6 ms·

Hi Google. Remember those non-evil days where you said you cared about web-standards and actually acted according to those claims? Those days were great. Feel

Hi Google. Remember those non-evil days where you said you cared about web-standards and actually acted according to those claims? Those days were great. Feel free to get back to those.

k-mcgrady 12y ago
Although I don't support what they're doing I can guess the response here based on past responses: They are using new technology that's currently only available in Chrome but available to other browsers to implement and therefore they are pushing the web forward. I'm not sure if that applies to this specific case but that's usually the excuse.
- Galanwe 12y ago
  Yeah, that's also how ActiveX were sold...
  - Justsignedup 12y ago
    Cannot agree more. At least they need to justify this statement. If there is a legitimate critical missing feature in FF, I am sure the FF devs will get on it pronto. But this lack of communication is worrisome.
    - bzbarsky 12y ago
      Yeah, the communications piece is awesome. We (Mozilla) have run into Google properties that send Firefox on Android degraded content because "it's missing some features our mobile site relies on, so it's not Tier 1". When we ask them what these features are, the response is "we can't tell you what things need to be supported to be Tier 1".
  - rburhum 12y ago
    and flash
    - eli 12y ago
      Yeah, but also AJAX.
- bibabo 12y ago
  I'm not sure my comment applies to the parent comment or to the post linked but nevertheless I drop my opinion here. Thanks.
fastball 12y ago
What are they supposed to do if they want to implement features which are not supported by Firefox?
- william20111 12y ago
  follow standards maybe?
  - lmm 12y ago
    That approach is what got us XHTML 2.0 and a "lost decade" for web technology. The things Google adopts (vp8, dart, spdy) are things it releases and publishes as open standards, and therefore significantly more standard and open than e.g. javascript, or even the <img> tag, were when first introduced.
    - pyre 12y ago
      > are things it releases and publishes as open standards Publishing working code (even as Open Source) and possibly a white paper does not make something a 'standard.' It may be 'open' but not a 'standard.'
      - Karunamon 12y ago
        And yet it also completely disproves the argument of anyone claiming that Google is trying to make another ActiveX. The idea that nobody can do anything cool on the web unless all browsers support it seems like a great way to encourage stagnation.
        anon1385 12y ago
        >The idea that nobody can do anything cool on the web unless all browsers support it seems like a great way to encourage stagnation. But that's the entire point of open web standards. If you don't like using a runtime that is the lowest common denominator across all platforms then why are you using the web in the first place? I really don't understand people who claim to support the web and web standards but then moan about vendor X or Y not implementing this or that. That's the single biggest defining feature of open web standards; things don't happen unless everybody agrees. If you don't like it that individual vendors have veto power over things then you don't like open web standards. If you don't like technology that moves slowly and by consensus then you don't like open web standards. These are the costs of creating a platform that is defined by open standards.
ocdtrekkie 12y ago
I read an old blog post recently, that Google published in 2009. It felt like a eulogy of the company I once adored: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html
lloeki 12y ago
Months later, inbox.google.com still requires Chrome, despite it working perfectly well in Safari when spoofing the UA, and claims that it was held back by "performance issues on some animations", and while I've had a few occasional bugs running it in Firefox, it seemed to be altogether quite fine. Anyway I stopped using the thing a month ago because I simply dropped Chrome†. † slowly becoming too much ChromeOS-and-why-not-a-browser (including terrible memory use) extending its tentacles in ugly ways into my desktop of choice.
- vxNsr 12y ago
  I'd like to take a moment to focus on that last point: Chrome has become the memory hog that caused us all to leave firefox but for the much more egregious reason of trying to be something it's not. Now when I close chrome it wants to stay open like an over eager registry cleaner that hopes to hide behind the always on functionality and thus obscure that fact that it's done nothing, only Chrome's reason is the slightly more nefarious "we'll keep you informed while tracking all your desktop mouse movement" it also has the unintended consequence of making it difficult to restart the browser in cases of memory leaks.
  - piyush_soni 12y ago
    And welcome Firefox OS.
  - cdr 12y ago
    For me, Chrome uses half the memory of Firefox for the same number of tabs. If you're having memory issues with a browser, your problem is almost certainly extensions - the #1 culprit being AdBlock [Plus]. Give µBlock a try. (The reason why my Firefox uses more memory per tab is in fact almost certainly extensions.)
    - scholia 12y ago
      I switched back to Firefox 18 months ago because Chrome was crashy and consumed too many resources. But you're right, switching from Adblock Edge to µBlock saved more RAM ;)

Hi Google. Remember those non-evil days where you said you cared about web-standards and actually acted according to those claims? Those days were great. Feel free to get back to those.

k-mcgrady 12y ago

Although I don't support what they're doing I can guess the response here based on past responses: They are using new technology that's currently only available in Chrome but available to other browsers to implement and therefore they are pushing the web forward. I'm not sure if that applies to this specific case but that's usually the excuse.

