developers grouse about the other browser makers who are “holding the web back.”
Indeed, perhaps "holding the web back" is a good thing if it means websites will be more accessible overall, to even less common browsers like NetSurf, Dillo, and all the other text-based ones. IMHO the "feature war/race" between the major browser vendors has had an overall negative effect, as if all sites somehow need to turn into ridiculously bloated web apps instead of the simple and far more accessible hyperlinked collection of pages they once were. Keeping the browser choices diverse is a good thing, even if it means they will all display things slightly differently --- just find the lowest-common-denominator and emphasise the content, the stuff that people visiting sites really care about.
There's been some other related discussion on this topic recently:
"Safari ships new features on a much slower cadence, but they’re usually solid and always perform incredibly well"
Well, clearly this person doesn't have much experience with web development... The webengine in iOS is the biggest pile of crap I've ever worked with since IE6.
"Oh? You want to click this? OK, let's wait for 300 ms just in case you want to double tap to scroll!"
"We finally fixed it, no more delay on clicks! Yo Apple, the delay is still there if it runs as standalone, good job..!"
"OK, you've added the page to the home screen, now, if you click another URL on the same domain you definitely want it opened in the browser, right? Good guess Apple, that's why I added it.."
"Wait, are you saying that if you switch to another app and back again to the standalone site you don't want us to reload the URL that's added to the home screen? You would prefer us to let you continue where you left off, what!?!?"
"Oh, so you think momentum scrolling is a good idea? Too bad, we don't support it on elements that overflow, but we do have it elsewhere, have fun! PS we do have an experimental flag to enable it, but then I sure hope you're not using animations with gpu acceleration, cause then we have som nice race condition bugs in store for you, so who knows if scroll will work or not.."
Seriously, iOS is the worst of them. Sure Firefox and Chrome often has experimental features with bugs, but both of them are much more "solid" when it comes to features you'll actually use in production.
Given this it's really a shame that Apple does not allow other browser engines on iOS. Would be a prime opportunity for competition to raise the overall quality level.
Here here. The author clearly hasn't worked with Apple's implementation of Audio Context either. Granted the bar is pretty low compared to Chrome, but wow! What a mess. Safari consistently has latency and bit rate issues when playing even the smallest files.
I disagree. The IE6 of today is IE11, not Safari. Just look caniuse.come for practically any modern feature. It either requires you to pollute your code base with polyfills or doesn't work at all. Every day bring another fun barrier. Today it was Promises (https://caniuse.com/#search=promise), tomorrow, I am sure, it'll be something else.
What really sucks is that Apple has TENS OF BILLIONS of dollars in cash, and yet can't be bothered to throw a billion at fixing iOS, iOS safari and MacOS bugs.
Its quality really went downhill. I really loved the "it just works" stuff of Apple Past. And I loved the intuitive, skeumorphic interfaces.
Now it's all crap and HIDDEN MODES - something Apple always spoke against in its UX manuals. It's sad day that Google and Microsoft have better design than Apple now, and Apple copied them.
Steve Jobs would have never let this happen. He would have a whole department funded with several billion dollars just to make Apple products the most user friendly on the planet. And he would have Siri be a Star-Trek-like voice platform by now.
I discovered that having an onScroll event handler on a div with overflow and -webkit-overflow-scrolling: touch resulted into weird visual artifacts under certain conditions. And no, I don't want to override native scroll (which is often a bad idea), I want to react to the scroll.
Most of your complaints are related to how iOS handles web apps that you've saved to the home screen, which is a feature that is completely orthogonal to Apple's rendering engine.
I agree that iOS home screen apps are in a pretty bad state, but Google is also discontinuing Chrome Apps and that doesn't make Chrome a worse HTML renderer.
I switched to Firefox, and I was blown away to find that Google Meet (the new Hangouts) does not work. You just get the message "Meet doesn't work on your browser".
I'm also impressed at how many of my job's internal websites don't work. This doesn't bug me as much, but it's obvious the devs who created them didn't even do a sanity check in Firefox.
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.
I’m definitely seeing several sites lately that require me to use a particular browser, lest I see blank elements or “buttons” that infuriatingly do nothing when I click them except in certain browsers.
