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

Introducing TogetherJS

hacks.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 87 posts

Re: Introducing TogetherJS

#41

Post by ux-app »

mcphilip wrote: post #37
Mikeb85 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares. It's IE which needs to catch up to the standards Mozilla and Google are implementing. It's not like Windows users will be left out in the dark, they can always install Firefox. Tell your users to use a real browser, or write a letter to Microsoft telling them to get with the times... Even the University I attend doesn't support IE with their web-apps. They support Firefox...

It's comments such as this that bubble up to the top of the comment chain that often makes me wonder if only a minority of HN users have deployed to enterprise environments with rigid infrastructure policies. In my more cynical moods I wonder what percentage of users have non-novelty code in production at all.

> "makes me wonder if only a minority of HN users have deployed to enterprise environments with rigid infrastructure policies"

I haven't, so I'd appreciate some perspective on this.

If an org does not allow other browsers besides IE, what are the chances of, for example, having a QT exe that simply wraps a webkit webview installed? I assume all orgs would have some procedure for requesting and then deploying third party software. Is this route an easier sell than simply saying "Please use Chrome or Firefox"?

Thanks

Re: Introducing TogetherJS

#42

Post by ericd »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #30
mixmax wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would depend on how much money they will pay me.

Exactly. Note that Mozilla isn't being paid for this tool. It's open source though. So those who require IE support are welcome to pay someone to or add it themselves. Everyone is happy, except those who want goodies for free. ;)

Except that it might be in Mozilla's best interest to make it compatible with all the major browsers if they want this to see any sort of real adoption.

Re: Introducing TogetherJS

#43

Post by laureny »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #36
r00fus wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny how the progress of time moves seemingly extreme positions into mainstream acceptance. If you told me 13 years ago that the US would elect a black president twice, I'd have laughed at you.

Extreme position? Given that so much software requires installing the JVM, or CLR/Mono run-time, or widget toolkit, or even is specific to an operating system, is it really that much to ask that users install a certain browser which literally runs on any OS, is free and open-source, and can be installed in seconds/minutes? Why do we rail against people for using the wrong OS, make people dual-boot and run virtual mac…

> is it really that much to ask that users install a certain browser which literally runs on any OS, is free and open-source, and can be installed in seconds/minutes?

Yes, it can be.

Can you think of certain situations where doing this is extremely costly (in money, time or both) or do I need to give you a few examples?

In my experience, people displaying this kind of naïveté have never been in a situation of large leadership (where you are in charge of a large organization or when your decisions can impact hundreds of employees across a company).

Re: Introducing TogetherJS

#44

Post by jongalloway2 »

mikegioia wrote: post #3

This looks great but it seems they have no plans to support Internet Explorer ( https://togetherjs.com/docs/#browser-support ). That's a shame because most of our users who need this level of support all use IE :/

Yay user agent sniffing: https://twitter.com/jdalton/status/390538182116143105

"So @togetherjs blocks IE via $.browser.msie. Glad IE11 changed their UA string so it bypasses that nastiness. Works great btw :)"

Re: Introducing TogetherJS

#45

Post by jongalloway2 »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #9
mikegioia wrote: post #3

This looks great but it seems they have no plans to support Internet Explorer ( https://togetherjs.com/docs/#browser-support ). That's a shame because most of our users who need this level of support all use IE :/

Who cares. It's IE which needs to catch up to the standards Mozilla and Google are implementing. It's not like Windows users will be left out in the dark, they can always install Firefox. Tell your users to use a real browser, or write a letter to Microsoft telling them to get with the times... Even the University I attend doesn't support IE with their web-apps. They support Firefox...

If you read up on this it's a simple UA block. IE10 and up support sockets.

https://github.com/mozilla/togetherjs/blob/develop/togetherj...

https://twitter.com/jdalton/status/390538182116143105

Re: Introducing TogetherJS

#46

Post by Mikeb85 »

laureny wrote: post #43
Mikeb85 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Extreme position? Given that so much software requires installing the JVM, or CLR/Mono run-time, or widget toolkit, or even is specific to an operating system, is it really that much to ask that users install a certain browser which literally runs on any OS, is free and open-source, and can be installed in seconds/minutes? Why do we rail against people for using the wrong OS, make people dual-boot and run virtual mac…

> is it really that much to ask that users install a certain browser which literally runs on any OS, is free and open-source, and can be installed in seconds/minutes? Yes, it can be. Can you think of certain situations where doing this is extremely costly (in money, time or both) or do I need to give you a few examples? In my experience, people displaying this kind of naïveté have never been in a situation of large l…

Of course it could be costly (in time mostly). But eventually, everything reaches end-of-life. Windows XP, IE6, IE10 will too...

For years, organizations said switching to Linux is more costly than paying the MS tax. Recently, many large organizations rolled out Linux installs on a massive scale (European government institutions).

Anyhow, installing Firefox on some workstations is relatively small compared to say, replacing COBOL, or Windows XP...

Edit - and while I don't manage a large computer install base, I use them at a large organization with thousands of installs (a University), and they somehow managed to install Firefox on every single computer.... (but they still advertise COBOL jobs)

Re: Introducing TogetherJS

#47

Post by Mikeb85 »

ericd wrote: post #42
mixmastamyk wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Note that Mozilla isn't being paid for this tool. It's open source though. So those who require IE support are welcome to pay someone to or add it themselves. Everyone is happy, except those who want goodies for free. ;)

Except that it might be in Mozilla's best interest to make it compatible with all the major browsers if they want this to see any sort of real adoption.

Why?

Firefox + Chrome make up the majority. In mindshare, a vast majority.

Mozilla's only interest is in advancing the web, and web technologies. Not catering to a competitor's old technology...

Re: Introducing TogetherJS

#48

Post by shellehs »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #9
mikegioia wrote: post #3

This looks great but it seems they have no plans to support Internet Explorer ( https://togetherjs.com/docs/#browser-support ). That's a shame because most of our users who need this level of support all use IE :/

Who cares. It's IE which needs to catch up to the standards Mozilla and Google are implementing. It's not like Windows users will be left out in the dark, they can always install Firefox. Tell your users to use a real browser, or write a letter to Microsoft telling them to get with the times... Even the University I attend doesn't support IE with their web-apps. They support Firefox...

Maybe not because doesn't support IE, maybe because IE doesn't support... You can't count on this.
Post reply on HN