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

131–140 of 316 posts

Re: Browsers

#131

Post by mirimir »

eddieroger wrote: post #45

I feel like I’m missing something, because I keep seeing blog posts that tell me a browser monoculture is bad (and the irony of Microsoft saying this is nearly too much), but none of them tell me why. I understand that it was bad in the IE6 days, but IE6 was also closed source and could only be run on Windows (see also the irony of Microsoft discontinuing IE on Mac, not wanting to compete with Safari, a browser made…

Although the Chromium project is ostensibly open-source, Chrome is clearly closed-source. And worse, some Chromium releases have included (or at least pulled) closed-source blobs from Google.

So the whole thing is arguably suspect.

Re: Browsers

#132

Post by jhasse »

tannhaeuser wrote: post #115
wyqydsyq wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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". Safari and Konqueror still use WebKit, Firefox still uses Gecko, so not "only a single browser will be able to di…

Making some WebKit derivative the de-facto engine would be very short-sighted. There will come a time, maybe in a distant future, when we need to get rid of C and our whole approach to mobile O/Ss, CMOS, and everything else. In any case, the situation we have now -- that of the web getting out-of-hand -- is what WHATWG, W3C, and co. should have avoided. They totally fubar'd it instead, so the world has to move to som…

WebKit isn't written in C, but in C++.

Re: Browsers

#133

Post by onion2k »

bprasanna wrote: post #128

Well, Microsoft opting for Chromium will be a big win for Google. As Google has a strong hold on Android mobile user base, for many non-technical users what comes by default is the first browser (may be best browser). Google taps that privilege/monopoly/advantage to their use. Those who comfortably use Chrome in mobile device will obviously opt for Chrome in desktop as well. Because it simplifies their mental model o…

Those who comfortably use Chrome in mobile device will obviously opt for Chrome in desktop as well.

You make it sound like users know, or care, which browser they're using. Most of them don't. Most don't actually know there's more than one browser. They use the stock browser that's installed on their device, and they don't switch unless there's a reason to - eg their favourite websites and apps don't work.

In the case of Edge with EdgeHTML there are popular sites that don't work properly, and that means users seek out Chrome instead. Microsoft switching to Chromium will mean those users continue to use Edge because "it works properly" for the user regardless of the actual problem being the developers of those sites failing to write cross-browser compatible code.

I'm a bit sad that the choice and market for browsers is shrinking, and I think it's going to slow progress in web tech, but let's be honest here - the blame for Microsoft's very sensible business decision lies with web developers who fail to test their code in more browsers than just Chrome. If web developers did a better job there'd still be business value in developing a competing browser engine.

Re: Browsers

#134

Post by onion2k »

protomikron wrote: post #123

What I would like to see is some kind of "white-list" browser - I think it's our best chance to keep an ad-free environment. Maybe it is a bad idea in general to allow a remote page write pixels to your screen: images, videos, text and now applications It is nice that the web is open (at least reasonably), but maybe raw JS, HTML and CSS is too general? The most valuable webpages have simple designs and are liked beca…

There would be no visual difference between reading "The Guardian" vs. "USA Today" or browsing "OpenStreetMap" vs "Google Maps" as content would be rendered on the client.

You're describing Reader Mode, which most browsers already have.

Re: Browsers

#135

Post by rincebrain »

tokyodude wrote: post #70
Santosh83 wrote: post #64

There are several comments on this post wondering why a browser monoculture is bad or speculating that a browser engine monopoly is inevitable and ought to be accepted. Let's just replace 'browser' with OS (ironically the similarities are becoming more with each passing day) above... would we still say the same? Is an OS monoculture good, regardless of whether it is inevitable? Have we forgotten the power that MS had…

Unfortunately that's not really a valid comparison at all. Browsers all try to stay compatible with each other. OSes do not in any way try to stay compatible with each other. Programming apps for Linux, Mac, and Windows requires entirely different code. Programming for Firefox, Chrome, Edge, Safari do not (or at least not supposed to unless you're used new APIs or edge cases) You can't currently make an alternative b…

As people have observed historically, browsers have competing incentives - to support the most use cases, and to be better in some way than their competitors.

Supporting the most use cases is where you get the compatibility from.

Being better than your competitors is where you get browser-exclusive functionality from.

If something (e.g. ActiveX, Java, Shockwave, Flash, some new CSS that's not standardized yet, a new feature on some top 500 website, ...) works in your browser, that's a win for both goals - and if it works only/best in your browser, that's also a win.

Monocultures can be toxic in part because the disincentives to adding lockin (e.g. losing users and other negative feedback sources) get weaker/less likely as one participant becomes more dominant.

