We Need Chrome No More(redalemeden.com) |
We Need Chrome No More(redalemeden.com) |
Cant even render wikipedia properly
I hope mozilla staff reading this
You can't fault them either for doing this, this is just what pubic companies do, maximize returns for shareholders and monopolies are the hen that lays golden eggs.
This article will not be seen beyond HN. The fact is the vast majority of Chrome users don't care that other browser exists, and don't want it as long as it is convenient for them (to keep using a familiar platform thats worked well).
Anyways, this is just my two cents. I just don't see myself using Firefox anymore, it's no longer deserving of my attention because I am not concerned about Google's goals, we get a lot of shit for free from Google, and we gave up our privacy. Whether this is beneficial or not is up for debate.
What do you all use?
The web is an edifice of pressed shit-board that hasn't been designed so much as piled up. It isn't an open forum of freely-exchanged ideas and social goods so much as a tool in the arsenal of liberal capitalism to more completely atomize and subjugate the individual by forming his proper sense of obligation to have himself devoured by the fetischism of merchandise.
Pluck out thy phone and cast it from thee.
You should be using as few extensions as humanly possible, and looking to remove extensions whenever you can.
(I currently use one, the EFF's Privacy Badger, though Firefox's new Tracking Protection makes it somewhat redundant, and I may not keep it forever.)
[1] - https://support.brave.com/hc/en-us/articles/360017909112-How...
Wait, is this accurate? I remember back when Chrome was released, people were talking about how it used parts of both WebKit and Gecko, and the exact specs of which rendering was used changed based on the website.
I remember not liking Chrome the moment it came out. Google had poured money into Firefox for years and then suddenly came out with (an initially) closed source competitor. Sure it's open source now, but it didn't start that way, and was a slap in the face to the Mozilla project.
You are misremembering. Chrome never used Gecko.
> I remember not liking Chrome the moment it came out. Google had poured money into Firefox for years and then suddenly came out with (an initially) closed source competitor. Sure it's open source now, but it didn't start that way
This is completely false. Chromium and its associated source code were released to the public at the same time as Chrome. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_(web_browser)#2008
You always find the smartest bunch in these threads. Proof: not a single downvoted comment so far.
But with all your smarts why aren't you building search engines? Is it because you think that with superior tech we can't beat Google? I think it will come down to precisely that. Don't you see how easy it would be for someone who specializes in search to beat an opponent who specializes in ads?
Edit: I should clarify. What I meant was, start specializing in search, or we're all dead. Dead meat. By the hands of the Android.
It's a hard problem, especially if you factor in keeping your servers running.
If you are not popular, some will host your servers for free until you are.
You know. Because there is money in traffic. So if you generate it, they'll sell it. On the market.
There's very little individuals can do to reverse the trend, short of websites and OEMs coming together to start reversing Chrome's stranglehold in an unified campaign (which doesn't seem likely).
The fall of IE6 was due to innovation from Mozilla and Google putting it's weight behind Firefox... What could Safari/Firefox do now? Get all or several of Microsoft/Facebook/Amazon/Apple on-board? Investment from these companies is the only way I see out, frankly, if history is any indicator (OpenStreetMap vs GMaps).
That said, tech needs to keep improving and so Firefox Quantum was a great first step in the right direction, imo.
1. Developer's time is not a commodity. The time you spend testing in alternative browsers is time you can spend in tasks that will make life less painful to the people who work with you such as writing tests, documentation, or new code.
2. A website that only works in Chrome is preferable to a website that does not exist. The business should be the one who dictates which browsers should be supported, and it should be a rational decision based on data such as reviewing your own analytics. Nobody has infinite resources.
3. Using a website is a privilege, not a right. The same way you are free to choose your favorite browser, a website owner is free to choose which users to serve, the same way we can say "Are you still using IE8 in 2019? tough luck buddy, the site is broken", we can also say "Sorry dude, I didn't care enough to support Firefox because X feature was broken".
4. When you as a user decide to choose Firefox because "my ideological reasons", you are also choosing to deal with the negative aspects such as broken websites, broken extensions, lack of features, loss of mindshare, etc., etc., if you don't like dealing with them the alternative is pretty simple: Use Chrome, that's what the end users do anyway.
The reason Chrome has gained lots of mindshare is because we all love convenience, and there are less-painful alternatives to push the "we don't like Google" agenda such as forking Chromium. The "we don't track you" is a huge competitive advantage against Google, why should you give up everything that Chromium does right? The resources that Mozilla spends maintaining Gecko could be used more intelligently to build for example a security team to alleviate the concern of having a huge common attack area.
Wasn't "test once, run everywhere" the holy grail? Or now we like O(N) instead of O(1)?
I think the only scenario where that's acceptable is experimental/nightly features that haven't yet made their way to the majority of browsers.
> Using a website is a privilege
Some would dispute that. My bank, for instance, doesn't have physical branches. Is it considered a privilege to access my funds via website?
Glad you made this question. I'm a customer from BBVA and years ago, when Opera recently launched its Chromium-based fork I got a nag: You're using an unsupported browser
I was infuriated: "How the f*ck are you targeting the new Opera?!?!?!?! I mean, even the user agent looks like Chrome, to display this nag you had to explicitly target the new Opera WTF?!?!?!"
Now I ask you the following question: Can you access your bank account with Lynx? Curl? Where do you draw the line between which browsers to support?
Where do you draw the line between telling a user "Use Chrome" or having the user to complain at your call center because the website broke specifically in Brave browser? (pretty unlikely but not unrealistic scenario)
Years ago many banks and government agencies even required you to install Java to access their service. So yeah, it is a privilege to access your funds in a non-supported mean, if you complain at their call center they'll probably tell you "just use Chrome", or "install the Android app", or a similar alternative. If a bank thinks it is a competitive advantage to let you access in Mosaic, then it will push their development team to support even Mosaic.
Websites work better with these features, not worse. And so long as Chrome is dominant, these protection features will continue to be effective, because there's not much incentive to defeat them.
It's a bit like the blissful period when IE was dominant and still allowed popup windows. The div-style popups didn't take over until IE's popup blocker.
They seem to be doing something right.
Jump ahead 20 years, low an behold Google Earth - Chrome only!
I am on Windows 10.
Aren't those browsers just chromium reskinned and customized
I suspect one disadvantage is that it's harder to innovate. Specifically, your new browser engine has no hope of sticking if all websites are heavily customized to Blink, rather than to open standards. It may seem that it's not a problem if Blink is open sourced. However, writing a new engine that works exactly like some legacy engine is nearly impossible, even if that legacy engine is open sourced. OTOH, writing a new engine to the specifications of well-designed standards is much more realistic, since presumably those standards are (a) clearly spelled out, (b) written with the idea that they can be implemented without a million lines of legacy code.
Of course, this assumes that the community can create high quality and efficient standards. It's not obvious, given how difficult it's been to achieve in the past, when there was more competition between browsers.
Does it sound about right? Any other disadvantages I haven't thought of?
Without using an ad-blocker, if I use chrome mobile on my older phone (original Pixel), any time I browse a web site, the whole phone appears to lock up for a few seconds, it starts getting warm, and then a whole page ad appears over the web-site, and half the time clicking the X in the corner loads up the ad in a new tab...
I personally expect that, for purely selfish business reasons, Chrome will eventually kill all ads that are especially annoying or cause performance issues. But you're right, situations where vendor and user interests are at odds may always come up.
Anecdotally, of the three browsers I have on my dev machine Chrome is the biggest resource hog.
The reason Chrome doesn't lag is probably due to the fact that it uses so much RAM. I personally use Safari because of the OS integration but for some sites I do have to fire up Chrome just for performance.
Firefox has >10% market share, it's not like anybody can ignore 10% of users. So this article to me sounds like pure content marketing for Firefox.
Safari killed flash in favor of HTML 5.
How quickly everyone likes to forget.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/04/googl...
Google making the web faster is a mutually beneficial arrangement.
1. https://blog.chromium.org/2013/04/blink-rendering-engine-for...
Companies will just want control over their development pipeline
Perhaps instead of telling people what to use we should be telling them how to use, or more accurately how to change. Once people are invested in a platform or service it's hard to get them to change their mindset, especially over issues taken for granted like privacy.
There's a lot more attention to social media on the same issue of privacy, this would be the ideal time to bring chrome into this discussion to work on the 'detachment', self-imposed roadblocks, logging out, deleting apps, disabling notifications.
A setting to convert all HTML to XHTML. This would allow easy XPath queries while browsing, then XPath 3.1 support, XSLT 3.0 support, XML Catalogs and XQuery in the browser would be cool as well. I am aware, that this is lots of work, but it would be nice to have something, that keeps the document centric web alive, and does not play to the rumor web, that we have become.
Not me. I use Chrome to briefly test my builds, then close it and get the hell out of there.
I don't know why developers didn't or don't see the conflict of interest with a Google branded browser. I was unsettled by this from the moment they released the browser. Google uses manipulative design patterns as much as any of the big guns. Chrome is not immune to those efforts to manipulate user behavior for business agenda reasons at every tick.
