Slashdot Mirror


Former Edge Browser Intern Alleges Google Sabotaged Microsoft's Browser (ycombinator.com)

Joshua Bakita, a former software engineering intern on the Edge team at Microsoft, says one of the reasons why Microsoft had to ditch EdgeHTML rendering engine in Edge browser and switch to Chromium was to keep up with the changes (some of which were notorious) that Google pushed to its sites. These changes were designed to ensure that Edge and other browsers could not properly run Google's sites, he alleged. Responding to a comment, he wrote: "For example, they may start integrating technologies for which they have exclusive, or at least 'special' access. Can you imagine if all of a sudden Google apps start performing better than anyone else's?" This is already happening. I very recently worked on the Edge team, and one of the reasons we decided to end EdgeHTML was because Google kept making changes to its sites that broke other browsers, and we couldn't keep up.

For example, they recently added a hidden empty div over YouTube videos that causes our hardware acceleration fast-path to bail (should now be fixed in Win10 Oct update). Prior to that, our fairly state-of-the-art video acceleration put us well ahead of Chrome on video playback time on battery, but almost the instant they broke things on YouTube, they started advertising Chrome's dominance over Edge on video-watching battery life. What makes it so sad, is that their claimed dominance was not due to ingenious optimization work by Chrome, but due to a failure of YouTube. On the whole, they only made the web slower.

Now while I'm not sure I'm convinced that YouTube was changed intentionally to slow Edge, many of my co-workers are quite convinced -- and they're the ones who looked into it personally. To add to this all, when we asked, YouTube turned down our request to remove the hidden empty div and did not elaborate further. And this is only one case.

427 comments

  1. Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "but due to a failure of YouTube."

    You mean a failure of Edge?

    1. Re:Boo hoo by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Microsoft has to learn how to make software like everyone else. You need to keep compatibility with the big fish, and not just do your own thing, and thinking everyone will switch to your method.

      I am sorry, I had to code too many IE 6 workarounds and not put in new features due to having to keep IE 6 compatibility for so long, I have no sympathy to this Edge engineer.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Boo hoo by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your ally.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re: Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could not care less. If it aint on Hulu it aint worth watching

    4. Re:Boo hoo by jrumney · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, it sounds very much like Microsoft's "hardware acceleration fast-path" was a hack that relied on very specific HTML layout of the YouTube site, and when Google changed it (by adding an empty hidden div no less - something that should have absolutely no effect on a standards compliant layout engine not to mention the video hardware acceleration) it broke their precious benchmark cheat.

    5. Re:Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So because your foot hurts, you shoot your other foot too?

    6. Re:Boo hoo by stinerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure, I'm not losing sleep either, but if Google is making useless changes to their websites in order to specifically screw with Edge, that's bad. If they are making useful changes to their websites...and it happens to screw with Edge. Not really their problem. Of course I didn't RTFA, so I can't really say which is which.

    7. Re:Boo hoo by Spy+Handler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah it's funny when Google is messing around with Microsoft and deliberately making Microsoft products run slower. Microsoft is simply getting a taste of its own medicine, as they used to deliberately make things broken in IE6 back when they had the dominant browser.

      But it's not so funny when (or if) Google adds stuff that slows down Firefox or other open source competitors to Chrome.

    8. Re:Boo hoo by u19925 · · Score: 1

      Failure of stupid users and coward media. Google claimed better battery life while watching Goodle videos and they fell for it. Is there any surprise here? What next? Will Chrome be declared as the only browser because it can view YouTube? The users should have realized that Google is using its own site to benchmark its own browser and that is fishy. But show me one site which questioned this?

    9. Re:Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep this is the big boy equivalent of why did my screen scrapper stop working all of a sudden.

    10. Re:Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      For example, they recently added a hidden empty div over YouTube videos that causes our hardware acceleration fast-path to bail

      Sounds like bullshit to me.

      Firefox and Palemoon, running on both Windows 7 and Windows 10, work just fine with YouTube, GMail and Google search.

      Just admit that Edge is shit.

    11. Re:Boo hoo by rudy_wayne · · Score: 1

      Yes, it sounds very much like Microsoft's "hardware acceleration fast-path" was a hack that relied on very specific HTML layout of the YouTube site, and when Google changed it (by adding an empty hidden div no less - something that should have absolutely no effect on a standards compliant layout engine not to mention the video hardware acceleration) it broke their precious benchmark cheat.

      Exactly.

      Edge is a completely useless piece of crap. It is so badly designed it makes you wonder if anyone at Microsoft even understands how computers and the Internet actually work.

    12. Re:Boo hoo by lgw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "YouTube ain't done till Firefox won't run". There's no way they'd stop at Edge.

      The bizarre thing is Google isn't even doing this for money; this is evil for evil's sake.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    13. Re:Boo hoo by EndlessNameless · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So what you're saying is... Google is following in Microsoft's evil footsteps?

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    14. Re:Boo hoo by The_Revelation · · Score: 1

      And at least Google don't have a whole line up of enterprise products that 'only' work with chrome. The hours lost supporting web apps with ActiveX integrations and creating desktop links that ensure internet explorer was called to perform the job at hand from business wide soe's

    15. Re:Boo hoo by markdavis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >"But it's not so funny when (or if) Google adds stuff that slows down Firefox or other open source competitors to Chrome."

      Bingo. And if anyone thinks that isn't already happening or won't happen, they need a reality check. Chrome has decimated Firefox's market share- and most of it undeserved. Firefox is the last light in the "true" open-source, multi-platform, modern browser era. We will all absolutely be worse off if that light is extinguished.

      Ask yourselves if there is really any good reason now to "automatically" install Chrome on machines or recommend it to friends and family. If not, consider making it Firefox. The painful redesign of the Firefox engine that lost some of the addons ended up making Firefox just as fast and more resource friendly while still being much more user-oriented and configurable than Chrome... and with a huge bonus of not being tied into all kinds of other incentives to do bad things with your data. (Looking at you, YouTube/Android/Gmail/Gmaps/Gwhatever users..).

