2 ms·

>Its not like there is some new killer feature in the new google maps that makes it not work on Firefox, I have used it from Firefox in the past week and it wor

by pikzen 9y ago

>Its not like there is some new killer feature in the new google maps that makes it not work on Firefox, I have used it from Firefox in the past week and it worked fine. Even if there were some killer feature, they are free to release it in such a way that it only works with their software. http://i.imgur.com/FDM5DQ9.png http://i.imgur.com/FDM5DQ9.png k You're doing 180s with such grace, it it impressive. On one hand, Google isn't forced to release their software for firefox. On the other hand, they're paragons of the open web and are all about standards >when they start breaking other's people things They are! They actually are! These bugs I listed aren't "bad engineering". They're "When UserAgent is detected send shitty version". In what world is that not deliberately breaking people's things? Users access Inbox on Firefox, see that their friends on chrome that sent him the link can actually access it, they're not going to blame Google, they're going to say that Firefox is a piece of crap and dump it. > maliciously manipulating standards. chrome.* javascript APIs Bluetooth API FileSystem API -webkit CSS prefixes not manipulating standards, just implementing half assed things on their side of things and leaving the blame on other browser manufacturers when they don't implement them. >They didn't force it on anyone else. "Company with 50% of desktop browser share and 80% of mobile browser share only unilaterally did something non standard and screwed everyone over. But that's not forcing everyone's hand I swear, they're only the biggest players on the market." k You know, when pcwalton keeps proving you wrong over and over again, you might want to rethink your opinions. It's not as if he knew what he's talking about or anything, right? :>

sqeaky 9y ago
> They're "When UserAgent is detected send shitty version". If you must pick an example of them breaking stuff, please pick one that they didn't already apologize and fix. > http://i.imgur.com/FDM5DQ9.png http://i.imgur.com/FDM5DQ9.png My mistake on confusing google earth with google maps, that is an important point that issue. It does suck that doesn't work on firefox, but no one is forcing any one to do anything. Its not like you paid for any of this, or there is some law that says companies have to give stuff away for free. > You're doing 180s with such grace, it it impressive. On one hand, Google isn't forced to release their software for firefox. On the other hand, they're paragons of the open web and are all about standards I am not reversing my stance or saying anything self contradictory. I am attempting to define nuanced boundaries around some who would rather bludgeon things into a simple categories whether or not it fits. So far all I hear are complaints about company giving away huge amounts of value for free, but isn't doing it the way you (or I) want. I never said Google was paragon of anything and I admitted they could do better (I really do wish they would do better), the only line I am taking is that their behavior is not "anti-competitive", which is not a high bar. Which has not been disproved or this case even rationally approached. I am open to having my mind changed, but I would need well thought out discourse and evidence to change it. If you respond again so thoughtlessly or with such poor grammar I will not be responding again.
- pikzen 9y ago
  >If you respond again so thoughtlessly or with such poor grammar I will not be responding again. ...Okay then ? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ It's not as if we were having a meaningful discussion anyways, each of us camping on his positions.
  - sqeaky 9y ago
    Pcwalton provide me new information and did change my opinion on some things and I suspect I gave him at least some new perspective. You... Clearly just want me to agree with you without applying any critical thought of my own. You implicitly my experience, personal and professional, while presuming your stance to be the only valid one on a subjective topic. That is not how you have a constructive conversation, goodbye.

by pikzen 9y ago

sqeaky 9y ago

> They're "When UserAgent is detected send shitty version". If you must pick an example of them breaking stuff, please pick one that they didn't already apologize and fix. > http://i.imgur.com/FDM5DQ9.png http://i.imgur.com/FDM5DQ9.png My mistake on confusing google earth with google maps, that is an important point that issue. It does suck that doesn't work on firefox, but no one is forcing any one to do anything. Its not like you paid for any of this, or there is some law that says companies have to give stuff away for free. > You're doing 180s with such grace, it it impressive. On one hand, Google isn't forced to release their software for firefox. On the other hand, they're paragons of the open web and are all about standards I am not reversing my stance or saying anything self contradictory. I am attempting to define nuanced boundaries around some who would rather bludgeon things into a simple categories whether or not it fits. So far all I hear are complaints about company giving away huge amounts of value for free, but isn't doing it the way you (or I) want. I never said Google was paragon of anything and I admitted they could do better (I really do wish they would do better), the only line I am taking is that their behavior is not "anti-competitive", which is not a high bar. Which has not been disproved or this case even rationally approached. I am open to having my mind changed, but I would need well thought out discourse and evidence to change it. If you respond again so thoughtlessly or with such poor grammar I will not be responding again.

pikzen 9y ago
>If you respond again so thoughtlessly or with such poor grammar I will not be responding again. ...Okay then ? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ It's not as if we were having a meaningful discussion anyways, each of us camping on his positions.
- sqeaky 9y ago
  Pcwalton provide me new information and did change my opinion on some things and I suspect I gave him at least some new perspective. You... Clearly just want me to agree with you without applying any critical thought of my own. You implicitly my experience, personal and professional, while presuming your stance to be the only valid one on a subjective topic. That is not how you have a constructive conversation, goodbye.