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

421–430 of 465 posts

Re: Chrome is Not the Standard

#421

Post by alwillis »

seanp2k2 wrote: post #168
microtonal wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please tell me how Safari or Apple in general works against consumer privacy protection? Safari is pretty good at privacy protection. Apple doesn't really have an interest in collecting your data and they have a history of implementing features improving privacy (cross-site tracking protection, build-in adblock API, etc.). The problem is that Safari is only available to the wealthiest in the world.

Not technically Safari but https://webkitgtk.org is a thing and WebKit itself is open source: https://github.com/WebKit/webkit “”” WebKit is a cross-platform web browser engine. On iOS and macOS, it powers Safari, Mail, iBooks, and many other applications. “”” Midori is also based on WebKit: http://midori-browser.org AFAIK Safari does not provide more privacy protections than WebKit.

Some of Safari’s privacy protection (Intelligent Tracking Prevention: https://webkit.org/blog/7675/intelligent-tracking-prevention...) uses APIs in iOS and macOS that aren’t part of WebKit.

Re: Chrome is Not the Standard

#422

Post by wor3q »

simonh wrote: post #360
bhawks wrote: post #207

I wish the author discussed the fact that Apple doesn't allow any other browsers to target the iOS platform. Chrome / Firefox are forced to be thin wrappers against the webkit engine instead of bringing their own technology. No other platform has policies like this and it greatly impacts the web platform and changes the dynamic of web standards in a way no other browser developer could.

>No other platform has policies like this MS has a similar restriction on their App Store. Browsers are only allowed to use the MS rendering engine. Also plenty of feature phones only allow use of the integrated browser. You might think that’s an unrelated issue, but it’s not. From a regulatory perspective, how do you differentiate between those, feature phones that allow a limited range of installable apps, games co…

All other platforms allow you to install apps from outside of the store though.

Re: Chrome is Not the Standard

#423

Post by pjmlp »

wor3q wrote: post #420
pjmlp wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see it any different than what Google is doing with Chrome, specially with ChromeOS.

You can always install other os along with other browser on a chromebook. You can install whatever engine you want on android. With ios you cannot do anything, you're just stuck with safari.

Installing other OS is by definition not ChromeOS anymore.

Re: Chrome is Not the Standard

#424

Post by CydeWeys »

mark-r wrote: post #318
CydeWeys wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm the tech lead of Google Registry and the reason our TLDs ended up on that list, and I'd like to add a clarification here. Google isn't "in charge of" the HSTS preload list per se. The owner of each individual website is in charge of whether or not they are on the list. It is true that the Chrome team happens to manage the list, but the contents of the list wouldn't be any different were it to be managed by anyone…

Understood, and sorry if some imprecision in my language led to misunderstandings. But because the list is maintained by Google, it means that Chrome is the first browser to expose changes to the list. I thought the article that I linked gave a good overview of how we got to where we are.

Safari got this latest version of the HSTS preload list very quickly too. I don't know what their rollout process is, but it was almost simultaneous. It's true that Firefox and Edge are lagging behind by many months, which is unfortunate.

Re: Chrome is Not the Standard

#425

Post by jrochkind1 »

rimliu wrote: post #401
jrochkind1 wrote: post #312

> Many times, when this latter tack happens, developers grouse about the other browser makers who are “holding the web back.” But there is a fundamental problem in this way of looking at things: Chrome isn’t the standard. The fact that Chrome proposes something, and even the fact that a bunch of developers like it, does not a standard make. WHATWG taking over the "standard" certainly muddies the waters. It's theoreti…

What WHATWG says does not matter either. The only thing that matters is what is implemented in browsers.

That's a pretty different argument than the OP's about standards. Chrome is obviously a browser.

Re: Chrome is Not the Standard

#426

Post by alwillis »

reacharavindh wrote: post #41

Is there a possibility of an alternative to Mozilla with the kind of backing that Mozilla enjoys now? GNU project? Apache web browser? Linux Foundation? Heck, I'm sure privacy conscious people will happily pay for a quality browser that they can trust. I don't have the technical prowess to build a browser. If I did, I would.

You want Brave, which is based on Chromium. They raised $35 million in an ICO and plan to disrupt web advertising.

Has a built-in wallet to pay content creators with cryptocurrency (-totally optional.

Browser: https://brave.com/

Basic Attention Token: https://basicattentiontoken.org/

Re: Chrome is Not the Standard

#427

Post by alwillis »

jld wrote: post #127
reacharavindh wrote: post #41

Is there a possibility of an alternative to Mozilla with the kind of backing that Mozilla enjoys now? GNU project? Apache web browser? Linux Foundation? Heck, I'm sure privacy conscious people will happily pay for a quality browser that they can trust. I don't have the technical prowess to build a browser. If I did, I would.

Mozilla has ~$500M revenue/year. I don't think you'll find a alternate non-Apple/Google/Microsoft player with similar backing.

Former Mozilla CEO raises $35M in under 30 seconds for his browser startup Brave: https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/01/brave-ico-35-million-30-se...

Re: Chrome is Not the Standard

#428

Post by hungerstrike »

pcwalton wrote: post #286
hungerstrike wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you missed the points. My major point was that we have the source code and nothing changes that. My second point was that I would rather all browser engines work the same and if they can’t then I’d rather just have one popular browser engine.

> My second point was that I would rather all browser engines work the same and if they can’t then I’d rather just have one popular browser engine. Would you be willing to give up, for example, Rust's parallelism and security for that future? Why do you think this would work better than it did in the past, when Google and Apple tried to collaborate on the same engine and it ended in a fork?

Yes. Anything that comes out of Mozilla is rubbish.

Re: Chrome is Not the Standard

#429

Post by userbinator »

blacklight wrote: post #399
gaius wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

doesn't know or remember the dark of days of IE 5 and IE 6. I remember that when IE6 was first released it was the fastest, most reliable, most standards compliant and feature rich browser. That's why it took over the corporate world. It was the Chrome of its day, if you will. How did that work out?

They released a good product, but weren't prepared to keep it up-to-date with the expectations that a de-facto industry standard should be able to handle. The web kept on moving after IE6 was released - XHR, jQuery, and later on HTML5 and CSS3. Being a browser entirely developed and maintained by a private corporation subject to the shareholders priorities more than the Acid3 test results, Microsoft decided to ignore…

For the record, the concept of XHR/AJAX originated at Microsoft, although it was not originally called that, and was first implemented in IE5.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/XMLHttpRequ...

Ditto for DOM Storage --- before the W3C, IE5 had userData.

Re: Chrome is Not the Standard

#430

Post by pcwalton »

hungerstrike wrote: post #428
pcwalton wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My second point was that I would rather all browser engines work the same and if they can’t then I’d rather just have one popular browser engine. Would you be willing to give up, for example, Rust's parallelism and security for that future? Why do you think this would work better than it did in the past, when Google and Apple tried to collaborate on the same engine and it ended in a fork?

Yes. Anything that comes out of Mozilla is rubbish.

Well, thanks for your opinion on my work!
Post reply on HN