Back to firefox, few years later, back to chrome.
We Need Chrome No More
171–180 of 536 posts
Re: We Need Chrome No More
#172I enjoyed this post, but I take issue with the idea that Chrome was initially adopted, or served, "to break the Web free from corporate greed." Chrome's appeal was primarily technical. Each tab got its own process and could crash without taking down the entire browser. No one else had this at the time, and it was a big deal because Flash was still widespread so sites were even less stable than they are today. Luckily…
> has now finally caught up to Chrome on stability and speed Arguably, with its market share dwindling fast, it's not enough to just be technically on par. Further, it is absolutely not up to par on Linux and from what I know, MacOS as well.
I switched to Firefox about a year ago on Mac, and coming from Chrome I've been totally satisfied. Not that I've run any comparison benchmarks or anything, but it'll load basically anything I want to throw at it, has the right set of extensions to keep me rolling, and the only real performance issue I've noticed with sites is the occasional rendering block waiting on content I have blocked with uMatrix. But that last one's my fault, not Firefox's.
Re: We Need Chrome No More
#173Here's hoping. The proliferation of browser standards has made this appear a more daunting task as time has gone by. There was a point where if you built a good DOM, javascript engine, and a layout engine and had a reasonable ability to fetch resources, you could bootstrap a browser. That's how Konquerer got there. But now, I think we're past that point -- if your browser can't do native video conferencing and opengl…
I have a better idea: build a new browser for a new web that is designed with decades of hindsight and isn't as bogged down in all the stupid legacy crap that the current web is.
Then port Chromium to it as a portal to the legacy web.
Re: We Need Chrome No More
#174Other browsers need to catch up to Chrome with their development tools. I'd be happy to use Safari or Firefox for development, but... - I can't disable CORS in Firefox (yes, sometimes you have to disable CORS rather than modify the Allow-Origin header response, for example if you need to test against a production backend) (and, no, CORS Everywhere is not a sufficient solution). - I can't inspect WebSocket frames in a…
>- I can't inspect WebSocket frames in anything except Chrome. For what it's worth, WebSockets show up as type 'Other' in the inspector, and the frames are listed under 'Preview'. Edit: Safari.
In which browser?
Re: We Need Chrome No More
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Chrome's appeal was primarily technical. Each tab got its own process and could crash without taking down the entire browser. Curious, I remember speed being the primary reason. Google invented V8 (the javascript engine), with some pretty decent optimizations and a well-working JIT on i386/amd64 platforms. At the time when chromium came out, it handled some JS-heavy applications very nicely that Firefox struggled w…
As you alluded to at the start of your post, Chromes speed improvements were more technical than it was due to a lack of bloat. In fact Chrome consumed more memory than FF did at that time and that was down to it being multi-processed (ie one heavy page wouldn’t slow down the rest of the application in other tabs) but that came at a cost in terms of RAM used. Obviously the v8 stuff also made a massive difference too.
I think another factor is just that Chrome's speed changed the landscape of web design itself, which fed back into Chrome's popularity.
By making javascript so much faster, it allowed web designers to do things that only Chrome could do.
Re: We Need Chrome No More
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
You would need to break web standards compatibility to fight the current bloat cycle on the web. But it might happen, a simpler, faster web.
Or you could block the trackers, which are most of the bloat.
On some sites, on others it's the 2.5-5mb PWA-that-gracefully-falls-back-to-SPA-that-gracefully-falls-back-to-SSR-with-bundled-inline-styles-and-images JS app that has horrid caching that is causing most of the bloat.
Re: We Need Chrome No More
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Chrome's appeal was primarily technical. Each tab got its own process and could crash without taking down the entire browser. Curious, I remember speed being the primary reason. Google invented V8 (the javascript engine), with some pretty decent optimizations and a well-working JIT on i386/amd64 platforms. At the time when chromium came out, it handled some JS-heavy applications very nicely that Firefox struggled w…
You would need to break web standards compatibility to fight the current bloat cycle on the web. But it might happen, a simpler, faster web.
That’s what AMP is..,
Re: We Need Chrome No More
#178No mention in this thread so I'm just going to throw this out there, qutebrowser is an excellent choice in 2019:
https://www.qutebrowser.org
Re: We Need Chrome No More
#179I don't particularly like the manifesto style of this post. The author attempts a hard sell by first admitting that the world needed Chrome and then after it succeeded he suggests throwing it to the depths after the wish came true. > Chrome is effectively everywhere you look. And that’s bad news. Why? It's the dream you wanted 10 years ago, but it comes with Google now. Ooops for you if you dislike Google, but the va…
Realistically, would we have cared if IE was everywhere if it wasn't garbage in supporting web standards?
I'm not arguing for a lack of competition. It's just that someone needs to be on top of the heap. Might as well be a company that's invested in having their pages load fast rather than an OS maker with no incentive to improve their browser.
I wish Google would go back to funding Mozilla like they used to. At one point they were 90% of Mozilla's revenue.
Re: We Need Chrome No More
#180> Ten years ago, we needed Google Chrome to break the Web free from corporate greed How? It never stops puzzling me why anyone thoght Chrome would be any different. Somehow less corporate.
It puzzles me how anyone can believe Firefox will be different, especially with examples to the contrary already existing.