Google engaged in exclusionary "embrace-extend-extinguish"-esque tactics from a very early stage in Chrome's life, and on web properties that predated Chrome's public launch in their development. Painting Chrome as "break[ing] the Web free from corporate greed" is a pretty disparaging insult to those who genuinely have worked for years to try and do that.
But more importantly I think that articles such as this deflect from the real abuse-of-power that Google wields and that's in advertising. Google can and has shut down whole businesses by withholding access to its ad platforms. I'm not sure that Google has ever hurt anybody by denying access to Chrome.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18053163
It was obviously a joke as no one serious about text-only browsing would suggest lynx over the alternatives (w3m, links, links2, etc.)
(e.g. on Linux when I start Firefox it displays all tabs, but it refreshes/loads only the "last"/current tab - other tabs are refreshed/loaded only if I switch to them. On the other hand when I start Chrome, all tabs are refreshed/downloaded immediately, and all of them start running their code whatever it is)
Privacy - maybe.
Security? I doubt it. Google does a lot for Chrome to stay safe.
Performance adn battery usage? Safari works only on once OS it is build for, so there is really no contest, Firefox on the other hand is still a great way to stresstest your CPU. At least on macOS.
Firefox user for many years.
The plugin thing is really important so I can have some windows testing sites with different ad blockers and such.
What I expect is that Chrome will be designed to block all non-Google ads alone, so that Google doesn’t get affected. Google/Chrome then becomes the gatekeeper for what constitutes a decent ad for users. That would then arm twist publishers to switch to Google AdSense because that would be the only one providing revenues (or more revenues). Advertisers would then see their CPM/CPC costs increase, and they wouldn’t have many other choices. That would increase prices for consumers. I recall seeing stats recently that Google (still) is the largest in online advertising, with Facebook being second.
We’ve seen this kind of behavior before with Adblock Plus and the “acceptable ads” scheme.
There’s almost nothing to gain for the users. It will always drift (and only faster, with a monopoly) to satisfy the interests of the company.
I assume you meant:
> What I expect is that Chrome will be designed to leave Google ads alone, so that Google doesn’t get affected.
I agree with your analysis, but I'm surprised with your conclusion. I think if there's a monopoly that decides which ads are decent, it will cause the overall level of the ads to be higher, which is better for users - at no extra cost to them.
My rationale (and I'm very interested in the opposite opinion, if you're willing to explain it) is this. A monopoly has too much to lose from frustrated or unhappy users. If too many people become too angry, they'll eventually cause a major damage to the ad industry through political action, greater popularity of ad blockers, people avoiding websites with too many ads, or people becoming desensitized to ads (leading to a dramatic reduction in ad value). A small company won't really care if its ads damage the industry -- it's not there for a long run, it just needs to push its products and long-term effects are something it worries about. A (near-)monopoly that controls 20-30% or more of the market worth $100B's a year is going to be really, really careful about even the slightest damage to the industry.
As to your other point, CPM/CPC costs are not dictated by Google. It's a marketplace with supply provided by publishers, and demand created by advertisers. Google influences the prices by choosing the auction rules and by saying which ads are acceptable, but any large shift in prices can only happen from a change in supply/demand. So I'm not sure why you think a monopoly would cause a rise in CPC. If anything, a monopoly would make the marketplace more efficient, taking out intermediaries who take a big cut, and lead to lower prices (as for example happened with Amazon in online retail).
Luckily, Firefox, arguably among the most "free from corporate greed" of the browsers, has now finally caught up to Chrome on stability and speed (in my experience), and is rapidly adding privacy and content blocking features and defaults that Chrome lacks. If it were still behind Chrome technically, as it was in 2008, it probably wouldn't matter that Mozilla is more trustworthy than Google.
Curious, I remember speed being the primary reason. Google invented V8 (the javascript engine), with some pretty decent optimizations and a well-working JIT on i386/amd64 platforms. At the time when chromium came out, it handled some JS-heavy applications very nicely that Firefox struggled with.
There seems to be a bloat cycle with many products, browsers being one of them. They start off lean, gain features over time, and then they are or feel so heavy that a lean new competitor can feel like a fresh breeze.
Remember when Firefox was the fresh breeze, compared to the Netscape suite? I remember Chrome being perceived the same way when it came out.
Obviously the v8 stuff also made a massive difference too.
This was how I remember it as well. Not only that but the timing was very fortunate for Chrome because at the time Firefox had some very bad memory leaks which in my opinion really helped with Chrome adoption since people who use Firefox were more likely to be willing to switch browsers having already switched from another browser.
Chromes super fast start up speed and clean UI is what caused me to switch when it first came out.
The added funtionality that the browser "needs", once added, is in practice overwhelmingly directed at commercial purposes, primarily advertising-supported businesses.
In theory it could be used for anything.
Correct me if wrong, but Netscape was originally intended to be a browser for commercial enterprise where companies would pay licensing fees.
And Firefox, whatever its purpose was (perhaps an alternative to another corporate browser from Microsoft), ended up being the precursor to Chrome, a browser written by an ad sales company, as the original Chrome developers were originally Firefox developers.
Following the ideal that the web is this wonderful open platform accessible to anyone, I would like to see more browsers, with reduced functionalty (and perhaps increased safety/privacy and freedom from ads), written not by companies nor organizations that try to compete feature-for-feature with those corporations. These simpler browsers could target the non-commercial web, e.g. the web as a free information source. A web where an individual page need not be a conglomeration of random third parties vying for user attention.
Methinks it should be more troubling to the HN crowd that "browsers" are not amongst the class of programs that can be easily written, edited and compiled by anyone. They could be, but the popular definition of "browser" needs to change, moving away from "all the features of Company's browser" or "all the features Working Group is discussing with input from Companies" and more toward what a given user (cf. company, advertiser), including non-commercial users, actually needs for a given task.
There will always be corporate-sponsored web browsers with corporate-friendly, advertising-friendly features. But we need non-corporate browsers too. They may be enough to accomplish the user's non-commercial tasks but not well-suited for web advertising, e.g. optional auto-loading third party resources.
It took slightly longer to launch than IE, but since it had tabs, I didn't care, because I wasn't opening a new instances constantly.
(I suppose it makes sense I'd agree with someone else with a Perl-inspired handle :-)
>Curious, I remember speed being the primary reason
It was probably both. I know I was definitely sick of sites (mostly Flash) crashing the browser and throwing my entire session in the bin. I was probably already using some Gecko-based "light" browser instead of Firefox, but V8 did make a difference when using the emerging web app style sites like Gmail.
I'm pretty sure there's a copy of MooTools in the Chromium repository.
Among the tech crowd, probably. For the remaining 99.99% of users, absolutely not. Chrome's appeal came from the pervasive advertisement campaigns, from the bundling strategy with other pieces of software, for the pre-installation on new computers or from the ads on Google SEarch homepage.
It's not really possible to separate out the effects of advertising from the effects of the product actually being better. Maybe I installed chrome because I saw an ad, but I stopped using firefox because it was clear that chrome was better. The fact that you're emphasizing ads over the very real performance advantages just means you've got an axe to grind.
Google's primary objective for Chrome and Android was simply to get people to use the internet more, on the (entirely reasonable) assumption that they'd probably use Google and they would see a lot of AdSense units. They invested heavily in getting better software into the hands of as many users as possible. Of course they harvest a whole bunch of user data, but dragging up the quality of the browsing experience was a far bigger factor IMO.
Would Edge exist if Chrome had never happened? Would Firefox have a fast JS engine and proper sandboxing? What would the non-Apple smartphone market look like without Android? Whether you like Google's business practices or not, they've massively increased our expectations of browser software, in the same way that Starbucks created a world where you can buy a half-decent cappuccino in McDonalds.
Bingo! Thank you for pointing this out. For those younger readers, Chrome's penetration was forceful and uninvited. A browser add-on/search hijacker/ persistant spyware known as Google Toolbar was it's predecessor project from Google. It was an epidemic across the PC landscape for half a decade and all those infected machines became Chromes initial foothold. There's plenty of positives from the project, but for Chrome to achieve browser monopoly status, user consent sure did seem to get sacrificed.
- a bit unrelated but installer was a shim, ~downloading it took 3 seconds and 500kB
- Few buttons
- Transient status bar
- Transient download widget
- Good ergonomics (easy to close tabs in rapid successions without moving your mouse, the next one would fall in place)
- Clear preference panel
- Maybe later: pdf support and print dialog
Now, I still struggle to move to firefox as I'm on a retina MBP, where firefox riles up my cpu and drains my battery.
Firefox and Edge eventually adopted Chrome's design choices to have more content area, no "File, Edit, View" menu bar and an integrated search and address bar. But for years Chrome was ahead.
Guess who sets up the computers for the remaining 99.99%? If you seduce the tech crowd, you also get the other users.