    16. Re:Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, Edge sucks even in non google controlled sites, but at the same time it is also true that google is the new evil and that they are, IMHO, doing it intentionally.

    17. Re:Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree - If true, Google is just taking a page out of the MS playbook. It is only the intern complaining. MS isn't saying anything officially. They have done this to standards to lock in their own product. News to intern: This is how the big boys play.

    18. Re: Boo hoo by ironicsky · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I came here to say this.

      ActiveX
      Silverlight

      Incompatible CSS and IE specific JavaScript.

      Microsoft is one of the reasons the internet was a standards nightmare, while Mozilla, Google and Opera all played nice with standards, Microsoft didn't.

    19. Re:Boo hoo by Sumus+Semper+Una · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Microsoft has to learn how to make software like everyone else. You need to keep compatibility with the big fish, and not just do your own thing, and thinking everyone will switch to your method.

      So much this. All the other browsers had to deal with these same changes to Google sites too. Why was it so much more painful to Microsoft? Well, I thought this piece from the article was pretty telling:

      What's particularly interesting about this is that whether Google did this intentionally or not, Microsoft fell into a trap that it set for itself. When Bakita says, "we couldn't keep up", and goes on to say that the issue is fixed in the Windows 10 October 2018 Update, that's actually because Microsoft set a path for itself where it could only add new features to Edge with feature updates to Windows 10. That limits the company to twice per year.

      I'm sorry, but this browser was doomed as soon as it arrived due to fundamental flaws in its design. Blaming Google is just focusing on the convenient obvious symptom instead of addressing the root problem.

      To be fair, that's exactly the kind of mistake I'd expect to see an intern make.

    20. Re:Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like the quote:
      "The enemy of my enemy is my enemies enemy, nothing more, nothing less."

    21. Re:Boo hoo by DarkRookie2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yet.
      I give it a couple of years before everything but Search and YouTube requires Chrome
      And 5 years for Search and YouTube.

      --
      http://progressquest.com/spoltog.php?name=Son+Of+Son+Of+DarkRookie
    22. Re:Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't this (MicroSoft) the pot calling the kettle black?
      How many times has MS done this exact same thing?

      (Sorry if I offend any Single Jesuit Women out there.)

      CAP === 'encroach'

    23. Re: Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hm. Do you know anything about HW video decode? It used to be quite normal for video drivers to have quite strict constraints on how the input and output buffers (surfaces) are allocated in order to be able to e.g. decode, color space convert, and blit in one operation without needing the host cpu to help things along. It's not so far fetched to imagine that if your target surface is not on the 'frame buffer' (i.e. a transparent object on top means that you are being composited from an offscreen surface / texture) that the decode has to fall back to a more cpu-heavy strategy.

    24. Re:Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firefox decimated their own market share by constantly breaking their UI and changing it in ways that benefited the user in no way.

      I know of not one single Firefox user who ever said they switched to chrome because it was faster or rendered more correctly.

    25. Re:Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chrome has decimated Firefox's market share- and most of it undeserved.

      I don't think you know what decimated means. Chrome has completely destroyed FF, not just decimated.

    26. Re:Boo hoo by taustin · · Score: 1

      Yeah, for some reason, the phrase "embrace and extend" comes to mind.

    27. Re: Boo hoo by TheSunborn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, and if an empty div changes anything of that, Edge got far bigger problems then I can imagine.

      But the number of websites which works in Firefox and Chrome but not Edge, is so big, that I really think the issue is with Edge, and not Google.

    28. Re:Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Youtube itself currently only runs optimal in Chrome, it uses a framework that relies on the prototype v0 shadow DOM API. Chrome is the only browser to support this version of the API, all other browsers implement v1. The framework in question also supports v1, Youtube is of course stuck on the old version that has to run fallback code on all browsers except Chrome.

      Yes, it sounds very much like Microsoft's "hardware acceleration fast-path" was a hack that relied on very specific HTML layout of the YouTube site

      Sometimes optimizations boil down to that, you detect a simple and common usecase and switch to a fast path that drops all unnecessary general purpose cruft. An empty and hidden div might just be something unexpected that could throw of the detection of the simple case, or it might require a bit more logic to handle just in case it doesn't stay hidden or empty. Quite a bit of the performance modern JavaScript engines manage is based on identifying common and simple cases, the modern web would be unusably slow if it wasn't for those hacks.

    29. Re:Boo hoo by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      So much this. All the other browsers had to deal with these same changes to Google sites too. Why was it so much more painful to Microsoft? Well, I thought this piece from the article was pretty telling:

      What are "all other browsers"? You mean all other Chromium clones?

    30. Re:Boo hoo by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      If antitrust regulations ensured Microsoft got their asses handed to them over writing software which disproportionately favors their other software then surely Google should get shafted just as hard. Take half their market share with regulations, should make it even (for this one infraction.)

    31. Re: Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I put fully formed urls into Edge's address bar, it often goes straight to a search page. Microsoft is retarded.

    32. Re:Boo hoo by cheekyboy · · Score: 4, Informative

      yeah but MS now is behaving better than google.

      Google, has many umm 'addons' to the internet specs that offer better , faster, but is 100% google.

      Btw, YOUTUBE, fix your shit UI, I am sick of seeing video suggestions with NO TIME STAMPS, I need to know if your stupid video suggestion is 7 years old, or 2 days old. Give us a fucking date stamp, you bunch of stupid ass useless coders - who are so minimalists, it makes DOS 1982 software look like it has more features.

      Oh and if you delete users videos, and my 'list' shows video deleted, tell me THE FUCKING ORIGINAL TITLE, idiots, i have to save my list to a drive document because you suck at coding.

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    33. Re:Boo hoo by alexo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Google already downgrades search functionality for firefox mobile. Once I changed the user agent to chrome, all the missing features suddenly appeared and were working with no issues.

