15 ms·
Five Walled Gardens: Operating systems are holding browsers back [pdf]
- skadamat 4y agoLet's bring back HyperCard and NLS, why do we even have these bloated, super limited web browsers?
- toss1 4y agoYup, with the benefit of hindsight, it sure seems that allowing browsers to be fully programmable was a massive error. Instead of a web allowing instant browsing jumping from reference to reference, we have pages that take tens of seconds to load on machines with massive processors & RAM with 100+Mb connections. Perhaps it should be bifurcated into a HyperCard-like browser and a fully functional client. Of course the HC-like version would likely die the same death as the 5kb website contest [0]. [0] https://www.the5k.org/ https://www.the5k.org/
- hindsightbias 4y agoiOS 15 will take up about 3.24 GB Windows 10 takes up about 15 GB Who would want to use iOS after it was Windowized for browser freedom?
- mcguire 4y agoFalse dichotomy. Android also only takes up 3-4GB.
- superkuh 4y agoMozilla has a very web-centric view of the internet for obvious reasons. The survey they do here about people's reluctance to install browsers themselves is useful in that context. But the web is not the internet. And every problem that Mozilla brings up in this report stems from them, and other browser developing corporations, treating web pages as applications instead of as documents.
- tenebrisalietum 4y agoThe motivation to make the web an application platform is because the web is the only thing that could possibly displace Microsoft's stranglehold on non-server PC operating systems, and is the only workable alternative to apps on iOS.
- notriddle 4y agoThat's half the reason. The other half of the reason is that Web applications are way easier to deploy, even if 100% of your users are on Windows, because the second-order-effect of being locked-down is less gatekeeping and less scare screens. If a web app is able to see stuff that it hasn't been explicitly granted access to, that's considered the Browser's fault for allowing it instead of it being the User's fault for installing an untrusted app.
- robgibbons 4y agoHypermedia in general, and specifically the World Wide Web, was never intended to be limited to displaying documents. What you're describing is essentially just Hypertext, but that's only one narrow aspect of hypermedia and the Web. Hypercard, NLS, and other systems that predated and informed the WWW were all envisioned to do so much more than display links and text, and it's a very myopic view in my opinion to suggest otherwise. I recommend anyone who shares this perspective look into the spiritual predecessors of the Web to better understand where we've been and where things are going.
- ok_dad 4y agoWho cares about what was "intended" anyways? That ship has sailed! When a new technology is introduced, the intention is of no consequence; no one cares and they'll use it however they choose. The web is whatever we make it, and all we can do is try and direct it towards what we want it to be.
- gregmac 4y ago> every problem that Mozilla brings up in this report stems from them, and other browser developing corporations, treating web pages as applications instead of as documents. What do you mean by this? The problems they bring up essentially boil down to increasing user access to privacy, security, and new features. Locking people into default browsers put us back into the stagnant, horrible IE6 era. The only thing I can figure out is you're saying if client-side scripting didn't exist, some of these would be less pressing. Which is true, but it does exist, so the choice is abolish/avoid it (good luck getting mass user adoption!), or deal with it.
- unwind 4y agoMeta: a bit unfortunate editing in the title, "OS" stands for "operating systems", not "open source" as you would expect. Suggested quick fix: make it "OS:s" if it fits. Edit: closed qoute.
- BlargMcLarg 4y agoI'm fairly certain quite a few of us did expect "operating systems".
- ajot 4y agoI've never seen OS as open source, always as operating system. FOSS or FLOSS is how I commonly see open source used inside an acronym.
- dylan604 4y agoYeah, this is the same response I had as well. iOS and macOS being the literal name of 2 popular operating systems.
- denton-scratch 4y agoI understood Operating Systems.
- howenterprisey 4y agoRegardless of what it stands for (although it's always "operating systems"), grammatically speaking it should be OS's or something similar, not just "OS".