Examples: https://imgur.com/gallery/WWZxj
And of course it has a complete garbage resources management which can be easly tested by opening few hundred empty tabs.. (mostly freezes whole OS around 180-270 tabs on modern desktops)
I think the focus was technical-- stability, speed, security being the main focuses. There is an element of breaking away from proprietary software in the comic too. (Rather ironic, to my mind, considering that it's Google's Internet now... >sigh<)
IE8 Beta 1 shipped March 5, 2008; Chrome's beta release wasn't till September. OK, admittedly, Chrome's stable release happened before IE8's, but MS was working on much the same thing.
And no, for me if Chrome is superior, it’s absolutely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that I cannot trust Chrome and that Firefox has been good enough for quite some time.
Yes I know the general population doesn’t think like me. I also think that ignorance in tech is dangerous.
Back when I first started using Chrome (I think in 2008), I used to describe it as a weekend race car with all the seats, upholstery, and HVAC stripped out. Fast, no frills.
Firefox, on the other hand, was your 1970s custom van with a cool wizard painted on the side, really comfortable seats, and lots of room for further customization. Not fast, but certainly versatile and designed to your liking.
IE7, naturally, was a Yugo.
(It does like to consume RAM as if it was running SQL Server though.)
If the firefox vs IE wars taught me anything its that tech savvy users have a huge impact on adoption. If you win over the nerds they will install firefox absolutely everywhere. They will develop their stuff to work well with firefox.
Chrome hasn't quite become ie6 yet but I feel like if trends continue Firefox will become power users favored browser. Firefox even today is still more extensible and customizable. It also has a more credible reputation for privacy. I believe even now the threat of Firefox is what makes Google hesitate to do things like kill ad blocking.
Chrome was widely adopted because it didn't suck and because google--a brand they already learned to trust for search--was constantly beating them over the head to upgrade.
IE wasn't just bad on technical grounds. It genuinely sucked for everyone. It was constantly getting infected with toolbars, popups, and generally crashing all to hell. It was confusing for people to use even when it wasn't any of those things.
Chrome was adopted by the majority of users because it worked at all. IE just didn't.
Indeed. When Chrome was first released Firefox had already broken the IE monopoly having reached around 33% of the browser "market share", and was still growing. Speed was the issue I seem to remember most people switching to Chrome for at the time.
It then started adding bloat and terribleness, which Chrome didn't have.
It's recovered now though, and is far better than chrome. It saddens me that so many on HN champion google and actively push for competitors to fail.
I don't remember where IE was at the time but I remember some websites were still only supporting it.
You can argue that Site Isolation is more important than large performance improvements (I think that's a losing argument, given that Site Isolation as presently deployed in Chrome doesn't even defend against compromised renderers and as such is restricted to being another Spectre mitigation), but you're being way too glib here.
In my opinion, despite their technical achievements, Firefox is currently headed down the same path Opera went down before they became essentially a Chromium reskin. Their dropping usage share is negatively affecting sites compatibility with Firefox, which is the only reason I went back to Chrome after giving Quantum a try.
ps- sorry it was so long. I actually am working on that.
> No one else had this at the time, and it was a big deal because Flash was still widespread so sites were even less stable than they are today.
I never saw a site crash my browser/tab until I used chrome.
To me it seemed like a workaround to a immature code-vase, because Firefox never had issues like this.
Either way: not really a selling point to me, at least.
WRT crashing stuff: I’ve used mostly Windows and Linux. Is unstable web browsers just a Mac thing?
- I can't disable CORS in Firefox (yes, sometimes you have to disable CORS rather than modify the Allow-Origin header response, for example if you need to test against a production backend) (and, no, CORS Everywhere is not a sufficient solution).
- I can't inspect WebSocket frames in anything except Chrome.
- Safari does not allow self-signed certs over WSS (and there's no way to override it).
- Safari does not respect System-wide APC Config for Proxies.
There's a handful of other issues. Both Safari and Firefox do do things well, and often better than Chrome. For example, Firefox tends to actually handle standards correctly, whereas Chrome tries to be overly forgiving. And Safari's Develop and Debug menus are easily the best and quickest way to disable CORS or JavaScript, and examine service workers.
Unfortunately, some of the above issues are blockers.
I can test with Firefox on staging or in production, but not being able to test up front during development really impacts compatibility testing.
If another browser was as good or better for development, I'd be happy to use it.
Chrome's main problem isn't that it's overstayed its welcome and is strangling the web (whatever you want that to mean), it's that it's so pervasive that people have become accustomed to it to such a degree that you're now faced with needing to convince people to give up what they're accustomed to. And that's a _much_ harder sell. Using chrome needs to literally be a grating or even damaging experience before someone will voluntarily switch to a different browser.
It's not as if people switched just because it had Google branding. Everyone switched because it was quantifiably better. From benchmarks to design, Chrome was a winner, and has enjoyed its success.
Now, Chrome is doing things that could be seen as "IE-like." Manifest v3 -- even with relaxed changes towards ad blocking -- will not necessarily enable uBlock Origin to continue exactly as it does today. The forced user system is another move in the direction of anti-consumer behavior.
I've tried to switch back to the competition. I'm using Firefox right now. Pages render faster and compact mode is great. But Handoff myseteriously doesn't work on my Mac when it does with Chrome (added in Firefox 65). I had to enable U2F support with an about:config flag. I had to turn off the spell checker to fight mysterious input latency in average textboxes.
I'm reluctantly staying because I ultimately like what I see, but there's an undeniable truth somewhere in here. It's really hard for Firefox to match Chrome simply based on resources. Google can drop millions of dollars on a browser -- and few other companies can afford to do that. Certainly not Mozilla.
> Making matters worse, the blame often lands on other vendors for “holding back the Web”. The Web is Google’s turf as it stands now; you either do as they do, or you are called out for being a laggard.
Indeed, I think it's the structural politics of WHATWG that make that hard to counter. WHATWG was almost founded on the principles of "not being a laggard" and "doing what we [browser vendors] do". When there were several browser-vendors with roughly equal market power they could counter-balance each other, and had an interest in compatibility with each other, but when there's an elephant in the room...
That is, the W3C folks that were accused of "holding back the web" while trying to keep standards-setting from going to WHATWG... were probably right.
You can disagree, but 10-15 years on, I think we're overdue a larger discussion and retrospective evaluation of the consequences of the WHATWG "coup". I haven't seen much discussion of this, many developers today may not even be aware of the history.
I don't agree with your weird rant, without any sources. Apple has shown with Safari that some people do like privacy features baked in, and while I can't say for sure, I hope it played a part in emboldening Firefox/Mozilla to focus a bit more on privacy.
The complexity of current web client stack is comparable with the average OS. Any modern browser has all components of Android OS for example - internal file systems, threads, VM, virtual native code execution, independent windowing and graphics stack, message routing, etc.
That's like situation with Windows and WINE. Yes, you may run some win progs on Wine but original Windows will always be better for them.
So we will have just one browser. That's the reality, want we that or not.
Until either one of these:
1. The spec of Web Client will be reduced to bare minimum. With unified extensions mechanism, think about <applet> but more flexible - based on universal bytecode VM free from licensing issues.
2. Or users will pay for the browser application, instead of having it for free - giving up their private data instead of money. So browser vendors will be able and motivated to provide better, privacy first browsers.
But now, I think we're past that point -- if your browser can't do native video conferencing and opengl and music apis and SVG animations and canvas support it might as well be a steaming turd.
I'd love to see someone try; to build a browser with third-party cookies excluded by design rather than policy (so that all off-domain fetches come from a blank "incognito" context), to build a React-style shadow DOM as the primary DOM and have the W3C DOM implemented as a polyfill, with client certificates integrated more naturally, completely killing the notion of allowing windows to open programmatically (I mean, how can pop-ups still be a problem? Any sane site is now using on-page popups if they need the UX), and some sort of model for integrating new web APIs and content handlers.
But combining all of that with a smooth and well-polished UI that works on multiple platforms is rapidly becoming something that only a large software corporation can pull off, and even there, mostly pull off badly. For now, I think Chrome is here to stay.
Then port Chromium to it as a portal to the legacy web.
To move Chrome development to some non-commercial "free world" institution. Like UN for example.
That's the only option to have a) security first and b) free browser.
No other options for free browser. Web client stack is so complex that to finance its development it should be a company that gets income from each browser instance installed. How they do that is a rhetoric question I think.
It took 2 years for IE to get 20% [1], and I wouldn't describe IE 1-3 as "fast and thoughtfully designed". I think the lesson here is simply that big tech companies with an established channel for reaching users can boost market share faster than open-source non-profit projects.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer#/media/File:...
Mozilla never had the raw revenue to just dump millions into forcing Chrome onto everyones desktop like that.
What? Chrome was more performant that any browser at the time it was released and it's still pretty good. It also became the gold standard for browser UX so much so that all other browsers copied a lot of it. Chrome also brought with it multi-process tabs and the V8 Javascript engine, how is that not "pushing computing forward"?
Safari was the browser pushing ahead on performance and being lightweight except in JavaScript. So Google took WebKit and added their own JS engine to it so that Gmail and their office suite could compete with Microsoft's offerings.
It worked and all browsers started an arms race for JS performance.