      Make no mistake, Google is just as evil as Microsoft was in its day.

    34. Re:Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aren't you the exact same sort of shithead that used to post on here all the time about how Microsoft was an evil monopoly and should be brought down, and now that google is the evil monopoly your still sitting there shitting on MS for some reason?

    35. Re: Boo hoo by bursch-X · · Score: 1

      So youâ(TM)re saying, just because Microsoft have been total assholes in the past, Google now gets carte blanche for being just as evil? Wut?

      --
      There are two rules for success:
      1. Never tell everything you know.
    36. Re: Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those are plug ins and not standard to HTML. If a company makes a plug in popular enough like Flash, they can make it compatible with whatever

    37. Re: Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't forget client side VBscript

    38. Re: Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trust me, as a developer myself, I don't back crap like this under
      any circumstances. It just slows progress and there's no sound
      reason for it, IMHO.

      CAP === 'descent'

    39. Re:Boo hoo by geoskd · · Score: 1

      What are "all other browsers"? You mean all other Chromium clones?

      How about, Opera, Firefox and not least: Safari

      Many, or even all of those might be using the same rendering engine as chrome, in which case, I would have to ask: Why the hell wasn't MS using it?

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    40. Re: Boo hoo by mark-t · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Edge isn't IE.

      Believe it or not, it seems that MS really learned their lesson. Edge ain't perfect, but it virtually on par with most other browsers for standards compliance. Only Chrome has a significant lead in that regard.

      Of course, I imagine it's just a whole lot easier to carry on the MS hate than it is to actually pause and take a look at what's really going on.

    41. Re:Boo hoo by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

      I had to code too many IE 6 workarounds and not put in new features due to having to keep IE 6 compatibility for so long, I have no sympathy to this Edge engineer.

      Perhaps you could explain how two wrongs don't make a right squares with "don't be evil". Or perhaps the latter is no longer a thing.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    42. Re:Boo hoo by brxndxn · · Score: 1

      Why can't Microsoft just allow a filtering system like 'compatibility mode' that just removes unnecessary elements from a web page like Adblock? Make a popup that says 'Microsoft recommends Youtube Layer for this web page' when you go to Youtube. Then, Google's random changes that screw the Edge browser are completely negated. It should be up to the user to decide what elements he or she wants to display or use their bandwidth for anyway. Maybe Google did these evil things - but I also expect Microsoft to purposely program things incompetently as possible. It's clear that Microsoft's priorities are not to give the user a good experience but to change and break random shit for the hell of it with every update in order for Microsoft to look like they're the ones staying ahead of everyone else.

      Either way.. both these companies consist of some of societies' worst people and they're run by the world's biggest assholes. Let them go to war with each other rather than 'make peace' because Google and Microsoft making peace will only serve to make everyones' lives worse.

      --
      --- We need more Ron Paul!
    43. Re: Boo hoo by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      The difference is that MS was convicted while MS is merely accusing Google of the same behavior. From my overview of users, no one using Firefox or Safari complains about not being able to use YouTube. Sounds like the problem is just Edge.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    44. Re:Boo hoo by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      when Google changed it (by adding an empty hidden div no less - something that should have absolutely no effect on a standards compliant layout engine not to mention the video hardware acceleration) it broke their precious benchmark cheat.

      What we want to know is, did the Google developer(s) involved intend to break Edge performance or not. We already know about plausible deniability.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    45. Re:Boo hoo by brxndxn · · Score: 2

      Pretty sure they are being malicious rather than incompetent.. That whole saying (Hanlon's Razor) is basically the opposite in the tech world. When Google/Microsoft are making a UI that they know millions of people will use every day, they are thinking 'fuck you' to a very specific set of people for a very specific reason. IMO, Google does it to control thought process and censor what doesn't fit their narrative. If they were transparent about videos they removed, they would include more information like you're looking for in the interface.

      --
      --- We need more Ron Paul!
    46. Re:Boo hoo by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

      if anyone thinks that isn't already happening or won't happen, they need a reality check

      Some of Google's tactics in pushing Chrome's market share over Firefox bear a strong resemblance to the tactics Microsoft used to suppress Netscape Navigator. It's hard to reach any other conclusion than that those smart Googlers studied Microsoft's tactics and emulated them.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    47. Re:Boo hoo by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      Are you sure it doesn't go more like this?

      "The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy, nothing more, nothing less."

    48. Re:Boo hoo by c · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Firefox is the last light in the "true" open-source, multi-platform, modern browser era. We will all absolutely be worse off if that light is extinguished.

      You're not wrong, and I'd like to like Firefox, but I don't really have the time and energy to keep figuring out where my extensions and plugins keep disappearing to.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    49. Re: Boo hoo by mark-t · · Score: 1

      But the number of websites which works in Firefox and Chrome but not Edge, is so big....

      Strange... because currently the latest version of Edge is actually one point ahead of Firefox in terms of html standards compliance, and the upcoming version only one point behind.

      Edge's javascript compliance with ES6 currently trails behind Firefox and Chrome, with almost all of it's inferiority being here. and here. These parts of Javascript are not, in practice, that significant. I won't say they are nothing, but they are still quite far removed from being needed in most cases.

      I find it dubious that there are that many significant websites which would not work with Edge while working fine with another browser like Firefox unless they were specifically designed to be hostile to Edge. You may be able to find a few, but I am skeptical that the number is, as you say, "so big".

    50. Re:Boo hoo by markdavis · · Score: 0, Troll

      >"You're not wrong, and I'd like to like Firefox, but I don't really have the time and energy to keep figuring out where my extensions and plugins keep disappearing to."

      Of the 4 "essential" addons I had before the engine change ("Quantum"), 3 were available quickly at onset, and the last one was not, but I found a perfectly good replacement for it (just by a different person). I haven't had any of them disappear or die in the many months I have been using Firefox Quantum.

