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

Chrome is Not the Standard

chriskrycho.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 465 posts

Re: Chrome is Not the Standard

#321

Post by Vinnl »

toxican wrote: post #283
ABCLAW wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I the only one looking at this and thinking that the so-called controversies are absurdly tame in comparison with the outcry associated with them? They're missteps, not trust breakers. Quantum was a massive step in the right direction. The Mr. Robot Easter Egg was non-malicious poor execution. I don't think it's a free pass to just contextualize how small their missteps have been in the grand scheme of things.

Despite the non-maliciousness of the easter egg, I do think the act of just installing an extension into a browser could be viewed as a trust-breaker. I think the other "controversies" are overblown, but them remotely installing an extension like that doesn't sit right with me.

But that's only because it's called an extension. Nobody is up in arms about Mozilla "just installing" about:mozilla.

Re: Chrome is Not the Standard

#322

Post by Vinnl »

freshhawk wrote: post #302
ABCLAW wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I the only one looking at this and thinking that the so-called controversies are absurdly tame in comparison with the outcry associated with them? They're missteps, not trust breakers. Quantum was a massive step in the right direction. The Mr. Robot Easter Egg was non-malicious poor execution. I don't think it's a free pass to just contextualize how small their missteps have been in the grand scheme of things.

I think you are wrong about them not being "trust breakers" and right about them being fairly tame. The reason the response seems outsized is because of the breach of trust involved, much more so than the technical impacts. Quantum is great, and I just like a lot of the UX decisions Firefox makes. But a major reason for my support of Mozilla is their stated mission. And regularly making bumbling moves that overtly co…

Of the named examples, you can only somewhat reasonably make the argument that it goes against the mission for Cliqz. The rest did not negatively impact making the internet a global public resource, accessible to all.

Re: Chrome is Not the Standard

#323

Post by def_true_false »

TAForObvReasons wrote: post #52
yoavm wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really understand this attitude. Mozilla doesn't need to be everything I ever wanted from a browser in order to get my support. It only needs to be better than Google. Are all these people sticking with Chrome because Mozilla is not holding up to its values really think Google is better at taking care of our freedom?!

Chrome doesn't magically revert privacy or search engine settings in updates, but Firefox apparently does. To quote from https://drewdevault.com/2017/12/16/Firefox-is-on-a-slippery-... : > Not only are these experiments enabled by default, but updates have been known to re-enable it if you turn it off. Chrome has some troubling defaults but Google never decided to flip the default search engine or turn on any phone-h…

If you delete Chrome's shitty preset search engines, it adds them back with every update.

Re: Chrome is Not the Standard

#324

Post by [deleted] »

userbinator wrote: post #30

developers grouse about the other browser makers who are “holding the web back.” Indeed, perhaps "holding the web back" is a good thing if it means websites will be more accessible overall, to even less common browsers like NetSurf, Dillo, and all the other text-based ones. IMHO the "feature war/race" between the major browser vendors has had an overall negative effect, as if all sites somehow need to turn into ridic…

[deleted]

Re: Chrome is Not the Standard

#325

Post by voidlogic »

userbinator wrote: post #30

developers grouse about the other browser makers who are “holding the web back.” Indeed, perhaps "holding the web back" is a good thing if it means websites will be more accessible overall, to even less common browsers like NetSurf, Dillo, and all the other text-based ones. IMHO the "feature war/race" between the major browser vendors has had an overall negative effect, as if all sites somehow need to turn into ridic…

>developers grouse about the other browser makers who are “holding the web back.”

Oh get off my lawn! Anyone to complains about Chrome vs. FF Quantum vs MS Edge doesn't know or remember the dark of days of IE 5 and IE 6. The lowest common denominator these days is exponentially better than it has ever been.

Slight tangent, but I was happy to see the other day the Google hangouts works on Firefox again (I don't know if that is coincidence or related to the Quantum release or if Google finally decided to support WebRTC).

Re: Chrome is Not the Standard

#326

Post by squeaky-clean »

soperj wrote: post #17
squeaky-clean wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same experience here. Safari is my daily driver for casual browsing because it feels smoothest and integrates well with the OS, iPhone, etc. The only times I can remember it being a problem are when I see a bleeding edge tech demo posted somewhere like HN.

flexbox isn't a bleeding edge technology, and it's supposed to work properly on safari, but it really doesn't. Annoying as hell, and garbage on their organization to be honest.

I just Googled a few flexbox demos and had no issues viewing them or playing with them on Safari. Care to share an example that fails on Safari?

Also seems it's been supported for a while?

https://caniuse.com/#feat=flexbox

Re: Chrome is Not the Standard

#327

Post by booleandilemma »

throwaway284534 wrote: post #238
NightlyDev wrote: post #169

"Safari ships new features on a much slower cadence, but they’re usually solid and always perform incredibly well" Well, clearly this person doesn't have much experience with web development... The webengine in iOS is the biggest pile of crap I've ever worked with since IE6. "Oh? You want to click this? OK, let's wait for 300 ms just in case you want to double tap to scroll!" "We finally fixed it, no more delay on cl…

Here here. The author clearly hasn't worked with Apple's implementation of Audio Context either. Granted the bar is pretty low compared to Chrome, but wow! What a mess. Safari consistently has latency and bit rate issues when playing even the smallest files.

Actually it’s “hear hear”. This comment has been up for 3 hours already, I’m surprised I’m the first word nazi to correct it :)

Re: Chrome is Not the Standard

#328

Post by Someone »

connorelsea wrote: post #257
jen20 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? iOS has by most measures less than 50% of the market.

Even with a low market share Apple could still theoretically be engaging in practices that are anti-consumer, such as disallowing the use of other browser engines. Though, afaik, Apple does not stoop to the levels of Amazon, who removed the Twitch app from Roku platform for absolutely no reason other than to line their pockets with more cash.

Anti-trust is there for cases where society thinks

1) the free market doesn’t work because it is too hard for competition to enter an existing market or for existing competition to dethrone a market leader.

_and_

2) the big player(s) take (too much) advantage of their position by engaging in ‘anti-consumer’ practices.

Given the existence of Android, Apple isn’t in position 1. So, do you think (2) alone is sufficient for taking legal action? The common thinking is that the market will take care of it by by bankrupting the company doing it.

Re: Chrome is Not the Standard

#329

Post by jononor »

0x0 wrote: post #309
riquito wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple has legitimate technical reasons for not allowing other browser engines (well specifically the JS part). Intent matters. Oh please... source?

Efficient javascript needs to be JIT'ed, but that means your app needs to be granted API access to map writeable memory as executable, which is a security risk they are not willing to grant third party developers. So a third party browser/js engine will likely be quite slow. I guess this would give users of a bad impression of iOS perfomance as a whole then, if other browser engines were allowed and became popular?

If other browser engines became very popular it says something about how bad/limited the default offering is. It usually takes a lot of work before people switch away from defaults. People continued to use IE for years for example
Post reply on HN