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

201–210 of 316 posts

Re: Browsers

#201

Post by XCabbage »

ksec wrote: post #192
XCabbage wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The behaviour that your co-workers claim Google engaged in sounds pretty exactly like the AMD-Intel antitrust case where AMD alleged that Intel's C compiler was deliberately crippling performance on AMD processors to help Intel's processors compete. If true, Microsoft should sue Google over it - not just out of raw corporate self-interest, but because this sort of conduct is evil and should be stamped out. If this ca…

What will Microsoft gain if they Win? Nothing. Google has the upper hand in public image. Microsoft is still evil outside of Dev Circles. And IE did some ass moves as well in IE6 era, think about the PR mess this would lead. It is not the best time to strike now, once the timing is right, I am sure they will.

> "What will Microsoft gain if they Win?"

Uh, money? It might not exactly be a noble incentive for a lawsuit, but it's sure as hell an incentive, isn't it?

Re: Browsers

#202

Post by wvenable »

austincheney wrote: post #83
wvenable wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IE6 used a non-standard box model. Which we all use now anyway because it was right way to do it... * { box-sizing: border-box; }

That is a matter of opinion. I don't do that and I avoid code that does. In the days of IE7 I learned to write CSS code that was conformant to both box models. Now I just write to the standard box model. CSS isn't something that will ever be particularly challenging once you have gone through the extremes of edge case use cases.

It's not a matter of opinion, content-box is much more difficult to work with when using fluid layouts than border-box which is why all major CSS frameworks use border-box now.

At the time, the CSS specification didn't make it clear which way to calculate widths so Microsoft, probably due to their experience building graphical layout software, chose border-box while all other rendering engines at the time went content-box probably without considering the consequences. Realizing the error, the box-sizing property was added to CSS to fix this.

Re: Browsers

#203

Post by Faark »

ksec wrote: post #192
XCabbage wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The behaviour that your co-workers claim Google engaged in sounds pretty exactly like the AMD-Intel antitrust case where AMD alleged that Intel's C compiler was deliberately crippling performance on AMD processors to help Intel's processors compete. If true, Microsoft should sue Google over it - not just out of raw corporate self-interest, but because this sort of conduct is evil and should be stamped out. If this ca…

What will Microsoft gain if they Win? Nothing. Google has the upper hand in public image. Microsoft is still evil outside of Dev Circles. And IE did some ass moves as well in IE6 era, think about the PR mess this would lead. It is not the best time to strike now, once the timing is right, I am sure they will.

Google will continue to have the upper hand in public image until stuff like that happens. Yes, this would be a PR challenge, but one MS might even be able to spin in a way they can benefit from...

Re: Browsers

#204

Post by gnulinux »

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…

Imagine the entire web (90%) can only run in Google Chrome and Google Chrome stops linux support. What then? Will linux not be able to render 90% of www? What if MS pays Google millions of $ to stop linux and Mac support?

Re: Browsers

#205

Post by lwansbrough »

michalstanko wrote: post #153
lwansbrough wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would Mozilla have to do to make their browser better than Chrome?

For me, as a developer, it boils down to the Web Dev Tools (Elements, Console, Network panels), which keep getting better and better. For my family, Chrome is on desktop and their phones, everything synchronized. Chrome autoupdates without bothering them. Chrome is simple and it just works for them, and everything works in Chrome. Please don't downvote me, I've been supporting Mozilla with monthly donations for years…

All of those things are available on Firefox, which is why I asked. There are a diminishing number of features not available to Firefox users at this point.

Re: Browsers

#206

Post by scarface74 »

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.

Even if that is true. Gaining control of the “Windows desktop browsing market” is at best a Pyrrhic victory.

63% of all browsing is done on mobile.

https://www.stonetemple.com/mobile-vs-desktop-usage-study/

Re: Browsers

#207

Post by scarface74 »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #37
tomjakubowski wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If they never collect the data, or store it in a way that they don’t have the private keys, they can’t give it to the government.

Re: Browsers

#208

Post by scarface74 »

ksec wrote: post #197

I know there is a lot of hate for Safari on HN ( Still don't understand why ) But I wish Microsoft worked with Apple and bring Safari / WebKit to Windows, and invest in Webkit instead. ( Blink and Webkit are now pretty much different Engine )

In the distant past, Safari was officially available for Windows.

Re: Browsers

#209

Post by vlmlee »

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…

Not a criticism of you but an observation: people will say a browser monoculture is bad but have absolutely no problem with a political monoculture.

Re: Browsers

#210

Post by sys_64738 »

scarface74 wrote: post #206
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.

Even if that is true. Gaining control of the “Windows desktop browsing market” is at best a Pyrrhic victory. 63% of all browsing is done on mobile. https://www.stonetemple.com/mobile-vs-desktop-usage-study/

Microsoft has already conceded the mobile space. They're doubling down on desktop dominance.
Post reply on HN