5 ms·

My favorite part about Safari is how, because I don't own an Apple device, I have next to no options for testing and fixing the issues that get filed with regar

My favorite part about Safari is how, because I don't own an Apple device, I have next to no options for testing and fixing the issues that get filed with regards to my web application not working in Safari. Probably 2/3rds of the bugs I get are specifically related to Safari while the other 1/3rd are just general issues that affect every browser. It's insane to me that they provide no way to possibly resolve this without going out and spending money to buy their hardware.

seejayseesjays 4y ago
Is Epiphany unworkable for testing? It's got the same engine behind it.
- selfhoster69 4y ago
  Wait, Epiphany on elementaryOS is 100% WebKit? Had no idea tbh.
tannhaeuser 4y ago
What exactly do you expect? That Apple brings back Safari to Windows and Linux? There's public demand for that every now and then (eg [1]), but that has it's own set of problems ie. that Safari-on-Win/Lin won't be representative of what's rendered on Mac OS due to font handling, antialiasing, power management, and other peculiarities on Mac OS (Mac OS would typically run on much higher resolution than Win/Lin). I'm not even using Mac OS currently, but I don't think it's Apple's job to make your web app run like on Chrome when Google is calling the shots on so-called "web standards" with tens or hundreds of new features every quarter, with necessarily surprising results. Personally, I'd find it ok if you just label your app with "Best run on Chrome" because that's the reality the web has degraded to, and the actual problem of web apps. Or deploy as Electron app on Mac OS. Maybe Apple could provide a Mac OS + Safari VM, like MS was doing (or still is doing?) when they were producing IE. But then the question is on which machine would you be able to run those VMs given Apple is heading towards ARM-only instruction set machines. Should Apple commit to produce x64 binaries for backward-compatible emulation on historic hardware? Personally, I do like Apple's innovation where the rest of the industry is lagging behind. [1]: https://www.xda-developers.com/safari-for-windows-editorial/ https://www.xda-developers.com/safari-for-windows-editorial/
MatthiasPortzel 4y ago
This comes up every time and I have to point out that Apple provides Linux builds of WebKit. => https://WebKit.org/downloads https://WebKit.org/downloads They’re not marketed as “Safari” because Safari is part of macOS, but it’s an official build of the same rendering engine.
- sgjohnson 4y ago
  There's also WinCairo for Windows. https://trac.webkit.org/wiki/BuildingCairoOnWindows https://trac.webkit.org/wiki/BuildingCairoOnWindows But unfortunately they don't provide binaries, so you have to build from source.
  - metadat 4y ago
    Do you know why that is? Sounds crazy unhelpful to not provide windows binaries.
    - lulzury 4y ago
      Actually if you check that page above, under "Download build artifacts from Buildbot", there's binaries available for download which includes MiniBrowser.exe. https://trac.webkit.org/wiki/BuildingCairoOnWindows#DownloadbuildartifactsfromBuildbot https://trac.webkit.org/wiki/BuildingCairoOnWindows#Download...

seejayseesjays 4y ago

Is Epiphany unworkable for testing? It's got the same engine behind it.

selfhoster69 4y ago
Wait, Epiphany on elementaryOS is 100% WebKit? Had no idea tbh.

tannhaeuser 4y ago

What exactly do you expect? That Apple brings back Safari to Windows and Linux? There's public demand for that every now and then (eg [1]), but that has it's own set of problems ie. that Safari-on-Win/Lin won't be representative of what's rendered on Mac OS due to font handling, antialiasing, power management, and other peculiarities on Mac OS (Mac OS would typically run on much higher resolution than Win/Lin). I'm not even using Mac OS currently, but I don't think it's Apple's job to make your web app run like on Chrome when Google is calling the shots on so-called "web standards" with tens or hundreds of new features every quarter, with necessarily surprising results. Personally, I'd find it ok if you just label your app with "Best run on Chrome" because that's the reality the web has degraded to, and the actual problem of web apps. Or deploy as Electron app on Mac OS. Maybe Apple could provide a Mac OS + Safari VM, like MS was doing (or still is doing?) when they were producing IE. But then the question is on which machine would you be able to run those VMs given Apple is heading towards ARM-only instruction set machines. Should Apple commit to produce x64 binaries for backward-compatible emulation on historic hardware? Personally, I do like Apple's innovation where the rest of the industry is lagging behind. [1]: https://www.xda-developers.com/safari-for-windows-editorial/ https://www.xda-developers.com/safari-for-windows-editorial/

MatthiasPortzel 4y ago

This comes up every time and I have to point out that Apple provides Linux builds of WebKit. => https://WebKit.org/downloads https://WebKit.org/downloads They’re not marketed as “Safari” because Safari is part of macOS, but it’s an official build of the same rendering engine.

sgjohnson 4y ago
There's also WinCairo for Windows. https://trac.webkit.org/wiki/BuildingCairoOnWindows https://trac.webkit.org/wiki/BuildingCairoOnWindows But unfortunately they don't provide binaries, so you have to build from source.
- metadat 4y ago
  Do you know why that is? Sounds crazy unhelpful to not provide windows binaries.
  - lulzury 4y ago
    Actually if you check that page above, under "Download build artifacts from Buildbot", there's binaries available for download which includes MiniBrowser.exe. https://trac.webkit.org/wiki/BuildingCairoOnWindows#DownloadbuildartifactsfromBuildbot https://trac.webkit.org/wiki/BuildingCairoOnWindows#Download...