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

Google 'discourages' users of old browsers

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 117 posts

Re: Google 'discourages' users of old browsers

#91

Post by classichasclass »

mccr8 wrote: post #89
Torn wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This looks really awesome for people with PowerPC architectures. As part of the porting, though, are there security guarantees? I imagine if they're re-written low-level implementation details they'll be opening themselves up to risk (not to mention the chance for backdoors). I wonder what their process is for fixing new security holes as they are fixed in firefox.

It looks like they are tracking ESR releases, which get security fixes and not much else, so keeping it updated is probably not too difficult, in the scheme of things. I think they don't have a JIT yet, so that also helps. When they do get a JIT, I doubt it will be economically viable for the standard malware writer to target such a tiny segment of the market. In any event, it is much more secure than running Firefox…

TenFourFox dev here [:spectre on Bugzilla]. Yes, we run on 10.4. The best reason to still own a Power Mac today is Classic. It's why I do.

We track ESR and occasionally backport later fixes. It was easier to do it that way than to have widget or gfx break on rapid release -- that way we have the entire ESR cycle to get it right.

10.4Fx does have a JIT. Right now it's a highly modified version of BaselineCompiler (I hacked BaselineIC to have better type and shape guards that take advantage of the greater ILP possible with the PPC integer unit), but I've had trouble getting our JaegerMonkey implementation to come into the Ion age. What we'll probably end up doing is blowing it up and rewriting it based on MIPS, since MIPS does many of the same things we have to and is much more like us than ARM (they do lui/ori to load 32-bit quantities, we do lis/ori; they have a link register too; they have similar branch stanza requirements). We have an unusually large stack as well, mostly for the stack frame requirements of the ABI. I hope to have this ready by 38ESR.

Security is a concern for the browser. I hate relying on security by obscurity, but as you say, we're a tiny segment of a tiny segment (while 10.4Fx will run under Rosetta, and some crazy people do, it's not our core concern). We don't run Flash or Java anymore because of Rosetta Flash and Flashback, or any other plugins, for that matter. Since Firefox implements NSS, that means we're not beholden to deficiencies in the Apple-shipped SSL or NSURL. Heck, since Mozilla implements its own media libraries, we don't have to rely on the system ones either. It's going to be a lot safer than a Webkit shell which has all of those dependencies and more.

PowerPC forever.

Re: Google 'discourages' users of old browsers

#92

Post by Isofarro »

staplesowns wrote: post #44
arjie wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some may see your comment as flippant, but it is very accurate. Didn't MS shut off support for that combination of OS and Browser? If so, their IT department is exposing them to security trouble. If so, their competence is in question.

Companies can pay extra for XP support even after MSFT's EOL.

Or keep using it anyway. Most organisations don't actually receive direct Microsoft support/assistance when they run into problems anyway. So Microsoft ending XP support is practically meaningless.

At worst, it allows independent software vendors a small market for regular repeat business. At best, people just keep using XP the same way they've been doing for years.

Re: Google 'discourages' users of old browsers

#93

Post by acdha »

marrs wrote: post #88
drivingmenuts wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's a problem with your IT department being stuck about a decade behind.

How is that radmuzom's fault? And more to the point, why should the web be inaccessible to someone a decade behind?

It's not the users’ fault but if nothing else his IT department is being recklessly negligent by choosing to block security updates.

Re: Google 'discourages' users of old browsers

#94

Post by lelandbatey »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #86
lelandbatey wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd just like to join you up here on this soapbox and point out three nice benchmarks I've personally used to keep things I make nicely accessible: - It must be simple to use your api via command line Curl - Any site you make must look decent or at least be usable without css or javascript - All sites must be fully navigable and understandable in lynx (the command line browser). Keep with these, and the way is easy.

I support "links" but not lynx. However I disagree. Most consumer pages don't need to look decent without CSS, be usable probably but not look decent. CSS is how you make the pages look decent.

I think that's ultimately what I mean. As an example, compare this screenshot of my site[0] with css and Javascript on to this screenshot[1] with it off. It's still perfectly usable, even if it doesn't look nice. But the same basic structure of the page is evident, and it's not like things are suddenly jammed together or messed up.

[0] - http://nacr.us/media/pics/screenshots/screenshot--07-32-57.p...

[1] - http://nacr.us/media/pics/screenshots/screenshot--07-33-31.p...

