'How Chrome Broke the Web' (tonsky.me)

Never rely on defaults... by aicrules · 2017-11-08 03:23 · Score: 0

Because they can change...

Re:Never rely on defaults... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 03:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

This wasn't a default, it was a standard. Google was the one that decided to add a passive option in the first place, and when they defaulted it to true, they violated the standard. Sites that were broken by this change were doing everything right when they were written; their only mistake was not religiously re-checking their site against every new Chrome Canary build to make sure their standards-compliant site hadn't been broken.
Re:Never rely on defaults... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 03:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

Years ago, websites were designed so that they rendered properly with Internet Explorer. Microsoft didn't have to follow any standards because they had the most widely used browser and Fuck You if you don't use IE.
Now Chrome is the most widely used browser and Google has decided to become the new Microsoft.
Re: Never rely on defaults... by AvitarX · 2017-11-08 03:59 · Score: 1

It seems like a reasonable change to me.
Scrolling performance often sucked major.
Half of sites that didn't update for performance reasons in the last year? I'd bet that's around 1% of the web.
In exchange the other ones all work better.

--
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Re:Never rely on defaults... by Kierthos · 2017-11-08 04:08 · Score: 1

You are free to browse as we tell you.
You are free to browse as we tell you.
You are free to browse as we tell you.

--
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Re:Never rely on defaults... by Jerry · 2017-11-08 04:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

Exactly.
Google is just adopting Microsoft's "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" tactic against its opposition because it has the market share to do it.
That, and Google's attack on free speech, are the reasons why I canceled my Google account.

--
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Re: Never rely on defaults... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 05:07 · Score: 0

Sites should use pagination and not endless scrolling. On the other hand, sites must not provide app features, you should build a native app for that
Re: Never rely on defaults... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 05:34 · Score: 0

It will take government action to break Google to the saddle. And it's inevitable.
Re:Never rely on defaults... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 05:59 · Score: 0

Microsoft had 90% of the browser market because they had no competitors. When you have that much of the market you are the defacto standard. At one time it was Netscape controlling 90% of the browser market until their gross incompetence in product development gave MS the break they needed to steal their users. Google has long surpassed MS when it comes to subterfuge and their own fuck everyone else attitude. Google is an advertising, marketing, and data collection company. They use cutting edge technology to make sure they can sell more ads and collective more user data to sell. Companies such as Google collect every piece of user data passing through their data centers, search engine, cloud application services, and mobile applications. They make the NSA look like a bunch of pikers when it comes to invading your privacy and using that information in any way they see fit. When you use any Google service you are agreeing to their terms of service which boil down to stating they can do anything they want with your data because you have given them permission to do so just by using their products and services.
Re: Never rely on defaults... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 06:17 · Score: 0

Microsoft has 90 percent of the market because they intergrated the browser with the most popular OS in the world, made it the default, and all of this at a time where most users didn't know or didn't care to know otherwise.
The real story of incompetence is that MS actually managed to make such a piss poor product that it scared so many users into the hands of Mozilla and Opera, and ultimately, Google.
Re: Never rely on defaults... by AvitarX · 2017-11-08 06:18 · Score: 1

I hate endless scrolling, so if that's what this is about, I agree!.
Whenever I click a link on a products page of an endless scroll, add to cart, and hit back, I need to scroll back down with the slow loading and it makes me angry.

--
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Re:Never rely on defaults... by thelexx · 2017-11-08 06:41 · Score: 1

It's more effective than being snarky from momma's basement.

--
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
Re:Never rely on defaults... by Dixie_Flatline · 2017-11-08 06:54 · Score: 1

An important thing to remember about Internet Explorer is that on of the reasons why it rendered everything is because it was happy to take extremely garbage, malformed HTML and find a way to make it work. You could make a compliant site, but IE made it easy to be lazy. It was the web designers that didn't have to follow standards—IE would render standards compliant sites well too.
Don't get me wrong, IE was a blight and I'm glad that it's basically dead. The user experience was terrible and it made the web a worse place to be. But in some ways, it was the exact opposite of what we see here: a system so fault tolerant that it doesn't care what you're doing.
Re:Never rely on defaults... by im_thatoneguy · 2017-11-08 07:07 · Score: 1

And when IE was doing this, the standards weren't well established or even broad enough to cover most website features.
HTML5 was only ratified a couple years ago. Most of what HTML5 standardized was being done adhoc by all the browsers in the form of DHTML etc.
Re:Never rely on defaults... by tbannist · 2017-11-08 07:48 · Score: 1

It's more effective than being snarky from momma's basement.
Actually, it probably isn't.

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Re: Never rely on defaults... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 08:05 · Score: 0

At the very *least*, it's possible to do both; endless scrolling that still has a concept of pages, so refreshing/returning to the link doesn't start you back at the top, and you can manually change the link to skip pages instead of scrolling endlessly.
Re:Never rely on defaults... by sjames · 2017-11-08 09:22 · Score: 1

That doesn't help when new parameters are added. How am I supposed to set a value for a parameter that doesn't exist yet?
Re:Never rely on defaults... by farble1670 · 2017-11-08 09:23 · Score: 1

Because they can change...
Sure, in the same way any aspect of an interface can be broken by non-backwards compatible changes. I think what you meant to say was:

Never rely on any code you didn't write.
Re:Never rely on defaults... by BitterOak · 2017-11-08 10:06 · Score: 1

Years ago, websites were designed so that they rendered properly with Internet Explorer. Microsoft didn't have to follow any standards because they had the most widely used browser and Fuck You if you don't use IE.
Now Chrome is the most widely used browser and Google has decided to become the new Microsoft.
But keep in mind, Microsoft no longer dominates the browser market share and there's a reason. It was so difficult for web developers to make sites IE compliant that many non-commercial sites such as might be found at universities etc., recommended Firefox and when Chrome came out, Chrome or Firefox. It turns out there are enough non-commercial sites on the Internet that people started using non-IE browsers just cause Firefox or Chrome seemed to work better with all sites, and not just big commercial ones. If Google follows Microsoft's path, and (according to the article) half the websites on the Internet break in Chrome, it will drive people to Firefox or Edge or something else. There is competition in the free browser market!

--
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Re: Never rely on defaults... by david_thornley · 2017-11-08 10:47 · Score: 1

At one time, people were talking about IE 5 on MacOS as being a really good browsing experience. At that time, Apple didn't have its own browser, so it was competing against Netscape and winning handily.
The problems came when they decided to stand still and not spend money on trying to keep IE the best it could be.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Never rely on defaults... by Billly+Gates · 2017-11-08 11:58 · Score: 1

An important thing to remember about Internet Explorer is that on of the reasons why it rendered everything is because it was happy to take extremely garbage, malformed HTML and find a way to make it work. You could make a compliant site, but IE made it easy to be lazy. It was the web designers that didn't have to follow standards—IE would render standards compliant sites well too.
Don't get me wrong, IE was a blight and I'm glad that it's basically dead. The user experience was terrible and it made the web a worse place to be. But in some ways, it was the exact opposite of what we see here: a system so fault tolerant that it doesn't care what you're doing.
Bahaha BS. Not attacking you but IE 6 most certainly did not render standards compliant sites. In this decade it actually started to do so. But many many organizations stuck with XP because IE 6 and IE 7 was so widespread across the enterprise that the sites would work in nothing else. I remember when Ebay also only worked in IE and not Firefox. Firefox was too small and the world ran on IE not web standards etc.
If you were a developer back then you had to increase your time 300%. You write the site for web standards. Then rewrite it for IE 6. Then rewrite it again for IE 7, BUT the client only wanted to pay you to do it once. Grrr
Which is why alot of cheap Indian shops just wrote it for IE 6 as it cost too much to make it standards compliant AND have it work in IE without formatting bugs and javascript dying. It was a terrible terrible mess that lasted for 12 freaking years.

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:Never rely on defaults... by Desler · 2017-11-08 12:35 · Score: 0

Oh no! You canceled a free account! Their next quarter revenues are sure to be decimated because of this!
Re:Never rely on defaults... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 14:02 · Score: 0

Someone doesn't appear to understand how Google makes money. I would expect that level of ignorance elsewhere, but on /.?
Re:Never rely on defaults... by Desler · 2017-11-08 17:30 · Score: 1

Someone overestimates how much value one random person’s Google account is to Google’s bottomline.
Re: Never rely on defaults... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 18:02 · Score: 0

You only start by taking the first step.
Re:Never rely on defaults... by war4peace · 2017-11-08 19:16 · Score: 1

Are you sure? I think it's just as effective, as in "zilch" effective.

--
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Re:Never rely on defaults... by diamondmagic · 2017-11-08 20:20 · Score: 1

No, it's not standard. addEventListener is described here: https://www.w3.org/TR/domcore/...
As you can see, there's no "passive" property to be found. It was instead described in a Mozilla- and Google-owned fork that's still not standardized by the larger body of W3C members.
They've been doing this a lot recently. Specifically, Anne van Kesteren is cancer.

--
Wonder what the public key field is for?
Re:Never rely on defaults... by Nocturna81 · 2017-11-08 22:13 · Score: 1

As I recall, there was a clear standard: https://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC... and Microsoft choose to ignore it.
Re: Never rely on defaults... by sonamchauhan · 2017-11-08 22:47 · Score: 1

He didn't really do it to hurt Google... He did it benefit himself. Whether his evaluation is accurate is another matter.
Re: Never rely on defaults... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 03:09 · Score: 0

I'm switching to IE
Re:Never rely on defaults... by barbariccow · 2017-11-09 03:49 · Score: 1

Not in any sort of stable API... like HTML / Javascript are supposed to be. Especially since javascript doesn't support named arguments (like myFunction(a=12, b=14) ), so it's not safe to just "always pass the third argument as 'false'" when different browsers, implementations, and even different versions therein may have a different third argument (since it's not part of the standard).
A "Sane" way to do this would be to create a new method, or a new call. Like, if ( object.addEventListenerEX ) { object.addEventListenerEx(...., false) } else { object.addEventListener(...) }. But they didn't do this. Just more of how internet explorer made the web so horrible, google has taken over that department.
Re:Never rely on defaults... by barbariccow · 2017-11-09 03:57 · Score: 1

javascript doesn't care. You can pass an infinite number of arguments in the caller, and it always works. The language was designed thus-so so be extensible.

Try it yourself, in firefox type control+shift+k.

In the console do this:
function blah(x) { return x; } blah("hello", "ALL", "OF", "THIS", "IS", "IGNORED")
And you'll get no error, just "hello" as expected. The problem is that if firefox adds a third argument which has a completely different meaning than the third argument in chrome, then you need complex version testing all over the place. This is why it's better to add a new function than to rely on optional arguments.
Re:Never rely on defaults... by Plumpaquatsch · 2017-11-10 04:13 · Score: 1

Years ago, websites were designed so that they rendered properly with Internet Explorer. Microsoft didn't have to follow any standards because they had the most widely used browser and Fuck You if you don't use IE.
Now Chrome is the most widely used browser and Google has decided to become the new Microsoft.
And they fuck that up by not breaking the web for everybody else, but only for those who use Chrome to visit those sites that expect the behavior every other browser still has. New motto: too dumb to be evil.

--
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.

Get with the picture! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2017-11-08 03:24 · Score: 1

Is this why the Slashdot dragbar for hiding comments below a certain upvote doesn't work on my phone or tablet?

If so, get with the picture and fix it...Slashdot!

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.

Re:Get with the picture! by Khyber · 2017-11-08 03:38 · Score: 1

How is this Slashdot's fault when Google decided to fuck over half the web for their own gain?

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Re:Get with the picture! by redmasq · 2017-11-08 03:50 · Score: 2

It is doubly Slashdot's fault, not only have they not fixed the issue, but tags are not whitelisted and get filtered out.
Re:Get with the picture! by bhcompy · 2017-11-08 04:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

Don't use Chrome. There, fixed.
Re:Get with the picture! by whoever57 · 2017-11-08 04:52 · Score: 1

What dragbar? Classic view here. /. looks like it did 15 years ago.

--
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Re:Get with the picture! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 20:17 · Score: 0

Exactly this. These days I tend to use Safari and Firefox for everything. No need for Chrome.

onScroll not passive? by Luthair · 2017-11-08 03:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

Maybe you should fuck off with your website that modifies scrolling.

