3 ms·

> 13 issues These are mostly a to-do list...which makes sense at this stage? I'm not sure what you're getting at. Do you think that Apple or Mozilla can stop

> 13 issues These are mostly a to-do list...which makes sense at this stage? I'm not sure what you're getting at. Do you think that Apple or Mozilla can stop webapps from taking their rightful place?

dmitriid 5y ago
> These are mostly a to-do list...which makes sense at this stage Which stage is it? Chrome is already shipping this, enabled by default. And the "todo list" covers important issues around permissions, restricting file system access we etc. > Do you think that Apple or Mozilla can stop webapps from taking their rightful place? I think that Chrome plays fast and loose with web standards, and has essentially replaced web standards with Chrome-designed and Chrome-specific APIs, while fully ignoring any concerns from other browsers.
- atatatat 5y ago
  > Which stage is it? The stage where a majority of professional web devs (y'know, the people who aren't here!) still haven't even heard, or fully assimilated, the term "PWA" yet. > the "todo list" covers important issues around permissions, restricting file system access we etc. They've proven very capable of managing this in AOSP. > I think that Chrome plays fast and loose with web standards, and has essentially replaced web standards with Chrome-designed and Chrome-specific APIs, while fully ignoring any concerns from other browsers. "Chrome-specific" implies DRM etc which I don't find fair here, as a very regular Google critic. If the concerns are always "We can't keep up", I don't blame Chromium team for pushing on ahead, and letting other browsers catch up. Frankly: Mozilla isn't leading the way on web standards anymore. (And they're not doing as good a job with security+privacy, really, either, compared to properly configured Chromium.)
  - ranguna 5y ago
    Can you give a few examples to backup your claim that chrome is head of Firefox in terms of security and privacy?
    - atatatat 5y ago
      https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/firefox-chromium.html https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/firefox-chromium.ht...
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    > compared to properly configured Chromium. Ah yes. Because that's exactly what you want from a browser: spend time properly configuring it to make it secure.
    - atatatat 5y ago
      The configuration is for privacy. The security is inherent.
      - dmitriid 5y ago
        So, FF doesn't need configuration to provide privacy, Chrome has to be "properly configured". Chrome is more secure. So, not so simple as a blanket statement you provided.
        atatatat 5y ago
        Yes. Which is why I recommend Ungoogled Chromium. Or just Chromium.
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    > If the concerns are always "We can't keep up" Safari and Mozilla: here are the security concerns, here are privacy concerns, here are concerns that the "specs" reflect internal APIs and are not actual specs. HN: nah, concerns are always "we can't keep up" No, those are not "we can't keep up".
  - WorldMaker 5y ago
    > (And they're [Mozilla] not doing as good a job with security+privacy, really, either, compared to properly configured Chromium.) Anecdotally, I feel that the quickly growing number of websites that complain that Firefox is an "ad blocker" with an unconfigured, out of the box default install seems to imply Mozilla is doing a great job with respect to security+privacy. > Mozilla isn't leading the way on web standards anymore. All the way back to the IE3-6 era, Mozilla has never been about "leading" web standards. IE3-6 lead web standards. Mozilla's role in web standard has almost always largely been about curtailing the excesses of whoever is currently leading, and keeping standards fair, safe, "quality" over quantity. It's not Mozilla's job to keep up with ~IE6~ Chromium, it's their job to keep Google from spinning web standards out of control. To keep Chromium from being IE6 2.0. To keep Google from just defining all the standards in ways that make Google happy but maybe aren't great long term for the health/safety of the web. It's Mozilla's job to slow Chromium down, and the fact that people are complaining "Firefox isn't keeping up" with Chrome's non-standards and in general that they are losing that battle in mainstream browser usage isn't at all great for the web. (The last time something like this happened was IE6. Whether or not Chromium is the "New IE6" will take a while to play out, but we're deep into the IE6 playbook at this point and anyone not seeing parallels either doesn't remember the early years of IE6 well or has too high of an opinion of Google.)