- djbusby 4y ago"OS Vendors"
- ThunderSizzle 4y agoIn the context of the title, I understood it as "operating systems". This may be due to a few things, but from grammar alone, "are" typically requires a plural noun, an "Open Sources" makes no sense, so if I was confused by "OS", the "Are" clued it into "Operating Systems" since the plural there makes a lot more sense. "Why Browsers Are Essential to the Internet and How Operating Systems Are Holding Them Back" "Why Browsers Are Essential to the Internet and How Open Sources Are Holding Them Back"
- therealmarv 4y agoLooking and pointing at you iOS and Apple. It's unacceptable that other browser engines are forbidden on the phone or tablet YOU are supposed to own. Imagine Microsoft would do something like this...
- dylan604 4y agoUm, in my imagination, they did this very thing. They paid a slap on the wrist fine, were not monopolistically broken up, and have gone back towards doing the same thing.
- hollerith 4y agoNot the same thing because Microsoft never tried to prevent the user from installing Firefox or Chrome.
- ok_dad 4y agoNetscape Navigator, probably. I don't think Mozilla was around quite yet, certainly not Chrome.
- squarefoot 4y agoFrom their position of power they don't need anymore to prevent users from installing other browsers; it's enough for them to continuously pester the user with annoying requests to make their own the default one until the user surrenders. For 99.999% of users, a browser that doesn't load by default and a browser that is not installed are essentially the same thing.
- dylan604 4y agoAny push back against allowing a user to do whatever the user wants is the same thing in my book. Microsoft has recently made it harder to use non-MS browsers. If you want to play a game of semantics, then sure, point to you. If you want to just have a normal conversation about users doing what they want, then I'd say you're outside of the lines on that last shot.
- 4y ago
- millzlane 4y agoThe news widget in the start menu for windows only opens using edge. I hate it.
- encryptluks2 4y agoSo remove the news widget.
- david2ndaccount 4y agoI’m not sure why browsers are treated differently than other pieces of software. Operating systems ship a bundled calculator, text editor, email software, basic rich text editing, photo viewer, pdf viewer, etc. All of these are used much more than their quality would indicate simply because they are installed by default. Should an OS be required to interview the user on install for what their preferred choice of all of these products are?
- vlunkr 4y agoWell, you can install a different calculator. On iOS, you can install a different "browser," but under the hood they all have to be safari.
- bskan 4y agoAnd the user doesn’t even notice.
- tgv 4y agoWhat's the problem? The only people that complain about it are some web devs and companies that would love to get their grubby data collecting hands on your device's battery and gyroscope data.
- magicalist 4y ago> What's the problem? If you're not asking rhetorically, that's one of the primary subjects of this report.
- tgv 4y agoI've read the first 25 pages or so, and the question is not answered there. One takeaway that is important, IMO, is this one: > Without browser diversity, a single company’s influence can shape the internet. That would be a problem if iOS accounts for a large majority of all http traffic. That, however, is not the case. If there's one platform that accounts for the large majority of http traffic, it is Chrome. It's estimated market share is 65%. Its derivates take 10% more. Allowing Chrome on iOS will slowly but surely obliterate Safari. Firefox' market share is a joke to begin with (and I say this as a lifelong Firefox user; I even use Firefox on iOS). Browser diversity ends when Chrome arrives on iOS, and it would end the limited privacy we have on iOS, unless Apple would really tighten the rules.
- tannhaeuser 4y agoOk Moz if browsers are essential why are you complicit in making them even more complex all the time, and push for entire new runtimes such as WASM even? If browsers were commodity items, we'd see more innovation and participation than we do now. The same "gatekeeper" argument brought against OSs in the report also works against browsers which, with the exception of Safari, are produced by an unhealthy browser cartel. (comment copied from when this was posted the first time a couple days ago)
- smoldesu 4y ago> why are you complicit in making them even more complex all the time, and push for entire new runtimes such as WASM even? Because we're out of options. Apple pushed us all here by crying "there's no other way" when people question their monopoly over app distribution. If you want browsers to be less complex, then you should advocate for the free distribution of software so the web isn't the only viable place to deliver you content.