Re:onScroll not passive? by tepples · 2017-11-08 03:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

The featured article claims that "All websites and web apps that did any sort of draggable UI (sliders, maps, reorderable lists, even slide-in panels)". In such web applications, if the user is performing a slide gesture, he doesn't necessarily want to make the whole document scroll just because the gesture has approached the edge of the document.
So let me get this straight: Are you claiming that such web applications "should fuck off"? Must they instead be rewritten as native executable applications that work only on one brand of operating system?
Re: onScroll not passive? by bhcompy · 2017-11-08 04:37 · Score: 1

It's HTML standard functionality.
Re: onScroll not passive? by Merk42 · 2017-11-08 04:39 · Score: 1

So no (mobile) websites should have drag and drop functionality?
Re:onScroll not passive? by Trax3001BBS · 2017-11-08 04:55 · Score: 1

The featured article claims that "All websites and web apps that did any sort of draggable UI (sliders, maps, reorderable lists, even slide-in panels)". In such web applications, if the user is performing a slide gesture, he doesn't necessarily want to make the whole document scroll just because the gesture has approached the edge of the document.
I can't read /. with my cell phone and Opera. The sliders don't work (message filter) and the threads are unreadable.
Not to say I don't visit, I just stick with the summaries and links from them.
Re:onScroll not passive? by AmiMoJo · 2017-11-08 05:11 · Score: 2

Maybe web sites should not be trying to behave like apps. Especially if doing so kills browser performance and battery life on mobile.
Can you give an example of a web site where this behaviour is actually desirable?

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:onScroll not passive? by tepples · 2017-11-08 05:20 · Score: 2, Informative

Maybe web sites should not be trying to behave like apps.
Have you considered that a website might be trying to behave like an app in order to circumvent the costs and censorship aspects of being in Apple's App Store?
Re:onScroll not passive? by AmiMoJo · 2017-11-08 06:12 · Score: 2

Missing the point, I don't want apps wasting my battery on pointless crap either. A nice, usability focused UI will be fine, thanks.
I guess maybe there are some unusual applications that would benefit from your use case, but I really can't think of any app that was censored/driven out by price and would benefit from having that kind of interactivity via a web version.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:onScroll not passive? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 06:15 · Score: 0

They can react to scrolling all they want. Don't cancel scrolling!
Re:onScroll not passive? by tepples · 2017-11-08 06:40 · Score: 1

A nice, usability focused UI will be fine, thanks.
What "nice, usability focused UI" do you recommend for reordering the relative position of items in an outline, or chat rooms in a server, or priorities in a to-do list, without slide gestures?
Re:onScroll not passive? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 06:54 · Score: 0

So let me get this straight: Are you claiming that such web applications "should fuck off"?
If this is a consequence of killing those websites that modify scrolling ... I'm okay with it.
Re:onScroll not passive? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 07:02 · Score: 0

The scroll event is not the only way to catch slide gestures; nor does it make a huge amount of sense for slidable controls to be within a scrollable container that can scroll in the slide direction (if it's not scrollable, then there are even more alternative approaches).
All in all: I'm not convinced that webapps using a non-necessary, not very logical, non-standard, poorly designed API deserve bending over backwards for, even if the effect they attempt to achieve (sliders etc) is a reasonable one to want to achieve.
I mean to be clear the blame primarily goes to chrome for designing this simply horrible api (seriously, WTF were they thinking making an API that's partially incompatible with a published and widely-used standard - making life intentionally miserable for webdevs?) But simultaneously, if you choose to depend on bleeding-edge api's, you *do* knowingly take a risk.
Re:onScroll not passive? by BronsCon · 2017-11-08 07:17 · Score: 2

What's more usable:
- A UI where, in order to move items in a list, you must click an up/down arrow and wait for the page to reload with the moved item in its new position
or
- A UI that lets you reorder a list by dragging the items where you want them?

Unlike most people (I've done market research on this very topic), you must not think the second option is more usable, because that's what Google broke.

--
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Re:onScroll not passive? by Frosty+Piss · 2017-11-08 07:50 · Score: 1

Missing the point, I don't want apps wasting my battery on pointless crap either. A nice, usability focused UI will be fine, thanks.
Lynx.

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Re:onScroll not passive? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 08:24 · Score: 0

With move up/down buttons? That way we don't conflate scrolling (a read only action) with an edit action.
Re:onScroll not passive? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 08:40 · Score: 0

you use opera presto?
Re:onScroll not passive? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 09:15 · Score: 0

Can you give an example of a web site where this behaviour is actually desirable?
Trello, when dragging cards between stacks.
Re:onScroll not passive? by tepples · 2017-11-08 09:42 · Score: 1

I assume that "move up/down buttons" move an item above the item above it or below the item below it. If so, good luck moving something up from the bottom of a list of a dozen or more items to near the top this way. If not, how would the user specify how far "move up/down buttons" move a particular item?
Re:onScroll not passive? by tepples · 2017-11-08 09:44 · Score: 1

nor does it make a huge amount of sense for slidable controls to be within a scrollable container that can scroll in the slide direction
A to-do item in a scrolling list of several dozen.
Re:onScroll not passive? by Rakarra · 2017-11-08 10:35 · Score: 1

Maybe web sites should not be trying to behave like apps.
Have you considered that a website might be trying to behave like an app in order to circumvent the costs and censorship aspects of being in Apple's App Store?
I wouldn't want to download and install apps for websites I visit. If a website insists "go download our app!" then that's a website I'm not going to be visiting anymore. That seems like a really bad path to go down.
Re:onScroll not passive? by Trax3001BBS · 2017-11-08 11:52 · Score: 1

you use opera presto?
Yep, Opera mobile Browser, set for tablet. It's preferred only because up till version 12 Opera had always been my browser.
Re:onScroll not passive? by Billly+Gates · 2017-11-08 12:03 · Score: 1

Actually that is not the slider.
That is shitty coding and cheap ass web developers who use ancient pre 2012 versions of Adobe Creative suite (not rented version). What Chrome does is use -webkit or -blink lines in CSS for experimental standards in W3c back early this decade as standards can change (as what happened with IE 6).
So Adobe now fixes this and coders can use the correct CSS implentations but they kept the -webkit and -blink code and never updated it or Adobe is from 2011 and they do not want to pay for a newer version which uses the W3C standard CSS and instead use the ancient Chrome -webkit tags instead.
Since Opera isn't webkit it doesn't read the CSS

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:onScroll not passive? by tepples · 2017-11-08 13:14 · Score: 1

If a website insists "go download our app!" then that's a website I'm not going to be visiting anymore.
Say you try to drag and drop something in a web app in Chrome, but then you see something like this:

This action may behave abnormally in Google Chrome.
[ Learn why | Try Firefox | Download our app ]
"Learn why" links to an article explaining Chrome's willful violation of web standards. Would you open the web app in Firefox?
Re:onScroll not passive? by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · 2017-11-08 14:42 · Score: 1

Never once. Furthermore I don't give a flying fuck. I don't use Apple products, and I definitely don't have sympathy for web designers that can't do their job properly and feel the "need" to work like an app.
I'm glad Google broke that lazy fucking behavior for them.

--
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
Re:onScroll not passive? by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · 2017-11-08 14:44 · Score: 1

Generally the reason they say
"go download our app"
is because if you're using their app you can't block the ads they want to serve you.

--
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
Re:onScroll not passive? by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · 2017-11-08 14:46 · Score: 1

No. I'd tell them to stop being fucking lazy, or I'd just stop using the site. I'm not changing from a browser that I have proper JS blocking and ad blocking for to suit the needs of a lazy web developer.

--
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
Re:onScroll not passive? by SuperDre · 2017-11-08 21:40 · Score: 1

Well, if a website follows standards than the browser should do what the behaviour of this standard is, not what it wants to do itself because it wants to look like it can perform better (than just optimize the browser so it performs better and still does what has been set as the standard).
Also native apps are going the way of the dodo, if a website can do exactly the same as a native app, but works on 'all' platforms, why would you even bother with going native..
(That doesn't mean I agree with the stance, as these days applications have become so unoptimized due to most developers not even knowing how to do actual optimization, but hee it works, just buy a faster computer with more memory).
Re:onScroll not passive? by Rakarra · 2017-11-09 04:29 · Score: 1

Say you try to drag and drop something in a web app in Chrome
I'm not going to want to drag and drop something in the first place. I'd actually have to FIND my desktop in the first place (I like full-screen windows, lots of them), I'd probably have to add an exception to noscript, which may be unlikely. That latter part might be necessary anyway, as I would greatly prefer a file upload button over drag-and-drop (yeuck) in the first place, and that probably requires some javascript hook.
Re:onScroll not passive? by tepples · 2017-11-09 11:29 · Score: 1

I'm not going to want to drag and drop something in the first place. I'd actually have to FIND my desktop in the first place (I like full-screen windows, lots of them)
It's not necessarily dragging and dropping from one window to another. It's also moving an item in the list, where said list is already in the web application, up or down by possibly a few dozen positions.

I'd probably have to add an exception to noscript, which may be unlikely. That latter part might be necessary anyway
If you were to move the list item in the web application without using script, you'd have to activate the form control that moves the list item up or down by one position, wait for the HTML document to completely reload, and repeat a few dozen times.
Re:onScroll not passive? by tepples · 2017-11-09 11:31 · Score: 1

From your mention of "proper JS blocking", you'd probably be happy moving an item in a list up several dozen positions by clicking "move item up one position", waiting for the page to reload, clicking "move item up one position", waiting for the page to reload, etc.
Re:onScroll not passive? by tepples · 2017-11-09 11:32 · Score: 1

if you're using their app you can't block the ads they want to serve you.
Would you prefer to pay 4 USD per site per month to view websites without ads? How many different websites do you access over the course of a day?
Re:onScroll not passive? by Plumpaquatsch · 2017-11-10 04:31 · Score: 1

Maybe web sites should not be trying to behave like apps. Especially if doing so kills browser performance and battery life on mobile.
Can you give an example of a web site where this behaviour is actually desirable?
So you must have a problem with the fact that that behavior again works when the (previously not needed) option "active" is added to the onwhatever listener?

--
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.

Who wrote this? Donald Trump? by Bohnanza · 2017-11-08 03:28 · Score: 5, Funny

"Now, this is a terrible thing to do. It's very, very, very bad, believe me, folks"

--

-----

Sorry, I'm only a 1336 h4x0r.

Re:Who wrote this? Donald Trump? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 03:38 · Score: 0

You know... there are "Bad Hombres!" at google...
Re:Who wrote this? Donald Trump? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 03:57 · Score: 0

Don't say that they form a Gang of Four!?
Re:Who wrote this? Donald Trump? by Tablizer · 2017-11-08 05:50 · Score: 2

Do you mean the summary, or actual article? The summary I submitted in the story submission form was different from the Slashdot-published version. As the first line points out, it has been edited. Actually, my summary was shorter than the published version. For one, it didn't include the "very, very, very bad" line because I felt other wording already indicated Google's change made a bigly mess.
- Tablizer

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:Who wrote this? Donald Trump? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 08:15 · Score: 0

Hey, the guy lost his twitter account - he's gotta get his message out somehow...
Re:Who wrote this? Donald Trump? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 15:55 · Score: 0

While I'm a huge DT fan I think I need to start #MakeTheWebGreatAgain
Chrome is the new MSIE. Edge actually is pretty standards compliant now. And I use Firefox and search with Bing on my Android phone because Google can fuck off and not own everything. Not that they can't do whatever they want to my phone -- they own and sign the kernel after all.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 03:29 · Score: 5, Interesting

The mantra of the Chrome team was once "Don't break the web".

This hasn't been true for some time now. Why? Because power.

Take (for example) Google's newfound habit of "updating" their webfonts. How many layouts have they broken in the process? Millions.

Google needs to rediscover the value of accepted standards. But there seems to be a new management team calling the shots.

And they're mostly d*cks.

Re:Absolute power corrupts absolutely by shortscruffydave · 2017-11-08 03:47 · Score: 2

The mantra of the Chrome team was once "Don't break the web".

Their parent's mantra used to be "Don't be evil".
Can you see a pattern beginning to emerge here?
Re:Absolute power corrupts absolutely by thegarbz · 2017-11-08 04:29 · Score: 2

Take (for example) Google's newfound habit of "updating" their webfonts. How many layouts have they broken in the process? Millions.
If your website breaks because the font changes then it's not Google who deserves to be tared and feathered, but the web designer.
Re:Absolute power corrupts absolutely by sexconker · 2017-11-08 05:07 · Score: 1

Take (for example) Google's newfound habit of "updating" their webfonts. How many layouts have they broken in the process? Millions.
If your website breaks because the font changes then it's not Google who deserves to be tared and feathered, but the web designer.
If you change a font used by a bunch of people without telling them and giving them an option to use the current version, you deserve to be tarred and feathered.
Why the FUCK would you pull the rug out from under someone like that?
Re:Absolute power corrupts absolutely by DarkRookie · 2017-11-08 05:23 · Score: 1

Lolz. This will never happen. Google no longer cares about anything else except Google. Your standards can fuck off according to them.