It’s not consistent though. Usually switching to Safari is what works but sometimes I must use Firefox. On one government site it seemed the only working combo was to use an iPad, as no desktop browser worked on my Mac.
My latest gripe has to be log-in screens though (Google is guilty): forms are as old as the web and I resent that I can’t even log in anymore because your Unnecessarily Fancy Form just doesn’t work on all browsers!?
Standards are irrelevant to pragmatism. De facto standards are what is important.
By virture of sheer popularity, Chrome is the de facto standard. And if they have provided anything that becomes useful or popular, then by virtue of popularity of that feature in what is already the post popular browser, makes that feature part of the de facto standard.
The post is just pedantic whining about how something isn't according to the written word in some document written some years ago by a bunch of people that the average user of the standard does not even know.
I understand the value of standardization. Everything should be standardized. But what the standard should be is completely another question. I would say that all enhancements/popular features should be standard. At least that way, we'll have more people happier, rather than follow the least common denominator approach where there is a compromise that leaves no one happy.
Not only did I not whine about something in a written document, I never once mentioned WHATWG or anything other standards body. (That was intentional.) I explicitly call out the vendors and their mutual implementations. The "standard" I care about is the truly living standard of what every browser implements. The point here is that the _de facto_ standard is not Chrome, and if it were that'd be a bad thing. (We've been there before; it was a bad thing.)
The practical upshot of what you're saying is that the browser vendor with the biggest market share can do whatever the heck they want, and everybody else can either reverse-engineer it or eat dirt.
I'd tell you why you're so spectacularly wrong, but since we've already lived through the nightmare you're currently endorsing... instead I'll simply refer you to the 1990s and early 2000s.
Germany for example uses 38.22% Chrome and 31.11% Firefox on Desktops. No way you can speak about a de facto standard here.
I, as an end user, don't know about industry standards for screws, magnet strips or pipelines either, but that doesn't make them less important.
We already tried giving a commercial company free reign in this regard, with Microsoft and it's Internet Explorer, and it did not end well. I see no reason to try this again.
Standards also just make it easier for new players to enter the browser market, instead of having to reverse engineer how Google does stuff, so Standards even help with competition.
I will happily discuss current shortcomings of the W3C and standardization process in general, but we shouldn't repeat the past.
It's interesting that the author chose PWA's as their example.
The "Progressive" in Progressive Web Application means that web sites progressively become more app-like as they use certain APIs like Service Workers, but it also means that PWAs progressively become more app-like on browsers that support those APIs.
A site can go all-in on the PWA-related APIs and cause absolutely no degradation in experience on browsers like Safari. Safari doesn't support Service Workers, ignores parts of the manifest, doesn't allow PWA installation? It's fine, your app is just a normal website on Safari.
I like Chrome but lately I've spent almost all my time in Firefox Developer Edition. When I use Chrome it's to verify that it behaves the same way on more than one Javascript engine.
At what point does the dominant market leader become the standard, though? Chrome currently has roughly 60% market share in both desktop and mobile. No other browsers are forced to comply, but web developers will prioritize targeting the platform where their users are. We see this today where tons of things are broken on the long tail of older versions of IE, and developers largely ignore them.
I'm not saying that I like one company controlling the web, but when you're a small company developing software for the web, Chrome IS the standard.
I think people forgive Google for more because they like them. IE did exactly the same thing before Chrome and was roundly (and rightly) admonished for it.
In fairness, Chrome's proposals do seem to be designed with the open web in mind - at least insofar as being items that other projects could reasonably be expected to implement in their engines if they chose to do so.
There's nothing so egregious as IE's DirectX-filters-embedded-in-CSS nonsense - or shudder ActiveX - but it's still not great for the open web as a whole.
I know they screwed up recently with the Mr. Robot malware, but I think it's really important for developers to get behind Firefox again. As the American government fails to provide any sort of check on its behemoth corporations (Apple, Google, and Microsoft) and to protect consumer privacy, Firefox is basically the last contender for real consumer protection standing.
I’ve found a lot of people are quite naively idealistic around browser development. The rendering, JS engines in Firefox and Chrome are state-of-the-art and take small armies to build and maintain. Mozilla has to strike a balance between revenue seeking and consumer protection seeking behavior that I would imagine is quite difficult to maintain.