By 2009 this had dropped to 70%, with Firefox and Safari on 20% and 6%. Chrome hadn't even launched.
The hard work had been done -- people were using things other than IE, and it was growing.
Firefox then plateaued and Chrome built on this, in 2012 not a single browser had more share than 33% share.
After that things started going pear-shaped, and chrome started snowballing into monopoly
In my case, the feature that is missing from every other browser is MIDI access. I can plug a digital piano into my computer, and Chrome can talk to it. This is a standard, but the other browsers talk about it but never do anything, it's been "coming any day now" in Firefox since 2015, when I first conceived of the project ( https://pianop.ly/, a web app for playing piano along with original music videos from YouTube, karaoke style). It sucks that I have to tell people to use Chrome or it won't work. (although technically they can use Brave, Opera or other Blink based browsers)
Regardless of that one feature, I'm curious why there aren't better alternatives based on Blink that allow you to get the Blink engine without all these things we hate about Google's decisions (related to the being an ad company, for one thing). I understand that we'd still have a monoculture, but I don't see that as nearly the problem it was when browsers worked so differently, for basic layout and such.
How? It never stops puzzling me why anyone thoght Chrome would be any different. Somehow less corporate.
It is different! Microsoft never released even a single line of IE. Chromium on the other hand is completely open source, and we have that to thank for all the fun things that came of it from VSCode, to Brave browser, to Puppeteer. Things are WAY better now than in the dark IE days.
It was open source from start. Yes, Firefox as well, but it had Google as a brand behind it which put lots of trust in it because of the engineering talent they have.
It hasn’t shifted. It’s always been there.
I remember Mozilla "evangelist" employees hard at work, tweeting "version doesn't matter, it's the changelog that matters, chrome team could have changed two background colors and did +1 to the version counter".
Great battle move. Then, Firefox 4 got released and everyone hated the new interface. Even ex-mozilla cofounder JWZ complained that it feels beta even though it's a fully mature product out for a decade now and that's unacceptable. Also, No mp4 support. Oh yeah. They added it in Firefox 20 finally (then no webm support. They finally added it in January 2019. Good job)
In the meantime, Mozilla engineering kept fooling around with projects that went nowhere. Fennec Fox for mobile, what happened to that? THE JAVASCRIPT PHONE! FLASH TO JS CONVERTER, where is that now? That JS only Video Codec ORBX.js? that Eich said "I saw the future today" 10 years ago, and it's still not out yet. PDF JS (in it's first release made opening large PDF files on Firefox impossible) etc etc. Many good things came of from it too, like asmjs (ancestor of wasm), but in general there seemed a direction of everywhere, neither arriving here nor there.
Mozilla then switched the default search engine of Firefox to Yahoo! At a time when Yahoo was in the spotlight for rapidly dying and looking for a pity-acquisition!! It also came bundled with great bugs that kept resetting the default search engine back to yahoo - https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1206101
To give praise where praise is worth, Mozilla did realize their mistakes got back from their 9 year vacation (2009-2018) and Firefox today is finally very stable and relatively fast compared to Edge and Safari.
I know I am sounding trollish and bitter, but the truth is that I am just sad at how Firefox fell. What happened? Did people get lazy as their savings grew? Where key individuals poached away by Google and Apple? Did they burn out? Something surely must have happened...
That's me. Sorry, but I just can't be bothered to support every browser's quirks. I check Firefox every once in a while, but really, I don't mind losing a few users if it means significantly less maintenance and testing for me.
It's like complaining that developers are increasingly shunning other OSes - if it works on Windows, it's ready to ship. Yet people do this all the time for video games and most Linux users understand that making a game that runs equally well on Windows and Linux and Mac is no simple task.
When you log into an Google owned site, it interacts with the browser so that you are 'logged into your browser' with that Google account.
That is not pushing standards into a direction. That is blatant exploitation of ther market position.
I'm not exactly sure how advantageous you think this is.
> Chrome is effectively everywhere you look. And that’s bad news.
Why? It's the dream you wanted 10 years ago, but it comes with Google now. Ooops for you if you dislike Google, but the vast majority of people doesn't care. Use Safari, Firefox or anything, but calling out ditching Chrome is for the greater good is ridiculous.
H mentions 60% as a dominant position which is not how I would describe it in my dictionary.
10 years ago we didn't want a browser monopoly
We're worryingly close to having that now.
I'm not arguing for a lack of competition. It's just that someone needs to be on top of the heap. Might as well be a company that's invested in having their pages load fast rather than an OS maker with no incentive to improve their browser.
I wish Google would go back to funding Mozilla like they used to. At one point they were 90% of Mozilla's revenue.
No, I would have been perfectly happy if IE was a developer friendly, standards compliant browser, but they created a huge opportunity by ignoring this. I remember when I was super excited for a little floating JavaScript debug tool that you had to include in HTML and you could inspect variables without alerting them. I was amazed by it :)
> I wish Google would go back to funding Mozilla like they used to.
I think that's still the case:
https://www.cnet.com/news/google-firefox-search-deal-gives-m...
I think the dominance of Webkit is concerning, but I don't think we can reuse the justifications of ten years ago to say why. Chrome continues to be technically strong (though perhaps not as much) and continues to push web standards (though perhaps too many supporting Google). The situation just isn't as bad today as it was. There is a lot less friction in the everyday experience of developers and users who want to use cutting-edge web standards.
Monoculture is bad, but it's hard to get people excited about challenging it when the monocultural product isn't awful.
- Isolating tabs
- Seamless upgrades (seriously, why does Firefox STILL ask on startup if I'd like to wait and install an update?)
- Syncing between devices
- Performance (which at the time was largely terrible)
Most of this still holds true, at least for me, so I see myself using Chrome for years to come.
A great step Firefox could take in this space is improving the transparency and performance auditing of its own engine. Debugging rendering performance issues between browsers is still an absolute nightmare. If Firefox can provide a better developer experience than Chrome, it might increase the likelihood that web developers would use FF as their first-choice development platform for simplicity and utility of tools. If it doesn't, it may still decrease the odds that when faced with a nasty performance bug, developers will throw up their hands and say "Chrome does it right; I guess FF still just sucks for performance in this corner case."
FF has been making impressive strides in this space, but their toolchain still feels clunky and slow relative to Chrome Developer Tools.
> The dominance of Chrome has a major detrimental effect on the Web as an open platform: developers are increasingly shunning other browsers in their testing and bug-fixing routines. If it works as intended on Chrome, it’s ready to ship.
When you're following decently established standards (not bleeding edge), it's usually Chrome that breaks now, not Firefox or Safari. Chrome truly is the new IE.
Ideally, of course, you should not use Chromium-based browsers at all. Unfortunately this also now rules out Edge, but thankfully, Firefox is now a great browser again.
I must I am quite happy with Vivaldi at the moment, but a true open source browser would make me even happier.
I did try to use Firefox Developer Edition for a while, but despite being a step in the right direction, I must say I prefer the chromium developer tools.
I was really happy and excited whenever Google announced something new, because it was always so diverse, new, clever and somehow helped the world.
Now things have taken a complete 180 degree turn. Google has become an ad company, and any innovation serves only to squeeze a little bit more data out of users. "Don't be evil" got deleted, and Google indeed seems to actively embrace "be evil". They are not even arguing with it anymore - anything that serves to close down the web, force tracking, breaches of privacy and so on...
What changed in google? Any insiders? Just greed? Did important people leave?
Firefox was close this time, but there were still a few things that forced me to switch back:
- On Chrome I can type 'thisisunsafe' (previously 'danger' and 'badidea') to skip security warnings, sometimes I have to do this at work when testing things with invalid certs. On FF there's a class of these issues (HSTS I think?) that doesn't let you bypass the warning so it's unusable.
- FF still crashes more regularly (like when plugging or unplugging an external monitor.
Thankfully the other two main issues are no longer a problem:
- FF is now fast enough to be comparable
- The third party extensions I required (switchy omega) now exist for FF.
Another issue is that Chrome uses trust store from underlying OS which means that it does not support ECC certificates (ie. Cloudflare) on Windows XP. (Lets just say that there are valid reasons why one would want to use XP today and download something from web...)
Firefox already did this. We needed Chrome because Firefox lagged behind in performance and was a memory hog.
Actually IE8 had the same thing (and it was in development by 2007, so the few-months-later release date vs Chrome doesn't matter in terms of architecture).
Also when Flash crashed it would crash its container opposed to the outer page. Flash was also a separate process from the containing page.
This was my main initial reason for switching - sick of constantly having one tab lock up the entire browser. It was also prettier, and I liked the combined search and URL bar.
Now, I have no reason to change. Plus, Firefox is on all the machines at work, and really badly handles multi-system user accounts - if logged in on one computer then you cannot use on any others without launching with a special command line flag and switching to an entirely new profile (where none of the settings/logins are kept). Last I checked they had no interest in fixing this.
Chrome has never been process-per-tab - this is a common misconception. It's process per domain, except there are certain circumstances in which two tabs on different domains will still share the same process (such as opening a tab through a middle click).
Pardon ? Its completely opposite, same with performance, try to open more than 100 tabs on firefox and chrome..
