4 ms·

> IE6, a titanic that that wants to harm the web so they can push their own ecosystem instead. What a retcon. > This article tries to argue 1 isn't the case,

> IE6, a titanic that that wants to harm the web so they can push their own ecosystem instead. What a retcon. > This article tries to argue 1 isn't the case, but I have to disagree. Safari isn't as large as IE6, but it regardless tries to fill the same role. Of course it doesn't > 2 is also the case, but that needs less argument. It needs as much argument, if not more.

bioemerl 4y ago
How is that a retcon? I believe Microsoft and IEs stagnation was to keep people using Microsoft software instead of the web. The primary reason for chrome being developed in the first place was to push the web into a place that stuff like Google maps, docs, and so on could exist at all. > It needs as much argument, if not more. Read this thread where people talk about their experiences developing for safari. Read any open source web libraries issue list. It will be immidiately apparent that safari is the odd man out who constantly has to be baby sat in order to work properly. The reason I said it needs less argument is that I assumed it would be immidiately apparent. Most people who do web dev come away with this impression.
- illiarian 4y ago
  > The primary reason for chrome being developed in the first place was to push the web into a place that stuff like Google maps, docs, and so on could exist at all. Retcon again. > Read this thread where people talk about their experiences developing for safari. Read any open source web libraries issue list. It will be immidiately apparent that safari is the odd man out who constantly has to be baby sat in order to work properly. And then when you actually read what people are saying, it turns out they only develop on Chrome, couldn't be arsed to develop for or test on other browsers, and want Chrome-only non-standards delivered yesterday to every browser. To quote again, "But do you ever see a “Best viewed with Safari” notice? No, you don’t. Another browser takes that special place in web developers’ hearts and minds." > The reason I said it needs less argument is that I assumed it would be immidiately apparent. Most people who do web dev come away with this impression. I do web dev, and it is definitely not immediately apparent.
  - bioemerl 4y ago
    > Retcon again After IE6 achieved it's goal of destroying the competition, Microsoft literally disbanded the development team. Why would they do that for a very successful product? Because the web didn't have potential? Firefox started innovation back again a bit, but it took chrome and Google's want to applicationize the web to really kick us into gear. https://www.androidauthority.com/google-chrome-history-1025602/ https://www.androidauthority.com/google-chrome-history-10256... > A few days before Google Chrome launched, Google released a blog post titled “A fresh take on the browser.” The post explained that they were releasing this new browser because they believed they could “add value for users and, at the same time, help drive innovation on the web.” > Third, Google saw Chrome as more than just a browser by developing it with rich, interactive web applications in mind. Lastly, it offered tab “sandboxing,” which kept the entire browser from crashing when one website crashed. ... > And then when you actually read what people are saying, it turns out they only develop on Chrome, couldn't be arsed to develop for or test on other browser I develop for Firefox. Chrome basically always works fine with my pages. Safari chokes on all of them. And if you want to test Safari? You literally have to buy a dedicated piece of hardware for it. You wonder why it isn't tested? So here's a browser that fails to just work, even when you primarily use Firefox to build the page. You have to buy extra hardware to test on it. And you blame the developer?
    - illiarian 4y ago
      > A few days before Google Chrome launched, Google released a blog post titled “A fresh take on the browser.” The post explained that they were releasing this new browser because they believed they could “add value for users and, at the same time, help drive innovation on the web.” What Google says, and what Google does are two very different non-intersecting things. Edit: Google's maps and docs etc. ran just fine in WebKit. What Google wanted was control. What they did with that control we all know. For example, sabotaged Firefox: https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871237240852480 https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871237240852480 > I develop for Firefox. Chrome basically always works fine with my pages. Safari chokes on all of them. Doubt. > So here's a browser that fails to just work, even when you primarily use Firefox to build the page. Funnily how I've used Safari as my primary browser since 2007, and I've been a web developer for far longer than that... and I haven't run into these issues everyone on HN pretends to have. > And you blame the developer? Yes, yes I do. Always. Even in the days of IE6 the problem was always with the developer.
- tinus_hn 4y ago
  The reason for IEs stagnation wasn’t that Microsoft was trying to hold back the web, it was that their domination was strong enough they didn’t see a need to change. So why would they invest in updating it? The updates came in plugins tied to the Windows platform: ActiveX. Because that strengthened the monopoly, they were pulling the strings and setting the standards, at their own terms. Tie it to operating system versions, tie it to Office, tie it to the next product they want to promote. Whatever they like.
  - bioemerl 4y ago
    > it was that their domination was strong enough they didn’t see a need to change. So why would they invest in updating it? Why invest so hard in capturing the web in the first place, then? Their behavior is consistent with a push to keep people on windows as much as possible.
    - tinus_hn 4y ago
      Yes, and as long as that didn’t require updating the browser, they didn’t. Internet Explorer 6 was Microsofts only option for over 5 years. And if Firefox hadn’t trounced them it would have been for much longer.

