Slashdot Mirror
The Future of Browser Choice
New submitter plawson writes "CNET offers an in-depth discussion of the browser's future, making the case that 'new mobile devices threaten to stifle the competitive vigor of the market for Web browsers on PCs.' Given the vertical integration of many mobile systems, the article predicts that 'the only opportunity you'll get to truly change browsers is when your two-year smartphone contract expires.' The trade-offs are security and performance. Web pages that rely on JavaScript and JIT will be big losers. How important is browser choice on a smartphone or tablet compared with a PC?"
My iPhone lets me choose from Safari and dozens of different skins of Safari
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Will no-one look to history to see what happens if you are tied into a single browser? Would we all be happy to have the equivalent of IE6 on our smartphones?
I know Microsoft is not keen on WebGL or Websockets, so imagine a world where they simply did not exist, or failed to gain traction because there was no incentive for the new monopoly to support it.
The only answer is consumer choice, and we all know 2 years is a lifetime in 'internet time'. Smartphone time is just as fast as that used to be.
Jailbreak and install whatever browser you want. Or better yet, stop shipping restricted computers that are dressed up to look like phones, and start shipping computers that respect user freedom and which happen to come in phone-form-factor with a cell phone module. Why is this so hard?
Palm trees and 8
>Google is a far more serious threat to open computer systems than any other company, including Apple, Microsoft and IBM.
Not to say that they wouldn't do it if they could, I doubt that, just because Chromebooks suck. They sold very few and they were a huge flop.
"In June 2011, Acer and Samsung launched their Chromebooks ahead of other PC brand vendors, but by the end of July, Acer had reportedly only sold 5,000 units and Samsung was said to have had even lower sales than Acer, according to sources from the PC industry
No wonder Firefox is more worried about Windows RT. They think that the Microsoft tablets are going to sell in good numbers.
This space for rent.
So you would expect a chrome book to run... IE? Firefox? Would it still be called a chrome book in that case?
The consumer _DOES_ have a choice here. By buying a chrome book they are choosing... duh... chrome. Not only that but Chrome books actually has a trivial way for you to "hack" the device itself (you open the battery and flip a switch) which would allow you to install whatever you want on it. Can you even imagine Apple or Microsoft providing consumers with that same option for any device they sell? No.
The problem that existed in windows was that there was no real alternative to Windows in consumer market at the time of Microsoft anti-trust hearings.
Only if Chrome OS actually catches some momentum, which it doesn't seem to have happening anytime soon.
You most certainly do have a choice... simply don't use the OS. Buy a PC with another OS.
I don't think you understand what Chrome OS is supposed to be... a MINIMAL OS where the browser is the ONLY application, and system updates consist of downloading a full image that is mounted read-only and checksummed to ensure it is not tampered with by malware. Traditional OSs are made to run third party applications. Even "walled garden" smartphone OSs are designed to run at least a subset of third party apps. Chrome OS is not.
It's not designed for people who aren't willing to use the web for everything.
And for the record, there is a documented method to disable the safety checks on the partition checksums and install other OSs, as well as gain root terminal access under Chrome OS to mess around with whatever you want there, too. Google has made it clear they support user choice. I installed Ubuntu on my Cr-48 Chromebook and I have Chrome and Firefox on it, and I can dual boot between that and Chrome OS, if it makes you feel better.
I don't see why there are concerns about browsers lagging and lack of competition - it's just that now instead of browsers competing on the desktop, browsers will be competing across multiple devices.
Yes it means that you personally will have to use the brand of browser that comes with your device, but that does NOT mean you are stuck with the same browser for the life of your contract as long as you chose a device that gets updated through the lifetime of your contract.
It also does not mean Javascript performance will lag, since competing device makers will always want to have the fastest possible browsers... both Android and iOS are making good strides in improving javascript performance in the browsers they offer.