I'm old enough to remember the fun with "works only/best in IE/Netscape/...", and Microsoft's old Embrace/Extend/Extinguish policies. While I do not have any reason to believe any of the parties involved in browser development would behave pathologically, history suggests that monopolies in any space tend to eventually become pathological.

(I work for Google, not on anything browser related, all opinions above are mine personally, etc.)

Re: Browsers

#136

Post by StudentStuff »

eridius wrote: post #109
quanticle wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For example, they may start integrating technologies for which they have exclusive, or at least 'special' access. Can you imagine if all of a sudden Google apps start performing better than anyone else's? They've already started. Google Meet (their version of Hangouts for enterprise) didn't work on non-Chrome browsers for a very long time. If you tried to do a video call with a non-Chrome browser, you were told to in…

Google Meet still doesn't work with Safari, with no explanation. Safari supports the latest WebRTC, and AIUI Google Meet uses the current WebRTC standard, so why does Google refuse to let it work on Safari? This has to be deliberate.

Safari has purposefully neutered WebRTC, both Firefox and Google have full codec support while Apple tries to push H.264 only, plus things like web push still doesn't work on iOS: https://webrtchacks.com/safari-webrtc/

Google Meet also appears to have updated to support the WebRTC spec (rather than the oddball implementation Chrome had) so long as your browser supports it: https://blog.mozilla.org/webrtc/firefox-is-now-supported-by-...

Re: Browsers

#137

Post by StudentStuff »

mirimir wrote: post #120
dragonwriter wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Last time I checked, Google Authenticator only works on Chrome. Google Authenticator is available for Android, iPhone, and Blackberry, and not for any browser; there are a number of third-party implementations, however, including a Chrome/ChromeOS one.

I don't use any of those things. I just know that I had to install Chrome to get Telegram's desktop app working.

FYI Telegram has a history of serious security issues:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/02/13/telegram_messaging_...

https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/11/14237136/trump-leak-teleg...

https://gizmodo.com/why-you-should-stop-using-telegram-right...

Re: Browsers

#138

Post by kabes »

philliphaydon wrote: post #6
stupidcar wrote: post #5

I find it kind of hilarious that people seem to think the solution to the Chrome monoculture is them personally switching to Firefox and then writing a blog post / comment / tweet about it. It's like saying we need to get serious about climate change, so you're going to start cycling to work, and encourage your friends to do the same. If that salves your conscience, then great, but your individual actions are statist…

So when MS controller the browsers we threw our arms in the air. But when google controls it we just sit here and go meh?

We only started caring about Microsoft when they stopped updating IE up to the point it was very buggy, non-standard compliant, outdated and insecure. Then Firefox came along and gave us an alternative. Chrome might also be pushing their own standards a bit too hard, but it is fairly standard compliant, secure, cross-platform, up to date and actively developed. So of course we don't care so much.

Re: Browsers

#139

Post by ErneX »

sonnyblarney wrote: post #78
eddieroger wrote: post #45

I feel like I’m missing something, because I keep seeing blog posts that tell me a browser monoculture is bad (and the irony of Microsoft saying this is nearly too much), but none of them tell me why. I understand that it was bad in the IE6 days, but IE6 was also closed source and could only be run on Windows (see also the irony of Microsoft discontinuing IE on Mac, not wanting to compete with Safari, a browser made…

The concern is not 'now' it's 'later'. Google is a business like any other - and when they have the power to lever a monopolized situation - they will. For example, they may start integrating technologies for which they have exclusive, or at least 'special' access. Can you imagine if all of a sudden Google apps start performing better than anyone else's? Or what if they integrate technology that de-facto collects usa…

The new GMail UI is considerably more snappier and responsive on Chrome than the latest Firefox, so I think it's already happening.

Re: Browsers

#140

Post by ttty2 »

JoshuaJB wrote: post #124
sonnyblarney wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The concern is not 'now' it's 'later'. Google is a business like any other - and when they have the power to lever a monopolized situation - they will. For example, they may start integrating technologies for which they have exclusive, or at least 'special' access. Can you imagine if all of a sudden Google apps start performing better than anyone else's? Or what if they integrate technology that de-facto collects usa…

"For example, they may start integrating technologies for which they have exclusive, or at least 'special' access. Can you imagine if all of a sudden Google apps start performing better than anyone else's?" This is already happening. I very recently worked on the Edge team, and one of the reasons we decided to end EdgeHTML was because Google kept making changes to its sites that broke other browsers, and we couldn't…

I think it's interesting. Did you investigate why they added that div?
Post reply on HN