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

The Browser Monopoly

blairreeves.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 197 posts

Re: The Browser Monopoly

#91

Post by abawany »

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #35

Am I the only one that doesn't like chrome? There has always been a "weird feel" to it that I don't like. I used to really like Konqueror, so I guess its mostly the interface that gets to me. ...As I type this I look the sandwich menu, and lack of search bar in firefox and I die a little inside.

I never did either even when most of my savvier co-workers switched. The passive-aggressive nudges such as hiding cookie deletion and other privacy friendly functionality in 'Advanced Settings', not supporting extensions in Android (while Firefox did) really rubbed me the wrong way. I use Chrome when I have to (such as for some unavoidable things on my chromebook) but for everything else, it is Firefox as much as possible

Re: The Browser Monopoly

#92

Post by kmlx »

basch wrote: post #3

>Chrome introduced a lot of neat new features (Porn “Incognito Mode,” multithreaded memory changes, tabs and more). Now chrome is getting credit for in private browsing and tabs? (Safari and Opera respectively. Phoenix/Firefox popularized them long before Chrome was a twinkle.) >It is mind-boggling that basic tools like these are not yet standard features in browsers. How long have browsers offered to save passwords?…

>Chief among these would be a low-cost, independent email service focused on privacy

i think the author is a bit confused about this:

1. every email provider in existence scans emails for spam purposes. if they don't, they lose market share since their product becomes unusable.

2. gmail stopped scanning emails for ad purposes a while ago.

Re: The Browser Monopoly

#93

Post by tialaramex »

basch wrote: post #3

>Chrome introduced a lot of neat new features (Porn “Incognito Mode,” multithreaded memory changes, tabs and more). Now chrome is getting credit for in private browsing and tabs? (Safari and Opera respectively. Phoenix/Firefox popularized them long before Chrome was a twinkle.) >It is mind-boggling that basic tools like these are not yet standard features in browsers. How long have browsers offered to save passwords?…

> Im gonna feel really bad breaking the QUIC / HTTP/3 news. Cuz google totally wrote the new transport layer. They wrote the last one too (SPDY HTTP/2.)

This would presumably be news to everybody involved.

Google's QUIC ("GQUIC") isn't very close to the IETF QUIC standard under development. The IETF went with TLS 1.3 as the cryptographic foundation (which didn't exist when Google built GQUIC) and most the details have changed considerably. You can definitely see a family resemblance, but for Google this was a proof of concept hack and for the QUIC WG they're building what is probably a successor to TCP. It's the difference between a five year old's doodle of a house and the plans you need to submit to get someone to approve it and then build the house.

The chairs are currently not Google employees (they work at Fastly and NetApp) and the editors on the main transport draft aren't Google either (Mozilla and Fastly). There are Google people in the room (such as Adam Langley of course) but there are people from the other browsers too.

Re: The Browser Monopoly

#94

Post by basch »

tialaramex wrote: post #93
basch wrote: post #3

>Chrome introduced a lot of neat new features (Porn “Incognito Mode,” multithreaded memory changes, tabs and more). Now chrome is getting credit for in private browsing and tabs? (Safari and Opera respectively. Phoenix/Firefox popularized them long before Chrome was a twinkle.) >It is mind-boggling that basic tools like these are not yet standard features in browsers. How long have browsers offered to save passwords?…

> Im gonna feel really bad breaking the QUIC / HTTP/3 news. Cuz google totally wrote the new transport layer. They wrote the last one too (SPDY HTTP/2.) This would presumably be news to everybody involved. Google's QUIC ("GQUIC") isn't very close to the IETF QUIC standard under development. The IETF went with TLS 1.3 as the cryptographic foundation (which didn't exist when Google built GQUIC) and most the details hav…

Im more making the point, that if google doesnt implement a standard, it dies. Google has defacto control, even without running the show.

But fair enough, to say they wrote it all is a mischaracterization of events.