bioemerl 4y ago

How is that a retcon? I believe Microsoft and IEs stagnation was to keep people using Microsoft software instead of the web. The primary reason for chrome being developed in the first place was to push the web into a place that stuff like Google maps, docs, and so on could exist at all. > It needs as much argument, if not more. Read this thread where people talk about their experiences developing for safari. Read any open source web libraries issue list. It will be immidiately apparent that safari is the odd man out who constantly has to be baby sat in order to work properly. The reason I said it needs less argument is that I assumed it would be immidiately apparent. Most people who do web dev come away with this impression.

illiarian 4y ago
> The primary reason for chrome being developed in the first place was to push the web into a place that stuff like Google maps, docs, and so on could exist at all. Retcon again. > Read this thread where people talk about their experiences developing for safari. Read any open source web libraries issue list. It will be immidiately apparent that safari is the odd man out who constantly has to be baby sat in order to work properly. And then when you actually read what people are saying, it turns out they only develop on Chrome, couldn't be arsed to develop for or test on other browsers, and want Chrome-only non-standards delivered yesterday to every browser. To quote again, "But do you ever see a “Best viewed with Safari” notice? No, you don’t. Another browser takes that special place in web developers’ hearts and minds." > The reason I said it needs less argument is that I assumed it would be immidiately apparent. Most people who do web dev come away with this impression. I do web dev, and it is definitely not immediately apparent.
- bioemerl 4y ago
  > Retcon again After IE6 achieved it's goal of destroying the competition, Microsoft literally disbanded the development team. Why would they do that for a very successful product? Because the web didn't have potential? Firefox started innovation back again a bit, but it took chrome and Google's want to applicationize the web to really kick us into gear. https://www.androidauthority.com/google-chrome-history-1025602/ https://www.androidauthority.com/google-chrome-history-10256... > A few days before Google Chrome launched, Google released a blog post titled “A fresh take on the browser.” The post explained that they were releasing this new browser because they believed they could “add value for users and, at the same time, help drive innovation on the web.” > Third, Google saw Chrome as more than just a browser by developing it with rich, interactive web applications in mind. Lastly, it offered tab “sandboxing,” which kept the entire browser from crashing when one website crashed. ... > And then when you actually read what people are saying, it turns out they only develop on Chrome, couldn't be arsed to develop for or test on other browser I develop for Firefox. Chrome basically always works fine with my pages. Safari chokes on all of them. And if you want to test Safari? You literally have to buy a dedicated piece of hardware for it. You wonder why it isn't tested? So here's a browser that fails to just work, even when you primarily use Firefox to build the page. You have to buy extra hardware to test on it. And you blame the developer?
  - illiarian 4y ago
    > A few days before Google Chrome launched, Google released a blog post titled “A fresh take on the browser.” The post explained that they were releasing this new browser because they believed they could “add value for users and, at the same time, help drive innovation on the web.” What Google says, and what Google does are two very different non-intersecting things. Edit: Google's maps and docs etc. ran just fine in WebKit. What Google wanted was control. What they did with that control we all know. For example, sabotaged Firefox: https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871237240852480 https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871237240852480 > I develop for Firefox. Chrome basically always works fine with my pages. Safari chokes on all of them. Doubt. > So here's a browser that fails to just work, even when you primarily use Firefox to build the page. Funnily how I've used Safari as my primary browser since 2007, and I've been a web developer for far longer than that... and I haven't run into these issues everyone on HN pretends to have. > And you blame the developer? Yes, yes I do. Always. Even in the days of IE6 the problem was always with the developer.
tinus_hn 4y ago
The reason for IEs stagnation wasn’t that Microsoft was trying to hold back the web, it was that their domination was strong enough they didn’t see a need to change. So why would they invest in updating it? The updates came in plugins tied to the Windows platform: ActiveX. Because that strengthened the monopoly, they were pulling the strings and setting the standards, at their own terms. Tie it to operating system versions, tie it to Office, tie it to the next product they want to promote. Whatever they like.
- bioemerl 4y ago
  > it was that their domination was strong enough they didn’t see a need to change. So why would they invest in updating it? Why invest so hard in capturing the web in the first place, then? Their behavior is consistent with a push to keep people on windows as much as possible.
  - tinus_hn 4y ago
    Yes, and as long as that didn’t require updating the browser, they didn’t. Internet Explorer 6 was Microsofts only option for over 5 years. And if Firefox hadn’t trounced them it would have been for much longer.