241–250 of 272 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is distribution the only problem? If Mozilla or Google were to make their code freely available on some git forge like GitHub and I cloned the repo and built it myself, would I be able to run it for seven days or something in the US?
> If Mozilla or Google were to make their code freely available on some git forge like GitHub https://github.com/mozilla-firefox/firefox https://github.com/chromium/chromium
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It really goes to show what a dedicated team can accomplish. Before Ladybird it was taken for granted that building an entirely new browser engine would take decades and people would laugh at you for even bringing it up.
Before Ladybird every time someone brought up about making a new web engine, pretty much every top voted comment here on HN was about how that was impossible to do, often bringing up how even a giant like Microsoft had to abandon their engine. At least now the cynical pessimistic takes changed from "impossible, not even MS with their giant teams can do it" to "it may take decades for this small team to do it".
They changed course.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those are some exaggerated beyond belief numbers you just made up. Some of us also work in web development and know better.
It's not even exaggerated, the ticket count about safari on my board is almost higher than sum of every other browser in total. I 100% just want this browser die if apple ever allow other browser on ios.
Your desire for Safari to vanish is also historically short sighted. Ladybird has near-zero usage, Firefox is practically dead and is fully bought and paid for by Google, everything else is just a Chrome or Chromium fork. Safari is realistically the only thing holding back an outright Chrome monopoly with meaningful usage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not against the rules, but it is hostile to the web. Forking the web because a company is big enough to do so may sound just dandy to you, but to the rest of us who have spent decades working on interoperability it's a big middle finger.
Allowing Apple to have a veto on which features are allowed to be added to a browser is even more hostile to the web.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because there are some quality control failures (even if there are many) doesn't mean there should be no quality control at all.
If even well-known offenders remain there, it just means, there's no guarantee of quality at all.
Some measures are better than no measures. The world isn't black and white.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If even well-known offenders remain there, it just means, there's no guarantee of quality at all.
Again, just because there's no guarantee of quality doesn't mean there still can't be improvement in quality. Some measures are better than no measures. The world isn't black and white.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not even exaggerated, the ticket count about safari on my board is almost higher than sum of every other browser in total. I 100% just want this browser die if apple ever allow other browser on ios.
I mean that could be "two Safari tickets" for all we know, and you could be ignorantly chasing Chrome's ChromeOS un-standards or bleeding edge RFCs thinking a reference implementation or a mere memo should work everywhere. Personally, I almost never see Safari-specific bugs be reported and can't find one in my company's JIRA system in the last year. Are you sure you're not self-inflicting this pain? Your desire for S…
Besides these, the service worker debugger never work on my iphone device since like two major version ago.(It did not show up in the safari menu) There is no way to use it as a developer even I want to (let alone the devtool crashes and disconnects frequently)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is they are not even compliment to their "own" spec. They are part of whatwg. But if you ever write web page. You will know it's always the safari that differs from the spec. Firefox in the other end never have such issue. Write a page on chrome, works 90% on Firefox. But will likely works 10% on safari. Supports safari literally means support another browser (by workaround all its bugs).
> The point is they are not even compliment to their "own" spec. They are part of whatwg. I think web devs have too much faith in the "standard"; the WHATWG specifies anything supported by two implementations, and with Google controlling Mozilla that already feels somewhat unfair... > Write a page on chrome, works 90% on Firefox. But will likely works 10% on safari. Disregarding the issue that you're writing pages th…
I wish them well, but browsers are very much pay-to-play. Google had to pay their way to their current dominant position.
Depends on what you mean by "pay-to-play". Google's business model was to take FLOSS software, ostensibly make it work without them being involved, but make it obvious that if you wanted things to be as simple as possible, you needed to use their version of it. Can you use Chromium as your daily driver? Sure, but it's not as simple as just using Chrome. Android is even more like this. And of course, the simplest way…
They also had a good browser (before it became spyware), but there is no conceivable way to get a billion people to care about javascript performance and memory usage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chrome on Android doesn't support extensions, but Blink does. One of the benefits to allowing modified browser engines.
Google has already shown that they will slowly and methodically use every lever at their disposal to nerf ad blocking, regardless of what the user base thinks. It's the exact same playbook Microsoft is using to block users from logging onto their own computer without using an online Microsoft account. Given that Google has already started working to limit sideloading on Android, those days seem limited.
Your entire argument relies on a hypothetical you can't prove and doesn't scare anyone. To Android users you sound more like Chicken Little than the Boy who Cried Wolf.