5 ms·

Please don't. Anything but Chrome based browsers. Chromium based browsers already have a monopoly, giving Google a huge weight when it comes to the web.

by dastx 6y ago

asddubs 6y ago
so firefox
- kevincox 6y ago
  Unfortunately yes. I really do wish we had more options. I guess the other option is WebKit which is now independent from Chrome so has influence over the direction of the web.
  - userbinator 6y ago
    The other option is IE --- I will continue to fight its deprecation because it still works damn well for the majority of non-JS sites, and MS continues to release security updates for it (contrary to what a lot of propaganda is saying.) Of course it doesn't have all the (site-facing) features of other browsers, and especially Google's behemoth, but I'm of the opinion that the web is already too bloated and needs to stop "moving forward" anyway. (My main browser is IE. My secondary one is Firefox.)
    - asddubs 6y ago
      ie doesn't even properly support flexbox. it works because people are taking special care to work around it's various bugs, for now.
      - userbinator 6y ago
        That's what I meant by not having as many site-facing features. But, as someone who has written and used quite a few very usable sites when HTML4 and CSS2 was the norm, maybe it's not really a problem; and writing simple code and not trying to trendchase is good for both accessibility and browser diversity: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25915313 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25915313 It's not about the tool but how you use it...
        asddubs 6y ago
        Hey, I was around in times of not even having inline-blocks at our disposal too. It was horrible and I don't want to go back to it. I mean I don't even disagree with you entirely, but I don't really think flexbox or grid (which I know ie supports if you're willing to do the whole thing twice in two different syntaxes, which I'm not) is just a cherry on top, if anything they should have existed years before they did. Especially these days with responsive layouts being a thing, and if you don't want to just cheat and use javascript/browser detection to do it, they are pretty important to support different devices. That's where IE support can really step on your toe by the way, I read that article at the time and opened my site in safari 6 on an old second generation ipod, and it worked hilariously well. Believe me, I'm not part of the problem, but I still can't wait for ie11 to fucking die so I can just write my layouts without having to worry about it's various idiosyncrasies, and finally use grid without impunity.
    - kevincox 6y ago
      Doesn't Microsoft have an end-of-life date set after which they will only support Edge? It seems like the IE horse is guaranteed to drop out of this race.
pabs3 6y ago
How about NetSurf? (Doesn't use the engines from Chromium or Firefox or WebKit etc) https://www.netsurf-browser.org https://www.netsurf-browser.org

Please don't. Anything but Chrome based browsers. Chromium based browsers already have a monopoly, giving Google a huge weight when it comes to the web.

by dastx 6y ago

Please don't. Anything but Chrome based browsers. Chromium based browsers already have a monopoly, giving Google a huge weight when it comes to the web.

asddubs 6y ago

so firefox

kevincox 6y ago
Unfortunately yes. I really do wish we had more options. I guess the other option is WebKit which is now independent from Chrome so has influence over the direction of the web.
- userbinator 6y ago
  The other option is IE --- I will continue to fight its deprecation because it still works damn well for the majority of non-JS sites, and MS continues to release security updates for it (contrary to what a lot of propaganda is saying.) Of course it doesn't have all the (site-facing) features of other browsers, and especially Google's behemoth, but I'm of the opinion that the web is already too bloated and needs to stop "moving forward" anyway. (My main browser is IE. My secondary one is Firefox.)
  - asddubs 6y ago
    ie doesn't even properly support flexbox. it works because people are taking special care to work around it's various bugs, for now.
    - userbinator 6y ago
      That's what I meant by not having as many site-facing features. But, as someone who has written and used quite a few very usable sites when HTML4 and CSS2 was the norm, maybe it's not really a problem; and writing simple code and not trying to trendchase is good for both accessibility and browser diversity: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25915313 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25915313 It's not about the tool but how you use it...
      - asddubs 6y ago
        Hey, I was around in times of not even having inline-blocks at our disposal too. It was horrible and I don't want to go back to it. I mean I don't even disagree with you entirely, but I don't really think flexbox or grid (which I know ie supports if you're willing to do the whole thing twice in two different syntaxes, which I'm not) is just a cherry on top, if anything they should have existed years before they did. Especially these days with responsive layouts being a thing, and if you don't want to just cheat and use javascript/browser detection to do it, they are pretty important to support different devices. That's where IE support can really step on your toe by the way, I read that article at the time and opened my site in safari 6 on an old second generation ipod, and it worked hilariously well. Believe me, I'm not part of the problem, but I still can't wait for ie11 to fucking die so I can just write my layouts without having to worry about it's various idiosyncrasies, and finally use grid without impunity.
  - kevincox 6y ago
    Doesn't Microsoft have an end-of-life date set after which they will only support Edge? It seems like the IE horse is guaranteed to drop out of this race.

pabs3 6y ago

How about NetSurf? (Doesn't use the engines from Chromium or Firefox or WebKit etc) https://www.netsurf-browser.org https://www.netsurf-browser.org