3 ms·

Especially for an app that claims "no downloads, no gray app" ... dude the arrogance.

by keyle 4y ago

systemvoltage 4y ago
I mean, I can understand the challenge of making sure everything works well across browsers so that should mean that we use standard things and avoid non-standard APIs. Otherwise, we're just feeding the shiny Chrome monster more fodder to engulf this fucking planet. May be we should just got back to native apps? Hell, native apps that do not connect to the internet. That'd be glorious actually. Problem with browser based apps is that you have zero control over versioning. Server serves, you get the fix. No option to request a particular version of the app. Don't like the new version? Tough luck. Server issues? Go outside. You know there is something to be said about code/binaries residing on your computer. Call me old fashioned.
- franga2000 4y ago
  Making sure everything works on all platforms is often just as hard or harder than making sure it works on all browsers and due to basically non-existent security on desktop operating systems, downloading apps comes with a lot of risk. What we need is a new app runtime with a unified permission-based API across platforms. All the OS-agnostic parts of that runtime would be a huge pain to develop, so all platforms would probably settle on a shared open source implementation and only implement OS-specific "adapters" for the native stuff. What I've done there, is reinvented Electron...fuck....
  - pjmlp 4y ago
    Electron is Chrome.
    - franga2000 4y ago
      Yes, I know, hence the "...fuck..."
epgui 4y ago
Arrogance? I mean, I agree that things should work in all browsers, but... Someone created this thing and put a ton of work into it, and you're saying that their failure to cater to every possible browser is arrogance? That's definitely not the word.
- photoGrant 4y ago
  No, more like 'at least another browser'.
- yellowapple 4y ago
  > their failure to cater to every possible browser That ain't their arrogance. Their arrogance is declaring all browsers other than the single one they tested to be "unsupported" and not even worth attempting to use with the app. It's one thing to warn against untested browsers; it's another thing to outright prohibit them and kick you back out to the homepage (after collecting my email address with which to spam me, no less).
  - gt585 4y ago
    I’m sorry if you see it as arrogance- we just didn’t have time to polish experience on all browsers- we had to choose our poison.
    - yellowapple 4y ago
      If it's really a matter of "polish" then the more reasonable approach would be to simply put up a warning while otherwise allowing full access to the application. If it's buggy, then it's buggy; oh well, at least we were warned. If it's more a matter of some specific thing(s) that Chrome has implemented and other browsers haven't, then it'd be nice to be upfront about what that thing is so that those of us on non-Chrome browsers can bug e.g. Mozilla and Apple about it - and it would further be nice to actually test against the existence of that thing rather than gatekeeping the user agent string like it's 1999.

Especially for an app that claims "no downloads, no gray app" ... dude the arrogance.

by keyle 4y ago

Especially for an app that claims "no downloads, no gray app" ... dude the arrogance.

I mean, I can understand the challenge of making sure everything works well across browsers so that should mean that we use standard things and avoid non-standard APIs. Otherwise, we're just feeding the shiny Chrome monster more fodder to engulf this fucking planet. May be we should just got back to native apps? Hell, native apps that do not connect to the internet. That'd be glorious actually. Problem with browser based apps is that you have zero control over versioning. Server serves, you get the fix. No option to request a particular version of the app. Don't like the new version? Tough luck. Server issues? Go outside. You know there is something to be said about code/binaries residing on your computer. Call me old fashioned.

franga2000 4y ago
Making sure everything works on all platforms is often just as hard or harder than making sure it works on all browsers and due to basically non-existent security on desktop operating systems, downloading apps comes with a lot of risk. What we need is a new app runtime with a unified permission-based API across platforms. All the OS-agnostic parts of that runtime would be a huge pain to develop, so all platforms would probably settle on a shared open source implementation and only implement OS-specific "adapters" for the native stuff. What I've done there, is reinvented Electron...fuck....
- pjmlp 4y ago
  Electron is Chrome.
  - franga2000 4y ago
    Yes, I know, hence the "...fuck..."

epgui 4y ago

Arrogance? I mean, I agree that things should work in all browsers, but... Someone created this thing and put a ton of work into it, and you're saying that their failure to cater to every possible browser is arrogance? That's definitely not the word.

photoGrant 4y ago
No, more like 'at least another browser'.
yellowapple 4y ago
> their failure to cater to every possible browser That ain't their arrogance. Their arrogance is declaring all browsers other than the single one they tested to be "unsupported" and not even worth attempting to use with the app. It's one thing to warn against untested browsers; it's another thing to outright prohibit them and kick you back out to the homepage (after collecting my email address with which to spam me, no less).
- gt585 4y ago
  I’m sorry if you see it as arrogance- we just didn’t have time to polish experience on all browsers- we had to choose our poison.
  - yellowapple 4y ago
    If it's really a matter of "polish" then the more reasonable approach would be to simply put up a warning while otherwise allowing full access to the application. If it's buggy, then it's buggy; oh well, at least we were warned. If it's more a matter of some specific thing(s) that Chrome has implemented and other browsers haven't, then it'd be nice to be upfront about what that thing is so that those of us on non-Chrome browsers can bug e.g. Mozilla and Apple about it - and it would further be nice to actually test against the existence of that thing rather than gatekeeping the user agent string like it's 1999.