> 13 issues These are mostly a to-do list...which makes sense at this stage? I'm not sure what you're getting at. Do you think that Apple or Mozilla can stop webapps from taking their rightful place?

dmitriid 5y ago

> These are mostly a to-do list...which makes sense at this stage Which stage is it? Chrome is already shipping this, enabled by default. And the "todo list" covers important issues around permissions, restricting file system access we etc. > Do you think that Apple or Mozilla can stop webapps from taking their rightful place? I think that Chrome plays fast and loose with web standards, and has essentially replaced web standards with Chrome-designed and Chrome-specific APIs, while fully ignoring any concerns from other browsers.

atatatat 5y ago
> Which stage is it? The stage where a majority of professional web devs (y'know, the people who aren't here!) still haven't even heard, or fully assimilated, the term "PWA" yet. > the "todo list" covers important issues around permissions, restricting file system access we etc. They've proven very capable of managing this in AOSP. > I think that Chrome plays fast and loose with web standards, and has essentially replaced web standards with Chrome-designed and Chrome-specific APIs, while fully ignoring any concerns from other browsers. "Chrome-specific" implies DRM etc which I don't find fair here, as a very regular Google critic. If the concerns are always "We can't keep up", I don't blame Chromium team for pushing on ahead, and letting other browsers catch up. Frankly: Mozilla isn't leading the way on web standards anymore. (And they're not doing as good a job with security+privacy, really, either, compared to properly configured Chromium.)
- ranguna 5y ago
  Can you give a few examples to backup your claim that chrome is head of Firefox in terms of security and privacy?
  - atatatat 5y ago
    https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/firefox-chromium.html https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/firefox-chromium.ht...
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > compared to properly configured Chromium. Ah yes. Because that's exactly what you want from a browser: spend time properly configuring it to make it secure.
  - atatatat 5y ago
    The configuration is for privacy. The security is inherent.
    - dmitriid 5y ago
      So, FF doesn't need configuration to provide privacy, Chrome has to be "properly configured". Chrome is more secure. So, not so simple as a blanket statement you provided.
      - atatatat 5y ago
        Yes. Which is why I recommend Ungoogled Chromium. Or just Chromium.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > If the concerns are always "We can't keep up" Safari and Mozilla: here are the security concerns, here are privacy concerns, here are concerns that the "specs" reflect internal APIs and are not actual specs. HN: nah, concerns are always "we can't keep up" No, those are not "we can't keep up".
- WorldMaker 5y ago
  > (And they're [Mozilla] not doing as good a job with security+privacy, really, either, compared to properly configured Chromium.) Anecdotally, I feel that the quickly growing number of websites that complain that Firefox is an "ad blocker" with an unconfigured, out of the box default install seems to imply Mozilla is doing a great job with respect to security+privacy. > Mozilla isn't leading the way on web standards anymore. All the way back to the IE3-6 era, Mozilla has never been about "leading" web standards. IE3-6 lead web standards. Mozilla's role in web standard has almost always largely been about curtailing the excesses of whoever is currently leading, and keeping standards fair, safe, "quality" over quantity. It's not Mozilla's job to keep up with ~IE6~ Chromium, it's their job to keep Google from spinning web standards out of control. To keep Chromium from being IE6 2.0. To keep Google from just defining all the standards in ways that make Google happy but maybe aren't great long term for the health/safety of the web. It's Mozilla's job to slow Chromium down, and the fact that people are complaining "Firefox isn't keeping up" with Chrome's non-standards and in general that they are losing that battle in mainstream browser usage isn't at all great for the web. (The last time something like this happened was IE6. Whether or not Chromium is the "New IE6" will take a while to play out, but we're deep into the IE6 playbook at this point and anyone not seeing parallels either doesn't remember the early years of IE6 well or has too high of an opinion of Google.)