Lots of people here additionally are up in arms their incredibly specific workflow was upheaveled by a movement to webextensions planned like 2 years in advance. Browser engines don’t have the luxury of being vim and supporting every environment and config.
They didn't just screw up once . They've screwed up many times over the years with many projects and attempts that run counter to the core values that Mozilla claims to uphold. Bryan Lunduke articulated this very well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMALm1VthGY
At this point Mozilla has to prove to us that they are worthy of our usage
I had the option disabled before they started pushing the Mr.Robot thingy ("Allow Firefox Developer Edition to send technical and interaction data to Mozilla")... You pretty much always had to disable a few things when you installed Firefox to preserve as much privacy as possible. I wish that they would change the defaults, but I will still be using Firefox for now.
Political issues aside, firefox is much less usable as a development tool than chrome.
When quantum came out I switched to dev edition to try it out, but I've had nothing but trouble. Page loads of local unbuilt code are 2-3x slower than chrome. Tabs crash with alarming regularity, especially after the most recent update. There is still no way to inspect websocket frames. Form inputs are black text on dark background with the dark theme of developer edition.
At least I can get CSS source maps working, which seems to be impossible in chrome these days. But really that's the only plus for a lot of negatives. I'd love to be using firefox instead of chrome, but after this most recent update I get several tab crashes a day and I've finally given up as it's become a hindrance to productivity. I wish it weren't so.
The Mr. Robot thing was not "malware". It was an easter egg, just like about:mozilla. You may say it was poor taste on Mozilla's part, since it was essentially a paid-for promotional tie-in with a TV show, and I would probably agree with you. But it did not damage anyone's computer, compromise any data or do anything that could put it on the "Malware" category.
Something similar that noone has complained about are the Android version names which are promotional tie-ins: Kit Kat and Oreo. Mozilla's biggest screw up IMO was failing to disclose properly what was going on.
Safari is the new IE. Chrome is the new IE. And then all these comment claiming IE6 was actually very good?
May be I am old. Old, at least by Silicon Valley standard. After all Webkit is the new IE was coined by someone who hasn't started programming in the IE 6 era and thought IE era meant IE7 onwards.
Do any of you remember what those days were? IE? Active X? Different code for different Browser? DHTML? That was before even the word Ajax was coined. Before we had Jquery?
The problem we had with IE6, for me at least wasn't really about its monopoly. It was about so many low hanging fruit that they could have improve, but decided not to, and it was at the start of the first Internet boom, we could have had a future much brighter, but Microsoft was using all sort of propriety tech and not working with standards, leading to Netscape and Mozilla having to engineering its "Quirk" mode. Developing for IE was simple enough, Developing for Netscape and IE was hell.
That was long time ago.
I guess Microsoft thought IE was good enough. Good for simple Documents with tables and little animation sprinkled on top. Given their very low quality of standards at the time, may be they really thought the Web was good enough.
Fast forward to today, I guess Apple thought the web, as basic web pages is good enough. At least we cant do better without breaking lots of compatibility. But then there are those who saw Internet as an App Platform, much like Java, write once run anywhere. And they see Apple as something that is stopping them to achieve that goal, much like how IE was stopping the Internet from becoming better.
It really is two different Goal, Web Pages or Web Apps. Some people thinks web pages is even done yet, CSS Grid is hardly the answer we were all looking for. Some think forget about Web pages, it is good for what it is, Web Apps. It is all we need.
For me? I just wanted simple and beautiful Web Pages, Stripe and Apple's Website is two example I like. So i do ignore people who think it is their right for Webassembly, WhateverDB, ServerWorker, PWA or what ever that NEEDS to be included in every Browser.
May be the younger ones thinks I am just old fart stopping them from reaching their goal. Just like I was thinking IE was stopping the Web becomes the Web. I guess, is just a matter of prospective, old vs the New, the age old question.
QUIC is a UDP-based transport-layer alternative to TCP/IP (which, to a rough approximation, has some advantages over TCP/IP for multiplexing multiple logical data channels between the same two physical machines). While it is being standardized by the IETF, it is not yet a standard.
Google implements it server-side and it's enabled by default in Chrome. It is, as a result, already around 7% of Internet traffic.