      Yes, it can be a pain to find a replacement for addons, but the changes Mozilla made were absolutely necessary to fix move forward with the desired performance, stability, and security goals. So I am glad they bit the bullet and changed. If they didn't the browser would have hopelessly stagnated.

    51. Re:Boo hoo by vocatan · · Score: 1

      I was going to post EXACTLY this same point! From the trenches at Netscape, during the middle of the browser wars, it was plain as daylight that Microsoft was doing all sorts of nefarious things to ensure that the Netscape browser would not run as well as Internet Explorer. In fact, if memory serves correctly, I seem to recall there was specific evidence of the operating system even maliciously looking for code signatures that would indicate that it was NETSCAPE code running. Man, revenge may have taken 20 years, but it sure feels friggin' sweet..... Stick that bright green dinosaur where the sun don't shine, Microsoft.

    52. Re: Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder. It's almost like they spent all their goodwill towards MS browsers. It's pretty shocking that we don't bother or don't care when they come out with new browser tech. That ship sailed.

    53. Re:Boo hoo by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      No, something happened to youtube. A few months ago, maybe a year, it started loading much slower. But in Chrome, better than ever. Google is doing what Microsoft used to do with Internet Explorer that got them in trouble. But instead of regulating Google, we need to just abandon them... Oh! I forgot! The money! Oh well...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    54. Re:Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, if they had to hack a hardware acceleration fast-path in the first place, then it's not necessarily their fault. There are many cases where Google designs their sites to work best with Chrome, right down to relying on engine-specific (not standards-based) hackery. Edge and other engines have been working hard to work around those faults for years and make the standards better, but Google doesn't generally seem to care about standards anymore. Their Blink team certainly does, and some of their specific web service maintainers still do, but Google doesn't want to let them fix things correctly. They'd rather not pay for that when they can instead pay someone to make some new "standard" instead, and to hell with whether anyone else can even implement it properly when it already works well enough for them on Blink. Web Components are a prime example of how they just forced their shit onto their services, and to hell with whether the standard was even good enough for other browsers to implement. It's not necessarily the other browsers' fault they ended up suddenly behaving poorly on YouTube: Google just wanted X, so they pushed X, and to hell with the consequences for everyone else.

    55. Re:Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was going to post EXACTLY this same point! From the trenches at Netscape, during the middle of the browser wars, it was plain as daylight that Microsoft was doing all sorts of nefarious things to ensure that the Netscape browser would not run as well as Internet Explorer. In fact, if memory serves correctly, I seem to recall there was specific evidence of the operating system even maliciously looking for code signatures that would indicate that it was NETSCAPE code running. Man, revenge may have taken 20 years, but it sure feels friggin' sweet..... Stick that bright green dinosaur where the sun don't shine, Microsoft.

      The difference between this and rooting for your favorite sports hero:

      When all the dust settles you still lose no matter which side you were originally rooting for.

    56. Re: Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assure you -- I have plenty of ability to look around and see what's going on and STILL carry on the MS hate. MS earned that hate over decades of sociopathic behavior.

    57. Re:Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interestingly, for a while now I've been playing YouTube videos using Keepvid, copying the URL and then streaming the video in Media Player Classic and not only am I getting better battery life, but the video choppiness and audio crackle that I used to get on the YouTube site itself are now a thing of the past. I know my laptop isn't exactly cutting edge, but it isn't that underpowered either and MPC proves that YouTube's horrible performance is Google's fault and not my laptop's.

    58. Re:Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I remember a few months ago when suddenly my nightly Firefox builds were getting the same mobile Google search as Chrome. And it was because Firefox devs decided to force the issue and just say Firefox was Chrome with a user-agent hack. Google quickly shat out some new slightly better inferior web search for Firefox, and in the spirit of cooperation, Mozilla took away their hack. Since then, that new Firefox experience is barely being paid lip service, while Google is busy pushing more crap onto their Chrome specific version.

      It really makes you wonder why Firefox even bothers playing nice anymore. They might as well not renew their contract next time, and reveal all of this horrible behavior to the world. Maybe then other business interests will actually have the mental fortitude to fund Firefox instead, rather than them having to grasp at search engine deals from companies that just want them around to not have to answer for their monopolistic behavior on the web.

    59. Re: Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Microsoft isn't evil anymore, have they returned any ill-gotten profits, and corrected the damage they did to industry, companies, individuals, and community over decades?

      The $50 million they spent trying to kill Linux via SCO? Have they spent $50 million boosting linux? I bet not.

      Will they let skype work on Linux again? Or.is being non-evil too much effort?

      Maybe the past doesn't matter. But what message does that send to community activists in that recent past that fought for consumer rights, human rights on the internet, and fairness? Linux and open source might not exist if they hadn't pushed back on Microsoft.

      Today, when net neutrality was rolled back, when facebook sells our information, or the credit agencies lose our data to scammers, is it worth pushing back? Will Comcast be called a hero in a couple years, by merely reversing some anti competitive net neutrality practices? Will Facebook be whitewashed and US President Zuckerberg hailed for generosity? Nevermind where the money came from.

      As long as this pattern continues, bad behaviour will take advantage of it. #history #repeat

      Maybe I'm just getting old. Wait, maybe old grumpy people always had points to consider...

    60. Re:Boo hoo by Wdomburg · · Score: 1

      Opera uses Chromium as well. So do Brave and Vivaldi. And Edge on platforms other than Windows.

      Firefox and Safari are the only major browsers using their own rendering engines (though the Chromium engine itself is a fork of Apple's WebKit engine.)

    61. Re:Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, it makes you forget about the pain of the other one. You don't know that?

    62. Re: Boo hoo by shadow_slicer · · Score: 1

      If the empty div was positioned on top of the video then it could easily break their fast path code (since it would require compositing). Of course they really should have been pruning invisible elements before making the rendering decision (you'd be surprised how many websites have stray invisible elements, so this should have been anticipated).

