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

Browsers

adactio.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 316 posts

Re: Browsers

#31

Post by tannhaeuser »

wyqydsyq wrote: post #4

Honestly I just see all this, even despite the author claiming taking time to "mull it over", as a knee-jerk reaction. There is little evidence that MS changing to Blink/V8 will have any tangible impact on the web. Microsoft has hardly offered much as far as competition and diversity goes since IE6, basically the only web "innovations" they're responsible for is a bunch of IE-specific APIs that didn't work in any oth…

The problem is this: HTML (+CSS) is supposed to be a standardized and recommendable format for publishing rich text with the expectation that it can be rendered for a long time to come. But if only a single browser will be able to display it, this not only questions the longevity claim, but also questions the whole web stack. New CSS specs can't be reviewed and proven with independent implementations, and web specs will, even more so than they already do, become "whatever Chrome does".

This is a terrible and fatal result for the web as we know it. Because why would we continue the practice of creating baroque, power-inefficient web frontends with JavaScript and the browser stack monstrosity when we're essentially targetting a single browser? We could as well use a much leaner and lighter GUI framework designed for the purpose, and a saner language.

What did we really expect from the way so-called web standards are created? WHATWG (who write the HTML5 specs and call this a "standard") pride themselves in creating a "living standard" where nothing ever is locked down, and ECMA has put itself up to creating yearly JavaScript updates (after the language has stagnated for 15 years). W3C creates an enormous amount of CSS specs and has said goodbye to versions/levels and profiles a long time ago. The result is that there is no reasonable spec as an implementation target for browser development. Those in the game have closed the door behind them.

Firefox has, unfortunately, a shrinking user base, is financially dependent on Google, and might suffer from problematic incentives in the future.

The web is in tatters.

Re: Browsers

#32

Post by dmethvin »

sys_64738 wrote: post #30

This move is actually genius by Microsoft. They will negate the need to install Chrome on Windows. Microsoft will gain control of the browser market.

I don't think they want control over the browser market, just the browser users on Windows. People are less likely to ditch Edge if it is more compatible with the way Chrome and Safari work (including the ability to run Chrome extensions). That means they have more visibility and control over those users.

Re: Browsers

#33

Post by sys_64738 »

dmethvin wrote: post #32
sys_64738 wrote: post #30

This move is actually genius by Microsoft. They will negate the need to install Chrome on Windows. Microsoft will gain control of the browser market.

I don't think they want control over the browser market, just the browser users on Windows. People are less likely to ditch Edge if it is more compatible with the way Chrome and Safari work (including the ability to run Chrome extensions). That means they have more visibility and control over those users.

They’re also releasing Edge for Mac and Linux so sounds like they’re all in on their strategy.

Re: Browsers

#34

Post by m3talsmith »

chrisseaton wrote: post #24
21 wrote: post #12

Sometimes I still browse Digg (it's different now). Since the last Firefox update from a week ago which disabled Symantec certificates the site doesn't work anymore. I bet the day Chrome disables Symantec certificates they will immediately notice and fix it. It's sad that in one week not even one of their people opened it in Firefox, and not many of their users either (there was just a couple of mentions on Twitter a…

> Since the last Firefox update from a week ago which disabled Symantec certificates the site doesn't work anymore. Is this the fault of Firefox or Digg though?

It's pointing out the mindshare and impact that Chrome has.

Re: Browsers

#35

Post by em-bee »

tolmasky wrote: post #23

The biggest danger to the web in terms of control right now is browser monopoly , not engine monopoly . And this move is probably the most effective way at combatting that. I think this is the right move at this time not just for Microsoft, but for the web. Borrowing from a previous comment I made, think of it this way: do you think it helps or hurts Google to have every version of Windows come pre-installed with wha…

that is a very interesting take on the subject.

Re: Browsers

#36

Post by JumpCrisscross »

tannhaeuser wrote: post #31
wyqydsyq wrote: post #4

Honestly I just see all this, even despite the author claiming taking time to "mull it over", as a knee-jerk reaction. There is little evidence that MS changing to Blink/V8 will have any tangible impact on the web. Microsoft has hardly offered much as far as competition and diversity goes since IE6, basically the only web "innovations" they're responsible for is a bunch of IE-specific APIs that didn't work in any oth…

The problem is this: HTML (+CSS) is supposed to be a standardized and recommendable format for publishing rich text with the expectation that it can be rendered for a long time to come. But if only a single browser will be able to display it, this not only questions the longevity claim, but also questions the whole web stack. New CSS specs can't be reviewed and proven with independent implementations, and web specs w…

> But if only a single browser will be able to display it

Chromium has no intrinsic power. If Chromium and Google disagree, the latter can easily break off. The browser political landscape is fragmented as ever.

Re: Browsers

#37

Post by Mikeb85 »

tomjakubowski wrote: post #22
snarfy wrote: post #10

Firefox has one feature the other browsers will never have - privacy.

Why wouldn't Safari have the same feature? I'm not a huge fan of Apple's generally closed ecosystem, but acknowledge that they have unusual respect for user privacy.

> respect for user privacy

No US based entity can offer user privacy, as the government can force any of them to cooperate while requiring non-disclosure. The fact they don't use anonymous user data to offer internet services doesn't negate the fact that where most of us actually care about privacy, they don't have the power to actually offer it.

Re: Browsers

#38

Post by knowingathing »

Why is this such big news? No-one I know uses Edge as their daily browser. Based on the Google Analytics data of the various apps I work on, the usage for Edge is so small that it is basically irrelevant. If we are concerned about a lack of browser diversity, why weren't more people using Edge to being with? Or is it all the people who are now chanting "Use Firefox" are the ones who used Edge and feel cheated somehow?

Re: Browsers

#39

Post by krackers »

sys_64738 wrote: post #30

This move is actually genius by Microsoft. They will negate the need to install Chrome on Windows. Microsoft will gain control of the browser market.

How so? I don't believe the layperson really cares all too much about the underlying engine, it's more a marketing thing. And the IE brand is forever tainted.

Re: Browsers

#40

Post by EGreg »

Can I question the orthodoxy on this one?

Suppose WebKit or Blink are the one engine that everyone uses. Do you know how much uncertainty and effort that will save around the world that goes into browser compatibility and quirks? Look at the x86 architecture or POSIX as well.

Here is my serious practical question: this is open source, so if you want to make some extension, you should be able to distribute it. And if it becomes so popular as to be merged into the core, or included with the main distribution, then it will be.

It seems on balance, this would be a good thing.

Post reply on HN