The first change it referenced was a process per tab, and then on page 13 it referenced V8.
No other browser had it built in at the time.
IE8 had a public release with process-per-tab before Chrome debuted.
I’m sad to say that I hope that was my experience, but I’ve being trying Firefox (again) for the last 6 months and I still manage to make it irresponsive while developing, and very slow when using plugins like dark reader. So I had to revert to Chrome but I’ll try again in a few months.
I know enough to try to change it in the config files, but I couldn't figure it out in the time I spent attepting = /
the main selling point to me was closing it and opening it back with all the tabs was not a dramatic event but part of a clutter-free workflow
Arguably, with its market share dwindling fast, it's not enough to just be technically on par.
Further, it is absolutely not up to par on Linux and from what I know, MacOS as well.
Plus you get the benefit of Firefox not corrupting its session weekly. Losing all your cookies, tabs and history frequently got super annoying.
I am sitting on Arch here, Firefox Wayland and it's absolutely up to par, in fact Chromium seems less responsive these days. Granted, I have a very tuned, minimalist install, maybe on the likes of Ubuntu it's a different story.
I also have Firefox on my Windows 10 gaming machine at home and while I haven't run any performance anaylsis, I can;t tell the difference between the two in terms of speed and responsiveness.
The Mac version has crashed on me a few times though whereas my Windows 10 version hasn't.
Other than the OS they are on the two browser instances are set up exactly the same way.
Polar is an app for managing your reading. It also supports advanced features like caching web pages locally, annotating PDFs, tagging the documents you're reading, etc.
It's based on Electron and I've been going deep into Chrome internals as well as experimenting with Chrome extensions.
It's definitely a double edges sword here but I think there's an overly negative view of Chrome and/or having one platform.
Chrome is owned by Google. However, Chromium is Open Source.
Electron wouldn't exist without Chromium and there are other browsers based on Chromium.
I don't really see the benefit of duplicating things for the sake of duplicating them.
A lot of Firefox fans here argue that Firefox provides an alternative to keep us safe.
Safe from what? Chromium? It's Open Source?
Do we really need a duplicated HTML renderer? It's not like Chromium is going to vanish.
There's the argument that most Chromium developers are employed by Google - but not if Mozilla employs them.
It's always possible for fork these things.
Safe from monopoly control over Web standards.
The Web has been a consensus ecosystem, and Google does not have a track record of proposing reasonable standards. In my mind this is most grossly evident in the case of PNaCl, which was tied to their Pepper API and effectively impossible for non-Blink browsers to implement.
Google pushed for PNaCl to become a Web standard, and it was only through years of difficult effort that Mozilla was able to show AsmJS as a better solution, which eventually gave rise to the reasonable standard of WebAssembly.
Were Google in a monopoly market position back then, they would have pushed PNaCl, and non-Blink browsers would be unable to render the modern Web.
That might sound fine if you believe that Blink is the be-all-and-end-all of Web technology. But we have Servo now, and we already know better.
> Do we really need a duplicated HTML renderer?
Hah. Yes, and if there’s a point when we don’t, I vote we keep Servo instead of Blink. (There won’t be.)
Although it’s possible I’m replying to some filler in a comment that starts with a link to a product only related in the sense of “apps that use Electron exist”…
IE6 called
From a consumer perspective, the story is very different: Any browser will probably do, but choosing Firefox has the best long term effect on the development of the internet.
> the best long term effect
What do you mean by this?
I am primarily a back-end/services/middleware dev and don't do much front-end stuff these days.
When I do though, I use Firefox's dev tools and I don't know...I'm not sure what I'm missing?
I have Chrome on this machine too and have tried the dev tools there but I beyond layout I don't know what the differences are or what Firefox's dev tools are lacking.
But it's no longer my day-to-day browser. Firefox became more than adequate for that with quantum, and I see no reason to enable a Google that has made absolutely sure to shape itself into a machine that will always have powerful incentives to do the wrong thing.
For what it's worth, WebSockets show up as type 'Other' in the inspector, and the frames are listed under 'Preview'.
Edit: Safari.
I am using Firefox as my daily driver, because the browser itself is fast. But the dev tools just don't deliver. Waiting for a breakpoint to hit and open takes forever.
I'm keeping my eye on Firefox, but Chrome still gets my business for now.
And honestly, at this point I don't even bother opening sites that struggle in one with the other: I just go "you clearly just didn't care to develop your website to work cross browser, good job, goodbye forever" and close the tab.
For almost everything, both browsers are identical except for the veneer their UIs present. They have different quirks, but a reasonably generated website or React app will work just fine in both. So while, if someone asked me to recommend one, I would absolutely tell them to get Firefox: not one asks for recommendations... everyone's already using either Chrome, or "the ios browser".
(and safari on iOS really _is_ the new IE6. I 100% disagree with the article's claim that Apple is making good strides, there. It needs to get out the shotgun and take Safari out to the back of the barn)
1. Compatibility - random sites would just break...I reckon 15% of the time
2. Battery life - FF destroyed my battery life. To the tune of 8 hours on Chrome vs like 2 on FF.
same, except i use Brave (Chromium minus the Google crap/tracking.)
I try Firefox after every major update, but for me "pinch to zoom" not working for the trackpad is the biggest flaw. It's so frustrating/such a basic feature.
Safari and Chrome have had this feature for at least 6 years.
I have no data to back this up so you could say I'm just talking out of my ass, but I would guess that the non-technical users who makes up most of Chrome's userbase either don't use any add-ons at all or mainly use extremely popular ones that have equivalents in other web browsers like adblock.
I 100% agree with everything else though, the average user who uses a web browser exclusively for instagram and gmail does not see things like small performance increases or privacy as being worth changing habits for. Hell, some of the technical people I work with have no problem with companies/the NSA spying on them because they have "nothing to hide". I really think the only reason Chrome got so popular was because the meme that Internet Explorer sucks premeated our culture so strongly that basically everyone started to know that the first thing you do with a new computer is use IE to download a different browser, and what better to use than the one made by the search engine you use every day?
Chrome's campaign was a phenomenal example of a successful international product launch. Made even more impressive because it was for software, something most people /really/ don't care about.
If there's always some subpopulation who's never heard of diet coke & mentos (https://www.xkcd.com/1053/ ), it's pretty likely that there's some subpopulation that is unaware of the implications of Chrome's dominance combined with Google's business model and amenable to arguments that something like Firefox or even Safari might be a better choice.
And I think it's also worth considering that Firefox made significant strides into IE's marketshare back in the early/mid 2000s when users ostensibly had no reason to care by the standard of "no concrete/perceived benefits", since everyone had to code to accomodate IE. There's no other reasonable model I can think of other than IT professionals frequently recommending FF, and many non-pros finding that recommendation compelling enough to switch.
The speed and energy usage points instantly resonate with less technical folk who aren't so invested in browser wars.
For those who care a little more the increased security, ad / tracking blocking, tor integration etc are just the icing on the cake.
...what?
These are things to which we technically minded can easily adapt, but for the less technically literate it's bewildering, confusing, and possibly enough to make them angry.
Furthermore I'd argue that if the author hasn't used Chrome since 2014, he's not well positioned to comment on its usability today.
Not sure about 'vague', they're using non-standard APIs to advantage their browser accross Google products, implemented a forced Chrome login and are planning to remove ad blocking APIs, the last one being the most clear case of Chrome being used to support their primary source of revenue.
The knowledgeable minority, maybe. _Most_ people switched because Google pushed it like a piece of adware. Bundling it with other software installers, prompting you to use it whenever you use Google search or other products, and bundling it with an OS.
Mozilla Revenue: US$562.3 million (2017)
And personally I don't think it is just money. As a developer, I feel that the whole Chrome dev team are astoundingly competent developers. Mozilla has their bright spots, but overall I feel they struggle to compete technically in some areas.
for example, we now have https://screenshots.firefox.com/ so that I can store my browser screenshots In The Cloud. The developer hours are going somewhere, to Screenshots, or Pocket integration, or taking away unsigned extensions, or whatever. It's not that the devs can't make something better, it's that management doesn't think that's the best investment of time?
I would like to see a core HTML/CSS/Javascript spec that is a union of features proven to be available and work consistently across all browsers. The spec should incorporate ideas that are obvious in hindsight, such as the DOM diffing optimizations in frameworks like React, or running each tab in its own process.
I think that it should also take a broad perspective approach on things like padding and margin. For example, use simpler abstractions from layout engines like Qt or the layout-as-a-matrix-solver math behind iOS's Auto Layout constraints.
Find the commonalities to give us a high-level abstraction over all the div/span/table concepts of the web, then show a mapping from the abstraction to the quirks of how a div flows, for example. Maybe we could allow one transpiler to go from the solvable/predictable rules to the quirks of say HTML5.
The steps in this process could be relatively tiny and easy to test. It should render the DOM at > 60 fps on a Pentium 100 or equivalent, since games used to do that before they even had OpenGL.
