3 ms·

> The issue at hand is that Mozilla is dropping support for plug-ins, and hangouts' implementation of media streaming uses a plug-in Every time two systems nee

> The issue at hand is that Mozilla is dropping support for plug-ins, and hangouts' implementation of media streaming uses a plug-in Every time two systems need to integrate, the vendors always can and often do point the finger at each other. In this case, Google had since October 2015 to fix this, didn't do it, and now attributes the problem to Firefox. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13764449 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13764449

bpodgursky 10y ago
> Google had since October 2015 to fix this Sorry, but I don't really believe in an internet where the default assumption is "you have to rewrite your application within two years, or if it's broken it is your fault" Hangouts relied on browser support which worked. It's crufty, I get it, but it was supported. If this was Microsoft pulling support for old Windows 98 API calls, everyone on HN would be appalled that their old-but-reliable software no longer worked on a new OS. But then for some reason, they give Mozilla a complete pass on the exact same behavior. Finished webapps should not require a constant refactoring and fixing to keep them usable. We're only hearing about this because it is Hangouts and Google. Sure, Google _could_ throw a bunch of money at it and fix it, but there are thousands of other little sites which will just silently die forever, and I don't believe Google should _have_ to update this.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > I don't really believe in an internet where the default assumption is "you have to rewrite your application within two years, or if it's broken it is your fault" In a way I agree; the lack of stability is costly for users, especially in managed environments where changes needs to be planned and tested thoroughly before deployment. Frequent updates do seem to greatly improve quality, but the lack of support for old versions is painful. It's a way of shifting the cost of old versions from the vendor (who would have to maintain them) to the user (who has to deal with the updates). On the other hand, Google does the same thing and it seems like the norm now for software, especially web and Internet-based applications. I've come across many web apps that will only support the latest (or two latest) versions of browsers. It's also far better for security. Arguably nobody has less reason to complain than Google: It's their own practice, and possibly nobody has better resources for keeping up - money, personnel, talent, and expertise - they make browsers themselves.
  - digi_owl 10y ago
    Frankly it was Google that set the ball in motion, by frequently, and quietly, downloading Chrome updates in the background. Next time you launched Chrome, whole new version etc. Mozilla felt they had to jump on the bandwagon or come across at lethargic. To me this is the web dev "push to prod" mentality encroaching on the desktop, and i am not really sure it belongs there.
- tyingq 10y ago
  This specific change feels a bit different to me since Google was also aggressively deprecating NPAPI in their own browser[1] It was an industry trend, not really a Firefox specific decision. [1] At a faster pace than Firefox, as it happens: https://blog.chromium.org/2014/11/the-final-countdown-for-npapi.html https://blog.chromium.org/2014/11/the-final-countdown-for-np...
- cpeterso 10y ago
  > "you have to rewrite your application within two years, or if it's broken it is your fault" Hangouts would require fixes, but not quite a rewrite. When Mozilla announced in October 2015 that it would EOL NPAPI plugins over a year later, Hangouts had already switched from NPAPI to WebRTC in Chrome over a year before (July 2014): https://plus.google.com/103171586947853434456/posts/39TCW3PcLye https://plus.google.com/103171586947853434456/posts/39TCW3Pc...

bpodgursky 10y ago

> Google had since October 2015 to fix this Sorry, but I don't really believe in an internet where the default assumption is "you have to rewrite your application within two years, or if it's broken it is your fault" Hangouts relied on browser support which worked. It's crufty, I get it, but it was supported. If this was Microsoft pulling support for old Windows 98 API calls, everyone on HN would be appalled that their old-but-reliable software no longer worked on a new OS. But then for some reason, they give Mozilla a complete pass on the exact same behavior. Finished webapps should not require a constant refactoring and fixing to keep them usable. We're only hearing about this because it is Hangouts and Google. Sure, Google _could_ throw a bunch of money at it and fix it, but there are thousands of other little sites which will just silently die forever, and I don't believe Google should _have_ to update this.

hackuser 10y ago
> I don't really believe in an internet where the default assumption is "you have to rewrite your application within two years, or if it's broken it is your fault" In a way I agree; the lack of stability is costly for users, especially in managed environments where changes needs to be planned and tested thoroughly before deployment. Frequent updates do seem to greatly improve quality, but the lack of support for old versions is painful. It's a way of shifting the cost of old versions from the vendor (who would have to maintain them) to the user (who has to deal with the updates). On the other hand, Google does the same thing and it seems like the norm now for software, especially web and Internet-based applications. I've come across many web apps that will only support the latest (or two latest) versions of browsers. It's also far better for security. Arguably nobody has less reason to complain than Google: It's their own practice, and possibly nobody has better resources for keeping up - money, personnel, talent, and expertise - they make browsers themselves.
- digi_owl 10y ago
  Frankly it was Google that set the ball in motion, by frequently, and quietly, downloading Chrome updates in the background. Next time you launched Chrome, whole new version etc. Mozilla felt they had to jump on the bandwagon or come across at lethargic. To me this is the web dev "push to prod" mentality encroaching on the desktop, and i am not really sure it belongs there.
tyingq 10y ago
This specific change feels a bit different to me since Google was also aggressively deprecating NPAPI in their own browser[1] It was an industry trend, not really a Firefox specific decision. [1] At a faster pace than Firefox, as it happens: https://blog.chromium.org/2014/11/the-final-countdown-for-npapi.html https://blog.chromium.org/2014/11/the-final-countdown-for-np...
cpeterso 10y ago
> "you have to rewrite your application within two years, or if it's broken it is your fault" Hangouts would require fixes, but not quite a rewrite. When Mozilla announced in October 2015 that it would EOL NPAPI plugins over a year later, Hangouts had already switched from NPAPI to WebRTC in Chrome over a year before (July 2014): https://plus.google.com/103171586947853434456/posts/39TCW3PcLye https://plus.google.com/103171586947853434456/posts/39TCW3Pc...