Also it's not like you cannot install other browsers. Of course on Android you can do so if you like, and supposedly soon Chrome may be released for iOS.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Or a secure platform with lots of choice that requires a bit of savvy to use. It's amazing what people will put up with to avoid using their brains.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Just 2 weeks ago I asked with you guys what degree I should get for a late-ish career boost (BTW: Once again thanks for all the feedback, it's been a great help!).
It is because of this entire development that I actually am starting to move away from web stuff. It may seem that the web has won, and with Ajax and regular HTML 5 that may be the case, but it also is true that a few years ago we had a well-ordered world with 3 platforms at most and now with the mobile revolution we pratically are back in the 80ies with a bazillion proprietary platforms none of which are really compatible to one another. ... Even the usage paradigms aren't as clear as they were in 2005 with only Win, Mac and *nix desktops to choose from.
As for the dangers of stagnation and lock-in - even with HTML5/CSS3 and Ajax - due to extreme verticalisation of markets, I'd say the GP and the related article are spot on. That's why I'm moving away from rich-client and web stuff, at least for the programming that's supposed to earn me stable money in the long term. The 2k years were a great time with lots of fun and opportunities in the web, but those are dimishing as we speak. At least for me it's time to move on.
My 2 cents.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
What about IEOS? Some people call it Windows...
Then there's most Linux distros coming with Firefox which most users never bother to change.
But seriously, Android has the stock browser, Chrome, Dolphin, Skyfire, Opera, and a slew of other less popular results. I probably have more browser choice on my phone than I do on my desktop.
Jesus Christ, can the pro-Microsoft shilling get any more blatant?
Here is yet another brand-new poster with a userid in the two millions, getting first post, with only one comment to his record, and he chooses to slam ... holy fucking shit, ChromeOS?
Really? Of all the things Google is doing that you could choose to knock them for, fucking ChromeOS is destroying freedom and ending the world?
Seriously, holy sweet Jesus, this is just pathetic.
And FWIW, I have a Chromebook and I actually really dig it. No, it's not really great for everything, but as skeptical as I was at first, I ended up using it a lot more than I expected to.
Breakfast served all day!
The consumer _DOES_ have a choice here. By buying a chrome book they are choosing... duh... chrome.
Would you say that same thing about Windows and IE? It would be right for Microsoft to disable any other browser than IE because after all, the consumer has a choice, and can get a Mac OS X (Safari), Linux (Firefox) or Chromebook (Chrome) based on their favorite browser. Heh.
The problem that existed in windows was that there was no real alternative to Windows in consumer market at the time of Microsoft anti-trust hearings.
Really? This was the time there was several Linux distros sold off the shelfs in stores! And yes, you could get computers without Windows.
All mobile browsers, save for WP7, are WebKit.
Posted from my N9, using webkit.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Sure are a lot of options out there if you don't want to be tied to a contract. I got a new LG Alley phone for about $100 bucks on ebay, and signed up with page plus celluar. Cheap pay as you service, uses all the Verizon toweras, and I can do anything and load any browser I want.
Be flexible, but stand up to the man.
Kurt
the article predicts that 'the only opportunity you'll get to truly change browsers is when your two-year smartphone contract expires.'
That's the good news. There will still be change, and there will still be competition, but the pace will be slower / the stakes will be higher. Much better for everyone except paid browser devs.
(What I do / what I need my browser to do) hasn't changed much in years, yet there's an endless spewing stream of "just like before, except now does something you don't want and/or don't care about". Combined with a handy bit of gratuitous UI screwing up, and occasionally adding (or removing) features that addons used to successfully provide.
Sometimes its funny to imagine the whole paradigm and ecosystem of web browsers applied to other apps:
Imagine a "less" command that had major version number changes every week, and the only change the end users noticed was they swapped the pgup and pgdn keys because the UI designers said it was more intuitive. After all, when you hit page down, the page doesn't actually go down in your viewport, the imaginary paper is scrolling upwards past your viewpoint, right? So hit page up to read the next screen of the scroll. And because the only users that matter are new users, and this should make it easier for them, I guess we'll just have to do it.
