151–160 of 465 posts
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes thank you, I understand all of that - it's very well known among web developers. None of it changes my argument: The majority of the functionality that we care about in our web browsers comes from an open source library.
> The majority of the functionality that we care about in our web browsers comes from an open source library. WebKit and Blink are not "an" open source library. They are two open source libraries (and, in the case of Blink, more of a tightly-coupled component of Chromium than a library).
QUIC is a UDP-based transport-layer alternative to TCP/IP (which, to a rough approximation, has some advantages over TCP/IP for multiplexing multiple logical data channels between the same two physical machines). While it is being standardized by the IETF, it is not yet a standard.
Google implements it server-side and it's enabled by default in Chrome. It is, as a result, already around 7% of Internet traffic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mozilla is in great parts its community, and so far, it has done a great job in keeping it in tow when it appeared to derail. The Mr. Robot thing has been retracted (although it was also largely portrayed as a privacy issue, which it wasn't), Pocket has been acquired, and the rest were mainly diversions that many people deem unnecessary but that aren't necessarily a threat to Mozilla's mission other than potentially…
If Mozilla was serious about repairing trust, they would make user studies opt-in instead of opt-out. As it stands now, they are performing experiments on users by default. When people say the Mr. Robot thing was a violation of privacy, I believe this is ultimately where they are coming from.
Pocket and Looking Glass should have been regular add-ons available for people who want them (I’m an avid Pocket user and have had a paid sub with them in the past). Even with the Yahoo search deal, it would have been nice to have the first start go through a wizard that lets you choose Yahoo (as a default option), Google, Bing, or whatever else...though I guess they likely wouldn’t have been able to score as much funding from that arrangement (but that’s just an assumption).
I’m very happy that Mozilla exists and have some friends who have worked there, but I can’t say that 100% of their decisions value users and privacy above all else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Maybe we can split the difference. Chrome == IE because of breaking standards, and Safari == IE because it is so far behind on supporting standards. Also, both Chrome OS and iOS, both have integrated their browser into their OS and don't allow competition from other browsers on their platforms. Is that a fair assessment?
And it's right to be wary of Apple. They have many of the same negative incentives as Microsoft had: if the web outshines their proprietary app platforms, then what good are those platforms?
However, out of the two behaviors ("embrace and extend" versus "slow standards adoption") I think that Chrome's "embrace and extend" is the one that's actually a threat - and to me, that's what really made IE dangerous: it was a threat to the web.
Safari's pace of standards adoption is merely annoying. I'm a developer too; I get it -- I want to use the cool new shit! But Safari's not going to break the web in the way that propietary browser lock-in could break it.
developers grouse about the other browser makers who are “holding the web back.” Indeed, perhaps "holding the web back" is a good thing if it means websites will be more accessible overall, to even less common browsers like NetSurf, Dillo, and all the other text-based ones. IMHO the "feature war/race" between the major browser vendors has had an overall negative effect, as if all sites somehow need to turn into ridic…
I think there may even be a chicken and egg situation going on - for some reason, media websites such as CNN are pushing giant rich media content objects at us like videos, which obviously are meaningless to a text browser. Even webdev blogs are being posted with big GIFs every paragraph or two. I'm not sure why content creators are feeling the need to go multi-media - perhaps it's getting harder and harder to tell w…
I think we should probably expect the Cable News Network to traffic heavily in video, yes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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. My solution to that is simple. I have a microservice that tells my services how to get autocomplete=off…
Chrome 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.
Flash was a standard, say what you want about it but browsing the web without a flash plugin, for a time, would have been a diminished experience. Even if it wasn’t an IETF W3C standard
DHTML from Microsoft was really incredible at the time. It should have been a standard. There was no momentum behind it so it died.
RSS was a standard, now how many of us still use RSS readers?
JavaScript, need I say more?
PNG was a standard but took forever for browsers to implement because JPG’s were “fine”.
You want something to be a standard? Build awesome things quickly and get people to adopt them.
You want something to not be a standard? Build something better, but do so quickly.
The Chrome team has great momentum, so sometimes when they sneeze the web catches a cold.
Consider QUIC. QUIC is a UDP-based transport-layer alternative to TCP/IP (which, to a rough approximation, has some advantages over TCP/IP for multiplexing multiple logical data channels between the same two physical machines). While it is being standardized by the IETF, it is not yet a standard. Google implements it server-side and it's enabled by default in Chrome. It is, as a result, already around 7% of Internet…