Re: The Browser Monopoly

#95

Post by theboulevardier »

badhombres wrote: post #30
aluren wrote: post #23

I don't get why people (I mean technically minded people who are aware of privacy issues and so on) don't just use firefox. They are pretty much at feature parity (Firefox may even get the edge due to the fantastic extensions ecosystem), except one spies on you and the other doesn't. Why do people find the switch so hard? In addition, Firefox + ublokc origin is pretty much the only option on mobile if you want to blo…

Because when I run Firefox on my mac, the FAA calls me to let me know that I'm not allowed to be running jet engines inside of my house

It runs fine on my Mac, the only time it seems to spin up the fans is for Youtube videos. It wouldn't suprise me if Google has done something to make Firefox not work as well on Youtube as they have done before.

Re: The Browser Monopoly

#96

Post by dave5104 »

__dawid__ wrote: post #78
tzs wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mostly use Firefox, except I use Chrome for certain tasks at work [1]. There is one thing about Firefox that occasionally has me on the verge of ditching it for Chrome. It has a terrible spell checker. I find about as many errors in its spelling as it finds in mine. There used to be one other thing that really irked me, but it looks like they recently fixed that (I'm on the beta channel, so not sure if everyone has…

>and it handles multiple profiles better. I think that Containers available on Firefox are much better than profiles

Do Containers support segregated browsing history yet? That's what I've liked most about Chrome profiles. I can have a "personal" profile and then a "work" profile that doesn't comingle the browsing history. It's convenient when on a screenshare--the URL bar's type-ahead won't reveal your personal browsing history.

Re: The Browser Monopoly

#97

Post by thezeebass »

Can we talk about Brave? Its impressed me immensely, and BAT is a profound new approach to monetization on the web. in the context of this article its the only salvation i see; much like telegram for messaging, it provides a privacy and performance focus that makes it infinitely better than the bloat of chrome at getting you around the web; And without the ads and tracking. Awesome.

Re: The Browser Monopoly

#98

Post by tannhaeuser »

HNcantBtrustd wrote: post #7
tannhaeuser wrote: post #2

> Firefox is a fine browser by itself [...] I have the comfort of knowing that my personal information is protected (to the extent possible) – and also that my portal to the web is not custom-built to track me and serve me ads FF is fantastic, but the uncomfortable question is, will it always be, given Mozilla has to found further development and is financed by Google's money as well? Apple's Safari actually has bett…

>Apple's Safari actually has better standing in terms of alignment of user and developer incentives. Apple gets credit for being aligned with users and developers? Out of any of the tech companies, I see Apple the most detached from their users and developers. Forcing proprietary software, hardware, and accessories is not "for users and developers". That's Apple's way of generating additional sales and data for Apple…

> Apple gets credit for being aligned with users and developers?

Yeah I can see where this wasn't very well put into words. I meant Safari core browser development is financed via Apple sales, as opposed to FF being in the position where Mozilla wouldn't want to bite the hands that feed them. Though Apple is also taking Google money for listing them as default search provider on Safari and has ambitions to push their service business.

Re: The Browser Monopoly

#99

Post by theboulevardier »

tannhaeuser wrote: post #2

> Firefox is a fine browser by itself [...] I have the comfort of knowing that my personal information is protected (to the extent possible) – and also that my portal to the web is not custom-built to track me and serve me ads FF is fantastic, but the uncomfortable question is, will it always be, given Mozilla has to found further development and is financed by Google's money as well? Apple's Safari actually has bett…

Google pays Apple $12 billion a year to be the default search in Safari unfortunately, so Apple are making a lot of money from keeping Google happy.

Re: The Browser Monopoly

#100

Post by godshatter »

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #35

Am I the only one that doesn't like chrome? There has always been a "weird feel" to it that I don't like. I used to really like Konqueror, so I guess its mostly the interface that gets to me. ...As I type this I look the sandwich menu, and lack of search bar in firefox and I die a little inside.

Pale Moon is my go-to browser because it keeps the old Firefox interface. It has problems with some websites, but I dislike the chromification of the web interface more than I care about having to run another browser for certain things.
Post reply on HN