- pwinnski 4y agoIn 2022, I'm looking at the plethora of browsers available for MacOS, and sticking with Safari. Chrome would be my second choice, and in fact I have it installed, but only use it once a month or so on average. Nothing from Mozilla or Brave or anyone else is even installed. You can say the complexity is required to compete, but I stick with Safari because it is simple, and fast, and doesn't gorge itself on system memory.
- smoldesu 4y agoGo for it. Safari (rather WebKit) is an option on all sorts of platforms, but nobody uses it where it isn't preinstalled. Safari is free to be as simple as it wants, but that doesn't excuse them for blocking browser innovation on iOS.
- ezfe 4y agoWell, it isn't even available anywhere it isn't preinstalled. lol.
- phendrenad2 4y agoMozilla is really complaining about pushy sales tactics, when they themselves push their paid Pocket service on me every time they can find an excuse to do so?
- neogodless 4y agoCan you not simply remove the Pocket button, or install a different extension to keep track of sites for you? iOS does not allow you to install an alternate browser engine. Windows does not allow you to remove Edge. That's very different from an extension or toolbar button that you can easily turn off or replace.
- falcolas 4y agoTo use your comparison, Windows is fine with you pulling Edge off the taskbar. To abuse the comparison further, Firefox does not allow you to uninstall the pocket addon. Mozilla needs to be held to the same standards they're attempting to hold others too.
- layer8 4y ago> To use your comparison, Windows is fine with you pulling Edge off the taskbar. It seems you missed stuff like: https://www.theregister.com/2021/11/11/latest_windows_11_build_enforces_edge_links/ https://www.theregister.com/2021/11/11/latest_windows_11_bui... https://www.ctrl.blog/entry/microsoft-edge-protocol-competition.html https://www.ctrl.blog/entry/microsoft-edge-protocol-competit...
- falcolas 4y ago#1 appears to have been a bug. That's certainly not the behavior right now. Same with #2 apparently, because again, it happily opens links from other applications in Firefox for me. As of Windows 11 build 22000.978
- falcolas 4y agoNot to mention the VPN and whatever other abandonware-in-potentia the Mozilla Foundation is funding. It's so damned frustrating.
- newaccount2021 4y ago
- andrewparker 4y agoechoes of United States v. Microsoft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor.... would be ironic if Mozilla played the next Netscape
- an1sotropy 4y agobut you know that Mozilla is the descendant of open-sourcing Netscape Navigator, right? It's not ironic, it's depressing.
- trollied 4y agoI'd argue that the browser is trying to be the Operating System, and we're living in some strange intermediary time before the hellscape that is "Chrome becoming a kernel & OS" happens. Good* plot for a sci-fi book, that.
- TheRealDunkirk 4y agoIt's an IDE for a runtime-compiled-at-download application environment, with a really crappy widget system. And I've wondered the same thing. How far are we from someone writing a "bare metal" browser that would run on hardware without an OS, even if that hardware were just a Raspberry Pi?
- layer8 4y agoRight, in a sense it's OS-native apps that suffer from the focus on browsers.
- turtle_kid 4y ago
- turtle_kid 4y ago
- pwinnski 4y agoChrome is holding on to a 67% market share on desktops[0] despite not being pre-installed on either of the two most popular desktop operating systems. I see the polls, I understand the concern, but Mozilla probably should focus on why the 46% of people who do know how to replace their default browser almost universally choose to replace it with Chrome, rather than Firefox. 0. https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worldwide https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worl...
- politician 4y agoThat’s easy. Google.com prompts you to install Chrome if you’re not running Chrome when you visit. There’s not equivalent site for Mozilla (MDN doesn’t have the same reach as “Google it”).
- witnesser2 4y agojust two cents here, as far as I know, all browsers need GPU acceleration. you can try to turn it off see how fast you can browse. so without OS, how can browser drive GPU?
- cronix 4y agoI believe that's mainly for video. Does HN slow down if you turn it off?
- witnesser2 4y agoBased on my previous knowledge, text, UI controls, video frames all have to go through the render pipeline. Should be no exception. This is community talk, just fyi.