    63. Re:Boo hoo by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Google would be able to change YouTube's code a lot faster than Microsoft could push out updates for Edge.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    64. Re: Boo hoo by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I'm not suggesting that the past doesn't matter - I'm only saying that Edge appears to actually be pretty much on par with most of the other popular browsers when it comes to standards, and people ought to evaluate Edge based on where it actually is today instead of assuming that it's another pisshole like IE was just because it happens to come from Microsoft.

    65. Re: Boo hoo by shadow_slicer · · Score: 1

      The trouble is that Google does performance testing with Chrome and conformance testing with the other browsers. From their perspective it's a reasonable decision since they their browser people probably have already put together some good automated performance tools, so they don't have to do any extra work. They still have to test that things work with other browsers, but they can just boot up a virtual machine and use a scripted screen scraper to catch regressions, since they don't need tight timing. If you want to fix that build a good cross-browser performance testing suite. If it's good enough I'm sure everyone will want to use it so that their pages have good performance for all the browsers.

    66. Re:Boo hoo by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Don't get me wrong. I did not intend to imply that emulating Microsoft's underhanded tactics (which went far beyond just manipulating the code) is anything to be proud of.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    67. Re: Boo hoo by iserlohn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't see Apple or Mozilla complaining. The whole issue is with Edge and how slow its update model is.

    68. Re: Boo hoo by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 2

      They were all attempts at "embrace, extend, extinguish". Silverlight, for example: "Let's push Silverlight while we stand in the way of an HTML5 standard by leveraging our patents."

    69. Re:Boo hoo by Dastardly · · Score: 2

      Google's work on HTML frameworks like Angular where a lot of HTML in the DOM is generated by the framework from some other abstraction, makes me think that the change had nothing to do with Microsoft. An upgrade of whatever framework they use for YouTube could have inserted the empty div. Which might appear useless in the particular context, but if a different part of the framework were used it would not be empty.

      Basically, the framework trades off what should be a harmless empty div in some cases for ease of implementation of other cases where it wouldn't be empty.

      Now taking advantage of that to release benchmarks is suspect.

    70. Re:Boo hoo by Tuidjy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Google would be able to change YouTube's code a lot faster than Microsoft could push out updates for Edge.

      And Microsoft is well aware of this. Why? Because that's exactly how they were conducting their "embrace, extend, extinguish" policy when they were the big bully on the block.

      Do you notice that it's an intern complaining, and not an official Microsoft statement? I guess that they are ashamed, or unwilling to remind those of us who remember of all the hoops we had to jump to keep stuff IE (was it 6) compliant. Client side VisualBasic, not-quite JavaScript, non-compliance to standards, etc.

      Google has read Microsoft's "Book of Evulz", and is following it to the letter.

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished...
    71. Re:Boo hoo by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      Hard to call Google's actions "evil". They're accused of putting a hidden div on a webpage, not breaking standards. It happened that due to some flaw in Edge, Edge's performance went through the floor when Google did that. That's... weird. Why Google did it is not explained, and perhaps it was intentional, but, seriously, how does a hidden div cause a massive performance reduction?

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    72. Re: Boo hoo by Bert64 · · Score: 4, Informative

      MS haven't learned their lesson, they just don't like the fact that someone else is now in a position to give them a taste of their own medicine.
      Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    73. Re: Boo hoo by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them... Remember "embrace, extend, extinguish"... And don't forget IE6 was generally better than netscape 4.x at the time too.

      MS have earned a lot of distrust over the years and have a terrible reputation, this has to be factored into any evaluation.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    74. Re:Boo hoo by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      If they did, is it bad? If Microsoft has beaten a benchmark by essentially assuming YouTube's web layout is completely predictable, then doesn't that suggest their benchmark result was misleading and not indicative of real world performance? And wouldn't YouTube have ultimately broken in the long run anyway?

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    75. Re: Boo hoo by Bert64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Google now gets carte blanche for being just as evil? Wut?

      If they're doing it to microsoft - yes, poetic justice.
      If they're doing it to firefox etc, no.

      If someone from mozilla or opera was making this complaint they would justifiably get some sympathy here, microsoft don't deserve any.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    76. Re:Boo hoo by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 2

      These changes were designed to ensure that Edge and other browsers could not properly run Google's sites

      Google ain't done until Edge won't run? I have a feeling I've heard something like that before somewhere...

    77. Re:Boo hoo by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 0

      No one in this thread said otherwise, but you trotted out a tired aphorism and got yourself +5. There are responses where this may have been more appropriate and actually would have added value. You're not helping.

      For the record fuck them both.

    78. Re:Boo hoo by GrumpySteen · · Score: 2

      True, but watching the enemy of my enemy screw my enemy over using the same tricks my enemy screwed me over is fucking hilarious.

    79. Re: Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention: "Windows isn't done until Lotus won't run." to get Excel as the #1 spreadsheet, and documentation and API shenanigans to make sure the first release of Wordperfect for Windows wasn't available in time for the OS update.

    80. Re:Boo hoo by xeoron · · Score: 1

      Edge had a lot more problems, than YouTube. I opened Edge, recently, and it had trouble following links on the msn page it opens by default.

    81. Re:Boo hoo by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      That's the plausible deniability part. If devs knew they were breaking Edge, that's the illegal market control part. It would be aggravated if the changes in fact served no technical purpose, but what matters is 1) possessing market control and 2) intentionally using that control for an anticompetitive purpose. Note: I am no fan of Microsoft, far from it. But I am even less a fan of unethical or illegal conduct, whether Microsoft does it or Google.

      I wonder what the ostensible purpose of this particular empty div tag was. I usually associate such things with malware sites and the like.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    82. Re:Boo hoo by rtb61 · · Score: 0

      How about when the enemy of my enemy is also my enemy, well as long as they destroy each other, they are both my ally and I'll help and strive to maintain the required mutually assured destructive balance and even help them attack each other :).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    83. Re: Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Have they spent $50 million boosting linux?

      Probably, when you consider that Linux runs on Azure now.