--
The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
Re:Absolute power corrupts absolutely by Chris+Mattern · 2017-11-08 05:28 · Score: 1

Changing a font on a user without notice is bad. Changing a font on a website without notice to the website owner shouldn't make a difference. If it does make a difference, you're a bad, bad website designer.
Re:Absolute power corrupts absolutely by sexconker · 2017-11-08 06:00 · Score: 1

Uh, that changes the font to the end user, so it's thus bad. Further, of course it makes difference! If there's no visual difference to the changed font, there's no point in changing the font!
Re:Absolute power corrupts absolutely by alexo · 2017-11-08 06:20 · Score: 1

Google needs to rediscover the value of accepted standards. But there seems to be a new management team calling the shots.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
-- Upton Sinclair
Re:Absolute power corrupts absolutely by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 07:23 · Score: 0

If your website breaks because the font changes then it's not Google who deserves to be tared and feathered, but the web designer.
If you change a font used by a bunch of people without telling them and giving them an option to use the current version, you deserve to be tarred and feathered.
You were told by the web standards body not to do that with fonts and layouts since day one.
The web isn't there for layouts!
The second you had the idea in your head to break every standard that currently or has existed to shoehorn layouts into a presentation delivery system, your stuff was broken before the first html tag was committed to a file.
Please for the love of all that is good, stop doing that!
Re:Absolute power corrupts absolutely by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 09:18 · Score: 0

And they're mostly ducks?
Re:Absolute power corrupts absolutely by farble1670 · 2017-11-08 09:49 · Score: 1

Uh, that changes the font to the end user, so it's thus bad.
Not if the new font is better.
If your website depends on a particular font to render correctly, you ought to be harcoding the use of that font, not just using "sans serif" or whatever you were doing.
Re:Absolute power corrupts absolutely by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 10:06 · Score: 0

Google needs to rediscover the value of accepted standards. But there seems to be a new management team calling the shots.
They also don't trust anyone. (Not even the device owner their shit is running on.) So good luck with that.
Re:Absolute power corrupts absolutely by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 10:17 · Score: 0

Uh, that changes the font to the end user, so it's thus bad. Further, of course it makes difference! If there's no visual difference to the changed font, there's no point in changing the font!
Relying upon a(n absolute) particular font for a website means you doing it wrong (fragile). If your web designer doesn't know this they're lacking some of the basics (even if they also have advanced knowledge in other areas of web development - the two aren't incompatible possibilities).
"Hey, it always worked before" is not a guarantee that it will in future, unless the contract (e.g. specs) say it will.
Re:Absolute power corrupts absolutely by LordKronos · 2017-11-08 11:05 · Score: 1

If your website can't withstand a slight change in font rendering, how the hell do you expect your website to hold up for people who override the style sheet for accessibility? You DO know that's a thing, right? It's basically what the C in CSS is all about.
Re:Absolute power corrupts absolutely by Billly+Gates · 2017-11-08 12:08 · Score: 1

Take (for example) Google's newfound habit of "updating" their webfonts. How many layouts have they broken in the process? Millions.
If your website breaks because the font changes then it's not Google who deserves to be tared and feathered, but the web designer.
Bahaha you never wrote code last decade when IE was all the rage for intranet and internet sites :-)
If the VP can't read your site in IE 6 your contract was reviewed. He doesn't even know what IE even is as the E standards for internet in his 60 year old eyes. What he knows is your site failed to deliver. YOU get tared and feathered as the web designer!
Many geeks after 2 years started doing other things back in those days after situations like that which gave IE especially on slashdot a bad name. But yes, many contracts state the site will do A, B, and C and web designers can now be fired and sued for failing to deliver on past work THANKS to fucking Google changing the standard after the project is done.

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:Absolute power corrupts absolutely by thegarbz · 2017-11-08 21:43 · Score: 1

If your system fucks up that easily, they shouldn't just pull the rug from you, but then kick you in the face for good measure.
Fonts and the presence of them have been completely unreliable in rendering since the world wide web's inception. If it breaks due to a font change then fire your web developer.
Re:Absolute power corrupts absolutely by thegarbz · 2017-11-08 21:45 · Score: 1

I did write code in those bad old days. They taught us the valuable lesson: how to design websites in a world where the presence and type of fonts available to the client is a clusterfuck.
If your website breaks because of a font change you should pick a different career.

I am an acknowleged expert in this field by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 03:30 · Score: 0

I thought Google was the boss? How could they break something that they're the boss of?

The Chrome team "broke the web"... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 03:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

if you use Chrome.

As I'm firmly in the 'fuck Google and all of their products' camp, I hadn't noticed.

Re:The Chrome team "broke the web"... by jenningsthecat · 2017-11-08 04:12 · Score: 1

Came here to say this. If Chrome is ever the only browser available, I'll simply do without the Web. Not only do I despise Google's antics, I'm one of the (apparently) small minority that thinks their browser utterly sucks and always has.

--
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Re:The Chrome team "broke the web"... by slashkitty · 2017-11-08 04:51 · Score: 1

I use Chrome, but not on mobile. Haven't noticed anything wrong in with sites, including mine that rely on dragging. I'm guessing this is very limited to Chrome Mobile, which means Android, a fraction of web sites broken for a smaller fraction of web users

--
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
Re:The Chrome team "broke the web"... by nicoleb_x · 2017-11-08 06:58 · Score: 1

Agree that Google is evil. They want all my data which I consider evil. I avoid the Goolag as much as possible and prefer application developers that don't make money from gathering a user's life data.
Re:The Chrome team "broke the web"... by BronsCon · 2017-11-08 07:23 · Score: 1

Indeed, this likely affects one of my clients' sites but, as they develop Mac, iOS, and Windows software, they don't care enough to even approve testing in Chrome on Android, let alone any fixes. And, so, it shall remain broken until they do. Which they won't.

This is going to hurt Chrome more than anything.

--
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Re:The Chrome team "broke the web"... by farble1670 · 2017-11-08 09:55 · Score: 1

they don't care enough to even approve testing in Chrome on Android, let alone any fixes.
Well, they aren't very smart. Or maybe it's your decision?
http://gs.statcounter.com/brow...
Chrome has ~50% share, and the next highest is Safari w/ ~18%.
Re:The Chrome team "broke the web"... by BronsCon · 2017-11-08 10:08 · Score: 1

And they don't target Android. You must have missed that.

--
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Re:The Chrome team "broke the web"... by farble1670 · 2017-11-08 10:21 · Score: 1

And they don't target Android. You must have missed that.
Yes, and I called them idiots for that. Maybe you should advise them.
Chrome Android is the most widely used by 2.5x.
Chrome desktop is by ~4x.
Re:The Chrome team "broke the web"... by BronsCon · 2017-11-08 10:31 · Score: 1

They. Sell. Software. For. Mac. And. iOS.

Their Windows offering is a recent development.

They have no current interest in Android and no products to sell to Android users. They also have a very vocal userbase who reports even the tiniest of issues with the site; 0 reports of any issues browsing the site on Android.

Of course, that might have something to do with the fact that the only time I see an Android UA string in the logs is when I've hit their site from my phone to test something.

It would be downright idiotic to spend money supporting a platform their userbase doesn't use.

In a year or two, when they start developing a version of their product for Android, that will change. By then, a new major version will have been released and, with that, a complete overhaul of their site. By the time Android matters to them, they'll have paid me to deal with it.

I advise them quite well, thank you.

--
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Re:The Chrome team "broke the web"... by david_thornley · 2017-11-08 10:52 · Score: 1

Catering to the numerically largest market isn't necessarily a good idea. There's advantages in catering for a market with lots of disposable income. Designing for iOS and not Android is a business decision, not automatically an idiotic one.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:The Chrome team "broke the web"... by farble1670 · 2017-11-08 11:12 · Score: 1

They have no current interest in Android and no products to sell to Android users.
Did you know, Android users are also allowed to own Apple hardware? I use an Android phone but my spouse has a iPhone and we own an Apple laptop. I get that it's more likely for a user on Safari to be interested in iOS / Mac software, but when you factor in the ~5x dominance of users on Chrome that balances out.

I advise them quite well, thank you.
Duly noted.
Re:The Chrome team "broke the web"... by BronsCon · 2017-11-08 11:21 · Score: 1

Did you know, Android users are also allowed to own Apple hardware?
Indeed, as an Android user, I own a fair bit of Apple hardware. Did you know there have been precisely 5 visits to their site by an Android Chrome user in the past 3 years? All of them from me. I did mentione that in a previous post, though I didn't give exact numbers.

Those numbers come from Apache logs, not some off-site analytics service that might not have data on every page hit.

It helps to know your market. I know mine very well.

--
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Re:The Chrome team "broke the web"... by farble1670 · 2017-11-08 16:30 · Score: 1

Did you know there have been precisely 5 visits to their site by an Android Chrome user in the past 3 years? All of them from me.
So, you think zero visits from an Android browser over 3 years is "doing your job"?
huh.
Re:The Chrome team "broke the web"... by BronsCon · 2017-11-08 16:41 · Score: 1

Well, it's not like they're hitting the site, seeing it not work, and leaving -- they're not hitting the site fron Android in the first place.

I'm their developer, not their marketer. If I were their marketer I would feel differently... and they'd have more sales. But that's beside the point because they pay other people to fill that role.

It also comes down to the fact that I know what kind of budget they're working with and I'm already extracting a large portion of that, having recently hired another employee just to handle their overflow projects. There are bigger fish to fry than platforms outside their target market; fish which actually affect their sales.

If I were starved for work or they had budget to pay for me to hire yet another developer, Chrome on Android would get bumped a few notches higher on the priority list. Neither of those are the case and I would be doing them a disservice to put it ahead of things they actually need.

I've been doing this work for nearly two decades and have left a trail of nothing but happy customers, but thanks for telling me how to run my business, I must have been doing something wrong this whole time.

--
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.

Didn't they just break their own product? by myowntrueself · 2017-11-08 03:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

It doesn't sound like they broke the web; surely other browsers carried on working just fine? They broke their own product.

--
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.

Re:Didn't they just break their own product? by TuringTest · 2017-11-08 03:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

Except that users will perceive it as "this old website doesn't work", not "Chrome doesn't work", since the problems only happens in some websites and not others.

--
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
Re:Didn't they just break their own product? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 04:14 · Score: 0

It's like a smudge on the screen, except users would probably figure out that not all web sites started having smudges in a fixed position.
Re:Didn't they just break their own product? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 04:15 · Score: 1

This really only applies to the mobile web, and in the mobile web, there are only two browsers: Chrome (at 60% of all users) and Safari (30%). Sure, Firefox has a mobile version, but no one uses it (less than 1%).
The only reason Safari has so many users is because you can't use any other browser on iOS, which means that 30% above is basically "all iOS users."
So they may have "broken their own product" but it's not like there's a lot of choice in mobile browsers, and your choice is effectively dictated by platform.
Re:Didn't they just break their own product? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 04:18 · Score: 0

Exactly! Example: was trying to troubleshoot something over the phone with my sister. She had no clue what browser she was using, just "the internet." Turned out that the problem was in fact something related to Chrome because the site worked fine (just a tad slower) in FF when I told her to, specifically, use that. (Turns out that she has at least 5 browsers on the computer, counting a tweaked Chrome from from someplace as a separate browser; and note that anybody with Win10 starts with 2 browsers, since Edge and IE11 are both included, and are not the same in terms of web site compatibility.)
Re:Didn't they just break their own product? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 04:40 · Score: 0

But that will always be the problem. You can abstract away complexity, but you still can't fix stupid.
Re:Didn't they just break their own product? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 04:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's like a smudge on the screen, except users would probably figure out that not all web sites started having smudges in a fixed position.
During your first week of working in this industry, you will quickly learn one thing: never, ever depend on users to figure out anything.
You can only count on users to find the most ingenious ways to break things. You can't count on them to figure out new things. In fact most of them really hate learning. They will go to such extraordinary lengths to avoid learning, that actually learning would have been far less effort.
If you've ever worked in an office setting, you will have seen tons of users who have used the same systems for years. Yet they know nothing more about how things work than when they started. They managed to avoid even accidentally picking up bits of new info along the way. Now that takes real work. If a later version changes the location of a menu item or icon, the company has to invest in "retraining".
That's what "users" are like.
Re:Didn't they just break their own product? by tlhIngan · 2017-11-08 06:32 · Score: 1

This really only applies to the mobile web, and in the mobile web, there are only two browsers: Chrome (at 60% of all users) and Safari (30%). Sure, Firefox has a mobile version, but no one uses it (less than 1%).
The only reason Safari has so many users is because you can't use any other browser on iOS, which means that 30% above is basically "all iOS users."
So they may have "broken their own product" but it's not like there's a lot of choice in mobile browsers, and your choice is effectively dictated by platform.
Well, they all use WebKit internally - though perhaps Google broke something in their fork to make it terrible. It's funny how the article doesn't say if Safari suffers the same problem, indicating a problem within WebKit itself.
As for iOS, you're only forced to use the built in web rendering engine - everything else is changable. In fact, it's trivial to create a webview that has your own user-agent header. So anyone using Safari is using Safari - anyone using Chrome on iOS will be seen as a Chrome user because you're supposed to set the user-agent appropriately.
The only thing Safari can do that a webview cannot is JIT for javascript - and that's because Safari on iOS runs at an even lower permission level than an app.
Re:Didn't they just break their own product? by Quirkz · 2017-11-08 06:41 · Score: 2

Man, I'd thought "the internet won't start" browser confusion problems had died with the last millennium. Guess some things never change.

