Slashdot Mirror
Chrome Browser Turns 10 (theverge.com)
Google first released its Chrome browser 10 years ago today. Marketed as a "fresh take on the browser," Chrome debuted with a web comic from Google to mark the company's first web browser. From a report: It was originally launched as a Windows-only beta app before making its way to Linux and macOS more than a year later in 2009. Chrome debuted at a time when developers and internet users were growing frustrated with Internet Explorer, and Firefox had been steadily building momentum. Google used components from Apple's WebKit rendering engine and Mozilla's Firefox to help bring Chrome to life, and it made all of Chrome's source code available openly as its Chromium project. Chrome focused on web standards and respected HTML5, and it even passed both the Acid1 and Acid2 tests at the time of its release. This was a significant step as Microsoft was struggling to adhere to open web standards with its Internet Explorer browser.
Another significant part of Chrome's first release was the idea of "sandboxing" individual browser tabs so that if one crashed it wouldn't affect the others. This helped improve the speed and stability of Chrome in general, alongside Google's V8 JavaScript engine that the company constantly tweaked to try and push the web forwards. After a decade of Chrome, this browser now dominates as the primary way most people browse the web. Chrome has secured more than 60 percent of browser market share on desktop, and Google's Chrome engineers continue to improve it with new features and push the latest web standards. To mark the milestone, Google said it would make a surprise announcement on Tuesday -- some improvements coming to Chrome.
Another significant part of Chrome's first release was the idea of "sandboxing" individual browser tabs so that if one crashed it wouldn't affect the others. This helped improve the speed and stability of Chrome in general, alongside Google's V8 JavaScript engine that the company constantly tweaked to try and push the web forwards. After a decade of Chrome, this browser now dominates as the primary way most people browse the web. Chrome has secured more than 60 percent of browser market share on desktop, and Google's Chrome engineers continue to improve it with new features and push the latest web standards. To mark the milestone, Google said it would make a surprise announcement on Tuesday -- some improvements coming to Chrome.
Please block ALL autoplay videos, unless I give a site permission to play them.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
I don't have much to add, but I will say that Chrome provides very nice developer tools for building and debugging client-side web applications. It is almost as if the people behind it had a vision or something.
Sort of related: I went to a movie yesterday (Crazy Rich Asians) and saw an ad before the movie pushing Chromebook. If you want to see floorboss-level trolling of Microsoft go see that. Oh, and the movie was pretty good too.
Chrome focused on web standards and respected HTML5, and it even passed both the Acid1 and Acid2 tests at the time of its release. This was a significant step as Microsoft was struggling to adhere to open web standards with its Internet Explorer browser.
I must assert: Microsoft did not even try to adhere to web standards at the time.
For a company of Microsoft's stature with thousands of [capable & competent] programmers, this would be cake walk. They chose not to try.
I used the Chrome browser for about seven years. It's a great browser -- fast, snappy, good looking, responsive. Unfortunately, it's controlled by Google, an organization that can no longer be trusted. This sent me back into the welcoming arms of Firefox (and yes, my search engine is DuckDuckGo).
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
No, Microsoft was not "struggling to comply (with standards)" They were struggling to embrace, extend, and extinguish said standards.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
with Chrome is its CORS policy for local files. Each time I test websites locally I have to switch to Firefox, because Chrome would not allow request to the local file system from a local HTML page . Firefox seems to be doing fine using a less strict policy, or does Chrome's policy mean that Firefox is insecore? Please Chrome devs, reconsider your choice on this.
Signature deleted by lameness filter.
Webkit was a much needed improvement. Also IE 6 websites still dominated many many years after 2000 in 2007/2008 when the first iPhone came out.
Webkit was better and designed to be abstract and multi-platform unlike gecko which was why Chrome switched from gecko to webkit while it was still in alpha. Without Chrome and mobile app support IE 6 would still be here. I was one of those Firefox rebels but it was a geek thing 10 years ago. If I recall it had just 10 to 15% of the market and I had to keep IE around for some websites.
Grandma would see this site not render in Firefox and blame the browser and go back to IE which made webdevelopers scream in frustration.
Though webkit and it's blink cousin are default in all devices and platforms I think it's a good thing we the web returned to where it should be and is now an open standard. Thanks Google, Apple, and the Konqueror project for making this possible.
http://saveie6.com/
WebKit came from the KDE browser. And because it was LGPL code Apple and Google were forced to keep it Open Source.
Would be nice if these details would at least get some attention on a site like /..
The problem was while Firefox did starting to adhering to standards it had it's issues. Phoenix was fast before being renamed to Firefox 1.0. It still had some Netscape bugs here and there but was much improved. Firefox 3.0 was slow and was known to freeze with lots of plugins. Firefox 3.5 was even slower even if it did adhere to even more standards.
