61–70 of 91 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Android?
Android's browser isn't nearly as good as Chrome or Firefox and only gets updated with the OS (which means never, for most phones).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are a variety of options that are disabled on the mobile build to save memory and cpu. It's the same core, it just doesn't have all the bells and whistles enabled for a variety of reasons.
It's not Chrome. It's based on WebKit, like Chrome, yes. But it's not Chrome. (Easy way to check: note that the icon says "Browser", not "Chrome", and it isn't the Chrome icon.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OS upgrades that a lot of Android users don't get. If I want to get an up to date browser on my Nexus One, I have to use Firefox... as Google said they no longer support the phone. iOS users are in the same boat, but Apple has been providing much more support to older devices.
Old Android browser versions are going to become the "IE6" of this decode.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wouldn't be surprised if for those $300 million they also got Mozilla to accept using Native Client in Firefox later on. If you're suggesting that Mozilla would do something bad for the web for money, then I think you couldn't be more wrong. Mozilla is a nonprofit exactly for this reason. (Worth noting that the for-profit Opera opposes Native Client too - it isn't just nonprofits that have values.)
Is that sarcasm? Native client is one of the best things that will ever happen to the web since jQuery made it possible to write cross-browser javascript. Imagine how much easier it will be in the future when ever very intensive programs can be written, and run, on the web.
So it is in fact one of the worst things that could happen to the web.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mozilla's decisions on what technologies to support and what to oppose are not influenced by our business arrangements.
Not officially, no, but I'm sure if google goes to mozilla and says, "hey, we think you guys should support technology X, it's really great" I'm sure you'd listen and probably get a good nudge from the higher ups that, "hey maybe we should listen to those google people".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wouldn't be surprised if for those $300 million they also got Mozilla to accept using Native Client in Firefox later on. If you're suggesting that Mozilla would do something bad for the web for money, then I think you couldn't be more wrong. Mozilla is a nonprofit exactly for this reason. (Worth noting that the for-profit Opera opposes Native Client too - it isn't just nonprofits that have values.)
Is that sarcasm? Native client is one of the best things that will ever happen to the web since jQuery made it possible to write cross-browser javascript. Imagine how much easier it will be in the future when ever very intensive programs can be written, and run, on the web.
There is some work to try to make it portable, but it is unclear how it will end up (how portable, how fast, how secure, etc.).
Partly because of this, NaCl is not standardized or even a proposed standard, which is another problem for the web.
I do admire the NaCl technology though - it's very neat. Although it's bad for the web, it is good for lots of other things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that sarcasm? Native client is one of the best things that will ever happen to the web since jQuery made it possible to write cross-browser javascript. Imagine how much easier it will be in the future when ever very intensive programs can be written, and run, on the web.
That future is better known as client/server, and it's a huge step backwards. There was only one client that worked at all, it was terrible, and you couldn't fix it. No, every time an author imposes fixed client behavior rather than writing publically addressible content which can be rendered and repurposed in many ways, the world-wide web dies a little more.
What _isn't_ fixed client behavior on the web? Browsers don't just interpret HTML any which way that they want to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, when i have to test something in Firefox i always forget that to search in Google (or in other popular site) i can't just write it in the address bar. And it always remember all my sites so to go to hacker news i just write an "n" and it writes the rest... and i can even delete the suggestions with shift+delete. So yeah, i also don't have any idea what the parent comment was triyng to say.
Except you can just write it in the address bar (and hit enter). Try it!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mozilla's decisions on what technologies to support and what to oppose are not influenced by our business arrangements.
Not officially, no, but I'm sure if google goes to mozilla and says, "hey, we think you guys should support technology X, it's really great" I'm sure you'd listen and probably get a good nudge from the higher ups that, "hey maybe we should listen to those google people".
I don't think you can accuse Mozilla of caving in to Google demands at all :)
Which, while annoying for you if you happen to want to push one of those things, is a fantastic thing for the Web. We all simply want to build a better web - and out of the disagreements, we get clarity how to do that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, when i have to test something in Firefox i always forget that to search in Google (or in other popular site) i can't just write it in the address bar. And it always remember all my sites so to go to hacker news i just write an "n" and it writes the rest... and i can even delete the suggestions with shift+delete. So yeah, i also don't have any idea what the parent comment was triyng to say.
uh? I type something in the address bar, and Firefox JFGIFM. It is called the awesome bar. I think you are confusing with Safari.