Imagine a "gcc" that suddenly required all language keywords to be entered as "pig latin" instead of "english". Probably about ten years ago there was a weird translator for Perl that made it operate in ancient Latin, which I thought was pretty funny at the time.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
>Not only that but Chrome books actually has a trivial way for you to "hack" the device itself (you open the battery and flip a switch) which would allow you to install whatever you want on it.
Flipping that switch does not allow you to install native programs on you Chrome OS, it just allows you to load a different OS.
From their docs:
Show a scary warning that its software cannot be trusted, since a command line shell is enabled (press Ctrl-D or wait 30 seconds to dismiss).
Erase all personal data on the "stateful partition" (i.e., user accounts and settings - no worries, though, since all data is in the cloud!).
Make you wait between 5 and 10 minutes while it erases the data.
>Can you even imagine Apple or Microsoft providing consumers with that same option for any device they sell? No.
Last I heard you could dual boot any PCs or Macbooks to Linux or Windows without having to erase your OS X/Windows data.
This space for rent.
ummm that wud be news...
Same should go for WebOS or Tizen, there the browser is the interface. Or Android for languages, where it is meant to run java apps. But in both cases you can still run core OS apps, and/or apps not from the included market. So don't rule that out from Chrome OS itself.
Anyway, ruling out the browser choice in that context have no meaning. It is a browser based OS, not an OS where the browser is just another app. The choice would be given if you could install in those devices a full OS, or i.e. Mozilla's B2G
or at least one that's been asked a million times before.
the question is whether you want to use an appliance or a general-purpose device. an appliance is relatively fixed-format, and congruent with the concept of a walled garden, as well as revenue plans that make your vendors mbaciles happy. an appliance normally does not have user-serviceable parts, so the vendor is in control of the UX. appliances are fundamentally fixed-function devices, even if the vendor is able to update and even extend it, since they define what the fixed functions are.
being general-purpose is the opposite: it means that the owner really does own (control) the device, and can change its function, install software without regard to what the device vendor provides, approves or even knows about. PCs are fully general-purpose, since everything, from the roms to the OS to add-in cards can be replaced by the device owner.
so the question is really: to what extent is the vendor trying to draw a line across which the device owner cannot cross? no device is truely fixed-function, and even control-freak vendors like Apple provide _some_ affordances through which the device may be extended (hardware connectors, software app-stores). this has always been controversial, since any vendor restriction is at odds with our natural understanding of what "ownership" means (and even companies like Apple tend to show some variance in how locked-down and fixed-function their devices are - I can install Linux on an Apple laptop/desktop without much trouble, but they put a lot of effort into making it hard to root any of the smaller devices.)
I think it's time we get back to basics: when I buy a device, I should completely control it. any anti-rooting mechanisms should be illegal - the same way it would be illegal for a car vendor to specifically detect and sabotage my car if I put on third-party wheels. sure, make me click through a license-revoking agreement. but if you sell me something, and then take control of it out of my hands, you've committed fraud.
we should not allow this issue to become an opportunity for vendors to segment their market by selling a version for tinkerers and another for grandma. mostly, vendors have this impulse because their mbaciles want to lock in customers. instead of just selling devices, the popularity of which is subject to whim, the mbacilic approach is to sell service contracts as well, preferably multi-year, to ensure that customers can't get away without paying, even if the vendor's quality degrades. fixed-function devices are inherently like long-term contracts, since customers want upgrades and new apps, and since they're locked in, you can shove profitable advertising down their digital throats, or at least mine their usage/search behaviors.
The consumer _DOES_ have a choice here. By buying a chrome book they are choosing... duh... chrome.
Would you say that same thing about Windows and IE? It would be right for Microsoft to disable any other browser than IE because after all, the consumer has a choice, and can get a Mac OS X (Safari), Linux (Firefox) or Chromebook (Chrome) based on their favorite browser. Heh.
