Live data from Hacker News

A Conspiracy to Kill IE6

blog.chriszacharias.com

331–340 of 386 posts

Re: A Conspiracy to Kill IE6

#331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But firefox and linux aren't competing for anything?

Neither are gdocs and firefox.

It's not that complicated to understand: While Google and Mozilla are competitors, Mozilla and Linux are not. Linux just gets less priority because it's quite frankly irrelevant as a Desktop OS.

Re: A Conspiracy to Kill IE6

#332
post #328

Oh my, this is amazing. I'm not sure the engineers realized despite their secrecy, it would be noticed by the press immediately after deploy. But the best part is how Google engineers immediately on seeing it figured "oh yeah, we should do that too" (although they apparently got the necessary approvals however that was done at Google, it was easier to do because they figured "well, youtube must have done due dillegen…

They got visits from PR and Legal but there's no mention of a Project Manager - the sort of person I could imagine being the most pissed. Do PMs at YT not rule over their engineers with an iron fist?

Perhaps there was no PM because there was no official Project?

Re: A Conspiracy to Kill IE6

#333
post #220
post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How would this explode in your face, exactly? What was the risk here? for one thing that actually happened because they did (and got away) with this: youtube engineers feel like they can leverage their site to dictate what they want in the browser space, by deliberately making it 5x slower on firefox and edge[0]. As a rule of thumb, if something looks fishy and shady, but just because it doesn't directly explodes i…

> for one thing that actually happened because they did (and got away) with this: youtube engineers feel like they can leverage their site to dictate what they want in the browser space, by deliberately making it 5x slower on firefox and edge[0]. There's no evidence that that was deliberate. These two things are also pretty completely unrelated.

They deliberately chose to run pre-release performance testing on chrome but not other browsers.

Re: A Conspiracy to Kill IE6

#334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither are gdocs and firefox.

It's not that complicated to understand: While Google and Mozilla are competitors, Mozilla and Linux are not. Linux just gets less priority because it's quite frankly irrelevant as a Desktop OS.

> It's not that complicated to understand: While Google and Mozilla are competitors,

Web apps and Chrome at Google are being made by entirely different team. Unless there is a mandate from the top to the web teams, it is irrelevant. They could be as well a different companies.

> Linux just gets less priority because it's quite frankly irrelevant as a Desktop OS.

That's exactly the point I was making: Firefox is also getting less and less priority, because it loses it's relevancy as a browser.

Except now Mozilla doesn't like exactly this same argument.

Re: A Conspiracy to Kill IE6

#335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just implied it is different because the industry was so young, it is solidified now, thus resembling other industries. (i.e. in the corporate world the hierarchies in big tech now resemble the hierarchies in big [insert any other industry])

In my experience, I think it is a question of developper count and company culture. Larger corporations have processes & checks that smaller businesses do not always have.

In my view, it is the inability to hire great people that causes implementation of strict rules. It is also when processes are broken down down into imitatable parts instead of specialty skills.

Re: A Conspiracy to Kill IE6

#336
post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Win7 is end of life in 2020 in case you were not aware of that.

So? It works. I'm not upgrading my Win7 box. It's a much more user-centric OS than Win10.

I held off forever too. However, with classicshell and a bunch of OS tweaks, it's pretty much like win7. the only downside is the telemetry reporting..

Re: A Conspiracy to Kill IE6

#337
post #327
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who would expect the browser user-agent to actually call itself "EDG" and not "EDGE" though? If you edit the user-agent to include "EDGE" in place of "EDG" everything works, someone thought "EDG" was surely a typo. Malice and stupidity and all that. Now why they're still sniffing user agents instead of doing feature detection is a good question for Google, who themselves, to the best of my knowledge, push for feature…

In some cases feature detection is not enough because while the browser may define the method you need it’s implementation is broken. A good example of this was indexeddb was horribly broken in safari and even doing feature detection was tricky so you had to check the user agent to see that it probably had a bad indexeddb and work around it. It’s never ideal and there is always possibly and more clever work around bu…

Goddamn the web is such a mess.

Re: A Conspiracy to Kill IE6

#338
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.)

I'd say Safari, particularly the versions of it in iOS with the different WebViews, is the new IE.

Re: A Conspiracy to Kill IE6

#339

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…

> They just clicked through the pop-up, presumably without reading it.

That's what you train users to do when you show them intrusive popups that aren't actually important.

Post reply on HN