Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Browsers are essential and how operating systems are holding them back (2022) [pdf] (2022)

research.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 349 posts

Re: Browsers are essential and how operating systems are holding them back (2022) [pdf] (2022)

#321

Post by tuyiown »

blacklion wrote: post #267
tuyiown wrote: post #102

Dear mozilla, The web is dying under chrome, with the excuse that iOS has its responsibility in the stale doesn't help either. It's dying, not because of vendors pushing their favorite flavor, but because it has a terrible, horrible API, that make building an app with tightly controller Ui and Ux atop of it a Sisyph-ian challenge. It's horrible for 3 key points reasons: - the insistance that the document oriented API…

Web can not be dying because "building an app .... is Sisyph-ian challenge". Web is dying because you try to create apps, not linked documents. Web is not for apps.

I wholeheartedly agree, but we definitely need a replacement API since the entire industry is enriching their documents with micro applications.

Re: Browsers are essential and how operating systems are holding them back (2022) [pdf] (2022)

#322

Post by kolinko »

rezonant wrote: post #163
kolinko wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is stuck in the ecosystem. You can change the platform at any time. And for me, I feel having more choice on iPhone compared to Android. With android I would need to limit the apps that I install because of potential security flaws. iOS wins all the security rankings (e.g. https://nordvpn.com/blog/ios-vs-android-security/ ), and it’s closely related to its lockin model.

You can change phone platforms at any time you want, by buying a new phone for somewhere in the range of $500-$1000 US? And then doing what with the old phone? Selling it?

Yes, you can sell your iPhone and buy a similar-age Android phone with similar parameters - and you'll probably earn a few bucks on it since iPhones keep their value better.

Re: Browsers are essential and how operating systems are holding them back (2022) [pdf] (2022)

#323

Post by pbasista »

coldtea wrote: post #227
pbasista wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The restrictions are a feature and not a bug. The point of open OS is not to force its users to use unvetted apps. It is to give them an option to do so. The argument that someone might want to use a restricted OS because they want to only use vetted apps is flawed. The reason is that the users can use an open OS in the exactly same way, if they choose to do so.

> The point of open OS is not to force its users to use unvetted apps. It is to give them an option to do so. And the point of a closed OS is that "giving the option" is as good as forcing the users. Because third party devs with clout (facebook, instagram, etc and generally anyone whose apps users "must have", even if it's just their bank or local dominant rideshare or chat app) will, given the option, force users t…

> "giving the option" is as good as forcing the users

From what perspective?

> third party devs ... will, given the option, force users to install unvetted apps

It is up to the users to allow e.g. Facebook application to install additional applications. No one, and especially no app, should be able to force them to do so on an open OS.

If you refer to predatory practices where an application would disable some of its functionality until an additional "unvetted" application is installed, then this is definitely an issue.

But it should be addressed by targeted measures against the offending applications and by educating the users. Not by taking away everyone's freedom.

In my opinion, the freedom of choice regarding which application runs on one's own hardware should remain with the owner to the largest extent that is practically possible.

Re: Browsers are essential and how operating systems are holding them back (2022) [pdf] (2022)

#324

Post by hardware2win »

em-bee wrote: post #293
hardware2win wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh what? If one browser laggs behind then the rest shouldnt deploy? This is crazy

depends how much your users matter to you. if a browser[1] lags behind on a feature, you should avoid using that feature on a production website, or provide a gracefull fallback. but by no means should you redirect the users to a browser that supports that feature. [1] i am only counting major modern browsers here: chrome, edge, firefox, safari. you are welcome to support more, but these at a minimum.

If I have 20% FF users and 70% chromium users, then I shouldnt deploy a feature which will serve those 70% and wait who knows how long till FF catches up?

Wtf.

Re: Browsers are essential and how operating systems are holding them back (2022) [pdf] (2022)

#325

Post by pas »

mike_hearn wrote: post #320
pas wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of it perfectly applies to the Android universe too. And the US device market is still the trendsetter, which is basically Appleistan.

Apple is only about half the US mobile market, and the rest of the world the trend is clearly Android. So calling the US market the trend setter seems odd because if that were the case then the rest of the world would be trending strongly iOS but this pattern has been stable for years.

I mean with regards to the sideload-lockdown, ApplePay-or-nothing, privacy-CSAM-detection trade offs.

Apple is the premium brand, the Goliath in the market, especially considering revenue and profit.

Even if there are many Android phones they are of various brands, and Alphabet/Google is not rocking the boat, F-Droid works relatively okay.

Re: Browsers are essential and how operating systems are holding them back (2022) [pdf] (2022)

#326

Post by kolinko »

largepeepee wrote: post #58
kolinko wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“offender” suggests undue negativity. For me, the biggest selling point of iOS is it’s lock in - be it in browsers or the store. My phone is the centre of my privacy, and I want it to be as solid and as safe as possible. So far nobody developed a mobile system that is more open and just as safe and robust.

>My phone is the centre of my privacy, and I want it to be as solid and as safe as possible. If privacy was the main concern, you wouldn't be using any of the ad vendors, which includes apple. Yes, apple does sell your data. They just don't want others to do it too. There are plenty of smaller security focused phone vendors these days that doesn't intersect with user interest.