- ColonelPhantom 4y agoVideo acceleration and rendering acceleration are both mainstream. On Chrome, open chrome://gpu which will tell you various things about its use of your GPU. I'm not aware of an equivalent page for Firefox but opening about:support should somewhere inform you of the compositor, which when it says "WebRender" also makes use of your GPU.
- falcolas 4y ago> Crucially, people raise concerns about privacy and security, but they similarly fail to act on these concerns. People who throw rocks shouldn't live in glass houses. Mobile client ads on the home screen, heavily pushed VPN service, forced integration with networked bookmark services, "experiments" that don't check for privacy issues, default search using Google, and a long history of being reactive, not proactive, when it comes to privacy issues - these are just a handful of the problems that Firefox is currently mishandling. Firefox is in many ways better than Chrome, Safari, and Edge, but it's not exactly a shining paragon of privacy and ethics either. I'd personally prefer that you clean up your house first, please.
- make3 4y agoisn't that whataboutism, they're still massively better in every aspect than all of their competitors, & are the only mobile browser that allows blocking ads
- falcolas 4y ago> isn't that whataboutism Perhaps, but I find it deeply hypocritical for them to be attacking others when they behave nearly as badly as well (tell me how I can uninstall pocket, not just hide it). > they're still massively better in every aspect than all of their competitors "in every aspect" Not in power consumption on MacOS, and not in development tools, when compared to Chrome. Just to name two. Plus, even if they were on top, being on top should never exclude them from criticism. > are the only mobile browser that allows blocking ads They are not, in particular on iOS. Safari, and by association all browsers on IOS, can block ads via content blockers.
- codehalo 4y agoBrave?
- it_citizen 4y agoOne does not exclude the other. Asking participants of a discussion to be beyond most criticism before emitting an opinion would just maintain the status quo longer and kill the debate.
- princevegeta89 4y ago----> Open Google Search, or Gmail. >>> Try a fast, secure browser with updates built in. ----> Bing.com, or any other Microsoft service >>> Microsoft Recommends Edge Browser for Windows 11/10. ----> When setting a default browser >>> Microsoft recommends that you keep Edge as the default browser ----> Apple OSX >>> Try the new Safari - A fast, energy efficient, with a beautiful design. Ironically, all these 3 browsers have some serious shortcomings like heavy telemetry, tracking, or having a completely out-of-the-loop user experience. This is why we need to switch to non-profit OSS like Firefox. Brave is also a good choice but not a non-profit.
- oneplane 4y ago> This is why we need to switch No it's not, as regardless of how bad all the commercial software is, when the general population just wants to go to Facebook, YouTube and watch porn, no browser switching of any kind is going to improve that. You can assume that most computer-users aren't in it for some ideological, privacy or security concept, they just want to consume some content and move on.
- pwinnski 4y agoI think this is under-selling the value of something like Safari. I'm on Hacker News, not just a general population rando, and I still care more about usability than most ideological concepts. I don't like Chrome and would stay away from Edge for many reasons if it were even a viable option on MacOS, but I'm still not switching. Since Safari doesn't have "heavy telemetry" or "tracking," I assume the "completely out-of-the-loop user experience" was aimed at it, but I haven't found that to be the case either. If one cares more about OSS than UXP, then by all means, go full-Stallman. I just don't think there are very many people who care that much, which is why Chrome is as popular as it is.
- ouid 4y agoAll of those experiences are essentially unlivable without ublock origin.
- 4y ago
- shp0ngle 4y agoI don’t understand why are Google and Apple allowed to do what Microsoft was fined for in the nineties. Arguably, Microsoft did even less! And then again forced by EU to offer alternative browsers, on start. I guess what they say is that unlike MSFT in the 90s, they don’t have a monopoly, which makes it fine?
- mid-kid 4y agoThis is unfortunately not about the technical details of operating systems that hold them back but rather user interface concerns (installing browsers, changing defaults).