I don't see any step of this process that is intractable. Once we had that, it should be relatively straightforward to build an open source browser as a base spec implementation. This is the sort of thing I fantasized about working on before I got so burned out.
I'm with you here, go on
>That's like situation with Windows and WINE.
Um, no. The situation is not, and has not ever been like that.
(If you think the analogy holds water, the burden is on you to argue that. I am not going to write an essay on how an airplane is unlike a cow; it simply is not.)
More eyes and hands on a single open source code base is better use of resources and leads to a better output.
Historically, I've heard from various sources that Mozilla may not work at the same pace as some of the large corporations do in upstreaming patches and releases to the code base. This has (according to what I have heard, which may simply rest on rumor/speculation/heresey, mind you) kept a lot of large entities from getting on board.
I've also heard that in building Quantum this is less of an issue, but their code base is a mess, and chromium's is incredibly well documented and clean by comparison.
Anecdotally, I would be inclined to agree with my second statement up front, after just browsing the two, but please compare for yourself
I don't really get why people judge source code by politics rather than "stealing" (forking) from the best.
Google is the main power behind all Chromium development and there have already been plenty of examples of the devs going "our way or the highway" with noone forking the browser engine. Upcoming is the new change to block adblockers from working properly in chrome. I see nobody willing to fork chromium over that.
You'd think a business would do whatever maximized value and ignore past negative interactions, but businesses are made of people.
> Fennec Fox for mobile, what happened to that?
That's just the code name for Firefox for Android. Ime it's fairly pleasant to use since flick scrolling was improved, and browser plugins on mobile are the selling feature.
> FLASH TO JS CONVERTER
Definitely sad to see Shumway die, but I think in retrospect it will be clear it was a forward thinking decision. WASM will obviate a lot of the effort for what has clearly become a historical feature.
> Mozilla did realize their mistakes got back from their 9 year vacation (2009-2018)
The origin of modern Firefox could be dated back to the origin of Servo in 2012 since it layed all the groundwork. I think this is the clear turning point in Mozilla's refocus, maybe push it back to 2015 when Firefox OS was dropped.
The evangelist tweets (I won't dig them because it's not cool) are 100% real, but keep in mind they were meant to be humorous and not official stance.
Firefox 3 got released in 2008, but firefox 3.5 (arguably the best browser at the time) was released a year later. Mozilla released many firefox updates in the meantime I believe they did so even after firefox 4 was released (no forced update from 3.5 to 4).
Firefox 4 was delayed to my understanding due to the whole html5 hype and trying to support as many of the new standards as possible (this info is from twitter so it might be wrong).
Lots of projects in limbo, not much different than google pushing NaCl, Dart, webkit prefixes. It looks bad only when paired with the general low activity. There were some chat logs leaked of mozilla people talking about adding webkit prefix support to firefox. Some where getting very angry over this. Today firefox supports the webkit prefixes :p must have been a multi-year argument.
Lack of mp4 support was due to MPEG LA owning the rights to h264. Mozilla didn't wanna pay the patent owners, in the end cisco created openh264 and mozilla used that, in 2014 nonetheless. Webm was not added because it wasn't a web standard. In my opinion both h264 and webm events got dealt in poor judgement but whatever.
The Yahoo change was due to an expensive multi-year contract between Mozilla and Yahoo. Money before users. I remember people defending it by saying that yahoo search is powered by Bing, not by yahoo themselves.
In general mozilla used to be this awesomely perceived company... no not company, foundation! They organized things like place giant firefox stickers in your city and gain online fame, and sending a cake to the IE team with every major release they did. Spearheaded the whole open web movement. It was Richard Stallman with Charisma 10! And then.. kinda suddenly stopped and became more like the Apache Foundation. Cool and all but slow and old.
People don't write C++ and think about the standard, they write C++ and see if it compiles.
Should they operate this way? Of course not.
Are you going to change human psychology and cause this to happen anytime soon?
Nope.
If you want them to change, you'd have to provide a reason it matters, and very abstract long term notions of "goodness" are not gonna cut it for most developers, for better or worse.
Even if you develop for Chrome, Firefox and Edge you'll just end up building workarounds for all 3, not adhering strictly to the standard.
Is there an "objective" test for standards compliance these days, like the good ol' acid test was for the box model? I agree with this sentiment, but only anecdotally - I'd like to see something concrete to back it up.
Except that web apps are easy to make OS-agnostic and always have been[1]. If your webapp isn't, that is because you chose to make it that way, not for a technical reason.
Pretending that's OK because these other things have to be that way isn't going to convince anyone, but you can get away with that for enterprise-development or captive audiences. Just don't try to gaslight people. For me, I'm just going to close your site when it breaks and not come back. Seems that tradeoff works for you too, so that's good, at least.
[1] Sure, that thing that never caught on, and IE6. Thanks.
I may not be rolling the latest features like WebSockets but I very rarely come across incompatibilities anymore. IE remains the biggest issue and honestly a lot of those are removing hacks and workarounds on older sites as after about IE9 they started to catch up with support.
Most of the "incompatibilites" that I fix are actually when our Junior Devs are using CSS attributes incorrectly and they've hacked their code until Chrome mostly works. In this era of Bootstrap it's not uncommon for developers to just throw CSS at the problem and 99% of the time that's what's caused the issue in the first place.
15 years later and we're stuck with old corporate sites that require IE6 and activex.
Linux, macOS and Windows aren't variations of the same OS APIs.
Breaking ad-blocking is sending me back to Firefox.
Google paid Apple 12 billion dollars last year to be the default search engine in Safari and another half billion to Firefox for the same. Google's primary objectives with Chrome was to lower that amount and to guard their monopoly on search.
by making google the default search engine on iOS?
I want Firefox to be faster and superior to chrome in every way. Ignoring it's problems won't make them go away and definitely won't make them a priority for the devs.
[0] https://blog.macsales.com/46993-rocket-yard-testing-lab-whic...
[1] https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=firefox-...
Every release they publish a blog post with new DevTools features, here's the latest one from January 2018 [0]. If you scroll to the bottom it has a section titled "Discover other DevTools features", which provides a long list of features they've been adding over time.
Their console autocomplete is just amazing. If you type `document.querySelectorAll('body')`, it shows you a preview of the result without even having to hit enter. Then if you type a period it shows you that the constructor is a NodeList, as well as its methods. They go over many of these features in their May 2018 [1] blog post. Keyboard navigation has continually been improving as well.
There's no huge killer feature, it's just very solid all-around. Over the years it has remained miles ahead of the competition. With that being said, I still use Firefox as my daily-driver, and I'm perfectly happy with their DevTools for many tasks. And they're actually superior for certain tasks, for example, when working with `display: grid` and `display: flex` [2]. I usually switch over to Chromium while I'm actively developing or debugging something, but I don't think there's any need to limit yourself to just one tool.
[0] https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2019/01/devtools
[1] https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2018/05/devtools
[2] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Tools/Page_Inspecto...
Edit: This is of course textual frames. I don't know where to find a site that demonstrates binary frames. I do notice that if I right-click the textual frame it has "Log Frame Text" as an option; maybe with a binary frame you can ask it to log the binary frame contents?
Edit 2: Ok I found a binary websocket test and unfortunately there is no option to log the binary info. That sucks. I recommend filing a bug report at bugreport.apple.com requesting better tooling around this. It's also worth checking the Safari Technical Preview to see if they've already added any better tooling.
https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2019/01/24/clarifyin...
But if that gets fixed, they go back to not caring... until/unless the pain rises.
But in general I agree with you.
> People don't write C++ and think about the standard, they write C++ and see if it compiles.
Yep, you not just have to provide a _reason_, you have to provide tools that fit into workflow as efficiently as conveniently as that. (Ideally, that's a (in this case) compiler that's standard compliant!)
Less RAM = More CPU or more disk space (and much slower)
Less CPU = more disk or RAM
Less disk = more network, RAM and/or CPU
Along the lines of a custom memory manager, that never releases memory back to the OS. If you open tons of tabs, closing them wouldn't release the memory back. Which is a decent guess - it used the memory once, it will probably need it again.
By making javascript so much faster, it allowed web designers to do things that only Chrome could do.
Not doing the same in Firefox was a conscious design decision by the Firefox team, which didn't want to hoard the memory when Firefox wasn't in use.
* Europe: Firefox overtook IE in 2011 with ~40%
* Africa: Firefox overtook IE in 2012 with ~40%. It looks like Firefox had the best chance of "crushing it" here.
* South America: Firefox overtook IE in 2015 with 12%. Peak was 32% in 2010
* Asia: Firefox overtook IE in 2016 with ~12%. Peak was 28% in 2011
* Oceana: Firefox overtook IE in 2017 with 12%. Peak was 32% in 2010
* North America: Firefox peaked at 30% in 2009 and was half as common as IE until 2015-2016. It still hasn't overtaken IE
Another point to reinforce this argument is that in many of those regions Firefox peaked around 2010 and started losing users too.
With all due respect, none of the pluses you mentioned would be a reason for a random, tech-illiterate, using-a-computer-for-FB person to install Chrome.
