3 ms·

False. From the Native Client wikipedia page: As of 13 May 2010, Google's open source browser, Chromium, was the only web browser to utilize the new browser p

False. From the Native Client wikipedia page: As of 13 May 2010, Google's open source browser, Chromium, was the only web browser to utilize the new browser plug-in model.[28] Mozilla has announced that they are "not interested in or working on Pepper at this time."[29] As of 2015, Pepper is supported by Chrome, Chromium and Opera.

eropple 11y ago
All of which are functionally the same Blink-based browser, so you're splitting a really fine hair.
- denniskane 11y ago
  Okay, so let's examine the remaining browsers, shall we? Safari and IE/Edge automatically don't matter because they are exclusive to their respective [proprietary] host operating systems. That leaves Firefox. Does anyone really think there is legitimate competition between Chrome and Firefox anymore? I mean don't get me wrong, Firefox was a godsend in the bad old days of M$IE domination... But this is 2015, and Google is basically Skynet, while Firefox is not much more than a warm, fuzzy memory. Seriously... does anyone really want to turn this into a battle between Google and Mozilla?
  - nicalsilva 11y ago
    What? Whether or not a browser matters depends on the amount of people using it, not on whether you can install it on several operating systems.
    - denniskane 11y ago
      If someone is trying to turn this into a moral discussion about the positive value of the so-called "open web" to humanity, then the question of whether the actual codebase is open-source, and runs on every platform is of primary importance. My original reply was to a part of the article that talked about the "evil" non-open nature of web-technologies that are not humanly readable, textual HTML/CSS/JS. Then someone replied that PNaCl is only supported by a single vendor. Then I said that was a factually incorrect assertion, with the response being that I was engaged in hair splitting. So then, I suggested that we should examine the rest of the vendors. In the morals based context of this entire subthread, I think it is plainly obvious that Safari and IE/Edge don't have any place here, when it comes to the question of whether PNaCl is a "good" technology, based simply on the question of the proportion of vendors that happen to support it. If you are instead talking in a purely pragmatic, capitalist sense... then of course all that matters is brute numbers. But then there is no real discussion to be had, because in the cold, hard business world, whoever wins is just whoever wins. A equals A. It's a mere tautology.
      - icebraining 11y ago
        If the measure is moral rectitude, how is Firefox a "fuzzy memory", while Chrome isn't despite Google being "basically Skynet"? Your whole line of argument is confusing.

eropple 11y ago

All of which are functionally the same Blink-based browser, so you're splitting a really fine hair.

denniskane 11y ago
Okay, so let's examine the remaining browsers, shall we? Safari and IE/Edge automatically don't matter because they are exclusive to their respective [proprietary] host operating systems. That leaves Firefox. Does anyone really think there is legitimate competition between Chrome and Firefox anymore? I mean don't get me wrong, Firefox was a godsend in the bad old days of M$IE domination... But this is 2015, and Google is basically Skynet, while Firefox is not much more than a warm, fuzzy memory. Seriously... does anyone really want to turn this into a battle between Google and Mozilla?
- nicalsilva 11y ago
  What? Whether or not a browser matters depends on the amount of people using it, not on whether you can install it on several operating systems.
  - denniskane 11y ago
    If someone is trying to turn this into a moral discussion about the positive value of the so-called "open web" to humanity, then the question of whether the actual codebase is open-source, and runs on every platform is of primary importance. My original reply was to a part of the article that talked about the "evil" non-open nature of web-technologies that are not humanly readable, textual HTML/CSS/JS. Then someone replied that PNaCl is only supported by a single vendor. Then I said that was a factually incorrect assertion, with the response being that I was engaged in hair splitting. So then, I suggested that we should examine the rest of the vendors. In the morals based context of this entire subthread, I think it is plainly obvious that Safari and IE/Edge don't have any place here, when it comes to the question of whether PNaCl is a "good" technology, based simply on the question of the proportion of vendors that happen to support it. If you are instead talking in a purely pragmatic, capitalist sense... then of course all that matters is brute numbers. But then there is no real discussion to be had, because in the cold, hard business world, whoever wins is just whoever wins. A equals A. It's a mere tautology.
    - icebraining 11y ago
      If the measure is moral rectitude, how is Firefox a "fuzzy memory", while Chrome isn't despite Google being "basically Skynet"? Your whole line of argument is confusing.