Mr. Robot was stupid because - why do I want marketing in a product I use as an eveyday utility? Chrome is the standard because of the majority market share and also because they do a great job of delivering a good developer AND user experience.
The author laments about performance without once considering security. There are good reasons why that concurrent JavaScript extension hasn't been adopted by Google: it enables very powerful timing attacks against many aspects of your computer.
The thing is that Google owns WHATWG (who write and edit HTML specs) so the difference between Web "standards" and "what Chrome does" is moot. Other browser vendors have no choice other than to follow suit. I'm putting "standards" in scare quotes since what WHATWG publishes - the "living standard" thing - doesn't qualify as standard in my book.
It's a tragedy to see so much well-intentioned work being weaponized. Actually I appreciate the hard work of Domenic et al, and also the work being done on CSS specs. But we're way past the point where Web specs serve a purpose other than to keep people busy and brittle and monopolize the Web beyond recognition.
The author misses the point entirely. People don't complain about Safari holding back the web simply because it didn't implement service workers, WebM, WebRTC, and payment request while Chrome did. People complain about Safari because both Firefox and Chrome implemented those things. Nobody is complaining about Safari not implementing APIs that only Chrome has implemented.
[+] [-] userbinator|8 years ago|reply
Indeed, perhaps "holding the web back" is a good thing if it means websites will be more accessible overall, to even less common browsers like NetSurf, Dillo, and all the other text-based ones. IMHO the "feature war/race" between the major browser vendors has had an overall negative effect, as if all sites somehow need to turn into ridiculously bloated web apps instead of the simple and far more accessible hyperlinked collection of pages they once were. Keeping the browser choices diverse is a good thing, even if it means they will all display things slightly differently --- just find the lowest-common-denominator and emphasise the content, the stuff that people visiting sites really care about.
There's been some other related discussion on this topic recently:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15836027
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15943689
[+] [-] NightlyDev|8 years ago|reply
Well, clearly this person doesn't have much experience with web development... The webengine in iOS is the biggest pile of crap I've ever worked with since IE6.
"Oh? You want to click this? OK, let's wait for 300 ms just in case you want to double tap to scroll!"
"We finally fixed it, no more delay on clicks! Yo Apple, the delay is still there if it runs as standalone, good job..!"
"OK, you've added the page to the home screen, now, if you click another URL on the same domain you definitely want it opened in the browser, right? Good guess Apple, that's why I added it.."
"Wait, are you saying that if you switch to another app and back again to the standalone site you don't want us to reload the URL that's added to the home screen? You would prefer us to let you continue where you left off, what!?!?"
"Oh, so you think momentum scrolling is a good idea? Too bad, we don't support it on elements that overflow, but we do have it elsewhere, have fun! PS we do have an experimental flag to enable it, but then I sure hope you're not using animations with gpu acceleration, cause then we have som nice race condition bugs in store for you, so who knows if scroll will work or not.."
Seriously, iOS is the worst of them. Sure Firefox and Chrome often has experimental features with bugs, but both of them are much more "solid" when it comes to features you'll actually use in production.
Safari on iOS is the IE6 of today.
[+] [-] tpush|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway284534|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] starik36|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] EGreg|8 years ago|reply
Its quality really went downhill. I really loved the "it just works" stuff of Apple Past. And I loved the intuitive, skeumorphic interfaces.
Now it's all crap and HIDDEN MODES - something Apple always spoke against in its UX manuals. It's sad day that Google and Microsoft have better design than Apple now, and Apple copied them.
Steve Jobs would have never let this happen. He would have a whole department funded with several billion dollars just to make Apple products the most user friendly on the planet. And he would have Siri be a Star-Trek-like voice platform by now.
[+] [-] kuon|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gurkendoktor|8 years ago|reply
I agree that iOS home screen apps are in a pretty bad state, but Google is also discontinuing Chrome Apps and that doesn't make Chrome a worse HTML renderer.
[+] [-] Waterluvian|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SZJX|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] abritinthebay|8 years ago|reply
Not least most of what you mention (other than the 300ms delay) is OS level anyhow.