--
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
Re:Didn't they just break their own product? by green1 · 2017-11-08 06:46 · Score: 1

My kingdom for some mod points!
Speaking as the person responsible for much of that "retraining" it never ceases to amaze me just how much effort people are capable of putting in to the avoidance of knowledge.
Re:Didn't they just break their own product? by green1 · 2017-11-08 06:50 · Score: 1

Your safari number assumes that only 2/3 of safari users are on iOS (as iOS only has about 18% market share last I checked) Do you really think that many people install Safari on Android?
The most common browser on Android though is actually probably Samsung's bundled "internet" app, though admittedly it's just a crippled and re-branded Chrome. (oh how I wish manufacturers would quit putting their own branded apps on instead of actual working ones...)
Re:Didn't they just break their own product? by Drishmung · 2017-11-08 07:46 · Score: 1

Since the fix is to update the website, couldn't you just update it to say "Your web browser is not standards compliant". The same amount of effort and places blame in the appropriate place.

--
Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
Re:Didn't they just break their own product? by epine · 2017-11-08 08:58 · Score: 1

Speaking as the person responsible for much of that "retraining" it never ceases to amaze me just how much effort people are capable of putting in to the avoidance of knowledge.
If it's anything like AI, every time you learn something, the bar is instantly raised. Bar inflation is underappreciated by the pocket protector set. Thus perhaps the proper diagnosis is that the end user is investing enormous amounts of effort into stopping the bar from moving. Because there's no end in sight to how much IT support would prefer to offload onto a better-educated user base.
Supposing they did choose to learn—surprise!—all this end user sunk cost is thrown overboard in the next software generation, because ribbon GUIs are a thing now, or touch desktops, or some other dubious, branding brainfuck.
Allow me to play devil's advocate for a second more.
When users will willingly work harder: what they are being asked to learn is a reasonable work process (as perceived by someone who doesn't love IT for its own sake), the learning process is finite (and knowable in advance), and what you've learned stays valid across branding fashion cycles.
My wife works in a (large) government Windows shop. They've been having five person meetings week after week over file naming conventions concerning a large database of decision documents. This only started because some IT support guy told them their file names are too long (what he means is that their pathnames are too long; they have some fraction of 260 characters because of how their volumes are mounted deep under the hood, which has never been explained to anyone in her shop, even though it sometimes seems to change, which immediately causes all kinds of heartache).
I'm a ZFS user. While the filename itself is limited to 255 characters, the path names can be a lot longer. In my wife's IT environment, maybe I'd quickly give up on learning, too. The brokenness file would quickly overwhelm everything else.
Proposal currently circulating in my wife's office: everyone gets a handy cheat sheet for how to encode shorter filenames from short, cryptic designators. And, also, the idea that you no longer need to designate the other party, because after all, you can tell that from the folder name (until you email the document to someone and it's now outside of the filing system context).
I suggested, you know, maybe flatten your folder hierarchy and keep your filenames long and human readable and fully declarative and traceable?
But no, probably that handy cheat-sheet wins out, and there goes all the brainspace for internalizing anything else IT-related for the rest of the year. It's a shop that files all day long. Many of these are regulatory documents with permanent legal standing. Dusty documents get dredged up decades later, when the same stress point inevitably flares up again. There is nothing new under the sun in their universe.
Brilliant IT guy: give them a filename limit that doesn't turn their work process upside down, they might all find more time to learn that other shit you so wish they'd lap up.
Re:Didn't they just break their own product? by TuringTest · 2017-11-08 09:02 · Score: 1

This should be obvious, but the end user -the one who suffers the problem- can't update the website.

--
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
Re:Didn't they just break their own product? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 10:13 · Score: 0

It's like a smudge on the screen, except users would probably figure out that not all web sites started having smudges in a fixed position.
During your first week of working in this industry, you will quickly learn one thing: never, ever depend on users to figure out anything.
Your second week - you'll figure out you do have the rare user who is willing to submit a good bug report that is 100% recreatable + proper documentation submitted with the recreate steps.

However, said business provides no means to submit such bug reports without that rare user jumping through about 1-2 hours worth of first line support hell. Said rare user gives up at that point. And this is by design of the business. So you as a developer have no means of connecting with that user and fixing genuine issues.
Re:Didn't they just break their own product? by BitterOak · 2017-11-08 10:16 · Score: 1

Except that users will perceive it as "this old website doesn't work", not "Chrome doesn't work", since the problems only happens in some websites and not others.
I disagree. Microsoft has been down that road. Remember when IE had something like 80% market share? People want all their websites to work, and they can download Firefox for free.

--
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Re:Didn't they just break their own product? by myowntrueself · 2017-11-08 10:19 · Score: 1

It's like a smudge on the screen, except users would probably figure out that not all web sites started having smudges in a fixed position.
During your first week of working in this industry, you will quickly learn one thing: never, ever depend on users to figure out anything.
You can only count on users to find the most ingenious ways to break things. You can't count on them to figure out new things. In fact most of them really hate learning. They will go to such extraordinary lengths to avoid learning, that actually learning would have been far less effort.
If you've ever worked in an office setting, you will have seen tons of users who have used the same systems for years. Yet they know nothing more about how things work than when they started. They managed to avoid even accidentally picking up bits of new info along the way. Now that takes real work. If a later version changes the location of a menu item or icon, the company has to invest in "retraining".
That's what "users" are like.
This is why DevOps 'release early, release often' creates the sense in the customer that the product is constantly breaking.

--
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Re:Didn't they just break their own product? by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · 2017-11-08 15:10 · Score: 1

My response would be "so you want me to switch to a browser without proper ad blocking and JS filtering? you can fuck straight off and I'll go somewhere else from now on"

--
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
Re:Didn't they just break their own product? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 16:57 · Score: 0

+1 Insightful
Re:Didn't they just break their own product? by zijus · 2017-11-09 00:26 · Score: 1

If it's anything like AI, every time you learn something, the bar is instantly raised. Bar inflation is underappreciated by the pocket protector set. Thus perhaps the proper diagnosis is that the end user is investing enormous amounts of effort into stopping the bar from moving. Because there's no end in sight to how much IT support would prefer to offload onto a better-educated user base.
Supposing they did choose to learn—surprise!—all this end user sunk cost is thrown overboard in the next software generation, because ribbon GUIs are a thing now, or touch desktops, or some other dubious, branding brainfuck.
Spot on. +1 Insightfull.
Perpetually re-learning degraded UIs, changed nearly totally due to fashions instead of need, is unprofessional. Expecting this from end users as a monthly or even if only yearly standard routine, is unprofessional.
So easy to blame it all on end users. Yet, I so well understand them !

Why settle for being merely evil? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 03:36 · Score: 0

Why settle for being merely evil when you can be so much more?

I'm surprised Google hasn't found a way to use that feature to ferret out some unmined corner of privacy.

Re:Why settle for being merely evil? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 03:58 · Score: 0

Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. It's just further confirmation that Google are the new Microsoft.
Re:Why settle for being merely evil? by Trax3001BBS · 2017-11-08 04:58 · Score: 1

Why settle for being merely evil when you can be so much more?
I'm surprised Google hasn't found a way to use that feature to ferret out some unmined corner of privacy.
I've never used Chrome. It flows in the same vein as not just up and giving my info to Google, but Google is welcome to grab it elsewhere.
Re:Why settle for being merely evil? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 07:18 · Score: 1

Actually Google has innovated on this, they added an "Expoit" step.

So, you're saying... by TuringTest · 2017-11-08 03:41 · Score: 3, Interesting

...developers should provide their own initial value for every parameter defined in the standard, and those non-standard parameters available in any popular implementation?

--
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.

Re:So, you're saying... by thegreatbob · 2017-11-08 04:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

When too much changes too quickly, as is pretty clearly the case here, cromulence diminishes rather rapidly. Making up new words is fine, provided they have a definition based in what is already understood (perhaps even understandable?). However, if I (or whatever entity) begin to unilaterally redefine words and other parts of speech, problems start to arise, and mutual intelligibility is lost.

--
There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
Re:So, you're saying... by WaffleMonster · 2017-11-08 04:32 · Score: 1

Yes, just like English being a living language (where we can get away with making things up on the fly) so is the World Wide Web. It is fluid, needs to change, has to change. If the new breaks the old, too bad for the old, it should of kept up!
This is not a falsifiable statement and therefore meaningless. Any change no matter how disruptive, useless or counterproductive can be justified equally simply by invoking this device.
Re:So, you're saying... by sexconker · 2017-11-08 05:01 · Score: 1

I love you, WaffleMonster

This is not a falsifiable statement and therefore meaningless, Mom! GOD!!!!
Re:So, you're saying... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 05:13 · Score: 0

That very much the *point* of the post, because that living language argument is in fact used to justify regular abuse of the english language, on slashdot, every time it comes up.
Re:So, you're saying... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 05:42 · Score: 0

That is an interesting one to share with the judge when you come up with your own custom interpretation of the law. This would be tantamount to a single company deciding to change a law (or the interpretation of a law) to fit their own needs without notifying the parties responsible for writing or enforcing the laws, and then expecting that there would be no legal consequences for those actions. Usually companies have to pay some kind of money to a politician or bureaucrat to make this kind of change happen, whether it's bribes, kickbacks or campaign donations.
So all you need is money, lobbyists and a willing politician. It's amazing how many politicians are willing these days. In the immortal words of Gordon Gecko "Greed is good."
Re:So, you're saying... by Dixie_Flatline · 2017-11-08 06:50 · Score: 1

'Living language' just means it's not a 'dead language', which is to say, people still speak it. It will naturally shift and change on its own, but that doesn't mean we have to go out of our way to corrupt it or make it harder for other people to use.
Re:So, you're saying... by WaffleMonster · 2017-11-08 07:10 · Score: 1

I love you, WaffleMonster
This is not a falsifiable statement and therefore meaningless, Mom! GOD!!!!
Stating you like/love/hate something conveys what you think to others. It isn't meaningless.
All the waffles in my toaster disappeared, GOD ate them. Although probably incorrect is not meaningless.
I hate my new toaster because it's new and I don't like change. Although this is incorrect... I hate my new toaster because Belgian waffles won't fit in it... at least this is a statement that can be tested.
What makes parents statement different is it sets out a premise "It is fluid, needs to change, has to change. If the new breaks the old, too bad for the old, it should of kept up!" that cannot possibly be evaluated as false regardless of what the particulars of a change being evaluated against the statement happen to be. No matter how absurd or outlandish. It could be that WWW is now WAIS or Lynx only or an ABACUS updated by carrier pigeon and parents comment of too bad keep up would be no more or less valid.
Simply stating an opinion about specific issue at hand would have at least conveyed the authors opinion and would not be meaningless.
Re:So, you're saying... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 07:14 · Score: 1

There are dialects and accents in English I find unintelligible when spoken, and yet when the speakers of said dialect communicates in writing I have no such problems. This useful feature only happens because of all the strange, unintuitive, non-phonetic, legacy quirks in "standard" English. If we broke these and wrote in a purely phonetic manner then English would fracture into dozens of mutually incomprehensible dialects within a few years.
That's why we have standards and backwards compatibility. They may be ugly and non-optimal but they stop the whole mess from fracturing into "chrome web", "firefox web", "safari web", "opera web" etc etc. Constant ants-in-pants change because we need it for some vague hand-wavey reasons is neither good nor necessary.
Re:So, you're saying... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 07:46 · Score: 0

"should of"
Well, this pretty much sums up your level of understanding of the English language.
Idiot.
Re:So, you're saying... by sjames · 2017-11-08 09:27 · Score: 1

That will be fine as soon as Google makes Chrome smart enough to do what I mean every single time, no matter how I say it. Until browsers and web servers develop AI and conversational skills, we need them to simply conform to existing standards and not pull the rug out from under standards compliant web sites.
Re:So, you're saying... by haruchai · 2017-11-08 13:00 · Score: 1

"it should of kept up"
Evidently, you didn't keep up in English grammar

--
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Re:So, you're saying... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 16:59 · Score: 0

Lick my balls and call me sally, dooschbag!
Re:So, you're saying... by Tomahawk · 2017-11-09 02:29 · Score: 1

literally...
Re:So, you're saying... by haruchai · 2017-11-09 03:26 · Score: 1

Lick my balls and call me sally, dooschbag!
1st line of your autobiography?

--
Pain is merely failure leaving the body

Microsoft Redux by kackle · 2017-11-08 03:41 · Score: 1

Isn't it funny how the bigger companies seem to just "know better" than the rest of the Internet engineers?