    84. Re: Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Edge isn't IE.

      Just the other day, I forgot to add in the HTML doctype to a page, only discovered it was missing because Edge didn't render the page properly. It rendered it in the exact same broken way as IE 11 on the same machine. Coincidence? No, Edge is still IE under the hood, it's just a less broken IE. Good riddance.

    85. Re: Boo hoo by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      The thing Microsoft got screwed on was integrating IE into Windows Explorer, that's absolutely trivial compared to what Google is doing.

    86. Re:Boo hoo by mcswell · · Score: 1

      Did you read the article?

    87. Re: Boo hoo by stoborrobots · · Score: 1

      Will they let skype work on Linux again?

      It Just Got Easier to Install Skype on Ubuntu - 1 February 2018

      What are the system requirements for Skype?

      Skype for Linux system requirements

      Linux Version:

      64-bit Ubuntu 14.04+
      64-bit Debian 8.0+
      64-bit OpenSUSE 13.3+
      64-bit Fedora Linux 24+

      Processor - An Intel Pentium 4 processor or later that's SSE2 and SSE3 capable

      RAM - At least 512 MB

      Additional software - libappindicator1 or GtkStatusIcon to make the tray icon work (optional)

    88. Re: Boo hoo by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      ActiveX and Silverlight are proprietary, exclusive technologies. That's a bit different than claiming to support an open standard and slipping proprietary stuff in there, instead.

      If you had mentioned Microsoft Virtual Machine, you'd be more on point.

    89. Re:Boo hoo by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      Don't go overboard, here. We all know Mozilla screwed up a lot of stuff and are largely responsible for their own demise (and that goes for Netscape as well).

      The only reason why Firefox has improved as of late is because they are in panic mode, thanks to Chrome. When Mozilla was sitting pretty with 50% market share, that's when the bloat, performance problems, and ignoring user feedback really started.

    90. Re:Boo hoo by malditaenvidia · · Score: 1

      Chrome isn't exactly web standards compliant, neither are most browsers for that matter. Only old Opera even tried to adhere to W3C guidelines, and that thing is long gone, replaced by a Chromium skin. We have mozilla left, but their marketshare is all but gone now.

    91. Re:Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use firefox so I don't give much of a shit about this, but I recall about a year ago (maybe longer) when Google began showing video suggestions overlaying most youtube videos towards the end. And yes, they showed up on chrome as well. It was incredibly annoying, so I filtered it with ublock origin. But anyways, I could see why this might break any hardware acceleration that Microsoft is using.

      But there's one important detail that this intern is leaving out: Microsoft built their UWP platform in such a way so that only Microsoft's first party applications (edge inclusive) can see a benefit from the same method. In other words, Microsoft created an advantage for itself (while also making Edge a rootkit liability) that others won't ever have access to.

      At any rate, I haven't noticed any problems using Google's services over the years beyond "features" (like the one mentioned above) over time that are more annoying than useful.

    92. Re:Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google has already done this to Firefox. Shortly after the "new, speedy" Firefox came out, I noticed that my CPU was being eaten on my Mac. I tracked it down to the Google home page! It appeared to be just a search box and a go button, but if you looked at the source, there was a ton of code on that page. I checked on my Linux box and the result was the same. The Google home page was making Firefox do something in the background that ate the CPU and it was the only site I found that did that.

      Once I found that, I made Duckduckgo my default search engine. It works about 98% of the time to help me find what I'm looking for and, AFAIK, doesn't track its users. It has improved greatly since the first time I used it and is now a drop in replacement. I don't log into Google mail much anymore. But I find I can't really get away from Youtube and Maps. If anyone knows of any (good!) replacements, feel free to let me know.

      On the flip side, I'm really happy Microsoft is moving to the Chromium engine. It should make developing for the web easier as they will finally follow some standards. IF they do a good job, don't track me, and release it for Mac and Linux, I'll happily use it. If not, then I will, for now, stick to Firefox and try to stay away from Google services.

    93. Re:Boo hoo by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

      Hard to call Google's actions "evil"

      It is a question of intent. If Google devs intended to break Edge's hardware acceleration then it is evil, plausible cover story notwithstanding.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    94. Re: Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Webkit was a fork of KDEs khtml and kjs engine. Apple came much later.

    95. Re: Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's assuming this guy is an intern developer and not an intern of FUD!

    96. Re:Boo hoo by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"The only reason why Firefox has improved as of late is because they are in panic mode, thanks to Chrome. When Mozilla was sitting pretty with 50% market share, that's when the bloat, performance problems, and ignoring user feedback really started."

      It is exactly that point of having competition and pressure that keeps things moving and user-focused. I don't want a world without Firefox. But I don't want Chrome to disappear either. IE/Edge disappearing doesn't matter much; not because of the "evil" done in the past with their browser, but because it was single platform and closed-source.

    97. Re:Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google is already doing this in google-groups. It is silly, how slow those simple pages load with Firefox. Perhaps I should try to change the user-agent string to get better throughput from the google.com.

    98. Re:Boo hoo by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"Once I found that, I made Duckduckgo my default search engine. It works about 98% of the time to help me find what I'm looking for and, AFAIK, doesn't track its users."

      I have been using startpage.com for eons. Google power but without their tracking and stupid CPU-eating games.

      >"It has improved greatly since the first time I used it and is now a drop in replacement. I don't log into Google mail much anymore. But I find I can't really get away from Youtube and Maps. If anyone knows of any (good!) replacements, feel free to let me know."

      I wasn't really saying that people should not use Google's services/offerings. Just not to put all their eggs in a single basket. If interested- openstreetmap.org is a reasonable alternative to maps.google.com for some things. My main issues is it has no real-time traffic and it can't perform local store/business searches correctly. hotmail.com works fine for Email. Nothing touches youtube yet, we really need a good alternative.

    99. Re: Boo hoo by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Then your memory is suspect. You seem to forget the how MS threatened Intel not to build a Java VM. How MS threatened OEMs not to install Netscape.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    100. Re: Boo hoo by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      Are you suggesting Edge runs on *BSD?