Re: Google 'discourages' users of old browsers

#95

Post by marrs »

tracker1 wrote: post #24
userbinator wrote: post #4

Google has started showing old versions of its search page to people using out-of-date versions of some web browsers. On the other hand, many of the people using older versions of browsers would probably be the same ones who don't like the changes Google's made to its pages. As someone who regularly uses various browsers (including text-based), I have a very strong opinion on this: I've noticed the "you must use brow…

I've been doing web application development since the mid-90's... If you think browser discrimination is new, so are you. NN4 and IE4 were so different from each other it wasn't funny. And by the time IE6 was released it was a godsend. Four years later, it was crap... by the time MS finally picked up development there was far better. Just the same, pushing to abandon anything before IE9 is a hard sell... but when you…

But I think there is a difference. IE6 was so far away from the standard that you had real difficulty supporting both, and really couldn't embrace a lot of features other browsers supported well. This was of course by design, intended to keep us from moving away, but it was so rubbish that designers moved anyway.

IE9 in contrast is pretty decent. In fact it's perfectly fine for most sites. For me, it's Chrome that is now aggressively pushing its own agenda. It doesn't really concern itself with standards any more than IE did, but because it's open source, nobody really notices.

Re: Google 'discourages' users of old browsers

#96

Post by acdha »

toxican wrote: post #76
arjie wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some may see your comment as flippant, but it is very accurate. Didn't MS shut off support for that combination of OS and Browser? If so, their IT department is exposing them to security trouble. If so, their competence is in question.

I've never understood the "well we have to keep IE6 because of this one obscure program" as the excuse to why IT departments force their users to use IE6. Keep IE6 for that one obscure, poorly-made program. Give then a copy of Firefox or Chrome to use for everything else. I realize for a lot of users that's more choice than they can handle, but those that know better must be tortured by that awful lack of choice.

It's actually worse than that: Microsoft gives you free integrated desktop virtualization (MED-V) and, in IE 11 they added an Enterprise Mode which works very well with antique sites. Both can be seamlessly integrated using group policy so a user clicks on the blue e, uses the web as normal and when they hit http://creaky-internal-app.example.com the experience seamlessly jumps back a decade.

This isn't being conservative about upgrades. This about an IT department refusing to learn to do anything they weren't doing in 2000.

Re: Google 'discourages' users of old browsers

#97

Post by acdha »

thomasfoster96 wrote: post #72

While I do respect Google wanting to move forward and bring along newer features that need newer technology, is it really too much to ask for simple fallbacks for browsers that are otherwise still supported by their vendors? Safari 5.1 is pretty old, but it's no IE8. It supports enough HTML5 and CSS3 features to make me think that Google's just being a bit cheeky to non-Chrome older browser users in user-agent sniffi…

How many security fixes have you backported to Safari 5.1? A lot of Google's upgrade obsession is driven by the fact that they have a LOT of other people's data which is under constant attack.

Re: Google 'discourages' users of old browsers

#98

Post by untog »

millstone wrote: post #31

Riiiight. "Old browsers." Which "old version" of Chrome do you think is affected? Google has already proven their willingness to degrade their search experience for non-Chrome browsers, by splashing a Chrome banner ad on the Google search home page[1]. This is about capturing more marketshare for Chrome, pure and simple. Eventually "old browsers" will be replaced by "browsers we don't care to support" will be replace…

Which "old version" of Chrome do you think is affected?

Well, since Chrome auto-updates that's kind of a moot point, no? AFAIK there are no Chrome users stuck at an old version because they are running the wrong OS, have old hardware, etc etc.

And I wouldn't say Chromebooks are Google's singular vision for the desktop. It is a platform with a specific, simplified purpose. Look at Android - you can install whatever browser you want on it.

Re: Google 'discourages' users of old browsers

#99

Post by nfoz »

userbinator wrote: post #50
nirvdrum wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then let's just dispense with the silly idea of having open standards. The idea was to allow graceful degradation. But if you're just going to block out people, just dump the baggage of HTML and CSS and truly move everything forward. I'm not really sure how the rest of your points follow, however. Modern browser features have led to higher battery consumption on the whole. The number of sites that can peg a CPU core…

The motivating factor for auto-updating browsers is to deal with security matters, not jamming features consumers aren't really asking for down the pipe. Absolutely. I don't think anyone would disagree to updates for fixing memory leaks, buffer overflows, and similar security-related bugs. But when they come with disruptive changes including removal of valuable features and increased system requirements, it becomes m…

"Moving the web forward" has always been the push of content designers to have more control over what happens on the user's machine; to control the exact display and interaction. Designers always wanted the power of flash -- full audio/video/interaction control.
Post reply on HN