Re:Microsoft Redux by bogaboga · 2017-11-08 03:49 · Score: 2

Isn't it funny how the bigger companies seem to just "know better" than the rest of the Internet engineers?
It would perhaps be better if you internalize the fact that the criticism of having "broke the web" is a one person opinion.
Others would probably disagree.
Re:Microsoft Redux by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 04:42 · Score: 0

The same thing can be said of your comment. Boy you people are hilarious..

Really? Wow. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 03:46 · Score: 0

I never noticed. I use Firefox.

Chrome is the new IE by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2017-11-08 03:49 · Score: 5, Informative

Dominant market position - check.

Starting to define its own browser-specific functionality - check.

Telling developers they should use their company's browser-specific functions to improve performance - check.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Anyone who didn't see this coming the moment Google forked Webkit simply wasn't paying attention.

--
#DeleteChrome

Re:Chrome is the new IE by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 04:03 · Score: 0

But it is worse than just that, Google is dictating content and format, and people are allowing it because we have allowed Google to become the web.
We need to stop allowing google to dictate content and format just because they are the dominant search engine.
Bring back DNS... it works fine. If I want to go to Ford's website I just go to ford.com... We don't need search engines to serve as a DNS replacement and content nazi.
Re:Chrome is the new IE by Cajun+Hell · 2017-11-08 04:18 · Score: 1

Totally sucks to the point of being unusable, and can't even do something as simple as sizing a box correctly, and can't even show a PNG with transparency ten fucking years after the standard: not-checked.
Anyone who thinks Chrome is the new MSIE, totally doesn't remember how outrageously bad MSIE was. I understand if you blotted it out of your memory; that isn't your fault. But don't pretend things now are nearly as bad as they were back then.
Chrome does seem to be trying to do some kind of embrace-and-extend attack, but at least they got "embrace" mostly right. MSIE just plain didn't work.

--
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Re:Chrome is the new IE by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 04:22 · Score: 0

Hindsight is 20/20, troll.
Re:Chrome is the new IE by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2017-11-08 04:23 · Score: 1

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
But.. but... the old boss was evil. New boss is not evil. He said so himself. That is his motto. Don't be evil.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Re:Chrome is the new IE by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 04:28 · Score: 0

Totally sucks to the point of being unusable, and can't even do something as simple as sizing a box correctly, and can't even show a PNG with transparency ten fucking years after the standard: not-checked.
Don't worry, I'm certain that they're working on it. But in all seriousness, they're already implementing their own "better" standards, and breaking the actual standards already. And the PNG problem was just that, MS not properly implementing standards in favor of their own standards. Just because you don't find it annoying yet doesn't mean they aren't doing the same thing.
Re:Chrome is the new IE by WaffleMonster · 2017-11-08 04:43 · Score: 1

Dominant market position - check.
Starting to define its own browser-specific functionality - check.
Telling developers they should use their company's browser-specific functions to improve performance - check.
One of my favorites is Google defining their own transport protocol and granting themselves full control over congestion algorithms.
Re:Chrome is the new IE by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 04:51 · Score: 0

Are you implying that this eventuality was not obvious back then, before it happened?
Because if so, you would be wrong. And very naive.
You see, we have seen this happen before, again and again and again. Those of us who remember our history are doomed to watch it be repeated. And also doomed to watch people like you be surprised every time.
Google's behavior here is 100% consistent with basic human drives. When you are the new entrant in a domain controlled by a despised potentate, you win support by representing yourself as the morally superior alternative. You do this for one simple reason: it is in your best interest to do this. It's how you win.
But, as the balance of power swings to your favor, that which is in your best interest changes. And you change along with it.
This is how humans operate, and has been how humans operate since the dawn of recorded history.
The only question now is....have you learned something from my post, or will you continue to insist that everyone else should be as surprised as you are?
Re:Chrome is the new IE by TheRaven64 · 2017-11-08 05:09 · Score: 1

Not even original - Microsoft did this for IE talking to IIS. I don't remember the exact details, but they were skipping part of the standard TCP handshake to reduce latency, so pages loaded faster with IE, but only if served from a Windows IIS machine.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Chrome is the new IE by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 05:49 · Score: 1

As far as we're concerned, Google IS the internet. Together with Facebook. And no, there's not a darn thing we can do about it. The majority likes it that way. It's sad that the great hope for a different, more free world had to end like this, but that's how things go.
Re:Chrome is the new IE by SCVonSteroids · 2017-11-08 06:45 · Score: 1

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Anyone who didn't see this coming the moment Google forked Webkit simply wasn't paying attention.
YEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--
I tend to rant.
Re:Chrome is the new IE by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 07:45 · Score: 0

Lol. You missed the cool one liner before putting on your shades!
Re:Chrome is the new IE by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 07:49 · Score: 0

shut the fuck up.
Re:Chrome is the new IE by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 08:16 · Score: 0

Bring back DNS... it works fine. If I want to go to Ford's website I just go to ford.com... We don't need search engines to serve as a DNS replacement and content nazi.
This is one of my biggest gripes about a lot of browsers: in their default configuration they set opened windows or tabs so that they direct focus to an entry field tied to a search engine--but the URL bar of these browsers is often hardly different than the search-engine bar. No! If I want to enter a URL (as I do pretty often), I want it to be parsed right there in the browser as a URL and for the browser to initiate a DNS lookup. If the response from the latter is NSDOMAIN or the response from the website is 404 (or timed out or what have you), just tell me so and be done. I don't want Big Brother to make suggestions for me.
Re:Chrome is the new IE by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 11:03 · Score: 0

You can never rely on those claiming to 'not be evil'. Lying about such things is an integral part of evilness.
Re:Chrome is the new IE by Billly+Gates · 2017-11-08 12:12 · Score: 1

Ie was cutting edge and more standards compliant than Netscape 4.7. No I am not freaking kidding!
The race of the browsers in the 1990s put in shoddy bloated code without time to check to beat the other guys browser.
Chrome is following IE. It is making up standards and tying an ecosystem of closed products and using it take it into other markets. Sounds familiar. This is just the start. As it is Google is really meeting with Microsoft to implement standards for video and touch which are slightly different than the W3C.
I do not like this and we need an alternative fast. No Firefox doesn't count.

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:Chrome is the new IE by bingoUV · 2017-11-08 23:38 · Score: 1

Not so bad yet. It could get there, though.
1. For using IE, you practically needed MS Windows too. Chrome is at least available on lots of operating systems, processor architectures.
2. There are open-source forks too which work almost well enough as the "original" chrome - privacy focussed ones, security focussed ones, feature focussed ones. Not comparable to the Maxthon etc. browsers which used IE engine as a blackbox.

--
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Re:Chrome is the new IE by WaffleMonster · 2017-11-11 04:40 · Score: 1

Not even original - Microsoft did this for IE talking to IIS. I don't remember the exact details, but they were skipping part of the standard TCP handshake to reduce latency, so pages loaded faster with IE, but only if served from a Windows IIS machine
No they didn't. This was nothing more than a bunch of chattering fools not understanding what they were looking at or understanding basics of TCP state machine.
There is no possible way to bypass burning a round trip (TCP FO excluded) on TCP setup because you need to wait for information only destination peer can provide in order to stand any practical chance of transmitting data that won't be summarily ignored.
There is NO WAY around it. You can get lucky and guess the right sequence yet chance of this happening is beyond worthless. Or you can have both client and server collude in some manner that allows sequence to be guessable. In the absence of a mechanism like TCP-FO implementing such a ridiculous feature would have resulted in catastrophic susceptibility to DOS attack.
That said there are certainly parameters people can and do screw with to more aggressively attempt to reduce latency... Screwing with ICW on servers you control is a common example.

DON"T be evil by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 03:51 · Score: 0

hahahahahahahaha Google, Alphabet, profit before all.

Do No Evil by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 04:01 · Score: 0

Stupid Google, you weren't supposed to be evil. Time for people to start using other browsers.

TL;DR: Tard Tears From Web "Devs" by NicknameUnavailable · 2017-11-08 04:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

The web isn't a development platform, it's a more advanced version of Hypercard. It sucks, it changes to account for the constant sucking, and web "developers" want to make something amazing and be done with it, but you can't make something amazing in Hypercard 2.0, you can just make some presentation. The web isn't designed as an application layer, it's designed as a presentation layer. Stop making apps in the web, they are slower and generally garbage.

Re:TL;DR: Tard Tears From Web "Devs" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 04:22 · Score: 0

We are way past that. In the last 5-10 years, the web has become the OS. There are some new microprocessor boards out there that can't even be flashed with firmware without a Chrome 'plugin'. The whole of computing has completely gone to shit.
Re:TL;DR: Tard Tears From Web "Devs" by Tablizer · 2017-11-08 06:12 · Score: 1

We need a new HTTP-friendly GUI standard. The HTML/DOM/JS stack sucks for modern needs. My suggestion is to move more of the computations, including the layout engine, to the server-side to reduce browser-version-dependency: slimmer client where the browser becomes mostly a dumb vector plotter.
You start by thinking, "what do we absolutely HAVE to do on the client" to be practical. If functionality can be moved to the server, then don't include it in the client (UI standard).
The X-Window system seems about the closest existing standard to what I imagine such a philosophy would lead to. But, it should be vector based instead of pixel based, and have input widgets (boxes) that can buffer input keystrokes on the client-side. The X-Window system was not designed with enough potential latency and bad connections in mind.
Some things like screen-resizing will be slower, but less dependence on client-side scripting and less client complexity will give net benefits. For one, it would make testing easier because you'd be dealing with one layout engine (on the server) instead of 50+ (browser brands & versions).

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:TL;DR: Tard Tears From Web "Devs" by PCM2 · 2017-11-08 06:50 · Score: 1

Teradici PCoIP seems like the kind of thing you're looking for, but it's not really practical for a lot of casual applications because of bandwidth requirements. You've gotta remember that most people today are surfing the web on their phones; maybe not all the time, but they're doing it at least some of the time. If your alternative to client-side processing is unusable on a shitty 3G connection, it's a non-starter.

--
Breakfast served all day!
Re:TL;DR: Tard Tears From Web "Devs" by NicknameUnavailable · 2017-11-08 07:44 · Score: 1

This is 100% the wrong move. Computations should be done at the side needing them, the only rational reason for putting the computations on the server and putting only the rendering on the client is to remove the possibility of the user seeing what you are doing.
Re:TL;DR: Tard Tears From Web "Devs" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 09:21 · Score: 0

... but you can't make something amazing in Hypercard 2.0, you can just make some presentation.
The original Macintosh release of MYST was written in HyperCard (each Age was its own stack) and pretty fucking amazing for its time.
Re:TL;DR: Tard Tears From Web "Devs" by citylivin · 2017-11-08 10:18 · Score: 1

"The web isn't designed as an application layer, it's designed as a presentation layer. Stop making apps in the web, they are slower and generally garbage."
As others have mentioned, where have you been! Your complaint is roughly 5 years out of date. Cloud services, everything online, and web browser applications, have all become the standard now. In the last few years every single software we use has developed a web portal, has stopped developing the thick client and said that all new features will only come to cloud.
People argue that its awesome because things are more responsive on a fucking phone. A phone is what the internet, and more and more applications, are coding towards. Is this an insidious plan to get everyone to work 24x7?
Whatever the reason its fucking garbage, but you are way too late to even bother complaining anymore. Cloud means less infrastructure and outsourcing your problems off site. That's what companies care about now. And managers seem to love working from phones for some ridiculous reason i cant fathom.
Resistance is futile. Hopefully the mainframe / desktop cycle will cycle back again within the next 10 years. I too hate the lag of web applications. The last time i mentioned it to a colleague he said "firefox is so slow, you should use chrome and your complaints about web applications would go away", thus proving the entire articles point.

--
As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
Re:TL;DR: Tard Tears From Web "Devs" by Tablizer · 2017-11-08 15:33 · Score: 1

You are thinking of hardware resources whereas human-ware resources are usually the real economic bottleneck. Developing and testing for 50+ client variations (browser brands & versions) is too big of a human time-sink. Consistency overrides "proper" hardware distribution/allocation in this case.
Besides, it reduces the computing needs of your local device: longer battery life and cheaper purchase price.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:TL;DR: Tard Tears From Web "Devs" by NicknameUnavailable · 2017-11-09 08:13 · Score: 1

Computers are not phones. If you are designing a mobile site that's one thing: they run Java and Flash and similarly stupid shit anyway while being hopelessly insecure so you might as well do away with everything but a rendering engine. The issue is the web is not meant to replace computers, it just does in many cases because people are cheap and web "devs" are plentiful while actual developers are not. The local machine is more powerful than the combined share of a remote machine + network latency in almost all instances (save for the realm of things like protein folding and gene sequencing, in which case you need a massive share of computing power in a distributed system regardless.)
Re:TL;DR: Tard Tears From Web "Devs" by Tablizer · 2017-11-09 09:47 · Score: 1

The issue is the web is not meant to replace computers
Meant by who? Who is the official meaning manager?

it just does in many cases because people are cheap and web "devs" are plentiful while actual developers are not.

