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

We Need Chrome No More

redalemeden.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 536 posts

Re: We Need Chrome No More

#211

Post by kaiby »

VBprogrammer wrote: post #188
perlgeek wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Chrome's appeal was primarily technical. Each tab got its own process and could crash without taking down the entire browser. Curious, I remember speed being the primary reason. Google invented V8 (the javascript engine), with some pretty decent optimizations and a well-working JIT on i386/amd64 platforms. At the time when chromium came out, it handled some JS-heavy applications very nicely that Firefox struggled w…

I'm surprised there aren't more people on here who moved to chome for the dev tools. That is what moved me over there. Firebug was great in it's day but at some point Chrome's dev tools just became too much better to make staying on Firefox possible.

Firebug was awesome, then 2011 happened and Firebug’s lead dev joined the Google Chrome team to work on their dev tools [1].

[1] https://news.softpedia.com/news/Lead-Firebug-Developer-Joins...

Re: We Need Chrome No More

#212

Post by arendtio »

thanatropism wrote: post #142
arendtio wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. While the Firefox dev-tools improved a lot over in recent years, they are still not up to where the chrome dev-tools are. Currently, I try to use the Firefox dev-tools as much as possible but keep chrome prepared for some special cases. From a consumer perspective, the story is very different: Any browser will probably do, but choosing Firefox has the best long term effect on the development of the internet.

You just said Chrome was the superior browser for developers. > the best long term effect What do you mean by this?

Well, for example, there is no major OS that brings Firefox bundled with it. So they have to keep creating something good or people will stop using it. Therefore, getting into a monopoly position is kinda hard for the Mozilla guys. Browser monopolies are bad because the ruling browser's implementation will always compete with the web standards.

Re: We Need Chrome No More

#214

Post by delroth »

djsumdog wrote: post #193

> Both Chrome and Chromium run Blink under the hood, the rendering engine that started as a WebKit fork in 2013 when Google grew dissatisfied with the Apple-led project Wait, is this accurate? I remember back when Chrome was released, people were talking about how it used parts of both WebKit and Gecko, and the exact specs of which rendering was used changed based on the website. I remember not liking Chrome the mome…

> Wait, is this accurate? I remember back when Chrome was released, people were talking about how it used parts of both WebKit and Gecko, and the exact specs of which rendering was used changed based on the website.

You are misremembering. Chrome never used Gecko.

> I remember not liking Chrome the moment it came out. Google had poured money into Firefox for years and then suddenly came out with (an initially) closed source competitor. Sure it's open source now, but it didn't start that way

This is completely false. Chromium and its associated source code were released to the public at the same time as Chrome. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_(web_browser)#2008

Re: We Need Chrome No More

#215

Post by rifung »

perlgeek wrote: post #25
mapgrep wrote: post #7

I enjoyed this post, but I take issue with the idea that Chrome was initially adopted, or served, "to break the Web free from corporate greed." Chrome's appeal was primarily technical. Each tab got its own process and could crash without taking down the entire browser. No one else had this at the time, and it was a big deal because Flash was still widespread so sites were even less stable than they are today. Luckily…

> Chrome's appeal was primarily technical. Each tab got its own process and could crash without taking down the entire browser. Curious, I remember speed being the primary reason. Google invented V8 (the javascript engine), with some pretty decent optimizations and a well-working JIT on i386/amd64 platforms. At the time when chromium came out, it handled some JS-heavy applications very nicely that Firefox struggled w…

> Curious, I remember speed being the primary reason.

This was how I remember it as well. Not only that but the timing was very fortunate for Chrome because at the time Firefox had some very bad memory leaks which in my opinion really helped with Chrome adoption since people who use Firefox were more likely to be willing to switch browsers having already switched from another browser.

Re: We Need Chrome No More

#216

Post by lucideer »

If the desired effect is to make people consider not using Chrome, painting Chrome's origins in such rose-tinted light is unlikely to achieve that.

Google engaged in exclusionary "embrace-extend-extinguish"-esque tactics from a very early stage in Chrome's life, and on web properties that predated Chrome's public launch in their development. Painting Chrome as "break[ing] the Web free from corporate greed" is a pretty disparaging insult to those who genuinely have worked for years to try and do that.

Re: We Need Chrome No More

#217

Post by CharlesColeman »

fastball wrote: post #72
Blaiz0r wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry to break this to you, but as a web developer you should only care about standards, otherwise you have no standards. The standards are a single source of truth for your production, if you build solely to a single browsers quirks (in this case Chrome) then those quirks can change at any time.

And if you build to the standards, it's possible that no actual browser implements them correctly. And then what?

> And if you build to the standards, it's possible that no actual browser implements them correctly.

> And then what?

Build to standards first, then accommodate quirks last.

Building to Chrome first is just building to its quirks, and totally forgetting about standards.

Re: We Need Chrome No More

#218

Post by pyrale »

leftyted wrote: post #35
ethelward wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Chrome's appeal was primarily technical Among the tech crowd, probably. For the remaining 99.99% of users, absolutely not. Chrome's appeal came from the pervasive advertisement campaigns, from the bundling strategy with other pieces of software, for the pre-installation on new computers or from the ads on Google SEarch homepage.

Chrome's main appeal was that it was much faster than firefox and IE. At everything. I had no technical knowledge when chrome came out, was using firefox, tried chrome, never looked back. It's not really possible to separate out the effects of advertising from the effects of the product actually being better. Maybe I installed chrome because I saw an ad, but I stopped using firefox because it was clear that chrome wa…

Compare firefox or Opera market progression back in IE heydays to chrome progression when it came out.

Marketing and the antitrust against MS are the difference.

Re: We Need Chrome No More

#219

Post by appsonify »

Chrome is poised to comletely monopolize the browser share market.

You can't fault them either for doing this, this is just what pubic companies do, maximize returns for shareholders and monopolies are the hen that lays golden eggs.

This article will not be seen beyond HN. The fact is the vast majority of Chrome users don't care that other browser exists, and don't want it as long as it is convenient for them (to keep using a familiar platform thats worked well).

Anyways, this is just my two cents. I just don't see myself using Firefox anymore, it's no longer deserving of my attention because I am not concerned about Google's goals, we get a lot of shit for free from Google, and we gave up our privacy. Whether this is beneficial or not is up for debate.

Re: We Need Chrome No More

#220

Post by steve76 »

andrewla wrote: post #43

Here's hoping. The proliferation of browser standards has made this appear a more daunting task as time has gone by. There was a point where if you built a good DOM, javascript engine, and a layout engine and had a reasonable ability to fetch resources, you could bootstrap a browser. That's how Konquerer got there. But now, I think we're past that point -- if your browser can't do native video conferencing and opengl…

This is what I would do:

- Remove adsense bans

- Make public all traffic data

- Setup alerts if someone is doxed from it

- Use browserless, and make many different browsers for each application

Post reply on HN