The problem that existed in windows was that there was no real alternative to Windows in consumer market at the time of Microsoft anti-trust hearings.
Really? This was the time there was several Linux distros sold off the shelfs in stores! And yes, you could get computers without Windows.
I think it's hard to make the argument that it's the same thing when you can buy an entire Google Chromebook for about the same price as Windows 7.
It wouldn't matter that much to me because unless the content served up on my iPhone is designed for a mobile platform, it is almost impossible tor read, so I prefer the APP to the browser. as long as it is free, that is.
occasionally i do need to go to a website, and it is kind of a hellish experience because the sites I need to go to (local store's hours, phone #) are written for a desktop browser.
so unless the browser can magically convert a poorly designed website into something readable in a mobile format, it won't make a difference. (i'm also assuming mom&pop shops on the interwebz won't shell out cash for two platform designs, since they are still using flashing fonts and high-contrast tiled gif backgrounds.. ugh)
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
I could just say, LMGTFY, but how about a direct link instead.
Just a rumor for now but since you can't replace the default system browser I could see Apple allowing it. Over time they are generally more permissive.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Funny how the business world disagrees with you.
I see a LOT of companies drooling all over the chromebook for use in business. Copuled with Google Business services you can eliminate thousands of dollars of IT costs per year per user.
A couple of our clients here are completely ditching the MSFT train and ringing deep in the Google Cool-aid. For their sales people, Google's flavor is working perfectly for them and Microsoft cant even hope to compete right now.
Granted, you cant do this for the Engineers and other power users, but the entire sales force and managers? you bet they can be moved to chromebooks.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
And I'm sure there are car geeks simply appalled with the car you own, food geeks who would vomit in horror at what you eat, beer/wine geeks who would rather die of thirst than drink whatever it is you like, music geeks who would pierce their eardrums rather than listen to your music collection, etc.
Basically, not everybody in this world actually cares about the same stuff you do, at the same level of intensity.
Yes. You can install other browsers on Android without even rooting. So maybe this browser lock in is only a phenomena on closed platforms.
- - - -
All that is necessary for Apple to triumph is for Google men to do nothing.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
I'd been off of Slashdot for a while, first thing I see when I come back is bonch taking a big shit on the first post again -_-
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
"You don't have some unique brain power that others lack."
Yes we do, I have worked in the Corporate world long enough to see it clearly.
We have that unique desire to learn and embrace change. The rest of the corporate world, Change is usually met with angry mobs holding pitchforks and torches.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Well I think the parent is right concerning mobile devices. It seems like newer Android phones with ICS are less open than old 2.2.2 that's why I don't care if ever get an OS upgrade on my LG Thrill from AT&T. It would just get locked down even more.
Even more funny is how sales figures disagree with you.
Run your yap all you like, sales of chromebooks are abysmal, so all your posturing is exactly squat.
i regularly use 4 different browsers on android depending on the site:
built-in browser
chrome beta
dolphin hd
miren browser
choice is good. also i tend to use web apps more than regular apps for security reasons. for example i don't use the facebook app, i just use dolphin hd and send a desktop user agent.
Or a platform with only one browser engine with a security vulnerability (like the one that allowed to rootkit your phone after opening a web page) and you need to wait weeks for a fix, and not being able to use other browser engine in that time. Or other platform thatallows you to install another "real" browser meanwhile the embeeded one is fixed. Choice is always good, nobody is forcing the user to use another one, but the option must exist
If spending extra time learning how to drive enabled me to drive a special vehicle that worked a lot better than regular vehicles, you might have a point. But it doesn't.
For instance, if driving a manual transmission meant that I'd get twice the gas milage and break down only 1/10th as often, then you'd have to be stupid not to drive a manual transmission. As it actually happens, manual tramsissions only provide a marginal benefit, so whatever you prefer works.
Basically, not everybody in this world actually cares about the same stuff you do, at the same level of intensity.
