FWIW, something like 80% to 90% of Mozilla's income comes from Google. The non-naive interpretation is that Mozilla/Firefox is a figleaf over Google's hegemony.
We Need Chrome No More
231–240 of 536 posts
Re: We Need Chrome No More
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
And this is why Chrome will win, become complacent, and a new browser will dethrone it like it did IE. Meanwhile, Firefox will continue to hover around the 10% mark or so.
Don't see Google pausing Chrome's development for 4 years like Internet Explorer.
I honestly don't remember what the last time was Chrome introduced some cool new feature in Chrome. Maybe the PDF reader?
Re: We Need Chrome No More
#233I 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…
> It's the dream you wanted 10 years ago
10 years ago we didn't want a browser monopoly
We're worryingly close to having that now.
Re: We Need Chrome No More
#234I 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…
I've been heads down building an app which relies on Google Chrome and I go back and forth on this. Polar is an app for managing your reading. It also supports advanced features like caching web pages locally, annotating PDFs, tagging the documents you're reading, etc. https://getpolarized.io/ It's based on Electron and I've been going deep into Chrome internals as well as experimenting with Chrome extensions. It's d…
Chromium certainly shouldn’t die. However…
> Do we really need a duplicated HTML renderer?
Hah. Yes, and if there’s a point when we don’t, I vote we keep Servo instead of Blink. (There won’t be.)
Although it’s possible I’m replying to some filler in a comment that starts with a link to a product only related in the sense of “apps that use Electron exist”…
Re: We Need Chrome No More
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been heads down building an app which relies on Google Chrome and I go back and forth on this. Polar is an app for managing your reading. It also supports advanced features like caching web pages locally, annotating PDFs, tagging the documents you're reading, etc. https://getpolarized.io/ It's based on Electron and I've been going deep into Chrome internals as well as experimenting with Chrome extensions. It's d…
> Safe from what? Chromium? It's Open Source? Safe from monopoly control over Web standards. The Web has been a consensus ecosystem, and Google does not have a track record of proposing reasonable standards. In my mind this is most grossly evident in the case of PNaCl, which was tied to their Pepper API and effectively impossible for non-Blink browsers to implement. Google pushed for PNaCl to become a Web standard, a…
Right but Mozilla could still do this within the context of Chromium.
They could fork it if necessary.
And I definitely agree that Google is faltering on a lot of their execution lately.
Most of the things they ship are like a 6/10 in terms of usability.
Re: We Need Chrome No More
#236Earlier 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…
>Curious, I remember speed being the primary reason. Chromes super fast start up speed and clean UI is what caused me to switch when it first came out.
I never switched because once upon a time I switched from Opera to Firefox because it was the most free (as in libre) browser and I haven't found a more free browser yet.
I try to live after the maxim: freedom before convenience (at least in parts of my life).
Re: We Need Chrome No More
#237I have one bigger complaint: It blows my mind that web browsers take GBs of ram to run. I mean, c'mon, it's 2019 how can we not address that? It's probably the biggest concern I hear from everyone that uses Chrome and knows how to read their task/app manager
Leaving aside everything else, how is that even relevant? Even cheap laptops have 8gigs of ram these days, most have 16. Considering the browser is becoming the de-facto single application used at all for most people, what else would they need their ram for?
Re: We Need Chrome No More
#238> developers are increasingly shunning other browsers in their testing and bug-fixing routines. If it works as intended on Chrome, it’s ready to ship. That's me. Sorry, but I just can't be bothered to support every browser's quirks. I check Firefox every once in a while, but really, I don't mind losing a few users if it means significantly less maintenance and testing for me. It's like complaining that developers are…
I encountered so many people like you in the early to mid 2000s, IE6 or bust.
15 years later and we're stuck with old corporate sites that require IE6 and activex.
Re: We Need Chrome No More
#239Profiles are the only thing stopping me moving to Firefox right now. They're so easy to use on Chrome.
Container tabs don't require new windows for that cookie/account separation.
Re: We Need Chrome No More
#240I 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…
Firefox is super slow compared to Chrome. Are you joking? Sure, chose free software, but don't make up lies like this.