[+] [-] asdjasldkjkljd|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] amelius|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] city41|8 years ago|reply
I'm also impressed at how many of my job's internal websites don't work. This doesn't bug me as much, but it's obvious the devs who created them didn't even do a sanity check in Firefox.
[+] [-] bhawks|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] makecheck|8 years ago|reply
It’s not consistent though. Usually switching to Safari is what works but sometimes I must use Firefox. On one government site it seemed the only working combo was to use an iPad, as no desktop browser worked on my Mac.
My latest gripe has to be log-in screens though (Google is guilty): forms are as old as the web and I resent that I can’t even log in anymore because your Unnecessarily Fancy Form just doesn’t work on all browsers!?
[+] [-] stephenr|8 years ago|reply
Its also handy to get efficient video from sites stil serving flash to desktops.
[+] [-] TAForObvReasons|8 years ago|reply
Did you try using IE? I find some state government sites still work best on IE10/IE11
[+] [-] appdrag|8 years ago|reply
I really don't agree at all with this, Safari is the new Internet explorer ...
https://www.safari-is-the-new-ie.com/
[+] [-] drvortex|8 years ago|reply
By virture of sheer popularity, Chrome is the de facto standard. And if they have provided anything that becomes useful or popular, then by virtue of popularity of that feature in what is already the post popular browser, makes that feature part of the de facto standard.
The post is just pedantic whining about how something isn't according to the written word in some document written some years ago by a bunch of people that the average user of the standard does not even know.
I understand the value of standardization. Everything should be standardized. But what the standard should be is completely another question. I would say that all enhancements/popular features should be standard. At least that way, we'll have more people happier, rather than follow the least common denominator approach where there is a compromise that leaves no one happy.
[+] [-] chriskrycho|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JohnBooty|8 years ago|reply
I'd tell you why you're so spectacularly wrong, but since we've already lived through the nightmare you're currently endorsing... instead I'll simply refer you to the 1990s and early 2000s.
You don't want that.
[+] [-] dubbel|8 years ago|reply
Germany for example uses 38.22% Chrome and 31.11% Firefox on Desktops. No way you can speak about a de facto standard here.
I, as an end user, don't know about industry standards for screws, magnet strips or pipelines either, but that doesn't make them less important.
We already tried giving a commercial company free reign in this regard, with Microsoft and it's Internet Explorer, and it did not end well. I see no reason to try this again.
Standards also just make it easier for new players to enter the browser market, instead of having to reverse engineer how Google does stuff, so Standards even help with competition.
I will happily discuss current shortcomings of the W3C and standardization process in general, but we shouldn't repeat the past.
[+] [-] pjmlp|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TazeTSchnitzel|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spankalee|8 years ago|reply
The "Progressive" in Progressive Web Application means that web sites progressively become more app-like as they use certain APIs like Service Workers, but it also means that PWAs progressively become more app-like on browsers that support those APIs.
A site can go all-in on the PWA-related APIs and cause absolutely no degradation in experience on browsers like Safari. Safari doesn't support Service Workers, ignores parts of the manifest, doesn't allow PWA installation? It's fine, your app is just a normal website on Safari.
[+] [-] smoyer|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adregan|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bhhaskin|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beisner|8 years ago|reply
I'm not saying that I like one company controlling the web, but when you're a small company developing software for the web, Chrome IS the standard.
[+] [-] headmelted|8 years ago|reply
I think people forgive Google for more because they like them. IE did exactly the same thing before Chrome and was roundly (and rightly) admonished for it.
In fairness, Chrome's proposals do seem to be designed with the open web in mind - at least insofar as being items that other projects could reasonably be expected to implement in their engines if they chose to do so.
There's nothing so egregious as IE's DirectX-filters-embedded-in-CSS nonsense - or shudder ActiveX - but it's still not great for the open web as a whole.
[+] [-] dao-|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] alexchantavy|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kevmo|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SirensOfTitan|8 years ago|reply
Lots of people here additionally are up in arms their incredibly specific workflow was upheaveled by a movement to webextensions planned like 2 years in advance. Browser engines don’t have the luxury of being vim and supporting every environment and config.
[+] [-] stephenr|8 years ago|reply
This is yet again a too-simplistic view of things that seems very common with Americans.