      If not, then evaluating it is unnecessary- it has no conceivable value for me.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    101. Re: Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Empty div? Really?

    102. Re: Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HTML coding 101 free for Google "engineers" at msdn.microsoft.com

    103. Re:Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Google is doing the same to MicroSoft as it has been doing to others, even back-when in ye olde DOS times.

      Remember DigitalResearch DOS (DRDos) ?

      https://www.theregister.co.uk/...

    104. Re: Boo hoo by Kvan · · Score: 4, Informative

      Mozilla regularly complain about Google shenanigans, see e.g. https://twitter.com/cpeterso/s...

      --

      "A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
      - 'K' in Men in Black.

    105. Re: Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      anyone can build it's own hw acc solution on windows.

    106. Re: Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol silverlight is the enemy of html5? dude use your brain to work out that at the time it was flash which was slow and introducing more vulnerbilities than any other plugins.

    107. Re: Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ain't is a contraction for "am not", not "is not".

    108. Re:Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what. We have plenty of mail, productivity, and everything else. If they want to remove all web access and make their services app-only, I couldn't care less. I will change provider in a heartbeat.

    109. Re: Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That shit drives me insane. They'll do it for IP addresses sometimes too.

      That plus the random bizarre hangs, and the browser committing suicide if you end task it (won't start again without a reboot), plus taking FOREVER to uninstall and reinstall, and needing major hacks to get that to work, and allowing malware sites to hijack the home page

      It's a serious joke

    110. Re: Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apples and oranges. Websites serve content and code. Browsers and operating systems run content and code. No content provider has ever been in trouble for choosing to favour a browser or for choosing to favour a operating system. If there was we wouldnt have os exclusive programs and websites would have got into trouble for making their sites ie4/5 viewable only. *youtube does not have to do anything for edge to make microsoft happy* just like websites did not have to support netscape if they didnt want to and microsoft doesnt not have to put office on linux if they dont want to and microsoft is allowed to make games that are directx only which is only available on windows.

    111. Re:Boo hoo by etash · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. Live streaming in youtube (with camera) requires hangouts which is chrome only. There are other examples as well.

    112. Re:Boo hoo by mapkinase · · Score: 2

      Firefox is the last light in the "true" open-source, multi-platform, modern browser era

      You omitted the most important thing. It's the _last_ prominent browser that is open to all adblockers.

      Screw Google, screw Microsoft, screw Apple.

      When and if they take last adblocker from my hand, the only website on the Internet I am going to visit will be my bank, my work and moonsighting.com (it is already infested with everything and looks like nightmare without blockers, but I will go there at least twice a year, no matter what)

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    113. Re:Boo hoo by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Sorry but both you and the GP are wildly off base with the allegations. In every case that has been claimed so far to be unfair the result has actually been either completely standards compliant or a fist full of workarounds to ensure compatibility is retained.

      Right here we're talking about Edge crapping it's poorly designed hardware acceleration because of the presence of a perfectly standards compliant div in the code that doesn't affect Firefox in the slightest and just shows that MS again was coding to the artificial benchmark rather than to the standard.

      What else do we have? Oh that's right the (couple of randoms) in Mozilla earlier this year who claimed Google was deliberately slowing down Firefox on Maps by presenting them with different code, ignoring the fact that some of the functionality in their browser then failed when they pretended to be Chrome.

      This is the exact opposite of what you are saying. But hey if it suits your religion then continue your rant.

    114. Re:Boo hoo by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Chrome has decimated Firefox's market share- and most of it undeserved.

      Err no. Firefox has decimated Firefox's market share. Years of ignoring users, not fixing bugs, breaking compatibility all of that has had much larger affect on Firefox than anything Google has done, save for a bit of advertising.

      Ask yourselves if there is really any good reason now to "automatically" install Chrome on machines or recommend it to friends and family. If not, consider making it Firefox.

      You landed in a happy period. RIGHT NOW, no there's no good reason to default to Chrome over Firefox. That certainly has not at all been the case in the past 5 years. Firefox finally caught up.

    115. Re:Boo hoo by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      all the missing features suddenly appeared and were working with no issues

      Oh? To what level did you test? Did you see something pop up and then give it the thumbs up and declare success? Did you verify that what Google was rendering was recognised and supported in Firefox and not experimental?

      The reason I ask is simple: Every other documented example of what you describe was actually done for a reason, for example the outrage earlier this year that different code is presented to Firefox for Maps vs Chrome. End result is that Firefox was faster when it pretended to be Chrome, and yet some minor part of the functionality (specifically in the interaction with map planning) broke, though these were desktops examples not mobile examples.

      Firefox mobile is (IMO) a bucket of shit and I'm not surprised that sites send it custom HTML.

    116. Re: Boo hoo by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Except then IE6 was the big fish and they could enforce it and now it's Google and they do it.

      Why you blame Microsoft in both cases / not Google now... Well I guess that's just intellectual dishonesty.

    117. Re: Boo hoo by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Then again what's the problem with optimizing performance for YouTube videos consider what a large part of the Internet they are?

    118. Re: Boo hoo by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Except Chrome is one of Google's data miners.

    119. Re: Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you cite which sites don't work with Edge please ?

      I use Edge on my work computer daily and I haven't noticed much of a difference with other browsers, at least not with the sites I use.

      Maybe it has to do with the fact that it's Chromium based (which admittedly I didn't even know), but it is much better than IE.

    120. Re:Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bad part is not that they are doing it - it is that I don't see that many people criticizing them for doing it. While Microsoft did the same back in the 90's and early 2000's - everybody knew that what they were doing was evil, uncompetitive behavior. There weren't many people that would defend their behavior - except maybe, select few Microsoft employees. What is shocking is not that Google's behavior is the same - it is that nobody seems to care.

      Even worse, people will blindly accept anything from Google just because "Google is not evil". The trend is even worse with Apple fans.

