Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chrome is Not the Standard

chriskrycho.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 465 posts

Re: Chrome is Not the Standard

#111

Post by Silhouette »

rubyn00bie wrote: post #10
appdrag wrote: post #3

"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…

I respectfully disagree, for one simple reason.

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.

All of those things are true of iOS Safari as well, except that on iOS you literally can't use any other engine so 100% of the browsers on Apple phones and tablets are restricted by whatever limitations or flaws Safari brings.

Re: Chrome is Not the Standard

#112

Post by 794CD01 »

bluetwo wrote: post #95
Ajedi32 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it was essentially a paid-for promotional tie-in From what I recall, it wasn't paid-for either. > we developed an unpaid collaboration to engage our users and viewers of the show in a new way Source: https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/update-looking-glass-add/

If they didn't get paid, why on earth did they do it?

They assumed their user base has dwindled to only the kind of anticorporate hacker wannabes that watch Mr. Robot.

Re: Chrome is Not the Standard

#113

Post by soperj »

dijit wrote: post #78
octalmage wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple is doing similar stuff by refusing to implement the payment request API and instead implementing their proprietary Apple Pay API. So you can use one API to target Chrome and Firefox and another for Safari. This is starting to sound a bit like IE. They were invited to join the working group for Payment Request and decided not to take part.

You can argue that they're not implementing $thing-you-like but lets be real; you can't compare IE to anything if you don't include the market share. IE was harmful because it had such incredible market share and could do what it wanted with that.

And Apple has a major mobile market share, that HAS to use safari. If I could get away with not supporting safari, I definitely would.

Re: Chrome is Not the Standard

#114

Post by Swizec »

bluetwo wrote: post #95
Ajedi32 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it was essentially a paid-for promotional tie-in From what I recall, it wasn't paid-for either. > we developed an unpaid collaboration to engage our users and viewers of the show in a new way Source: https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/update-looking-glass-add/

If they didn't get paid, why on earth did they do it?

for the lulz?

Hackers gonna hack. In the “let’s build cool stuff because we can” way.

Re: Chrome is Not the Standard

#115

Post by detaro »

chimeracoder wrote: post #106
sowbug wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

U2F isn't a Google product. Virtually all new major browser features are built according to standards, proposals, or explicit extensions platforms. See https://www.w3.org/TR/ , where it's very easy to map recent browser features to standards or healthy proposals. Your proselytizing would be more appropriate in Redmond, Washington in 2007. I'm not sure what gives you the impression that successful standards are develo…

> U2F isn't a Google product. The point is that U2F on Google logins only works in Chrome. Firefox supports U2F, but Google's implementation only works with Chrome.

As far as I know, Firefox does not implement U2F exactly (one of the reasons support for it isn't enabled by default): https://twitter.com/jamespugjones/status/931324766782332928

Re: Chrome is Not the Standard

#116

Post by haukilup »

syshum wrote: post #72
SirensOfTitan wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve found a lot of people are quite naively idealistic around browser development. The rendering, JS engines in Firefox and Chrome are state-of-the-art and take small armies to build and maintain. Mozilla has to strike a balance between revenue seeking and consumer protection seeking behavior that I would imagine is quite difficult to maintain. Lots of people here additionally are up in arms their incredibly specifi…

>>I’ve found a lot of people are quite naively idealistic around browser development. So it is naive to hold a Non-Profit to their foundational mission statement and goal? Their Manfeisto? Mozilla is not, or rather used to not be, just a For-Profit Software firm making a browser. They were a Non-Profit Foundation started to advance ideological and philosophical ideas, namely Open Web Standards and Access for all. It…

We need to balance "holding them accountable" and "being realistic". Mozilla cannot compete against Google without funding from somewhere. As far as I know, this is a fact. So the question, to me, becomes "what kind of funding is acceptable?"

And I suspect this is where we completely differ - because while Mozilla has made some mistakes, I am not nearly as enraged as some of the other commenters I've seen have been.

I think Mozilla has been doing a great job, with a few notable hiccups.

Re: Chrome is Not the Standard

#117

Post by chimeracoder »

detaro wrote: post #115
chimeracoder wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> U2F isn't a Google product. The point is that U2F on Google logins only works in Chrome. Firefox supports U2F, but Google's implementation only works with Chrome.

As far as I know, Firefox does not implement U2F exactly (one of the reasons support for it isn't enabled by default): https://twitter.com/jamespugjones/status/931324766782332928

> As far as I know, Firefox does not implement U2F exactly (one of the reasons support for it isn't enabled by default): https://twitter.com/jamespugjones/status/931324766782332928

Sort of. It's true that Firefox doesn't enable U2F by default (yet), but that's actually unrelated to the reasons that it doesn't work on Google domains. The real reason that Google's U2F only works in Chrome is that they rely on non-standard implementation details: https://twitter.com/ManishEarth/status/931534674224062464

For contrast, you can use U2F on Fastmail and Github in Firefox, because they don't rely on non-standard behavior.

Re: Chrome is Not the Standard

#118

Post by Arcsech »

JohnBooty wrote: post #99
appdrag wrote: post #3

"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/

Chrome is the new IE. Chrome ships new features fast, and some of them are very cool. Because of course! "Embrace, extend, extinguish" doesn't work unless the "extend" part is full of shiny, delicious candy. And platform makers can make lots and lots of shiny candy when freed from pesky things like standards. It's hard to believe we're having this discussion again. Did we learn nothing from Internet Explorer 6? IE6 d…

Chrome is 100% the IE.

They blatantly ignore standards, the most obvious of which is their treatment of autocomplete=off in forms[1]. They broke the ability to disable autocomplete, and since then have been intentionally breaking workarounds people find to actually turn off autocomplete. This has been a major pain in the butt at work.

Before you yell at me about password managers or whatever, we don't use this on our login form: We make an app that collects some sensitive data that it is very pointless to autocomplete, and we've had user complaints about this very issue, but there's nothing we can do about it because Google unilaterally decided they know better than us.

[1]: https://stackoverflow.com/a/22694173 (make sure to read the comments!)

Re: Chrome is Not the Standard

#119

Post by c3534l »

SirensOfTitan wrote: post #33
kevmo wrote: post #4

I 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.

I’ve found a lot of people are quite naively idealistic around browser development. The rendering, JS engines in Firefox and Chrome are state-of-the-art and take small armies to build and maintain. Mozilla has to strike a balance between revenue seeking and consumer protection seeking behavior that I would imagine is quite difficult to maintain. Lots of people here additionally are up in arms their incredibly specifi…

> revenue seeking

Then what the hell did I donate money to them for? I thought their whole thing was they were for "people, not profit." I don't want my technology to make money off of me in any way I'm not aware of.

Re: Chrome is Not the Standard

#120

Post by mreid »

RobertRoberts wrote: post #82
connorelsea wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sorry, the op is right. Safari IS the new IE. Service workers is one of the most egregious failures on their part. And I believe it's been done on purpose. With service workers you get full control over building your JS based app, something Apple does not want, they want everyone to got through their store. Considering that the only way (moving forward) to create an offline JS app now is through service workers, and…

According to this article Service Workers is on by default in the latest Safari Tech Preview: https://9to5mac.com/2017/12/20/safari-preview-46-service-wor...
Post reply on HN