5 ms·
Who do you trust? Certainly not Chromium-Edge. That leaves "only browse the internet on a Mac with Safari" or browsers with such tiny market share that they'll
by the_jeremy 6y ago
Who do you trust? Certainly not Chromium-Edge. That leaves "only browse the internet on a Mac with Safari" or browsers with such tiny market share that they'll never be tested against, and sites will routinely be broken for you. My company doesn't do any non-Chrome compatibility testing, so all our intranet sites require Chrome.
- laumars 6y agoPlus any smaller browser likely just another Chromium or Blink fork. There is very little out there these days that is truly independent.
- SahAssar 6y agoWhy not firefox?
- colejohnson66 6y agoIn the past, it used to be (at least for me) because of Gecko. Websites didn’t render the same as in WebKit.
- SahAssar 6y agoNot sure when that was but I have no rendering issues with firefox. As a webdev I can say that FF's rendering these days is pretty much spot on.
- dingo_bat 6y agoI have a very silly reason but it just irritates me so much that I cannot use Firefox. It does not support win10 precision gestures to zoom and go back/forward.
- the_jeremy 6y agoI use firefox. The parent comment said they didn't trust firefox or chrome.
- derefr 6y ago> Who do you trust? Certainly not Chromium-Edge. Why not? Chromium (= Blink, plus some other stuff like a network request stack) development happens in the open, just like WebKit development. It might be steered by Google to such an extent that there's always the possibility of it going in a bad direction; but it's not like you're not going to hear about it if something privacy-violating is introduced into the Chromium codebase (rather than the downstream Chrome codebase.) And you can switch away from the browsers that use it if/when that happens. For that matter, if upstream Chromium ever did start "going bad", those browsers that rely upon it would also likely switch away from it, either cooperatively forking it into a new community-maintained project, or switching over to WebKit (with which it is still mostly ABI-compatible.) > browsers with such tiny market share that they'll never be tested against, and sites will routinely be broken for you Even if you don't want to use anything based on Blink, WebKit is also a large ecosytem, and minor WebKit-based browsers can "inherit compatibility" from developers targeting (mostly Mobile) Safari. Several Linux browsers (GNOME Web, Falkon, Midori) use WebKit, for example. They render everything just fine (i.e. just like Safari does.)
- wayneftw 6y agoI wanted to like Edge but... > The browser also sends unique hardware identifiers to Microsoft, which is a "strong and enduring identifier" that cannot be easily changed or deleted. https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/microsoft/research-finds-microsoft-edge-has-privacy-invading-telemetry/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/microsoft/research-fin...
- derefr 6y agoOh, ah; I thought the above meant "why not Chromium and/or Edge" rather than "why not the Chromium version of Edge." Yes, I can see why you'd avoid Edge specifically, same as avoiding Chrome specifically. But that's not an argument against using upstream Chromium (which is, in fact, a browser all on its own, stadnalone downloadable and shipping with several Linux distros); or against other Blink/Chromium-based browsers (e.g. Brave), no? Either choice would get you compatibility with anything Chrome itself is compatible with (in terms of websites; not necessarily in terms of extensions—though the difference is just in the legacy Chrome extension APIs; WebExtensions work fine everywhere.)
- smnthermes 6y agoUnless you frequently use spyware websites that are too lazy to do server-side scripting, using a browser with a less used engine is fine.