Chrome basically is abusing its market position, 69.65% globally, and becomes the new IE. Implementing its own HTML/JS standard. The sad truth is, some companies will look at Statcounter[0] and say because Firefox does not reach 5% global population and decided not supporting it, actively or passively. [0]: https://gs.statcounter.com/
This has been happening for a while now, basically anywhere there’s room for a potential compatibility issue there will be one. As if any time some observable behavior is an implementation choice the Chrome team policy is “not what Firefox does”. The result is that if you develop on Chrome and don’t test on Firefox your stuff is very likely broken on Firefox.
IIRC, QUIC was also the precursor to HTTP/3. I don't like Google's motivations for wanting a faster web, but many of the things they've encouraged and/or provided have made things faster and more efficient. I'm not a google apologist, there's so much wrong and so much harm done... just saying it's maybe worth separating the tech from the motives.
HTTP/3 uses QUIC as the transport layer, which in turn relies on UDP. QUIC replaces TCP while allowing a reduction of handshake exchanges in HTTP/3 first requests. Finally, even though UDP supports multicast, I believe QUIC doesn't. GP saying Google has developed it to use multicast thus is nonsense. Furthermore, QUIC takes much more CPU than TCP right now, due to running in userland. In my opinion, QUIC and HTTP/3 a…
It's not very complicated to import the QUIC library, or to import the HTTP library with HTTP/3 supported. For the library authors, QUIC isn't more complicated to implement than TCP. Doomsaying about the complexity of Google Sheets is completely unrelated to whether QUIC is good tech and superior to TCP, which it is; the only remaining complaint is that it's too new to have been part of the kernel yet, and if that makes technology somehow illegitimate then I guess we're just stuck with the mistakes of the 90s forever, why ever invent anything new at all.
Chrome basically is abusing its market position, 69.65% globally, and becomes the new IE. Implementing its own HTML/JS standard. The sad truth is, some companies will look at Statcounter[0] and say because Firefox does not reach 5% global population and decided not supporting it, actively or passively. [0]: https://gs.statcounter.com/
TIL that Firefox has less than 5% market share. When and why did people stop using Firefox?
Chrome basically is abusing its market position, 69.65% globally, and becomes the new IE. Implementing its own HTML/JS standard. The sad truth is, some companies will look at Statcounter[0] and say because Firefox does not reach 5% global population and decided not supporting it, actively or passively. [0]: https://gs.statcounter.com/
TIL that Firefox has less than 5% market share. When and why did people stop using Firefox? -- Submitted from Firefox
> When and why did people stop using Firefox?
Approximately at the time when majority of the Mozilla resources started going into non-browser projects. And pretty much for the same reason.
I'm not all that happy with second chance options in the first place... but a dedicated element with browser-level protections on making sure it's clear clicking that particular element is going to second chance the permission prompt is at least much less likely to get abused.
> protections on making sure it's clear clicking that particular element is going to second chance the permission prompt is at least much less likely to get abused. I guess I really don't understand the abuse they're trying to guard against. The protections are like "the button isn't transparent and there's a 3:1 contrast ratio, because click jacking." Alright, so I will just make the button say 'click to view conten…
right now sites cant retry prompts because they could just spam annoying permission dialogs in a loop until the user hits allow. thats a problem for legit sites because you have to manually go and grant the permnission from site settings if you change your mind. it adds friction you cant avoid with a script based design.
with a special element dialogs can only show once for every user action. even if the site uses "click to get bitcoin" style misleading prompts users will notice and not click on that button again. none of this is about security in a strict sense, just better ux on both good and bad sites.
Chrome basically is abusing its market position, 69.65% globally, and becomes the new IE. Implementing its own HTML/JS standard. The sad truth is, some companies will look at Statcounter[0] and say because Firefox does not reach 5% global population and decided not supporting it, actively or passively. [0]: https://gs.statcounter.com/
TIL that Firefox has less than 5% market share. When and why did people stop using Firefox? -- Submitted from Firefox
The use started to decline when Google started the extreme marketing campaign of Chrome around 2010 or so. All Google services had huge banners and included all sorts of dark patterns to get people to install it.
TBF, Chrome probably also had some better features and performance over FF, but I don't think most people think much about their browser quality.
TIL that Firefox has less than 5% market share. When and why did people stop using Firefox? -- Submitted from Firefox
> When and why did people stop using Firefox? Approximately at the time when majority of the Mozilla resources started going into non-browser projects. And pretty much for the same reason.
So when would that be exactly? Firefox was first released in 2004 and Mozilla Corporation was founded in 2005.
According to https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share#yearly-2014-... the high point for adoption was 2010 and it has been falling since then. (However, they only have data from 2010 onwards, so the high point could have been even earlier.) This coincidentally [sic] aligns to the launch of Chrome with a massive marketing push in 2008, promising speed, ease of use and security.
I find it hard to believe that there are enough people who closely follow the drama around the internal financial management and politics of Mozilla Corporation that they can be measured in the tens of percentage points of total internet market share.
Another example is QUIC. What is the benefit of QUIC? On one hand Google boasts it greatly increases page load speed, which is contextually arguable. On the other hand, Google’s design priorities were to introduce UDP to the browser because UDP supports multicast, which lowers CPU utilization in data centers.
They claimed and showed QUIC slightly-to-moderately reduced latency, particularly for mobile. This benefits Google by loading pages with third-party content, i.e. ads, faster. But QUIC significantly increases CPU utilization on servers, at least the widely used userland stacks do. Unless/until Google deploys QUIC in the kernel (or puts the whole network stack in userland, a la DPDK), this won't change. The multicast…
You can invent your own conclusions all you want. Google’s evidence and motivations are what I stated. Their words, not mine.
The immediate thought is re-prompt spam, for eternity, even with an appropriate signal sent from the user agent. This is the same as cookie banners - keep flushing the cookies after each session if the user agent doesn’t accept and wait until they do.
It’s a techbros wet dream on consent. Just keep asking until they say yes.