I'm not sure that's the case, but the fact you believe such shows you agree that human labor issues play a big role in what actually happens. That's my main point.

The local machine is more powerful than...

So? Doesn't have to be. Maybe they wouldn't if they didn't need it.
Again, you seem way overly concerned with efficiently allocating computing resources at the expense of other factors. Managing software, software stacks, and software versions is a much bigger resource sink (economic concern) than chips. I'm just the messenger. I didn't make it that way, I'm only trying to better live with conditions given to us by circumstances.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:TL;DR: Tard Tears From Web "Devs" by NicknameUnavailable · 2017-11-09 12:16 · Score: 1

Meant by who? Who is the official meaning manager?
Anyone who isn't insane or power-hungry trying to siphon off data related to people they want to control.
Re:TL;DR: Tard Tears From Web "Devs" by Tablizer · 2017-11-10 04:34 · Score: 1

Data privacy is a different issue

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:TL;DR: Tard Tears From Web "Devs" by NicknameUnavailable · 2017-11-10 06:32 · Score: 1

No it's not. There is no such thing as data privacy if you lack physical security, the most basic immutable tenant of which is possessing your own data.
Every cloud platform has been hacked at some point, every major company has been hacked at some point, to suggest you can put your data anywhere but a box on your own land and have it be secure is absurd. By extension of this you cannot do the computations outside of hardware you yourself possess and expect it to be secure in any way shape or form. Column-level encryption, SSL, etc are absurd when the endpoint itself can be compromised - they are false senses of security and nothing more.
This of course is all made worse by the fact the companies doing that processing remotely actively auction off the most sensitive parts of your data, though even if they weren't doing that they would still be definitively impossible to accept as secure.
Re:TL;DR: Tard Tears From Web "Devs" by Tablizer · 2017-11-11 05:39 · Score: 1

You seem to want a return to mostly locally installed applications. That's unlikely to happen, even if it were "better". A programming-language-neutral GUI/UI standard would still be desirable even under that scenario. Most desktop UI engines are too tied to a programming language. Maybe both UI issues could be solved at the same time and the web-vs-desktop issue wouldn't stop a better standard.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:TL;DR: Tard Tears From Web "Devs" by NicknameUnavailable · 2017-11-11 10:13 · Score: 1

What I want is irrelevant. We are discussing computer security and there is absolutely no way to have a secure system which you do not physically control. It is a technical impossibility.
Re:TL;DR: Tard Tears From Web "Devs" by Tablizer · 2017-11-13 13:10 · Score: 1

A programming-language-neutral GUI standard that can handle some degree of latency is something good to have regardless. If people and corporations get security wrong, that's bad; but if they get security AND UI standards/management wrong, that's even worse.

--
Table-ized A.I.

Ex-employee by tsa · 2017-11-08 04:05 · Score: 1

This whole thing sounds like it was written by a gisgruntled ex-employee.

--

-- Cheers!

Re:All i read is... by thegreatbob · 2017-11-08 04:12 · Score: 1

This post makes a good example of why redefining things in contravention of accepted standards is very often a bad thing.

--
There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...

Did they? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 04:13 · Score: 0

"...Chrome broke half of user websites..." Funny, I guess I don't use half the web, because I use Chrome exclusively and have never noticed this supposed breaking over the past nine months.

Do no evil. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 04:16 · Score: 0

Sure Google. That was a lie day one it barfed pass your lips. Google is turning into the bastard Microsoft back in their day.

We are upping our standards... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 04:16 · Score: 0

So, up yours!

Mod him up - he's right by example... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 04:17 · Score: 0, Insightful

See subject: He's right - there was so much bitching about MS doing things around IE specific code (which forced sites to follow it BY FORCE) & now Google's doing it - hypocritical/pot-calling-a-kettle-black bs (do not as I do but as I say etc.) - This kind of change should go thru a standards board imo!

* Doesn't it OR rather, SHOULDN'T IT?

(I'd think so)

APK

P.S.=> This kind of action will 'break the web' ALL OVER AGAIN (& I recall web page makers bitching about "I write pages for IE one way, another way for FireFox, another way for Opera, another way for Chrome - it's too much work!" & they were right... apk

Re:Mod him up - he's right by example... apk by MightyMartian · 2017-11-08 04:32 · Score: 1

It should, but now that Google is the new Microsoft, I guess abusing that market dominance must just be something that happens to large companies.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Mod him up - he's right by example... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 04:32 · Score: 0

Just like the way you use one set of proxies to evade Slashdot's posting limits (thus violating their standards!), and another set of proxies for everything else? So I guess you would know this tactic when you see it huh? I'm sure it's completely different and totally 100% justified when *you* do it.
Oh it was so cute back when you used to call proxies "bridges" thus revealing you really didn't understand what you were working with. I notice you suddenly stopped calling them that, soon as everyone had a good laugh at your ignorance (which is fair, since you like to tell other people how wrong they are). You never did say "hey guys I was mistaken about that", you just stopped calling it that.
I guess this is where you address none of the substance of anything I said, call me a few names, choose one of your little cyber-enemies and insist I must be that person, and declare your Great Victory once again?

Two somehow unrelated issues about Chrome by CustomSolvers2 · 2017-11-08 04:23 · Score: 1

- I have been using 3/4 different browsers on a daily basis since quite long time ago. I use each of them to visit different sites where I store my credentials/not. Usually, I rely on the most updated versions and, until some months ago, I rarely had problems to access relevant enough sites with any of them. But lately, I am having lots of troubles in quite a few sites every time I use any browser different than Chrome. The problems are mostly related to videos, mainly streaming them (from relatively big TV networks, not a single issue in crappy sites!); but I also see other problems like (JavaScript) functionalities not working properly. Have people completely forgotten about cross-compatibility or what? Now!! When all the browsers behave almost identically!

- After having been using Windows as my primary OS for quite long, I have recently moved my main machine to Linux; I use various distros, but mainly Ubuntu 16.04. During the last few weeks, I have been observing a curious issue in Chrome: the upper minimise-maximise-close buttons have been moved (not 100% sure if they were there all the time) from the Linux-typical LHS to the Windows-typical RHS! Why?! It is kind of weird to find those buttons in the same place when using any other other browser, folders or whatever, but not in Chrome! Any more-experienced-than-me Linux user care to comment about this issue?

--
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.

Re:Two somehow unrelated issues about Chrome by CustomSolvers2 · 2017-11-08 04:34 · Score: 1

Clarification about the upper buttons: I meant when the browser isn't fully maximised; also you can modify that behaviour. My question is about why being that the default setup, is that comfortable for a Linux user? For me, it isn't.

--
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
Re:Two somehow unrelated issues about Chrome by green1 · 2017-11-08 06:58 · Score: 1

Have people completely forgotten about cross-compatibility or what? Now!! When all the browsers behave almost identically!
I want to know when you thought we ever had cross-compatibility? The only thing that's changed is which browser the web is built for. It used to be that sites only worked properly in Netscape, all other browsers be damned. Then it switched to IE and forget about using any other browser, and now you'd better use Chrome if you want the web to work. There's never really been a time since the dawn of the graphical browser where you could realistically expect the majority of the internet to "just work" on any browser you chose to use.
The idea of cross-compatibility was always a good one, but the lack of standards adherence in all browsers, and many websites, has always sabotaged it.
Re:Two somehow unrelated issues about Chrome by CustomSolvers2 · 2017-11-08 07:32 · Score: 1

There's never really been a time since the dawn of the graphical browser where you could realistically expect the majority of the internet to "just work" on any browser you chose to use.
You might be right by considering a big enough random sample of websites, but from my personal experience things are getting notably worse now. I have never had relevant problems to visit important sites with properly-updated browsers until relatively recently. I am talking about national TVs or newspapers, worldwide-known sites like Youtube or Twitter and so on. And I am not referring to looking-a-bit-bad versions either, but to fully non-functional or, at least, notably slower/buggier major functionalities.

--
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
Re:Two somehow unrelated issues about Chrome by green1 · 2017-11-08 07:42 · Score: 1

I feel like you didn't live through the IE vs Netscape era...
Re:Two somehow unrelated issues about Chrome by CustomSolvers2 · 2017-11-08 08:01 · Score: 1

I feel like you didn't live through the IE vs Netscape era...
Although I didn't really care too much about computers/internet/programming until relatively recently (a bit over the last 10 years), I did live that era and don't think that it had anything to do with nowadays/what is being discussed here. Back then, finding errors or waiting a lot for a page to load was pretty usual, to not mention the fact that most of the pages were static and internet was still too secondary. Additionally, there is no need to go back so many years, I am talking about comparing my personal experience during the last years and during the last months. I am talking about a mature internet where having a faulty website seems almost unforgivable, mainly when talking about big companies with lots of money whose main income source comes precisely from said faulty functionality.

--
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
Re:Two somehow unrelated issues about Chrome by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 11:10 · Score: 0

I feel like you didn't live through the IE vs Netscape era...
I did. I never had IE, due to not using windows. Some sites worked and some didn't. Their loss.
Re:Two somehow unrelated issues about Chrome by green1 · 2017-11-08 12:27 · Score: 1

And the same now, some sites work on browsers other than chrome, some don't. Their loss.

This was a very welcome change for UX by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 04:25 · Score: 0

Any website that has draggable UI, while also being scrollable in the same direction, on mobile device - is worth being broken.

I would go as far as saying that no elements should be able to receive drag/scroll events if the page is scrollable in the same direction (in mobile browser) - adding "passive: false" only encourages bad UX design.

If you need your element to be dragable/scrollable - fit your page on screen or open the element in a modal

Re:This was a very welcome change for UX by green1 · 2017-11-08 07:03 · Score: 1

Any website that has draggable UI, while also being scrollable in the same direction, on mobile device - is worth being broken.
You mean "is already broken". I have a website that I use on occasion that includes a map window on the main page. The map window allows for both scrolling in all directions, and zooming with your fingers on a mobile device. It is far too easy to accidentally zoom the map to fill the window. Once you do that, it is impossible to access any other part of the page as all scrolling will only move the map, and all zooming will only zoom the map. Your only recourse at that point is to re-load the page (and lose all data you've entered so far). This site works great on a computer, but is absolutely hopeless on mobile devices. Unfortunately it's also a website related to travel planning, so my most common use case is to use it on a mobile device.

How bad is it really? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2017-11-08 04:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

The summary says:

It's very, very, very bad

It explains:

Basically, Chrome broke half of user websites, the ones that were relying on touch/scroll events being cancellable, at the benefit of winning some performance for websites that were not yet aware of this optional optimization

OK, half the user websites? 50% of the web right? The linked article says:

We looked at the percentage of cancelable touch events that were sent to a root target (window, document, or body) and determined that about 80% of these listeners are conceptually passive but were not registered as such. Given the scale of this problem we noticed a great opportunity to improve scrolling without any developer action by making these events automatically "passive".

Looks like the chrome team did some basic profiling, figured out 80% of the listeners are actually passive. Still they should not have touched the default and educated the website developers to register conceptually passive listeners as passive, right?

Google gives some motivation for this:

We believe the web should be fast by default without developers needing to understand arcane details of browser behavior.

There are some plots and more profiling data there.

They could have done an RFC and got the standards updated in the next batch for this. But still, as evil behaviors go, this is not "dos is not done till lotus wont run" level. Does not even come to working around bugs in IIS in IE to make all other browsers crap out level of evil.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact

Re:How bad is it really? by LordKronos · 2017-11-08 05:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yeah, I'm finding it a little difficult to get worked up about this. It's been this way for over half a year and I haven't noticed anything broken by it. And honestly I'm having a bit of difficulty imagining how a website could legitimately use this sort of eventListener and not be a prime example of sloppy coding. Yes it might've worked by the standard...I understand that. But really...listening for scroll events at the window, document, or body level? Can someone give me a good example of how this is used and couldn't be done better? Some of the "broken things" examples given in the linked article: Drag an drop list? Your list should be contained in some div or ul element and you should apply the listener at that wrapper level, not listen to ALL scroll events on the ENTIRE document. Sliders? Same. Maps? Same. Yes, it might have worked before by listening to all body events, but really that's just shit design.
So I feel like a better description would be more like "google broke 50% of the shitty websites, but not the well designed ones". But please, I welcome an example to show me where there are good reasons to do this.
Re:How bad is it really? by WaffleMonster · 2017-11-08 05:37 · Score: 1

We looked at the percentage of cancelable touch events that were sent to a root target (window, document, or body) and determined that about 80% of these listeners are conceptually passive but were not registered as such. Given the scale of this problem we noticed a great opportunity to improve scrolling without any developer action by making these events automatically "passive".
What usually happens "We" is one person or small group with both power and a very particular interest. Then shockingly it turns out data collection and analysis reflects this same narrow view.
In the absence of "We" bothering to expend effort on a credible survey or offering up externally reviewable supporting evidence such proclamations in my view are best ignored in their entirety.
Re:How bad is it really? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 05:53 · Score: 0

We looked at the percentage of cancelable touch events that were sent to a root target (window, document, or body) and determined that about 80% of these listeners are conceptually passive but were not registered as such. Given the scale of this problem we noticed a great opportunity to improve scrolling without any developer action by making these events automatically "passive".
What usually happens "We" is one person or small group with both power and a very particular interest. Then shockingly it turns out data collection and analysis reflects this same narrow view.
The data collection source was the set of Chrome users who hadn't opted out of the performance data reporting, i.e. the vast majority of users of the world's dominant web browser. That's hardly a "narrow" data set.
Re:How bad is it really? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 05:57 · Score: 0

Well, it explains why scrolling on my local news site locks up in chromium. In fairness, it seems to be caused by the ads but it also, intermittently, prevents clicking on headlines. It's annoying as fuck, prevents me quickly checking travel news and means I spend an extra time sat in traffic.
And before someone suggests it - the choice between "we've noticed you're using an ad-blocker" and annoying ads is no choice at all really.
Re:How bad is it really? by drew_kime · 2017-11-08 09:30 · Score: 1

It's been this way for over half a year and I haven't noticed anything broken by it. And honestly I'm having a bit of difficulty imagining how a website could legitimately use this sort of eventListener and not be a prime example of sloppy coding.
This should be the free square on this-is-why-developers-don't-write-requirements Bingo. Just because you don't use this style of interaction, nobody should need it.
How about these two use cases:
* Reordering elements in a list
* Maps
I use these all the time. It's entirely possible this change is why a few sites have become unusable on my phone and - like people have been pointing out - I've assumed it's because those sites weren't mobile compatible. Maybe the sites are mobile compatible, but not in Chrome. Guess I'll have to download Firefox and check.

--
Nope, no sig
Re:How bad is it really? by LordKronos · 2017-11-08 10:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

Or perhaps this should be the free square on why you read the post before replying to it. Read my post again. As I mentioned, this particular chrome change ONLY applies for event listeners that are bound to the window, document, or body. It's a pretty general rule that any type of listener should be scoped to only listen to the minimum required amount of events. When you bind to window, document, or body, you are pretty much saying GIVE ME EVERYTHING. So now you get called for every event...even those you couldn't possibly be the slightest bit interested in. Best programming practice is generally to scope your event listeners so that they only get called in cases where you might possibly be interested in handling them.
Lets look at a simple case....a webpage where the body contains 2 divs (divA and divB). In divA, you want to handle an event and perform some custom handling, possibly even cancel the the event with preventDefault. In divB, you never care about the event, so your event handler is always going to do nothing.
If you bind your event handler to divA, then whenever that event occurs in divB your event handler will never even be call. That's perfect...you aren't interested so lets not even waste time asking if you want to do anything. But if you bind your event handler to the body/document/window, your event handler is going to be needlessly called so that it can do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (except waste CPU time) every time the event occurs in divB.
So that was my point...based on what I've read my gut instinct is to say that this would pretty much only affect web pages where the programmer was too sloppy/lazy to properly scope their event handler to the parts of the DOM where they're actually interested in doing something about that event.
But of course, I admit that I may certainly be overlooking cases where this isn't the case, and there's absolutely no way to implement it without throwing an event handler on the window/document/body. And that is why I humbly asked for examples where I was wrong and this is the only way to do it. I will note that you provided precisely zero example of such. Maps and reorderable lists can certainly have their event handlers properly scoped instead of just throwing them on the window/document/body
Re:How bad is it really? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 16:36 · Score: 0

Both your examples shouldn't be listening on the whole document. Sorry, nice try.
Re:How bad is it really? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 21:51 · Score: 0

"google broke 50% of the shitty websites, but not the well designed ones"
So, Google broke about 48 % of the interwebs then?
Re:How bad is it really? by drew_kime · 2017-11-09 05:11 · Score: 1

Yeah, I was doing three things at once and didn't ready yours closely enough. My bad.

--
Nope, no sig
Re:How bad is it really? by WaffleMonster · 2017-11-11 04:57 · Score: 1

We looked at the percentage of cancelable touch events that were sent to a root target (window, document, or body) and determined that about 80% of these listeners are conceptually passive but were not registered as such. Given the scale of this problem we noticed a great opportunity to improve scrolling without any developer action by making these events automatically "passive".
What usually happens "We" is one person or small group with both power and a very particular interest. Then shockingly it turns out data collection and analysis reflects this same narrow view.
In the absence of "We" bothering to expend effort on a credible survey or offering up externally reviewable supporting evidence such proclamations in my view are best ignored in their entirety.
The data collection source was the set of Chrome users who hadn't opted out of the performance data reporting, i.e. the vast majority of users of the world's dominant web browser. That's hardly a "narrow" data set.
I talk in terms of narrow views and you talk in terms of narrow data sets. I hope you can appreciate the difference between these two very different concepts.

Re:How about you fuck off by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 04:34 · Score: 3, Funny

How about you fuck off the web, and go install a "native app", and get data-mined.
It's more than you deserve.

Yes, they should avoid installing native apps. Instead, they should use a Google-branded browser. That will DEFINITELY avoid data mining!

All browsers are broken by RogueWarrior65 · 2017-11-08 04:37 · Score: 2

Can someone explain why I have to restart Firefox at least once a day in order to play back video of any kind?
And why doesn't Wunderground render properly on Firefox? It seems that everything is a lot slower these days further convincing me that trying to do anything online that used to be done with a dedicated program is a bad idea.

Re:All browsers are broken by fibonacci8 · 2017-11-08 04:52 · Score: 2

The Russian and American malware you've contracted are incompatible. So are the others, but not such you'd notice.

--
Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
Re:All browsers are broken by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 09:58 · Score: 0

Everything seems much slower to me, too. Sites with a few paragraphs of text, which could be very fast, are full of a ton of junk behind the scenes. I've switched to Vivaldi...it doesn't seem to have helped much. It does have a "Task manager," though, which can identify misbehaving pages so you can shut them down.

Can a broken site please stand up? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 04:39 · Score: 0

One? Please?

This is JavaScript's fault... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 04:40 · Score: 0

Before you call yourself a JavaScript programmer, read the first volume of "You Don't Know JS" (free ebook). Most people who use a JavaScript framework know only enough JavaScript, say, "Hello, World," to make the framework work but not enough to understand and solve problems when the framework doesn't behave.

Is Slashdot Affected? by crow · 2017-11-08 04:40 · Score: 1

I've noticed with Chrome for quite a while now that the slashboxes on the right don't scroll with the rest of the page, making them useless. Is this related to the change described in the article, or is this something different?

Really? by geekprime · 2017-11-08 04:41 · Score: 1

It sounds more like they broke chrome.

I never called proxes 'bridges' moron... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 04:44 · Score: 0

I never called proxes 'bridges' moron nor do I violate any rules here. I post ac & I post via proxies to protect myself & my online whereabouts by being a "moving target". Being able to avoid posting limits is merely a NICE 'side-effect bonus' of that is all!

(Don't YOU wish you were that intelligent? You project it in your obvious jealously, lol...)

APK

P.S.=> As far as "not understanding" all of this? I was doing this stuff while YOU WERE IN DIAPERS odds are you UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous TRUE coward (as far as having a laugh @ me? I do pretty well in the eyes of /.'ers & MANY others decades beforehand in the art & science of computing (& unlike "your kind"? I can, & have, easily provided proof of it many times via undeniable concrete evidence thereof to that very effect - lol, "your kind"? Can't)... apk

Re:I never called proxes 'bridges' moron... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 04:52 · Score: 0

Isn't it odd how you used to make a big show of giving us your real life name (and even address if I remember) to prove what a big brave man you are? Remember those days? Your biggest complaint was that other AC posters wouldn't do the same. Remember? Yeah, I've been around. And now you must hide your "online whereabouts" in order to be a "moving target"? What are you so afraid of?
My VPN provides me tons of proxies all around the world and I can easily select them at will. You think that requires intelligence? VPNs are dirt cheap these days especially if you get in on specials. I could also do this myself but that's a bargain only if your time is worthless.
Art and science of computing? Your only claim to fame is your hosts file engine. So let's consider what that entails, shall we? It takes a program that can parse and concactenate text files. Hmm. Yep, looks like Unix was doing things like that in the 1960s. If I want to be generous, it also takes data in the form of text files to parse *does quick search* wow look, there are tons of lists of advertising/malware hostnames all over the Internet. So you put those two together, did you? Wow. I stand in awe of your Art and Science of Computing! What a genius you must be!

Won't be shuned as Internet Explorer by Trax3001BBS · 2017-11-08 04:47 · Score: 2

I came from Dos/Amiga to Windows, the very first time I used Internet Explorer I didn't want any part of it.
Not used to WWW I went to Microsoft.com found a game that looked decent and downloaded it (I thought). ActiveX kicked in and was installing something I hadn't looked at first, so pulled the computer power cord.

The second time I used IE was to download Netscape.

Embrace and Extend by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 04:52 · Score: 1

Google is the new Microsoft, Chrome is the new IE.

Re:How about you fuck off by sexconker · 2017-11-08 05:04 · Score: 1

On a site running Google's analytic javascript!

Additionally: U wish everyone laughs @ U thus by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 05:05 · Score: 0

"everyone had a good laugh at your ignorance" - by UNIDENTIFIABLE jealous little troll I crushed before hiding behind UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous troll post on Wednesday November 08, 2017 @11:32AM (#55513857)

I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine. Your software is well written, functional. The Host File Engine performs exactly as promised by mmell

his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant

his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg

(APK's) work, I've flat out said it's good by BronsCon

I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works by bmo

Your premise that hostfiles are a good way to deal with advertising & malvertising is quite valid by JazzLad

I like your host file system by Karmashock

(NEED MORE? Ask!)

* It's hosted by Malwarebytes' hpHosts!

APK

P.S.=> See subject... apk

Multiple browsers by ilsaloving · 2017-11-08 05:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's idiocy like this why I am compelled to have at least 3 different browsers on every machine I use. Because it seems like every time there's some kind of update, stuff get horribly broken and I need to switch to a different browser for an extended period of time. It's to the point where I've purchased an xmarks premium subscription, so that all my bookmarks gets synced and I don't have to jump through hoops when the inevitable switch happens.

It's so frustrating the way companies think that they are allowed to have defacto control of the entire internet.

Fuck you Google, and fuck you Microsoft before you.

Re:Multiple browsers by antdude · 2017-11-08 14:17 · Score: 1

Don't forget Mozilla! :(

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Re:Multiple browsers by ilsaloving · 2017-11-09 09:52 · Score: 1

That's entirely true. I ignored them because Mozilla hasn't had any even remotely majority marketshare for decades now, so the impact when they screw something up generally affects far less people.

A slide that st by tepples · 2017-11-08 05:18 · Score: 1

When dragging is the standard way to scroll - as it is on mobile

True, a slide usually means a scroll. But a slide beginning with a long press is also the gesture on Android to move an object, such as a shortcut on the home screen. Why should a web application designed for browsers on Android not support a gesture consistent with the rest of Android?

Re:Additionally: New possible laws = feared... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 05:37 · Score: 0

If you have proof that a member of Slashdot staff is hacking against you (likely in violation of CFAA and other laws) then why are you just posting about it here? You could take Whipslash and probably Slashdot itself to court, hurt them in the wallet where it counts, expose the abuses, and likely get a good amount of money out of the deal in the form of punitive damages.

Of course if you can't prove it then the only intelligent response is skepticism, meaning I have to assume it didn't happen and you haven't taken the above actions because you're full of shit. All I can say is, *I* wouldn't be sitting around writing rants if something like that were happening to me. I'd be contacting an attorney.

Embrace, Extend... by hughbar · 2017-11-08 05:56 · Score: 2

Well, they had good teachers, when they were younger.

--
On y va, qui mal y pense!

Re:Embrace, Extend... by thegarbz · 2017-11-09 11:00 · Score: 1

Good teachers? Assuming I follow your EEE reasoning if they had good teachers they would be breaking other browsers rather than their own.
You know like how sloppy coded web pages will now break on Chrome but will continue to run just fine elsewhere. Or if people adopt the specific coding requirements for Chrome they will ... continue to run just fine elsewhere?
This sounds like embrace, extend, set yourself on fire.

It's all a circle by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 06:35 · Score: 0

For fucks sake... it's like being back in the IE vs Netscape days again!

I'm surprised we haven't seen the equivalent "Optimized for Chrome" or "Works Best In Firefox" buttons plastered over every website!

Why I don't touch web programming any more by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 06:36 · Score: 0

I noticed that my scroll wheel would not work and there was no scroll bar visible, but I could use up/down arrow using Firefox on some site the other day.

Web programming should be taught in media schools (think TV show production), not computer science.

Associating what's taking place in the web technology ecosystem with the word science is a disservice to the sciences.

NWS Mobile by pgn674 · 2017-11-08 06:40 · Score: 2

Is that why the map on this website doesn't pan reliably on Google Chrome mobile? 7-Day Forecast for Latitude 43.66ÂN and Longitude 70.27ÂW (Elev. 7 ft) I just tried Mozilla Firefox mobile. Works much better in that app.

Re: NWS Mobile by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 15:15 · Score: 0

No your thinking is backwards.
Google made this change so 80% of websites run faster on there browser, while the other 20% don't work at all.
It didn't make anything slower on chrome.

bread and games by sirv · 2017-11-08 06:45 · Score: 0

we don't give a fuck. give us free porn, games and bread and we happy.

Re:I can prove it easily inside... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 07:03 · Score: 0

Why doesn't Whipslash just delete all of your posts about him deleting your posts, then? Perhaps because Slashdot doesn't delete posts?

Become the villain by jamessnell · 2017-11-08 07:05 · Score: 1

"You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain"

Once upon a time, Google was a tech company that used advertising as a means to an end. Now they're an advertising firm with an end to a means?? Does that actually make sense? I dunno.

I miss Google Chrome Frame. It helped me cope with the disgusting soul-rot brought about by IE. Hopefully the day won't come when there's a need for Firefox Frame, though it may already be here?

this the only occurrence? You're ignorant by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 07:14 · Score: 0

there was a previous comment about since a large percentage of users were using IE.. all the sites coded badly to make it work.
there are so many ways to get "X" to do "Y" on a website, and it's obvious that each browser attempts to handle the same instruction differently.

I am personally so f'n tired of having to use one browser for one site, another browser for a second site, and yet a third... yada yada yada.....
you get the idea.

Something needs to happen - since from an end users perspective -this whole thing sucks.

So what you're saying is.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 07:18 · Score: 0

Chrome is the new IE6.

Perhaps since I exposed him in it... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 07:32 · Score: 0

See subject & TRY reach these posts of mine whipslash & crew deleted on hosts helping fix security issues etc.:

https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...

FACT: They were UNJUSTLY downmod bombed @ first so I reposted them to BEAT that bs, & then BOGUSLY deleted - so don't even TRY tell me "SLASHDOT DOESN'T DELETE POSTS - why else would whipslash DODGE a MILLION DOLLAR BET from me to he then? Obviously he knows he was wrong & exposed = why.

* I only post on hosts where they help usually.

APK

P.S.=> /. posts "google this" or "Linux that", "OpenSORES that" but if I post on hosts it's either downmod bombed, harassed, OR DELETED as shown above -

Why's that? Simple: /. LIVES ON ADS - if advertisers would vet their ads, you wouldn't have me blocking them (ads have infected people TONS of times online, no doubt about it or tracked us unwantedly etc.)... apk

Downmod hiding my proof u ask for? LOL! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 07:48 · Score: 0

See subject & no reason to 'take him to court' (he ran from a bet where he deleted my posts https://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11077439&cid=55144377/ & yes, he did!

DESPITE /. ALWAYS SAYING "WE DON'T DELETE POSTS" ! Unjust censorship & hypocrisy abounds here!

There was nothing bad in my posts (on hosts helping folks vs. threats etc.) in my overriding the BOGUS "downmoderation system" here that tries "hiding" my posts (or limiting their amount) which I blow away & right by sockpuppet 'naysayers' modbombing me away on everytime running them DRY of 'downmodpoints' in myself doing so easily (they try to hide when I blow them away technically - they can't STAND having their 1 effete CENSORSHIP 'weapon' nullified... lol!).

* It's all the 'proof' I need - & I've got many quoted in saying they KNOW he does it e.g. https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9606533&cid=52824437/ & YOU CAN'T POST THAT ENTIRE COMMENT due to scripts whipslash put up vs. that post EVEN WHEN HOSTS HELP or FIX THINGS - whipslash LIVES OFF ADS = why (he pimps OpenSORES this all day long, Linux or Google that - hypocrite)).

LET'S SEE /.'s CURRENT CODE & PERIPHERAL SCRIPTS THEN... ok? You can't - so much for "OpenSORES" (this would expose what I speak of easily even moreso...)

What I posted above is only a FRACTION of the proof I can post too.

APK

P.S.=> Bottom-line - I don't need courts to make a monkey out of whipslash by MY BEATING HIS RESTRICTIVE SCRIPTS easily... apk

Because Firefox sucks, that's why by gosand · 2017-11-08 07:50 · Score: 1

Firefox sucks. Use Pale Moon .

Although everything gets slower and slower as they cram more and more into websites. Gotta have ads, and flying banners, and things minimizing, and embedded video auto-starting, and all that shit. For some reason.

--

My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

Re:Because Firefox sucks, that's why by RogueWarrior65 · 2017-11-08 08:17 · Score: 1

I think there is a lack of optimization going on. Websites are now downloading more and more code to make them interactive and it's either not getting cached or it changes so often that caching it is pointless. That's a pretty dangerous precedent because it means more bandwidth is getting wasted.
Re:Because Firefox sucks, that's why by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 08:56 · Score: 0

Palemoon is just an old version mantained by amateurs, I've never had stability issues with ESR
Re:Because Firefox sucks, that's why by gosand · 2017-11-08 10:53 · Score: 1

Never tried it, but after many many years of using it, it took a steep drop in the last few years and I got tired of it.
ESR works for you... that's great. Palemoon works for me.

--

My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

Downmodding my 'hackback' law proof too? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 07:52 · Score: 0

You = "been around"? Beg to differ! Not lately w/ attempts @ laws like "hack back" https://it.slashdot.org/story/17/11/06/2220203/should-private-companies-be-allowed-to-hit-back-at-hackers/ which 'whipslash' does to me for a YEAR now to no avail vs. my techniques - NO SMALL WONDER I DO WHAT I DO!

(... He won't open /. code anymore - he'd be shown doing it is why - it's hilarious: /. PIMPS Linux this, Google that & OpenSORES ALL DAY LONG but when I post on hosts which TONS here use he deletes it (or my program even complimenting my work https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11331563&cid=55514081/ & hosts ARE proven to work so I post when they do w/ showing my work that builds the BEST POSSIBLE HOSTS FILE since hosts work...))

APK

P.S.=> AND as you can see from our /. peers? They like & use my work/methods too - do they use YOURS? No, you don't have any, lol)... apk

Option #3 by gerald.edward.butler · 2017-11-08 07:56 · Score: 1

- A UI that lets you reorder a list by clicking an up/down arrow and it immediately moves without reloading the page

OPTION #3 for the WIN!

Re:Option #3 by BronsCon · 2017-11-08 08:45 · Score: 1

I guess it depends how long the list is. That's a viable option for moving an item up or down a handful of positions; much less so if you need to move an item from the top to the bottom of a list of hundreds.

--
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.

Downmod hiding me laughing @ U here now? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 08:00 · Score: 0

See subject: I got the last laugh @ u via this proof quoted (including you, lol) https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11331563&cid=55514081/ so let's see you get "laughed at" that way... ok?

* Funniest part is - you bitch I use proxies to undo bogus downmod bombing me yet YOU USE VPN? Hypocrite. RIght after you downmod hide this very post too, lol!

APK

P.S.=> My only 'claim to fame'? I'm not looking for 'fame' (that's relative) but I can show this tiny very PARTIAL list to my credit https://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9347033&cid=52509667/

(QUESTION - You can show you've done better? No - only bs unfounded/untrue faulty accusations on YOUR part)

OnKeyDown breakage by Midnight+Thunder · 2017-11-08 08:01 · Score: 1

If they really cared then they would fix the Chrome bug on Android, related to soft keyboards. Essentially the keyboardEvent.key is broken there and they donâ(TM)t care to fix it. Only platform where this does not work. >:(

--
Jumpstart the tartan drive.

'Standards' by Rick+Schumann · 2017-11-08 09:50 · Score: 1

A 'standard' is only a standard until someone else comes along and decides it doesn't suit them for whatever reason, then they change it, ignore it, or otherwise adulterate it as they please. Then it's not a 'standard' anymore. Wash, rinse, repeat ad infinifum. This is the way things always go with tech.

Re:'Standards' by Tomahawk · 2017-11-09 02:39 · Score: 1

Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/927/

That explains a lot, actually. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 10:32 · Score: 0

I haven't been dealing with broken websites, I've been using a broken browser. Fugg.

Broke CHROME not 'the web' by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-08 11:16 · Score: 0

Seriously, the hyperbole is amazing. A website works as a website designer decides it works, how Google decided Chrome should interpret the code, layout etc. of the website is up to Google. So the CORRECT headline is that 'Google broke Chrome' saying anything else suggests Google is far more powerful then they really are...Google has 0 power to reach out and 'break the web'.

For crying out loud can we get someone with some idea of how technology works editing this site again? PLEASE?

Still a better browser than... by MichaelJamesBattagli · 2017-11-08 15:49 · Score: 1

... Safari on iOS

Sort of a silly complaint ... by Qbertino · 2017-11-08 23:14 · Score: 1

... with most websites clocking in at north of 2 megabytes per pagecall these days. Every pageload more than Amigas entire operating system. Think of it. Blobs of bloated mess, delivered by droves of refferer-loaded libs and toolkits,eating away at 1gb/month mobile data quotas in no time, clicked together by clueless interns and even more clueless marketeers in the worlds most favorite web toy WordPress and it's unbelievable hodgepodge of plugins.

Google needs the web to work and if the change described is so damaging they probably regret it themselves by now.

Let's not forget:
Because of the push for the all out web, also brought on by Google, we're finally getting web components with native HTML imports, templating, CSS grid and other niceties, and even MS are finally playing ball with the community. The result being that bootstrap and many a polyfill and JS animation and bloated serverside logic can be dropped entirely.

If there's one default I have to take care of as an trade-off, I'm definitely in. This default having been changed by Google is the least of the webs problems. Trust a professional Webdev on this one.

My two eurocents.

--
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca

As an end user... by Tomahawk · 2017-11-09 02:38 · Score: 1

Google are working to make the web a better place for me, an end user. And, as an end user, I can only see this as being a good thing.

Web's Not Broken, Chrome Is by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 02:50 · Score: 0

No one is forcing you to use a broken browser.

Gmail hangs FireFox? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 06:06 · Score: 0

My Gmail runs OK for half an hour or so on Firefox, then starts to go AGONIZINGLY slow, only recovers after restarting FF. I ran Ubuntu MATE, openSuSE, Mint cinnamon, and Winders 7 on various machines, all do the same sooner or later. There's no swap file usage, no hanging of CPU or inordinate ram use or network traffic, no ad blocking.

Oddly enough, this never happens on Chrome or Chromium. Odd.

I moved to Firefox.. by LinuxLuver · 2017-11-09 06:26 · Score: 1

Chrome broke Chrome. I changed to Firefox.

--
Only boring people are ever bored.

Wunderground is a terrible mess by jeffb+(2.718) · 2017-11-09 08:10 · Score: 2

At this point I can count on Wunderground to be broken more than 50% of the time. Differently on different days, at different times of day, and on different clients, but broken most of the time. (Trying to change a display preference? Scroll through times in the 10-day forecast view? Select conditions from a controlled (airport) station instead of a random PWS sitting in someone's backyard next to their dryer vent? "We'll be rolling out an update in a couple of months.")

But not to worry. They're maintaining a steady pace of innovation, and soon they'll be broken 100% of the time on all clients.

Corporations do not have ethics by NewYork · 2017-11-09 17:06 · Score: 1

That's why Google rolled out Chrome. Otherwise what's the purpose of Chrome when we have many Open source browsers?

--
Casteism

I'm crazy....apk by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-13 18:44 · Score: 0

I'm an insane narcissist that loses my shit constantly and should be in fucking therapy over my issues stemming from abusive parents

APK

P.S. I also get really angry allot dumb shit, and I stalk the internet for any mention of my name because I'm a giant baby

6 days later "'SiDeWaLk-ShRiNk' of /."? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-13 23:12 · Score: 0

See subject: Posting literally 6 days later trying to IMPERSONATE me & playing "'SiDeWaLk-ShRiNk' of /.", delusions of grandeur of being a psychiatric pro too on your part? Please - LMAO!

APK

P.S.=> Unbelievable - just how BADLY did you DEFEAT YOURSELF against me that you STILL have this 'hardon" for me, eh? apk

Slashdot Mirror

'How Chrome Broke the Web' (tonsky.me)

283 comments