- throwaway787544 4y ago
- kkfx 4y agoSince modern browsers should be named WebVMs and they consider OSes as a mere bootloader for the real third-party someone else computer OS (the modern web, named cloud) it's normal that some surveillance capitalism business who happen to be the aforementioned someone else computer OS for the masses do like their personal surveilled gardens... The modern web is the issue and the proof that Xerox time Desktop systems were the best solution we have ever created.
- unwise-exe 4y ago"Browser vendor says that browsers are so important that browser vendors should get special legal privileges that other application vendors don't get."
- an1sotropy 4y agoI'm guessing that I'm not the only reader here old enough to remember 1999-2001 US vs Microsoft [1], and who celebrated when Judge Jackson colorfully told MS to stop beating a dead horse [2], and who was sad at the successful appeal of the verdict against MS. We rooted for the small upstart fighting entrenched big tech, and later cheered with Netscape Navigator was open-sourced, starting the path to Firefox. I admit that I'm not using Firefox by default now (when I've used it, it worked fine), but it seems that many others here have real gripes with how Firefox works as a default browser, and are basically saying "Mozilla can blame themselves for being marginal". Can someone ELI5 what Mozilla did to deserve this derision? Also MDN is an awesome and invaluable resource [3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor.... [2] https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=19990217&slug=2944766 https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=19990217&slug... [3] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/ https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/
- throwaquestion5 4y ago>Can someone ELI5 what Mozilla did to deserve this derision? I would say its because Mozilla isn't the incorruptible champion of web browsing. Yes, they have done bad decisions, bad(and good) products have been axed that are unrelated to a browser, and they have being influenced by political issues because, well, people work at Mozilla and people get to be influenced by that. So bad impressions triumph over any campaign they have done, like the ones quoted from the article below. Browsers and the Quest for More Private Advertising - 2009 - Mozilla leads the Do-Not-Track (“DNT”) Working Group at W3C. This is a signal sent by the browser to websites indicating that the user does not wish to be tracked online. All major browsers implement DNT. The advertising industry fails to adopt DNT and the initiative ultimately fails. - 2015 - Firefox launches “Tracking Protection.” This was an important but small step. It is off by default and blocks ads that track. 2018 - Firefox launches Facebook Container based on several months of work to isolate first party cookies.96 This is another small step forward against tracking. - 2019 - Firefox launches with Enhanced Tracking Protection (“ETP”) based on learnings from earlier efforts alongside an “anti-tracking policy”.97 ETP is a success, and drives all major browsers except Chrome to implement similar features. - 2020 - Firefox blocks third-party fingerprinting resources98 and includes pro- tections against redirect tracking.99 Mozilla leads the formation of the Privacy Community Group at the W3C.100 - 2021 - Firefox takes on supercookies,101 introduces Total Cookie Protection,102 and trims HTTP Referrers to protect privacy.103 Mozilla leads the formation of the Privacy Advertising Technology Community Group at the W3C.104 - 2022 - Firefox launches Total Cookie Protection by default105 and adds manual protections against link decoration.106 Mozilla continues work on Privacy Pre- serving Advertising107 through both criticism of and collaboration with Google, Apple, Meta and others.
- pGuitar 4y agoThe main browser problems right now are Apple not allowing alternate engines, Google spamming Chrome on Google.com's search engine, Mozilla getting its money from Google and the default browser on Android.
- throw7 4y agoPart of the problem is non-technical users that know how to switch are switching to chrome because they hit small issues/niggles that "just work" in chrome. That's been happening slowly over time; mozilla hasn't helped itself by taking, let's say, detours into non-browser related stuff. It's not just OS vendors, it hasn't helped that more and more companies are just targeting/supporting chrome. They'll ship & test on chrome as tier1, not firefox... not that it wouldn't work, but again, it'll be "should or might work".
- xfr 4y agoThe main problem with alternative browsers on iOS is JIT compilation. It breaks codesigning and thus is only allowed by Apple’s own code. If random third party apps could JIT their code, it would defeat many security measures
- fattybob 4y agoHmm - reading this on iOS using Orion - which is possibly the best browser out there right now (I use Orion and safari of course - but maybe 90% Orion !)