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

Introducing TogetherJS

hacks.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 87 posts

Re: Introducing TogetherJS

#61

Post by sgift »

ux-app wrote: post #41
mcphilip wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's comments such as this that bubble up to the top of the comment chain that often makes me wonder if only a minority of HN users have deployed to enterprise environments with rigid infrastructure policies. In my more cynical moods I wonder what percentage of users have non-novelty code in production at all.

> "makes me wonder if only a minority of HN users have deployed to enterprise environments with rigid infrastructure policies" I haven't, so I'd appreciate some perspective on this. If an org does not allow other browsers besides IE, what are the chances of, for example, having a QT exe that simply wraps a webkit webview installed? I assume all orgs would have some procedure for requesting and then deploying third pa…

There is usually a process to introduce new software into the environment. This process can, depending on the rigidity of the environment, take from a few month to years and involves all kinds of hand-offs by various departments. A top of the head list of things that are considered:

  - Security
  - Retraining
  - Support
  - Deployment (can we roll this out centrally?)
  - (various things I've forgotten at the moment)
This assumes you have the political clout to initiate such a change. Quite often it is part of the requirements which are defined before there is a project ("We have foo, your software has to run on it") and you cannot influence that.

And if one or more of the mentioned parties is actively hostile to you (sometimes only one person who doesn't like you for whatever reason is enough) this can take much, much longer. Or doesn't happen at all.

Re: Introducing TogetherJS

#62

Post by neeee »

alecsmart1 wrote: post #50
ldn_tech_exec1 wrote: post #8

There is a 363 point discussion on this 26 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6415210

Shouldn't HN automatically remove duplicate links? I was surprised to see this on front page again.

This one is https://hacks.mozilla.org/2013/10/introducing-togetherjs, the other is https://togetherjs.com/.

Re: Introducing TogetherJS

#63

Post by Cthulhu_ »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #9
mikegioia wrote: post #3

This looks great but it seems they have no plans to support Internet Explorer ( https://togetherjs.com/docs/#browser-support ). That's a shame because most of our users who need this level of support all use IE :/

Who cares. It's IE which needs to catch up to the standards Mozilla and Google are implementing. It's not like Windows users will be left out in the dark, they can always install Firefox. Tell your users to use a real browser, or write a letter to Microsoft telling them to get with the times... Even the University I attend doesn't support IE with their web-apps. They support Firefox...

> Who cares. It's IE which needs to catch up to the standards Mozilla and Google are implementing.

That's interesting. A time ago, people were moaning at IE for coming up with their own standards / CSS things / Javscript features; now you're saying that they should do the same with things Firefox and Chrome introduced?

I'm being petulant on purpose, don't mind me ;). The HTML5 standards are of yet not standardized yet, so tbh I don't know if they actually should.

Re: Introducing TogetherJS

#64

Post by beagle3 »

laureny wrote: post #43
Mikeb85 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Extreme position? Given that so much software requires installing the JVM, or CLR/Mono run-time, or widget toolkit, or even is specific to an operating system, is it really that much to ask that users install a certain browser which literally runs on any OS, is free and open-source, and can be installed in seconds/minutes? Why do we rail against people for using the wrong OS, make people dual-boot and run virtual mac…

> is it really that much to ask that users install a certain browser which literally runs on any OS, is free and open-source, and can be installed in seconds/minutes? Yes, it can be. Can you think of certain situations where doing this is extremely costly (in money, time or both) or do I need to give you a few examples? In my experience, people displaying this kind of naïveté have never been in a situation of large l…

> Can you think of certain situations where doing this is extremely costly (in money, time or both) or do I need to give you a few examples?

Yes, I can.

But I can also think, actually, remember, the cost of supporting Microsoft's non-standard Web implementations. For some reason, many people on this thread assume it's legitimate to ask Mozilla to spend time supporting Microsoft products, but it is not legitimate to ask users who want this functionality to support Mozilla's product (by installing it).

Ladies and gentlemen: Actions and decisions have consequences. Choose Windows Phone, and lose a native YouTube app. Choose Internet Explorer and have no access to latest-and-greatest web stuff.

It's as simple as that. There is no reason for anyone to feel entitled to more work spent to support their favorite browser -- even if it was the most popular, which it hasn't been for quite a while now.

Re: Introducing TogetherJS

#65

Post by beagle3 »

mikegioia wrote: post #3

This looks great but it seems they have no plans to support Internet Explorer ( https://togetherjs.com/docs/#browser-support ). That's a shame because most of our users who need this level of support all use IE :/

Well, maybe you should contact Microsoft and ask them to provide a port or provide similar functionality. Your users have, after all, paid Microsoft for the privilege of using IE.

Re: Introducing TogetherJS

#66

Post by keshavagrawal »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #9
mikegioia wrote: post #3

This looks great but it seems they have no plans to support Internet Explorer ( https://togetherjs.com/docs/#browser-support ). That's a shame because most of our users who need this level of support all use IE :/

Who cares. It's IE which needs to catch up to the standards Mozilla and Google are implementing. It's not like Windows users will be left out in the dark, they can always install Firefox. Tell your users to use a real browser, or write a letter to Microsoft telling them to get with the times... Even the University I attend doesn't support IE with their web-apps. They support Firefox...

Yes its IE who needs to implement new techs/standards.

"Tell your users to use a real browser" - Even I don't love IE and don't remember the last time when I used IE but calling it not a "real" browser would be too much I guess :) I think with IE 10 and IE 11 they are making progress. I am sure they will launch WebRTC support as well.

Re: Introducing TogetherJS

#69

Post by nichol4s »

I'm very excited to see so much enthusiasm for TogetherJS.

We are currently building something similar and plan to release that next week. It has lots of similarities but we target a somewhat different market. Some of the differences, you do not need to write a single line of code and it will even work with advanced application that require sign in without sharing security tokens.

We plan to release Surfly next week, but people who are interested in trying it out can msg me and can get a beta account.

Re: Introducing TogetherJS

#70

Post by dirkk0 »

nichol4s wrote: post #69

I'm very excited to see so much enthusiasm for TogetherJS. We are currently building something similar and plan to release that next week. It has lots of similarities but we target a somewhat different market. Some of the differences, you do not need to write a single line of code and it will even work with advanced application that require sign in without sharing security tokens. We plan to release Surfly next week,…

Will this be open source, too?
Post reply on HN