IE by default was quicker if you ran MS specific HTML and MS CSS and cheated by loading when the OS loaded so it appeared to load faster. People stuck with it as it just worked and it was there.
Chrome was much better. Webkit also was a much better architecture than Gecko which is why Google left Gecko and switched to webkit for Chrome OS and Chrome browser in development. Apple already used webkit for Safari and their iphone. The architecture was multithreaded and easy to embed and light. It was perfect and much needed in the age of Vista where Pcs barely had enough ram to run it.
Chrome surprised Firefox quickly too. IE 9 was the first non sucky IE browser and MS was forced to follow webstandards all thinks to Chrome's marketshare and users demanding their websites work on their iPhones.
Chrome was a better browser. I could argue Firefox was marginally better depending on which are you looked at. Most users do not know what web compliancy is. All they know is Firefox was slow, and their worksites looked funny which is why it never took more than 15% marketshare.
http://saveie6.com/
I tried chrome://flags/#autoplay-policy in Chromium Version 68.0.3440.75 (Developer Build) built on Debian 9.5, running on Debian 9.5 (64-bit). It didn't block most of the test cases in my video blocking test suite. I guess that's because blocking all video playback is very much easier said than done.
- Block the <video> element, and sites will fall back to the less efficient <img> tag with GIF.
- Block <video> and GIF, and sites will fall back to using JavaScript to rotate JPEG or PNG images into a container.
- Block <video>, GIF, and script, and sites will fall back to using CSS sprites with stepped animations to rotate frames of a JPEG or PNG filmstrip into a container.
What does Safari do instead to protect users from ISPs that insert deceptive or otherwise malicious scripts or other content into HTML pages delivered through cleartext HTTP? <cough>Xfinity by Comcast</cough>
But why? Seems a bit daft to fire up a server when the file:// uri would do nicely and does the same thing with the same level of security.
I went back to Firefox. I don't trust Google and their ad ecosystem.
Firefox has its problems, but it doesn't have a multi-billiondollar neoliberal fascist enterprise backing it.
LOL....LOL....LOL
Apparently you don't understand where Mozilla gets all their money.
Almost 100% of Mozilla's revenue (currently about $350 Million a year) comes from . . . . . . . GOOGLE!
And Mozilla is just as "neoliberal fascist" as Google. (Forced their CEO to resign because he gave some money to a political campaign they don't like).
First, a video that is downloaded but not played would still count against the monthly download quota that your ISP imposes on you, especially a satellite or cellular ISP. Second, playing a filmstrip through a canvas (as demonstrated in canvid) lets the video delivery script read the pixels in the canvas and relay back to the website that the video was decoded. Thus a video that was downloaded and played invisibly still uses CPU time and battery energy for decoding.
Chrome doesn't have ads and Google respects Do Not Track, which you can enable in Chrome.
Firefox secretly installed an advertising plugin for a TV show without permission.
Your trust is misplaced. Also, "neoliberal fascist enterprise" makes you sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Dumbed down anti-user interface. Arrogant background processes that spawn countless instances and take over your computer. Drive-by unwanted trojan installs as Google greases the palms of every freeware dev to sneak a Chrome install into their app installer. But worst of all now are the "Only works in Chrome" websites:
https://www.theverge.com/2018/...
Microsoft got raked over the coals for doing all the same shit that Google is now getting a pass for. What the fuck?
All you so-called geeks who champion Chrome are either just out of highschool or you are hypocrites with very short memories.
amazing how quick the fresh take on the browser became mundane and bloated.
IE 9 was the first non sucky IE browser and MS was forced to follow webstandards all thinks to Chrome's marketshare (...) All they know is Firefox was slow, and their worksites looked funny which is why it never took more than 15% marketshare.
What a load of bullshit history revisionism being modded up by moderators sucking Google's cock. Firefox peaked at well over 30%, people were leaving IE in droves taking it from 95%+ to the low 60s before Chrome even existed. Mozilla and Firefox did all the hard work of getting sites to work in something other than IE6 and the decline continued even though Microsoft much improved standards compliance in IE7 and IE8. Yes, Chrome was good but it came long after writing MS specific HTML/CSS was dead.
which is why Google left Gecko
That never happened, Google chose Webkit from the very beginning. Perhaps because they found it better in the first place, but it's not like they built something around Gecko and then abandoned it. Don't get me wrong, Chrome was a good product that took users from Firefox and sent IE from a decline into a free fall. But it was way too late to the party to get any credit for breaking IE's monopoly and forcing Microsoft into standards compliance. Except for all the money Google funneled into Mozilla in return for search results of course, but Chrome basically walked in open doors Firefox had already knocked down.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings