 2000, Chrome today. That's just the reality, unless you'd rather lose money doing Web development.