I get that they have limited resources but it makes getting people to switch (and stay) on Firefox increasingly hard if it cuts battery life of their laptop nearly in half.
In the meantime, setting gfx.compositor.glcontext.opaque to true in about:config helps battery life significantly, at the cost of rounded corners and vibrancy.
Also, coincidentally, do you know what exactly causes the H264 problem on macOS? I've tried to track it down in bugzilla to no success, but I am 100% sure it is a bug. The energy impact for playing a H264 YouTube video in Safari has an energy impact of ~25. Firefox used to be ~60, but these days its ~180 (!)
> In the meantime, setting gfx.compositor.glcontext.opaque to true in about:config helps battery life significantly, at the cost of rounded corners and vibrancy.
Thanks for this! :)
I recognize that WebRender is a huge technique achievement and I absolutely love it when people achieve silky smooth 60fps renders, and if I was working on games or graphics or UX, I'd probably rank that over top of Site Isolation.
The original post mentioned process isolation and flash, so my comment was more a long the lines of 'it's still behind chrome (in isolation)'
i've mainly used the mozilla lineage of browsers (all the way through netscape and back to mosaic) and was really dismayed when this happened because even by then it was pretty obvious that chrome was part of google's wild west landgrab before regulations and law had a chance to catch up to online surveillance.
I think the drive behind Chrome was to compete with Microsoft, by making a browser that was good enough to deliver your applications, and so make your OS irrelevant.
They have succeeded to the point where the only thing I would use Windows for now is Excel (and sometimes some obsolete development tools).
Chrome (when not on Android) seems far more benign than most applications as far as "surveillance" goes.
make no mistake, chrome's primary strategic purpose was to control the web in ways that extended and solidified google's reach in search, ad views, and personal data. they flanked it with a suite of tools (e.g., gmail, maps), content (e.g, youtube), and platforms (e.g., android) and made them work best on chrome (à la microsoft with IE).
chrome phones home constantly and uses increasingly intrusive techniques to identity us (like requiring a google account). whether you believe it's benign or not, that's surveillance. they're slowly boiling the pot and we're the frogs.
Used both for a long time.
(I like chrome's mobile 'simulation' better, but both still lack lots of things I wish I could do, like simulating tiny CPUs or limited RAM, actually tracing through setTimeout, etc)
Camino meant to fix that, but it has moved onto greener pastures.
As opposed to Chrome? Or Opera, Vivaldi, etc?
Browsers are a class of application whose UI's have been "native" only to themselves for years now.
They could fork it if necessary.
And I definitely agree that Google is faltering on a lot of their execution lately.
Most of the things they ship are like a 6/10 in terms of usability.
But we're just comparing impressions and I'd bet there is better data out there.
Microsoft was legally prevented from doing that, remember?
Why Google has been allowed to get away with it I have no idea.
> Why Google has been allowed to get away with it I have no idea.
Wasn't Microsoft only legally prevented from doing that due agreements made when they settled their antitrust case?
There needs to be another anti-trust case against Google, especially for the cases where it's used its monopoly in search to push its other products like Chrome, since that shouldn't even be controversial under current antitrust interpretations.
https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/pwa
I also am willing to surmise that they are going to put in alot of work re-working all their APIs that are exposed as Edge based interfaces into whatever engine they and up with here (namely chromium), so I don't think it would have been beyond them to put in the work to do something like they did with node and chakra core:
https://github.com/nodejs/node-chakracore
(which, btw, for now isn't dead: https://github.com/Microsoft/ChakraCore/issues/5865 likely for the reasoning I mentioned above)
I just don't buy it. I don't think easy electron compatibility is the main drive here.
by technical users
I imagine the general public still trusts them all the same or maybe even more.
I was a non technical users when chrome come out. I was studying civil engineering then in college. I certainly like Google as a symbol of freedom and technology superiority in the more pure sense than msft.
I think CA was only moved to the window server relatively recently. Before then, my understanding is that it simply used OpenGL in-process, so it had no energy advantages over Firefox's built-in compositor. There was also a long time when the APIs to host CA content in the window server were private APIs and only Safari could use them.
> Also, coincidentally, do you know what exactly causes the H264 problem on macOS?
I believe, but am not sure, that H.264 is decoded in software in Firefox but is decoded in hardware in Safari.
> I believe, but am not sure, that H.264 is decoded in software in Firefox but is decoded in hardware in Safari.
I am 100% certain it is (was?) on Firefox as well, because it would have been impossible to hit the aforementioned 60 energy impact without hardware acceleration. This is done through VideoToolBox, but that might have changed.
I try to live after the maxim: freedom before convenience (at least in parts of my life).
Firefox has developed Container Tabs, First Party Isolation, integrated Tracking Blocker, an early alpha for a password manager, Screenshots, Firefox Sync, DNS over HTTP and eSNI, not to mention that Mozilla lets addons do much more with the browser so an addon can really change how your browser works instead of being severely limited in what it can do.
We are in a thread about browsers and web standards. Do I really need to explain that Apple pushed h.264 on the web, ultimately forcing a binary blob on Firefox? The lagging on web standards is a common complaint among web developers.
I agree with your views on privacy and Chrome. I've stopped using Chrome except at work, where (sadly) the Chrome dev tools are too valuable to ignore.
I can agree with that in some regards, but I do think that MS has done a lot of things better. I think classic ASP was much better than PHP, though most of the unique functionality you might need was captured behind third party COM components. I think C# was/is a significant improvement over Java, and prefer .Net in general. .Net Core has been a very good shift, though some things seem more convoluted than they probably need to be.
As someone who tends to reach for Node first, I really do appreciate MS's efforts in that space to get things running as smoothly in windows as in Linux and Mac. As an early adopter (0.6/0.8 era) windows use was pretty painful. VS Code is imho was leaps and bounds ahead of brackets and atom at release. I also really do like MS Teams, though lack of a Linux build of the client is just stupid and short sighted.
I still use chrome first, but have ublock origin enabled, and tend to be picky about my exclusions, pisses me off to no end when sites just don't work with it enabled.
but they’ve certainly stagnated in my mind. i still use outlook/exchange and excel, but generally migrated away from microsoft many years ago now.
Houdini allows for low level control of CSS rendering, basically it allows for creating CSS classes with our own paint methods, and in the process having lower level JavaScript concurrency using less resources than workers.
Supporting Google/Chrome is supporting corporate interest over user interest. We've seen them already taking steps to remove support for 3rd Party Ad Blocking and to ignore privacy related features.
that's a bit misleading, no?
If you keep in mind that Google is an Ad company then adding an Ad Blocker to their product doesn't make sense until you consider that by doing so they diminish the need for 3rd party Ad Blockers. Once you can successfully argue 3rd Party Ad Blockers are unnecessary then the argument for removing an API they depend on to function is easier.
But by that measure safari is open source because WebKit is open source.
There's a lot more closed source code in Safari than there's in Chrome. But sure: Why not give them credit for open-sourcing WebKit? Safari is closer to open-source than IE.
For everything else there are network protocols, native apps and scripting.
Blocking ads, should be done at the network layer.
as for addons changing how my browser works - no thanks, i'd rather have a consistently nice browser experience than have to re-install addons everywhere
My patience with software is small but I had few issues with Firefox except on Google properties.
Not saying your experience didn't happen but it doesn't match mine.
I even used to be a Google fan and without being able to pinpoint a date I have memories of trying (and failing to) start using Chrome as my default browser at least once.
So I agree with GP and personally think the real story is more that Chrome:
- had massive marketing budgets and misleading campaigns
- won a number of benchmarks (but nothing to write home about on my Linux or Windows boxes)
- sometime between 2009 and now web developers forgot what we fought for when we fought against IE until 2009: that sites should work in all mainstream browsers. We didn't fight so much to kill IE as to let everybody else live.
- Suddenly sites started showing up that only worked in Chrome. Every new browser including modern versions of IE is more capable than anything we had back then and we also have polyfills and whatnot and so if someone cannot be bothered to do basic testing in more than one browser then I don't know what.
- I cannot say that Google was the worst but they certainly have had their "weird issues that doesn't affect Chrome". And I cannot say they did it on purpose and everyone is innocent until proven guilty but let me say that for a company that almost prints their own money their QA departement might have been slightly understaffed :-P
1. Firefox worked very well, thank you and I'm no natural saint when it comes to patience with software.
2. I am frontend (and backend) developer so I should know the difference between using bleeding edge features that doesn't exist in all browsers yet, non standard quirks that developers abuse, and performance problems.
All this at a time when Mozilla was spending lots of time trying to come up with a good Firefox 4.0, and was about to bet the farm on Firefox OS (and lose).
Firefox is and has always been perfectly adequate, except maybe for a few html5 canvas type apps.
It would seem that was the case for many more people, see for example for a fairly old article: https://www.cnet.com/news/why-i-switched-from-firefox-to-chr...
Of course, many were using plugins with Firefox which contributed to the speed advantage of Chrome. But milliseconds matter, even program startup time.
He still took a while to come around and ultimately it was the tab isolation that convinced him. Tabs were a critical component to how he did research and a few crashes were all it took.
