41–50 of 175 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Often the narrative is that big tech is malicious. Chrome now sends all of your URL's you are viewing to Google by default. So does Edge, to Microsoft. Big Tech is Malicious.
Pretty sure Firefox does that by default. It gets highly annoying, sometimes.
Ahem, no.
> It gets highly annoying, sometimes.
The thing you made up gets highly annoying, sometimes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Often the narrative is that big tech is malicious. Chrome now sends all of your URL's you are viewing to Google by default. So does Edge, to Microsoft. Big Tech is Malicious.
Pretty sure Firefox does that by default. It gets highly annoying, sometimes.
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-does-phishing-and-m...
> Phishing and Malware Protection works by checking the sites that you visit against lists of reported phishing, unwanted software and malware sites. These lists are automatically downloaded and updated every 30 minutes or so when the Phishing and Malware Protection features are enabled.
Although it seems they're still doing that for files:
> In addition to the regular list updates mentioned above, when using Malware Protection to protect downloaded files, Firefox may communicate with Mozilla's partners to verify the safety of certain executable files. In these cases, Firefox will submit some information about the file, including the name, origin, size and a cryptographic hash of the contents, to the Google Safe Browsing service which helps Firefox determine whether or not the file should be blocked.
> Apple cares about making a browser that renders web pages just adequately enough to be acceptable I think this is biased. It's closer to "Apple cares about rendering currently existing web pages superbly" while "Google also cares about rendering future web pages". Once upon a time, V8 won benchmarks and ran demos faster but JavaScriptCore rendered the web faster. This was mainly due to JavaScriptCore having an opti…
Safari doesn't properly enable PWA features on purpose. So, 10 years later, that's more correct than ever. Anything that can be used to replace an app would see strategically slow or non existent adoption.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's hard to speak for Apple why Safari is where it is. Pro: battery life Con: lagging behind on some features
Indeed, battery life shows Apple's goal is being superb, not adequate. For features, that's what focusing on currently existing web is about, instead of future possible web.
The reality is, of course, much more complex.
For example, once upon a time Apple wanted web components to be declarative: https://twitter.com/rniwa_dev/status/1352322006448947203 And yet Google was "move fast and break things" and here we are 10 years later with Declarative Shadow DOM struggling to become a thing.
However, this aggressive push did surely help Google to sabotage Mozilla when they kept the abysmally slow polyfill for the deprecated v0 of Custom Components spec on Youtube for ages.
This also applies for the many, many, many features of the "future possible web" that both Apple and Mozilla increasingly object to (anything from hardware APIs to web-component-related bullcrap Chrome churns out every day it seems).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty sure Firefox does that by default. It gets highly annoying, sometimes.
> Pretty sure Firefox does that by default. Ahem, no. > It gets highly annoying, sometimes. The thing you made up gets highly annoying, sometimes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty sure Firefox does that by default. It gets highly annoying, sometimes.
It used to do that, but doesn't anymore. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-does-phishing-and-m... > Phishing and Malware Protection works by checking the sites that you visit against lists of reported phishing, unwanted software and malware sites. These lists are automatically downloaded and updated every 30 minutes or so when the Phishing and Malware Protection features are enabled. Although it seems they're…
I remember how exciting it was to be in my college dorm and having people be like "Man, this new browser is amazing!" It's kind of surreal because I'm not sure desktop software really does that anymore; maybe apps, but they seem to fizzle out really weirdly. It's very crazy to consider Chrome's influence on the Internet, and how most browsers are just skinned Chromium now.
> History will surely uncover a Machiavellian plot about usurping control over the web, but at the time the story was pretty simple, at least as it was explained to naive pawns like me. Google wanted the web to succeed and even had a team of people contributing to Firefox. Google wanted more influence over the product, Mozilla was (reasonably) uncomfortable with that, so we went our own way. This resonates with me. O…
* You (some caveats).
* Maybe your family (lots of caveats).
As Stallman has been pointing out since the early 1990s, if you give up your freedom you won't be free any more, and other people can do stuff you don't like to you. People still refuse to use that logic despite its excellent predictive track record.
Google hasn't actually asked anyone to give up any freedom, so little meaningful damage is being done despite the fact that Google is going evil. The Microsoft era was much worse for the internet.