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

A Conspiracy to Kill IE6

blog.chriszacharias.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 386 posts

Re: A Conspiracy to Kill IE6

#121

Post by cat199 »

umvi wrote: post #25
acheron wrote: post #16

I like the lawyers being concerned about the possibility they were pushing Chrome. Obviously Google soon decided that wasn’t a problem. (And now we’re back where we started with Chrome as the new IE.)

> (And now we’re back where we started with Chrome as the new IE.) Except for the part where you get BSoD and infinite recursion or any of the other stated IE6 nightmares... Really, the only thing Chrome and IE have in common are market share. Chrome is magnitudes better than IE in every other way as far as being a web dev goes.

>Chrome is magnitudes better than IE in every other way

Soo like - you mean: built in proprietary app stores, random DRM-enforcing blobs with camera/microphone access, phone-home tracking behavior, and gobs of memory use?

side note: Firefox not IE user.

Re: A Conspiracy to Kill IE6

#123

Post by vetinari »

reaperducer wrote: post #94
vetinari wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it ironic that Mozilla complains about this, when they do exactly the same wrt platforms supported by Firefox.

I don't follow Firefox news. Can you supply some examples?

What they are complaining about - that they are treated as second-class citizen - is exacly, how they treat Linux, for example.

No OMTP, OMTC, no hw video acceleration, no smooth scrolling, buggy dark theme, etc, so Firefox on Linux is not as polished and/or performing as on other platforms. The excuse for that was, that Linux has small market share, so it is not worth for putting more resources into solving these problems (some of them have bug reports open for over a decade!).

Well, Firefox itself has also small market share, it is in single digits now. The irony is in the part, that they actively used this as rationalization for what they do, but do not like it, when others use exactly that reason on them.

I'm not talking about validity of the rationale itself; just about the irony of finding them on the bottom of the hole they helped to dig out.

Re: A Conspiracy to Kill IE6

#124

Post by chocolatebunny »

behringer wrote: post #37
dfabulich wrote: post #24

This is the first example I've ever heard of where a browser-upgrade banner worked . Every time I've tried it on sites I've worked on, the "please upgrade" banner does nothing. Years ago, we even tried turning it into an intrusive pop-up for a percentage of users. They just clicked through the pop-up, presumably without reading it. I wonder if it worked in this case because it started a movement? > Between YouTube, G…

There's no way this banner did anything in reality. Corporations didn't upgrade because of their tooling, not youtube. What corporation upgraded to make sure their employees could youtube harder?

From my personal experience corporations didn't officially ditch IE6 until they officially ditched Windows XP. Microsoft dropping support for Windows XP encouraged corporations with expensive support contracts to upgrade their fleet. This resulted in new hardware, new os, and new default browser.

Re: A Conspiracy to Kill IE6

#125

Post by sverige »

reaperducer wrote: post #89
mherdeg wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a good catchy name for this "oops" stuff? It's very interesting, an interesting modern take on "embrace and extend" or "FUD".

I'm not sure what the term for the tech world is, but something similar seems to exist in many areas of many fields. It's one of the reasons I stopped accepting lawyers and law firms as clients. Every other client would pay on time. Those in the law field would consistently slow-pay, I believe because they knew they wouldn't get sued over it. "That overdue invoice? Oh, we never received it. Send it again." "Oh, Jenna…

As a class, lawyers and doctors are some of the cheapest people you'll ever meet. They don't want to pay full price for anything. I have tons of stories about this; one of the most egregious was a lawyer who made over a million a year and sued his mechanic to avoid paying an $800 repair job to his daughter's old VW Bug.

Re: A Conspiracy to Kill IE6

#127

Post by sergiotapia »

mherdeg wrote: post #56
cpeterso wrote: post #10

Is this a charming story about helping users upgrade to modern web browsers or a dark parable about the influence of tech giants? Compare with ex-Firefox VP Johnathan Nightingale's recent thread about Google "amateur hour" and "oopses" that only affected Firefox: https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871231792455686

Is there a good catchy name for this "oops" stuff? It's very interesting, an interesting modern take on "embrace and extend" or "FUD".

I call it Last Jedi'ing. GOTCHA https://youtu.be/5ECwhB21Pnk?t=323

Re: A Conspiracy to Kill IE6

#128

Post by jrochkind1 »

derefr wrote: post #109
saagarjha wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what it looks like, this is quite literally the ability to get code into the main codebase with no oversight. Even without malicious intentions, it seems very easy to do something awful by accident.

The main codebase... of a video sharing site. With no SLAs, and (at the time) no partner video-hosting agreements. The most awful thing that could happen to 2006-era YouTube: they could stop delivering ad impressions for an hour or two. Oh wait, no; 2006-era YouTube didn't even have ads yet .

I suppose more awful thing could be an accidental XSS or other vulnerability.

Re: A Conspiracy to Kill IE6

#129

Post by homero »

dfabulich wrote: post #24

This is the first example I've ever heard of where a browser-upgrade banner worked . Every time I've tried it on sites I've worked on, the "please upgrade" banner does nothing. Years ago, we even tried turning it into an intrusive pop-up for a percentage of users. They just clicked through the pop-up, presumably without reading it. I wonder if it worked in this case because it started a movement? > Between YouTube, G…

IE6 was insanely bad. Later browsers worked somewhat.

Re: A Conspiracy to Kill IE6

#130

Post by Causality1 »

Man, that screenshot made me miss the times when the number next to a browser's name actually had some kind of meaning and jumping two integer version numbers actually meant significant differences.
Post reply on HN