Some big companies do unethical things, and you translate that to "all big companies hate consumers and want to eat their children"
[+] [-] TAForObvReasons|8 years ago|reply
At this point Mozilla has to prove to us that they are worthy of our usage
[+] [-] zeep|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ebbv|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jessewmc|8 years ago|reply
When quantum came out I switched to dev edition to try it out, but I've had nothing but trouble. Page loads of local unbuilt code are 2-3x slower than chrome. Tabs crash with alarming regularity, especially after the most recent update. There is still no way to inspect websocket frames. Form inputs are black text on dark background with the dark theme of developer edition.
At least I can get CSS source maps working, which seems to be impossible in chrome these days. But really that's the only plus for a lot of negatives. I'd love to be using firefox instead of chrome, but after this most recent update I get several tab crashes a day and I've finally given up as it's become a hindrance to productivity. I wish it weren't so.
[+] [-] TheCoreh|8 years ago|reply
Something similar that noone has complained about are the Android version names which are promotional tie-ins: Kit Kat and Oreo. Mozilla's biggest screw up IMO was failing to disclose properly what was going on.
[+] [-] Pharylon|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ksec|8 years ago|reply
May be I am old. Old, at least by Silicon Valley standard. After all Webkit is the new IE was coined by someone who hasn't started programming in the IE 6 era and thought IE era meant IE7 onwards.
Do any of you remember what those days were? IE? Active X? Different code for different Browser? DHTML? That was before even the word Ajax was coined. Before we had Jquery?
The problem we had with IE6, for me at least wasn't really about its monopoly. It was about so many low hanging fruit that they could have improve, but decided not to, and it was at the start of the first Internet boom, we could have had a future much brighter, but Microsoft was using all sort of propriety tech and not working with standards, leading to Netscape and Mozilla having to engineering its "Quirk" mode. Developing for IE was simple enough, Developing for Netscape and IE was hell.
That was long time ago.
I guess Microsoft thought IE was good enough. Good for simple Documents with tables and little animation sprinkled on top. Given their very low quality of standards at the time, may be they really thought the Web was good enough.
Fast forward to today, I guess Apple thought the web, as basic web pages is good enough. At least we cant do better without breaking lots of compatibility. But then there are those who saw Internet as an App Platform, much like Java, write once run anywhere. And they see Apple as something that is stopping them to achieve that goal, much like how IE was stopping the Internet from becoming better.
It really is two different Goal, Web Pages or Web Apps. Some people thinks web pages is even done yet, CSS Grid is hardly the answer we were all looking for. Some think forget about Web pages, it is good for what it is, Web Apps. It is all we need.
For me? I just wanted simple and beautiful Web Pages, Stripe and Apple's Website is two example I like. So i do ignore people who think it is their right for Webassembly, WhateverDB, ServerWorker, PWA or what ever that NEEDS to be included in every Browser.
May be the younger ones thinks I am just old fart stopping them from reaching their goal. Just like I was thinking IE was stopping the Web becomes the Web. I guess, is just a matter of prospective, old vs the New, the age old question.
[+] [-] fixermark|8 years ago|reply
QUIC is a UDP-based transport-layer alternative to TCP/IP (which, to a rough approximation, has some advantages over TCP/IP for multiplexing multiple logical data channels between the same two physical machines). While it is being standardized by the IETF, it is not yet a standard.
Google implements it server-side and it's enabled by default in Chrome. It is, as a result, already around 7% of Internet traffic.
[+] [-] agentPrefect|8 years ago|reply
Mr. Robot was stupid because - why do I want marketing in a product I use as an eveyday utility? Chrome is the standard because of the majority market share and also because they do a great job of delivering a good developer AND user experience.
[+] [-] Sephr|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DubiousPusher|8 years ago|reply
Personally, I'll keep on using Firefox specifically because Mozilla does not own any of the other technologies I use.
[+] [-] tannhaeuser|8 years ago|reply
It's a tragedy to see so much well-intentioned work being weaponized. Actually I appreciate the hard work of Domenic et al, and also the work being done on CSS specs. But we're way past the point where Web specs serve a purpose other than to keep people busy and brittle and monopolize the Web beyond recognition.
[+] [-] lern_too_spel|8 years ago|reply