191–200 of 316 posts
The only problem with Chrome: It's controlled by an advertising company.
And you see evidence of this influence throughout Chrome. For example, Apple simply blocked third party cookies which are almost exclusively used for tracking. Chrome waited years until they could add their Advertising Sandbox feature first.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Am I the only one left happily using Firefox? You know, the only "major" browser that doesn't seem to have these conflicts of interest?
Also happy Firefox user here. Do not worry, there are dozens of us. Dozens!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> using the 4th wealthiest company on earth's browser that I freely installed. 99% of the time I use Chrome it's because some site does not support Firefox (and that often includes Google sites/apps). (The 1% are for APIs that Firefox, consciously or out of resource constraints, does not support.) In what sense am I "freely installing" Chrome in this situation? Just today I had a family member reach out to me, unable…
I see this argument a lot. I use Firefox on my Mac, iPhone and my Windows work PC. I can’t remember the last time there was a website that was broken because of Firefox. Do you happen to have any examples? I’m curious to see how broken/what the issues are.
A few sites would silently break, e.g. restaurant online order pages, but work in Chrome. Never really looked into why, it was just annoying and intermittent (might work one month but not the next).
YouTube occasionally had some issues. For a while it was on an old version of Polymer that used Shadow DOM V0 (experimental) instead of V1.
A good list is here https://webcompat.com/issues?page=1&per_page=100&state=open&... keep in mind some of these are "is extremely slow in Firefox". Sometimes that's just that Firefox didn't have the same set of optimizations (not necessarily even fewer optimizations, just not ones built against) and other times that's deeper seated like the Shaw DOM V0 example where the fallback for the page was to use some older.
No not even close by every single possible measure. I was there, I suffered through it, Google would have to make TONS of hostile moves for that fact to change. I have no interest in the arguments of a closed source subscription service that wants me to switch to the bundled browser of the wealthiest company on earth's most popular consumer OS, lecturing me about using the 4th wealthiest company on earth's browser th…
SSE's
W3C draft standard in 2012. Supported in Safari in 2010.
web sockets
This one is true. IETF standard 2011. Supported fully in Safari 2013.
IndexedDB API
W3C recommended standard in 2015. Supported in Safari in 2014.
animations
If we're talking the Web Animations API, it hasn't been standardized yet (W3C working draft) and level 2 isn't even that far.
relative color syntax
Not standardized yet. It's currently a W3C working draft.
container queries
Not standardized yet. It's currently a W3C working draft.
a bunch of stuff
Need specifics.
flexbox
W3C candidate recommendation 2018. Supported in Safari 2013.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Safari is the last man standing before a ChromeOS world. Except it isn't. Maybe I'm being slightly obtuse here, but the world is not "Chrome Vs Safari". It's "Chrome Vs Safari Vs native apps". If Safari dies we'll be in a world of "Chrome Vs native apps", and that is what Apple wants. Browsers represent a way to deliver software to users that's outside of Apple's revenue mechanisms. Apple have every incentive to keep…
Am I the only one left happily using Firefox? You know, the only "major" browser that doesn't seem to have these conflicts of interest?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Safari is the last man standing before a ChromeOS world. Except it isn't. Maybe I'm being slightly obtuse here, but the world is not "Chrome Vs Safari". It's "Chrome Vs Safari Vs native apps". If Safari dies we'll be in a world of "Chrome Vs native apps", and that is what Apple wants. Browsers represent a way to deliver software to users that's outside of Apple's revenue mechanisms. Apple have every incentive to keep…
Notably this desire -- to own a platform by making "native" code for your proprietary OS the "preferred" way to interact with the world -- was exactly the logic behind MS's "embrace and extend" nonsense in the 90's. It still feels weird to me that people don't react the same way when Apple does it.
Imagine if Microsoft was able to just ban any competing browser from running on Windows. We wouldn't be here debating if Chrome is the new IE. IE would be the same old IE (and the web would be a lot worse off today).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> using the 4th wealthiest company on earth's browser that I freely installed. 99% of the time I use Chrome it's because some site does not support Firefox (and that often includes Google sites/apps). (The 1% are for APIs that Firefox, consciously or out of resource constraints, does not support.) In what sense am I "freely installing" Chrome in this situation? Just today I had a family member reach out to me, unable…
I see this argument a lot. I use Firefox on my Mac, iPhone and my Windows work PC. I can’t remember the last time there was a website that was broken because of Firefox. Do you happen to have any examples? I’m curious to see how broken/what the issues are.
No not even close by every single possible measure. I was there, I suffered through it, Google would have to make TONS of hostile moves for that fact to change. I have no interest in the arguments of a closed source subscription service that wants me to switch to the bundled browser of the wealthiest company on earth's most popular consumer OS, lecturing me about using the 4th wealthiest company on earth's browser th…
> using the 4th wealthiest company on earth's browser that I freely installed. 99% of the time I use Chrome it's because some site does not support Firefox (and that often includes Google sites/apps). (The 1% are for APIs that Firefox, consciously or out of resource constraints, does not support.) In what sense am I "freely installing" Chrome in this situation? Just today I had a family member reach out to me, unable…
That is just the nature of using a niche platform. I primarily use Linux on the desktop. I have to keep a Windows install around for the times that I need to do something that can't be done on Linux. Resources are limited and so high marketshare platforms are prioritized. That's just how it is.
No not even close by every single possible measure. I was there, I suffered through it, Google would have to make TONS of hostile moves for that fact to change. I have no interest in the arguments of a closed source subscription service that wants me to switch to the bundled browser of the wealthiest company on earth's most popular consumer OS, lecturing me about using the 4th wealthiest company on earth's browser th…
It definitely is, I was also there, just like everyone was doing IE only sites, not only plenty of people do the same with ChromeOS vision of the Web, they ship Chrome alongside Electron crap. Safari is the last man standing before a ChromeOS world.
Last man being propped up Weekend-at-Bernie's style?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Safari is the last man standing before a ChromeOS world. Except it isn't. Maybe I'm being slightly obtuse here, but the world is not "Chrome Vs Safari". It's "Chrome Vs Safari Vs native apps". If Safari dies we'll be in a world of "Chrome Vs native apps", and that is what Apple wants. Browsers represent a way to deliver software to users that's outside of Apple's revenue mechanisms. Apple have every incentive to keep…
Am I the only one left happily using Firefox? You know, the only "major" browser that doesn't seem to have these conflicts of interest?
I think the only full-featured browser with a prosocial funding model is Konqueror, where what little money there is mostly comes from EU grants. Not coincidental that its code quality was so much better that everyone else based on its rendering engine.