Are you a bot? Because you just replied to the word "privacy" and not the whole sentence.

I mentioned safety and solidity - meaning - I want the phone to have as few attack vectors as possible. Ads have nothing to do with this.

Re: Browsers are essential and how operating systems are holding them back (2022) [pdf] (2022)

#327

Post by kolinko »

nibbleshifter wrote: post #67
kolinko wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“offender” suggests undue negativity. For me, the biggest selling point of iOS is it’s lock in - be it in browsers or the store. My phone is the centre of my privacy, and I want it to be as solid and as safe as possible. So far nobody developed a mobile system that is more open and just as safe and robust.

GrapheneOS is more open, but also significantly more robust than iOS.

Is there a list of vulnerabilities discovered for GrapheneOS? I couldn't find a decent summary anywhere.

I couldn't also find any source for your claim that it's more robust than iOS. Care to provide a source for that?

Re: Browsers are essential and how operating systems are holding them back (2022) [pdf] (2022)

#328

Post by largepeepee »

kolinko wrote: post #326
largepeepee wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>My phone is the centre of my privacy, and I want it to be as solid and as safe as possible. If privacy was the main concern, you wouldn't be using any of the ad vendors, which includes apple. Yes, apple does sell your data. They just don't want others to do it too. There are plenty of smaller security focused phone vendors these days that doesn't intersect with user interest.

Are you a bot? Because you just replied to the word "privacy" and not the whole sentence. I mentioned safety and solidity - meaning - I want the phone to have as few attack vectors as possible. Ads have nothing to do with this.

Are you a clown because I quoted that entire sentence directly from you YET you are still complaining.

Go disagree with yourself in the mirror, not my problem.

Re: Browsers are essential and how operating systems are holding them back (2022) [pdf] (2022)

#329

Post by krono »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #314
krono wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nicely worded. I suppose it's not as much that I believe she's doing a particularly bad job, but more that she's been moving Mozilla too far into the direction opposite from where I would have liked it to go, and where I believe it belongs. I find her salary increases and their timing both unconscionable and excessive regardless.

If someone asked you "hey we want to promote you to permanent CEO. It'll be more work, you'll be forced to make unpopular decisions that will lead to rampant criticism, and we'll cut your salary" would you accept?

That's not what happened here at all though. She has been a major controlling and accountable factor throughout both Mozilla entities' existence, except whenever those controversial or risky decisions were going to be executed she has repeatedly ensured there was someone else to take the accountability part - only to take it back later during better times.

  2003 Mozilla Foundation was founded
       - Mozilla Foundation President
       - Mozilla Foundation Chairperson
  2005 Mozilla Corporation was founded
       - Mozilla Foundation President
       - Mozilla Foundation Chairperson
       - Mozilla Corporation CEO
       - Mozilla Corporation Executive Chairperson
  2007 Firefox/Google privacy controversy[0]
  2008 She stepped down from several roles
       - Mozilla Foundation Chairperson
       - Mozilla Corporation Executive Chairperson
  2014 Half the board resigned in protest of newly elected CEO[1]
  2019 Settled out of court with Yahoo on the issue of Mozilla's nasty opportunistic rug-pull stunt[1]
  2018 Market share had dropped by 85% since 2008
       She received a 400% salary rise for her role as Foundation Chair
       - Mozilla Foundation Chairperson
       - Mozilla Corporation Executive Chairperson
  2020 She stepped back in as Mozilla Corporation CEO
       - Mozilla Foundation Chairperson
       - Mozilla Corporation CEO
       - Mozilla Corporation Executive Chairperson
And since then they've become even more dependent on search engine donations than ever before. Quite risky considering Google's current predicament.

[0]: https://web.archive.org/web/20070121123429/http://www.platin...

[1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20140330185556/http://blogs.wsj....

[2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20221130031213/https://www.compu...

Re: Browsers are essential and how operating systems are holding them back (2022) [pdf] (2022)

#330

Post by coldtea »

pbasista wrote: post #323
coldtea wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The point of open OS is not to force its users to use unvetted apps. It is to give them an option to do so. And the point of a closed OS is that "giving the option" is as good as forcing the users. Because third party devs with clout (facebook, instagram, etc and generally anyone whose apps users "must have", even if it's just their bank or local dominant rideshare or chat app) will, given the option, force users t…

> "giving the option" is as good as forcing the users From what perspective? > third party devs ... will, given the option, force users to install unvetted apps It is up to the users to allow e.g. Facebook application to install additional applications. No one, and especially no app, should be able to force them to do so on an open OS. If you refer to predatory practices where an application would disable some of its…

>If you refer to predatory practices where an application would disable some of its functionality until an additional "unvetted" application is installed, then this is definitely an issue.

Worse, there wont even be a vetted application. It will only be an unvetted application you'll be asked to sideload to get the functionality at all.

And soon: alternative app stores, with their own rules and no central control. From Adobe, Google, and so on.

>But it should be addressed by targeted measures against the offending applications and by educating the users

Has that "educating" and "targeted measures" ever worked?

Post reply on HN