341–350 of 356 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're kinda proving my point: it works fine if you wholeheartedly take whatever Google gives you. Sure, that's technically open source, but is it really practically so if you can't practically adapt it?
How ? There is brave, Ungoogle chromium, and many other modified browsers that are maintained.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given the direction Brendan Eich has pursued at Brave, I'm personally very glad he didn't remain as Mozilla's CEO, regardless of political views. Edit: Also, I don't think it's particularly reasonable to single out an individual being funded by Mozilla without a very good explanation as to why. Is there something that Leil Zahra has done which makes you think they are inappropriate to be associated with Mozilla? Or a…
> Is there something that Leil Zahra has done which makes you think they are inappropriate to be associated with Mozilla? No I just don't think Mozilla should fund political projects at all. I know that if I donate to Mozilla, my money will go to activists and not to the continued development of Firefox. The reason why I singled out one individual was because it shows that they support specific political agendas (and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes they can act unilaterally and with Chrome OS and many popular web apps they do have incentive to care about the web. But will that translate to the Chrome organization caring? It doesn’t make Chrome a more attractive browser to users than other browsers also built on Chromium.
That's the point. They don't need to care if it makes it more attractive than other chromium browsers. They have features they want to use so being able to unilaterally add them benefits them either way. If they decide to add new amp integration or similar features, for example, that can give them more control of the Internet even if you are using those features through Edge rather than Chrome. Seeing Google's goal a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was that all though? I think part of this was just businesses attempting to lock the web into their tech. Microsoft has never wanted the web to be open, first trying to reinvent it with their own MSN. Then trying to lock it in with IE and ActiveX. Adobe / Macromedia started from the designer perspective but Flash soon became a goal of its own because Adobe wouldn't give up that marketshare. Only now all parties reali…
Flash was able to support file uploads, video streaming, and clipboard access long before the HTML and JavaScript specs allowed for this. Users and website creators wanted these features and Flash was the way to do them. Sure, other technologies like Microsoft's Silverlight allowed similar things, but Flash was so widely used it could be relied on to offer these features. Even now things like clipboard access aren't…
I think the disconnect was more with designers. They wanted visual tools back in those days and had no time for CSS and JavaScript. Adobe/Macromedia gave them what they wanted and also entrenched their commercial position this way (which Adobe already had in the paper publishing market!). It took a long time for the graphical guys to come on board with the open toolchains.
Macromedia wasn't a bad company as such as they did make the excellent Dreamweaver which did promote open standards, but Adobe corrupted them badly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How ? There is brave, Ungoogle chromium, and many other modified browsers that are maintained.
Are they maintained? Or are they latest version or bust "maintained"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes it is. That is like saying because it doesn't run on an Atari that it isn't truly open source.
No it's not. The Atari isn't one year old. Come on man, from your logic you might as well say that a one year old car should be fed hay since it's practically a horse.
The chromium-only web is not google’s fault. It is a symptom of a body of web standards that has grown wild to the point of being all but unimplementable. Building a browser for the modern standards-based web is effectively impossible, because it costs too much, takes too long, and requires a standing army to keep up with. We are at an impasse. The standards cannot be deprecated because they are used all over the web…
The problem is not in the lack of browser rendering engines, but the lacking innovation and product features of the browsers running these rendering engines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Building a browser for the modern standards-based web is effectively impossible, because it costs too much, takes too long, and requires a standing army to keep up with. > We are at an impasse. The standards cannot be deprecated because they are used all over the web, and because they are used all over the web a new browser maker has little choice except forking chromium or firefox. could web assembly be a way out?…
QuickJS (and various others) demonstrates that small teams can create fast and efficient JavaScript engines that comply with standards. Even though v8 is faster, it spends an order of magnitude more engineering effort for that marginal benefit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Flash was able to support file uploads, video streaming, and clipboard access long before the HTML and JavaScript specs allowed for this. Users and website creators wanted these features and Flash was the way to do them. Sure, other technologies like Microsoft's Silverlight allowed similar things, but Flash was so widely used it could be relied on to offer these features. Even now things like clipboard access aren't…
File uploads were in HTML almost from the start :) And video was not no, but it was a tricky thing to figure out, not just from an implementation but also licensing point of view. RealMedia was another player that dabbled in this market. I think the disconnect was more with designers. They wanted visual tools back in those days and had no time for CSS and JavaScript. Adobe/Macromedia gave them what they wanted and al…
And I recall it enabled a progress bar, too.