Galanwe 12y ago
Yeah, that's also how ActiveX were sold...
- Justsignedup 12y ago
  Cannot agree more. At least they need to justify this statement. If there is a legitimate critical missing feature in FF, I am sure the FF devs will get on it pronto. But this lack of communication is worrisome.
  - bzbarsky 12y ago
    Yeah, the communications piece is awesome. We (Mozilla) have run into Google properties that send Firefox on Android degraded content because "it's missing some features our mobile site relies on, so it's not Tier 1". When we ask them what these features are, the response is "we can't tell you what things need to be supported to be Tier 1".
- rburhum 12y ago
  and flash
  - eli 12y ago
    Yeah, but also AJAX.
bibabo 12y ago
I'm not sure my comment applies to the parent comment or to the post linked but nevertheless I drop my opinion here. Thanks.

fastball 12y ago

What are they supposed to do if they want to implement features which are not supported by Firefox?

william20111 12y ago
follow standards maybe?
- lmm 12y ago
  That approach is what got us XHTML 2.0 and a "lost decade" for web technology. The things Google adopts (vp8, dart, spdy) are things it releases and publishes as open standards, and therefore significantly more standard and open than e.g. javascript, or even the <img> tag, were when first introduced.
  - pyre 12y ago
    > are things it releases and publishes as open standards Publishing working code (even as Open Source) and possibly a white paper does not make something a 'standard.' It may be 'open' but not a 'standard.'
    - Karunamon 12y ago
      And yet it also completely disproves the argument of anyone claiming that Google is trying to make another ActiveX. The idea that nobody can do anything cool on the web unless all browsers support it seems like a great way to encourage stagnation.
      - anon1385 12y ago
        >The idea that nobody can do anything cool on the web unless all browsers support it seems like a great way to encourage stagnation. But that's the entire point of open web standards. If you don't like using a runtime that is the lowest common denominator across all platforms then why are you using the web in the first place? I really don't understand people who claim to support the web and web standards but then moan about vendor X or Y not implementing this or that. That's the single biggest defining feature of open web standards; things don't happen unless everybody agrees. If you don't like it that individual vendors have veto power over things then you don't like open web standards. If you don't like technology that moves slowly and by consensus then you don't like open web standards. These are the costs of creating a platform that is defined by open standards.

ocdtrekkie 12y ago

I read an old blog post recently, that Google published in 2009. It felt like a eulogy of the company I once adored: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html

lloeki 12y ago

Months later, inbox.google.com still requires Chrome, despite it working perfectly well in Safari when spoofing the UA, and claims that it was held back by "performance issues on some animations", and while I've had a few occasional bugs running it in Firefox, it seemed to be altogether quite fine. Anyway I stopped using the thing a month ago because I simply dropped Chrome†. † slowly becoming too much ChromeOS-and-why-not-a-browser (including terrible memory use) extending its tentacles in ugly ways into my desktop of choice.

vxNsr 12y ago
I'd like to take a moment to focus on that last point: Chrome has become the memory hog that caused us all to leave firefox but for the much more egregious reason of trying to be something it's not. Now when I close chrome it wants to stay open like an over eager registry cleaner that hopes to hide behind the always on functionality and thus obscure that fact that it's done nothing, only Chrome's reason is the slightly more nefarious "we'll keep you informed while tracking all your desktop mouse movement" it also has the unintended consequence of making it difficult to restart the browser in cases of memory leaks.
- piyush_soni 12y ago
  And welcome Firefox OS.
- cdr 12y ago
  For me, Chrome uses half the memory of Firefox for the same number of tabs. If you're having memory issues with a browser, your problem is almost certainly extensions - the #1 culprit being AdBlock [Plus]. Give µBlock a try. (The reason why my Firefox uses more memory per tab is in fact almost certainly extensions.)
  - scholia 12y ago
    I switched back to Firefox 18 months ago because Chrome was crashy and consumed too many resources. But you're right, switching from Adblock Edge to µBlock saved more RAM ;)