Javascript heavy sites were also very slow on every browser, except for Chrome that invested in a good JS interpreter.
Alternatively, it could mean that, like me, they had NoScript installed when Chrome came out[0], making Firefox genuinely faster by dint of brute do-less-stuff-ism.
0: or when we heard about it anyway.
All that means is that you've opted out of the web that the rest of the world is using. Good for you. But people who have disabled JS make up such a small porportion of web users (~.2% of pageviews) that your experience is pretty much irrelevant to the question of general browser trends.
I'd also bet that Chrome was faster at painting pages than Firefox, so it wasn't just a JS engine advantge.
That may very well have been true, but if Chrome spends 10 cycles rendering the page and 100 cycles executing malware, and Firefox spends 20 cycles rendering the page and zero cycles executing malware, Chrome still loses despite being being twice as fast at the only thing that matters.
Marketing and the antitrust against MS are the difference.
No, it means I have a mother, siblings, friends, colleagues, ... that understand next to nothing to computers and would probably not even notice if I switched them from Chrome to Edge. And if any of them use Chrome, it is definitely not out of a conscious choice.
With all due respect, the single fact that you are commenting here on HN makes you more tech-literate than an overwhelming majority of the Web users. For a simple experiment, got to see your mom/dad, and just ask them what browser they are using, and why. IME, in every case, they will tell you they use ‶Google″, because they are not even necessarily aware of the whole browser concept, just accessing ‶The Internet″ – and I say it without any contempt; I'd be unable to do the tenth of what they are able to do in other fields.
Once again, I'm not saying that Chrome had/has not technical advantages; I'm saying that they were not decisive in making people switch.
Or maybe you did because it was drive-by installed with other software, like common malware, something Google paid millions for.
Imagine if MS did anything similar with any of their products. There would be no end to the outrage.
Firefox's has been horrible for a long time, but at least (until they dropped the old extension system) it was possible to fix it.
The standards are a single source of truth for your production, if you build solely to a single browsers quirks (in this case Chrome) then those quirks can change at any time.
I still fix FF bugs when they come in (it seems to be a bigger offender than IE recently) but developing for Chrome first is the only approach which makes business sense.
It adds very little extra work with the advantage of surfacing edge cases/issues that might have bitten me even if it was just Chrome in the mix.
Also from a business risk point of view tying the entire platform to a capricious vendor is dangerous and I've been around long enough to remember the days of IE5 then 6.
Once bitten, twice shy.
A web developer codes against real machines, not the imagined, idealized, and non-existent machines the specs describe.
Regardless of browser matrices, it is the will of the developer to support the open web platform that made sure that Internet Explorer and thus Microsoft didn't own the web (browser) in the 2000s.
Anecdotally this point of view has done no harm to me and I'm not the only that shares it.
And then what?
> And then what?
Build to standards first, then accommodate quirks last.
Building to Chrome first is just building to its quirks, and totally forgetting about standards.
I just write standards compliant ES6 code, put it through a transpiler and some polyfills, and my code runs on every browser. I haven't had to think about which browser I'm targeting for years.
... but you can (and I'd argue in a lot of cases, looking around at the overly-complicated sites on the web, should) write a lot of fully functional web pages by keeping to the standard and trusting it's good enough. We are no longer in the bad old days where IE and other browsers deviated significantly---most of the browsers today adhere closely to the spec, and in the places they don't, it's often more like one browser handles a nasty corner case better than another because the browser built an optimization in for a critical path your page layout cares about.
"Write HTML, test on Chrome" - what people do in practice - seems to fit "build to standards first, accommodate quirks last" just as well as "build to Chrome first".
[1] https://news.softpedia.com/news/Lead-Firebug-Developer-Joins...
This is probably very subjective, but I can absolutely not relate to that.
I certainly see where GP is coming from, Microsoft do have an awesome legacy in dev tooling that lives on to this day with products like VSCode, but browser tooling might be the glaring exception to this - perhaps since Microsoft never really was or became an 'internet' company.
I think that's a debatable assertion.
... years later ...
- A year ago I often used Firefox for its great Canvas debugger. They broke it. I've since forgotten about Firefox.
... 2019 ...
- Microsoft is trying to drive people away from IE, hoping for Edge adoption. I don't care for Firefox. Opera is almost Chrome with extensions. Edge sounds like it wants to be Chrome. Chrome won on most battlefronts. I don't like that fact, because of the "free from corporate greed" reasons mentioned, but it's going to be hard to change the status quo.
Lolno, they gave up and are ditching Edge to use Chrome because Electron. https://9to5google.com/2018/12/03/microsoft-chrome-based-bro...
There's plenty of room to improve on privacy. Non technical people don't care too much about privacy issues yet, but they will.
I keep trying to change to Firefox, but bring dragged back to Chrome.
I mostly work on stupidly big Single Page Apps, which may be part of the issue.
The reason web developers care about those customers varies from dev to dev. Some believe there is value in a heterogeneous ecosystem of browser implementations. Some have a few high-value customers who refuse to switch (or, in the case of e.g. Microsoft, cannot switch because enterprise constraints are restricting what browser stack they're allowed to run).
But the point stands that when you support multiple browsers, you don't approach ideal user experience (in terms of performance and reliability) for all your customers by throwing your fingers in your ears and proclaiming "That browser is out of spec!" when you find a quirk---you do what you have to do to make your code run on, around, or in spite of the quirk.
Writing to support one browser first was exactly what got everyone down in the deep hole writing code for IE only to find that it didn't work the same in Firefox and Chrome early on.
Also the Dev should be well aware that anything they write to support quirks could well be invalid code such as IE conditional comments.
0: unless you count monitors as TVs, or disassembly-for-parts as use.
That’s my opinion anyway.
Feel free to expand on what features you still miss in Firefox that exists in Chrome though.
Looking from the other side Chromes extension API looks like a toy compared to Firefox, even after Mozilla "nerfed" it. (And ours is improving while Chrome is actively trying to remove even some of the most used features from theirs.)
I wish we could be honest about things like you && at the same time behave like grown ups.
Yes: I've been arguing against a couple of Chrome fans here but hopefully only when they're plain wrong or are presenting their personal ideas as truisms without any evidence :-)
Chrome’s extensions were isolated, easy to develop and had a permissions system in place.
To this day Firefox is still lagging behind in its isolation. For example Chrome can disable extensions in Incognito, but Firefox does not.
Also if you’re not paying attention, Chrome won and it’s nearly a monopoly. This means browser extensions get developed for Chrome first. Having similar APIs helps with migration.
I view the change as a good thing because I can finally develop my own extensions without headaches.
That is being worked on though:
> The first batch of changes to not run extensions in private browsing mode by default landed, this is still behind a preference.
https://blog.nightly.mozilla.org/2019/01/31/these-weeks-in-f...
Solution: change profile to launch another browser instance without extensions.
Go to "about:profiles" in the address bar, or configure shortcuts in your OS to launch browser with different profiles: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Firefox/Mul...
Not me. If the new extension system didn't present a loss of important (to me) functionality, then I'd think it was a good thing.
But the loss of functionality happened, and that change is what makes the new Firefox unsuitable for me, so I stopped using it (and I never used Chrome).
Up until recently†, I'm not aware of a situation where a popular Firefox extension was unable to work in Chrome due to Google restrictions.
†I'm purposefully excluding the whole adblock thing, as that's super recent and thus not relevant here.
I actually still think the API design was a good idea and am glad for the added security. Still, the API change took down some popular extensions for sure.
Now there is no more middle click to submit on forms and I used that at my old job to speed up a bunch of tedious tasks.
It is, and it boils down to the usual security vs. utility tradeoff - beyond some point, more secure means less useful. Kernel access is a stretch, but then again, I could make my computing experience much more pleasant if I had a deeper ability to control and inspect the browser from external software running on my computer.
Especially in Private/Incognito Mode I only want extensions for blocking ads/trackers + 1Password and that’s it.
Also being able to see what the extension does is really valuable to me, because allowing an extension to read the data on all websites you visit is really suspicious for a majority of extensions.
Mozilla has had a good review process in place and truth be told Chrome's Web Store has suffered from spyware and malicious extensions more than Firefox. But that's only because it is more popular and Google is known for really screwed / non-existent human support (e.g. extensions being reported as being malware with no immediate action).
That's fair, but this dynamic drags down usefulness of the whole platform. Browsers could offer extended permissions allowing extensions arbitrary control over the browsing experience, but they can't trust extension authors not to get greedy about privileges, and can't trust regular users to be smart about it. It's what happened with Android: applications requested every possible permission, users learned to just accept it.
> Also being able to see what the extension does is really valuable to me, because allowing an extension to read the data on all websites you visit is really suspicious for a majority of extensions.
That's true, and I wish there was an easy way to transparently run a I/O trace on an extension, and to have super-fine-grained user-level control over its permissions. I use a bunch of extensions that modify the contents of sites; I wish I could manually restrict them to a whitelist - and sometimes blacklist. Like, e.g. I don't need Cloud2Butt to work on my banking site.