It's not about what I care about, it's about what you care about and the best way to accomplish that. If you don't care about computer security or speed, by all means use whatever you like best. If you actually want security or speed, then there is a right answer.
And most people do want computer security and speed. I'm always listening to people complain about viruses, or how bogged down their computer is with crapware. If you care about those things, there's an easy solution. Think about what you're doing, and don't do it unless you understand the implications. That holds for every field, computers, cars, brewry or anything else.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
(From the article and summary) Web pages that rely on JavaScript and JIT will be big losers.
The author claims this, but his "proof" is based on the upcoming Windows 8. Since we're talking about mobile browsers here... what Safari and Chrome do are relevant - what Windows Mobile is going to do is basically irrelevant until Microsoft figures out how to steal marketshare back from the two runaway leaders. Mobile Safari and Chrome handle javascript very well - so this conclusion is based on basically nothing.
#DeleteChrome
Is there a reason slashdot is sticking with the "first comment made is the one at the top" still? They can't figure out how to sort threads by top rated contents?
Joey: So, what happens when you're wrong?
Nick: Well, Joey, I'm never wrong.
Joey: But you can't always be right.
Nick: Well, if it's your job to be right, then you're never wrong.
Joey: But what if you are wrong?
Nick: Okay, let's say that you're defending chocolate and I'm defending vanilla. Now, if I were to say to you, "Vanilla's the best flavor ice cream", you'd say �
Joey: "No, chocolate is."
Nick: Exactly. But you can't win that argument. So, I'll ask you: So you think chocolate is the end-all and be-all of ice cream, do you?
Joey: It's the best ice cream; I wouldn't order any other.
Nick: Oh. So it's all chocolate for you, is it?
Joey: Yes, chocolate is all I need.
Nick: Well, I need more than chocolate. And for that matter, I need more than vanilla. I believe that we need freedom and choice when it comes to our ice cream, and that, Joey Naylor, that is the definition of liberty.
Joey: But that's not what we're talking about.
Nick: Ah, but that's what I'm talking about.
Joey: But ⦠you didn't prove that vanilla's the best.
Nick: I didn't have to. I proved that you're wrong, and if you're wrong, I'm right.
Joey: But you still didn't convince me.
Nick: Because I'm not after you. I'm after them.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Actually, it requires far less savvy than it used to.
For instance, this was the install process I went through earlier this week to install Linux Mint:
1. Download CD image from the Mint website.
2. Burn the CD image.
3. Reboot the machine to boot from the CD. This was the hardest step for the non-techie, because in my case I had to teach the BIOS to try booting from the CD.
4. Wait for the liveCD to start up.
5. Click the big icon on the desktop that said "Install to hard disk".
6. Answer some questions:
A. What language I wanted to use (default was US English)
B. Whether I wanted to do anything weird with disk partitions (I did, but if I didn't have 3 other setups on the same box I could have just accepted the defaults)
C. My name, username, and an initial password
7. Wait 15-20 minutes. The installer showed some slides about what features Mint has that are clearly end-user friendly.
8. When instructed, remove the CD from the tray and reboot the machine.
9. Wait for it to start up, log in and use it. It popped up with some nice instructions on how to use it for those not familiar with Firefox, LibreOffice, etc.
It's hard to make it much simpler than that. And I've put non-techies in front of a Linux machine and they were able to figure it out without much difficulty.
I am officially gone from
From the summary:
Two things wrong with this statement:
1. A browser lacking JIT will still process JavaScript, just more slowly.
2. While a web page might lose a few impatient users, and thus become a secondary loser, the primary loser is the one who is the subject of the summary: the smartphone user who is locked in to a particular browser.
Taking these together, the statement "Users who rely on JIT will be losers" would be more accurate.
A little time? For someone to whom tech comes easily maybe. Would you be happy being condescended to by someone who finds something easy that you don't?
Until it does something unexpected and there are a million different non-working answers on Google. That's why I'm typing this on a Mac.
Seriously, being stuck in Contract Hell is a sure sign you're not a Geek, you're a Pseudo-Geek.
Tablets can run browser instances fairly easily, if you're Geek enough.
I see this more as winnowing out the chaff (non-Geeks pretending to be Geeks) from the grain (Geeks).
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
This article has a Java Icon. Because "Java, JavaScript, whatever, it's all the same"? Perhaps "mobile" isn't the big threat here.
My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.
Android phones and tablets come with a stock browser but you certainly aren't limited to that alone. There are plenty of others available through Google Play including Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Dolphin and many more.
Okay -- I RTFM'd, and it seems like the author can't really see the forest for the trees.
Sure, UI is important, but if you're worried about us developing a browser monoculture, you need to look at the rendering engine, and not the UI and trademark that is slapped onto the result.
And as things currently stand, a monoculture is already forming around Webkit. On the PC side, KHTML, Konqueror, Safari, and Chrome all use Webkit (as well as numerous more minor browsers). On the mobile side, iOS, Chromebooks, Android, Symbian S60 browser, Blackberry browser (6.0+), HP's webOS, and Amazon's Silk all run on Webkit.
Looking at WikiMedia's stats for April 2012 (link), it appears from my rough calculations that nearly 36% of HTML page hits were from Webkit based browsers -- more than for any other browser engine. When looking at just mobile browsers, Webkit accounts for more than 80% of page hits from mobile devices.
Personally, I don't see this as a bad thing. While it was bad when Microsoft's Triton engine held near total dominance in browser engine use on the Internet (bad because it was tied to a single platform and vendor, and didn't conform to W3C standards well (and in some cases, not at all)), having an Open Source Webkit, which is collaborated on by a wide variety of browser vendors and which does an excellent (and I'd say the best) job of conforming to web standards hold dominance is a good thing. It means we have a single standard that web developers can focus their efforts against (W3C standards that is), while allowing anyone to improve upon it and implement it as they see fit, on a plethora of devices.
Looking at the graph in the article, if you instead break it down by rendering engine, you'll see that at least 80% of their mobile visitors in March were running Webkit based browsers.
So if he's worried about "one browser dominating them all", he's looking at the wrong equation. The concern now isn't that one browser will become dominant; however it appears that one rendering engine will become dominant. IMO it's a good thing in the case of Webkit, due to its standards compliance and open source nature. Sure, you may not have a lot of choice of browsers on your mobile device, but competition between device manufacturers and the fact that virtually all of them ship with browsers based on the same browser engine will ensure a base level of rendering support, good standards compliance, and in the case of features all of them want/need that such changes can be made (where logical) to Webkit itself, and then trickle down to all of the mobile browsers. Looks like a whole lot of win to me.
Which isn't to say that I think lack of choice is a good thing in and of itself -- merely that when your choice is between three different browsers running on the same rendering engine (and many of them the same Javascript engine), will most people even care?
Yaz
So wait... the PC is dead and we'll all be browsing the internet on our 4" smartphone screens? That'll make reading anything longer than a sentence rather difficult... and wikipedia... wait, they're full of shit aren't they?
The use case for power users on Chromebooks is pretty bad. "Here's a laptop, only with much less functionality!" Casual users might like it, but tend to be driven in the long run by the recommendations of power users.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
That's an excellent solution, for as long as Apple doesn't try to push iOS style centralized control onto OS X.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Going by what people are saying on how bad chrome books are selling, I think the market disagrees with you.
Like any of the "this is the greatest thing ever" devices. Some people claim that it will replace everything else. For example, the ipad and other tablets. Some people claim that they can do all of their computing needs. For some people this is true. For others it is an accessory to their computer. They still need the laptop/desktop to do most things. For others the tablet is just not going to cut it. The faster people stop buying the hype, and see as a device for what it is and how they can use it, the better.
I have seen too many people force the ipad into things that it is just not made to do. For example, They have a video conference system. Insteasd of using it, they use the ipad with skype. For a one on one call, no problem. For a room of 12 people having a conference with another room of 25 people? No, use the video conference system that is already in place. They propped up the ipad to show the room. We had a great view of the ceiling and the tops of a few people's heads. No faces. To top is off, they were showing slides. We did not see any of the slides. If they had used the video conference system, we would have seen everyone and seen the slides.
Some people have it in the head that is the answer to everything. They fail to see the device's shortcomings. This seems to be getting worse as time goes on. That or the hype is getting better.
As long as the person who is being condescending is also giving me information I need to know regarding a subject then I would be happy to be condescended to.
If you refuse to learn something because you don't like someones attitude then you are an idiot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
It would be funny if this was the same person. They just post anti google one day anti linux, anti apple another day. All to get reactions out of other people. There are people who get great pleasure in getting negative reactions out of others. They might be the ultimate /. troll.
That would require me to install the centralized control update which I have the choice not to install. Plus there's nothing stopping me putting Linux on here, I just have better things to do with my time than fight with incomplete software.
They have... http://developers.slashdot.org/story/12/05/23/1835216/no-patent-infringement-found-in-oracle-vs-google
And you are a liar and a wanker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanker
No-one is happy being condescended to and it never helps people to learn. That's one of the reasons why people struggle to learn IT skills, because of dicks like you treating them like shit. Now fuck off.
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/HowTo:Fuck_Off
I took a look at the difference between Pale Moon and Firefox a while ago (they're both open source). The only meaningful difference is that Pale Moon 12 is compiled with MSVC2010 and Firefox 12 is compiled with MSVC2008.
Firefox 13 is also MSVC2010 compiled, so I really see little use in Pale Moon at this point. (Particularly if you notice that Mozilla didn't switch earlier because MSVC2010 miscompiled some parts of Firefox before version 13, so those are automatically bugs in Pale Moon)
Oh, and they tweak the UI a bit (for worse IMHO, but obviously that's very arguable), but you can modify regular Firefox just as easily, given that it's all scripted.
The problem of WebKit is that it has BSD parts that may be susceptible to patents, and the core development is entirely in control of two huge for-profit corporations. Firefox/Gecko has the same problem (too many core devs from one company), and obviously so does Opera (not even open source).
But at least you have competition between those 3 teams now. If WebKit achieves total dominance, Google and Apple control the web, open source or not.
Well at least Mozilla is proposing standards to advance web apps through its b2g project and coffeescript-inspired extensions to ecmascript do trickle into javascript.
Apple, nokia(wp7 division not Qt) and Google might not care (native app stores generate the $$$).
But hopefully smaller players like HP (open webOS), KDE (plasma active), Intel (tizen) and RIM (BB10) will add the necessary support to webkit.
The issue is that (due to artificial restrictions put in place by Microsoft), only Microsoft is allowed to have software on Windows RT that can execute dynamically generated code. This means that IE can have a JavaScript JIT compiler but Mozilla cant.
Having not seen the developer agreement for Windows RT, I dont know if it goes further and has a ban on interpreted languages as well (ala apple).
But at least you have competition between those 3 teams now. If WebKit achieves total dominance, Google and Apple control the web, open source or not.
No, as the code is OSS, anyone can create a fork if they feel the direction Apple and Google are taking isn't the one they want to take.
And Apple and Google may be the two biggest kids in the WebKit sandbox, but don't discount RIM, Nokia(/Accenture), and Sansung, (and I imagine others -- this was just a quick list I was able to gather from looking at their svn commit logs for the past couple of weeks) who are also big companies that use and contribute to WebKit.
And being LGPL/BSD licensed, there isn't a whole lot Apple, Google, or anyone else can really do if they want to fork it. So i'm not too concerned about Google and Apple achieving "total dominance" -- particularly while Webkit still conforms to W3C standards as well as it does (as it's one of the most compliant engines out there, it's really the W3C that currently control the web -- which is how it's supposed to be).
Yaz
And it actually appears to have some innovation behind it, display results and the provoking queries on the same screen in a way that makes it easier to navigate between them:
http://venturebeat.com/2012/05/23/killer-mobile-browser/#s:2012-05-23-at-15-34-51
http://axis.yahoo.com/
Well, I guess PC web browsers wil lack the kind of focus that
major market share provides....another page of history turns.
Film at eleven!
I love this comment and wish I had the mod points to spend. Maybe ACs start at 0, but I don't know. I don't have a hard time choosing. I don't really mind closed source (but I slowly loosing trust in closed source software, so maybe I'll agree with it one day). I make comments like this and get downmodded. It's insane to me. These people on slashdot think I'm crazy because I don't want google to harvest my information. I use startpage, NoScript and randomize my user agent on start of Firefox. And, I STILL think Google's probably got a dossier on me. But, we're the nuts I guess.
Thank you for explaining in unnecessary detail the moderation system I've been using for several years now. My question had nothing to do with hiding, I'm talking about reordering THREADS. Chronological only, rather than threads moved up and down by scores of the children comments, makes the "frist post" and shills like "Mr. Kalz" disruptive to the discussion. Instead, threads with more +5 comments in the responses should be moved to the top.
I believe the day will come when online forums are exclusively filled with shills and astroturfers, with each side flaming the other back and forth endlessly. And then I wonder how I will ever tell the difference.
Seriously! Chrome book did not work because people want more processing power and in my humble opinion they were little pricey but not at all because they sucked. Chrome overall is the best browser currently. It is incredibly fast and secure. You seem to me like an IE6 kind of guy.
First comments are at the bottom for me. I changed it from the default the first week of signing up here.
We all know that the first third of comments are trolls, shills, first posters and general twats.
The second third of posts are almost predictable.
The final thrid of posts are from people late to the game, probably posting from home, have maybe read the flipping article and tend to post interesting and insightful stuff.
Make is so.
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
Who gives a shit about being happy about a situation, either make the situation work for you or be a little whinny bitch.
I see which choice you have chosen.
idiot: someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Have you noticed what happens to these sorts of posts? They are immediately modded down to oblivion and have a barrage of comments complaining of 'shills'. Now I don't see anything pro-Microsoft there, I certainly see anti-Google though.
If you really want to believe this something other than trolling (given the barrage of nerdrage from yourself and others that get sucked into it, it looks like if you were the sort of person to troll forums this is a pretty successful way to do it) then ask yourself who exactly would benefit from all anti-Google posts being treated in this way?
I personally think the idea that these posts are somehow paid for by 'enemies of Google' is pretty idiotic given what happens to them here - it looks pretty clear to me that you're just providing comic fodder for trolls - but if you are the sort of person that believes that then why not either let the moderation system do its work, so they are modded down and most people won't see them or post a rational rebuttal (which doesn't seem like it would be particularly hard given the content)? Otherwise you're just filling the comments with more crap and fueling the popularity of these posts.
Funny how the business world disagrees with you.
You mean your fantasy business world yes? I mean in the real business world no-one is buying chromebooks, you don't even need to talk to anyone in the business world, just have a look at the sales figures!
I use startpage, NoScript and randomize my user agent on start of Firefox. And, I STILL think Google's probably got a dossier on me. But, we're the nuts I guess.
And what is it you think they have? They've only got the information you've given them, if you're concerned about a company having certain information then you don't give it to them.
Unfortunate you were modded you down, because the truth is just as you say. Slashdot's troll- and shill-per-capita counts have risen a great deal since CmdrTaco stepped down and the bigcorp drones took over.
I am actually switching to DuckDuckGo more and more (you know voting with your dollars and eyeballs and all that jazz). But, we all know Google's search algorithms are the best, so it's hard to give up.
Well, they certainly have one from when I used their services. But, I am deleting it all (it's really quite hard to disentangle myself from Gmail, but I'm getting closer.