    121. Re:Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's true, but it doesn't make it anyhow better, just because it is Google, not Microsoft, that is doing it.

      It is bad for the browser market and it will affect not only Microsoft, but other browsers too. Microsoft will figure a way around it - they did already, simply by incorporating Chromium into Edge (most users wouldn't actually care which engine is in their browser). However, everyone seems to agree that if Firefox does the same, it would be the end of Firefox. Their user base is different from Edge's userbase and most Firefox users will simply go for Chrome if they are going to use Chromium anyways So I would say this anticompetitive behavior will affect Firefox worse than Microsoft.

      Google IS the modern day Microsoft.

      What happened to "Don't be evil" ?

    122. Re:Boo hoo by markdavis · · Score: 1

      You omitted the most important thing. It's the _last_ prominent browser that is open to all adblockers.

      And on the topic of ads and conflict of interest... It is already interesting that Google refuses to allow Chrome to block *ALL* autoplaying video... it allows playing muted video no matter what you try. And I doubt that will change. Firefox, on the other hand, does allow blocking all autoplaying video.

      I don't think Google is bold enough YET to take ad blocking away. But you can bet they are not happy about it and will chip away at what can be blocked and how and try to find secret ways to monetize around it, under it, through it.

    123. Re: Boo hoo by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Believe it or not, it seems that MS really learned their lesson.

      The only lessons that Microsoft ever learn is how to become sneakier and dirtier.

      Of course, I imagine it's just a whole lot easier to carry on the MS hate than it is to actually pause and take a look...

      No, it's easier to cast off anything to do with Microsoft and get on with life without them. They had their chance and blew it, and I have zero sympathy with them being on the worse side of tactics that they invented themselves. I have neither the time nor inclination to go back and check whether there is anything worthwhile mixed in with the heap of shit that Microsoft look like from where I am now standing.

    124. Re: Boo hoo by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Mostly because Google follows the Written HTML standards much better. The stuff I write now works good on Edge, Chrome and Firefox. I am not trying to mix in IE Compatibility layers or cutting features because it wasn't supported. Google may have pushed and implemented such standards, but they are Open Standards, unlike IE 6, with Active X or Sliverfish plugins. Which you needed That browser version with particular version of windows for it to work.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    125. Re: Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the vast amount of CSS3 that it doesn't support.

    126. Re:Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Why would an empty div tag disable hardware acceleration?

    127. Re: Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying what Google did is ethical? Are it's unethical but it's ok because Microsoft has done the same thing? They can both be wrong you know.

    128. Re:Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok as long as they specifically screw with MS - that can be considered 'revenge'. Too bad if they do this to any competitor though.

    129. Re:Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do we really want a monoculture in web browsers?

    130. Re: Boo hoo by dnwheeler · · Score: 1

      Except this time, the repeating is being done by Google instead of Microsoft.

    131. Re: Boo hoo by mark-t · · Score: 1

      "vast"? Not really.... yes, there's a lot it doesn't support, but that's because CSS3 itself is pretty vast, and most of what it doesn't support isn't the stuff that is commonly used.

      I'm not saying it's not a shortfall or that they don't need to worry about it, but nitpicking about how it doesn't handle 50% of the cases that only occur 5% of the time is still blowing the matter into something far bigger than it needs to be.

    132. Re: Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did we read the same post? To me, he seems to be saying that what Google did is horrible, but that Microsoft is an unsympathetic victim, as they did the same thing earlier.

    133. Re: Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, edge runs on bsod.

      Thank you I'll be here all week.

    134. Re:Boo hoo by alexo · · Score: 1

      Every other documented example of what you describe was actually done for a reason

      Market dominance is a reason.

    135. Re:Boo hoo by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Microsoft has to learn how to make software like everyone else. You need to keep compatibility with the big fish, and not just do your own thing, and thinking everyone will switch to your method.

      I am sorry, I had to code too many IE 6 workarounds and not put in new features due to having to keep IE 6 compatibility for so long, I have no sympathy to this Edge engineer.

      So you blame the Edge engineer for the IE engineer's actions from 20 years ago - but you don't blame Google for doing pretty much the same what MS did 20 years ago. You are my hero! No, wait - you are Google's bitch!

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    136. Re: Boo hoo by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      I would say that the allegations from a MS intern may not be up to the same level of maliciousness that MS did. Even if we believe that Google made changes to screw MS, the exact examples cited show more of a flaw in Edge than anything else. Adding a hidden div shouldn't break a browser as that's a HTML standard. Google didn't add a new HTML code word that only works with Chrome. Other browsers like Firefox and Safari seem to handle it. Or Edge tried to bake in performance and highly specific shortcuts that were so fragile that any changes would affect them. My opinion is that the later is probably more true as Edge was way behind functionality of other browsers and tried a bunch of shortcuts to leap ahead like hard coding performance use cases.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    137. Re: Boo hoo by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Or Google subtly exposing Edge's performance claims for what they were: highly specific use cases that don't withstand changes. I don't know why Google would add a hidden div but there are not the only website that might add one. Edge's claims of superior performance would be meaningless as it requires websites to never change their code.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    138. Re: Boo hoo by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      From my past experience, Edge had a long way to catch up to other browsers. Maybe they have by now; however, it seemed to me that while trying to catch up, MS baked in a bunch of shortcuts just to pass specific tests. I wouldn't put it past MS to do that to that specific compatibility test. If the test was changed in any way, it wouldn't surprise me if Edge failed badly while the other browsers passed.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    139. Re: Boo hoo by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      They did a lot shadier shit than that (and still do,) I was citing the thing they got nailed for.

    140. Re: Boo hoo by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      How is it illegal market control? Be specific. Considering if someone could switch to Firefox or Safari or Opera and not experience problems maybe the problem with how Edge was designed.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    141. Re: Boo hoo by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Those behaviors were specially listed in the judgement against them. So, no, integrating IE into the system wasn't the only thing they wrong. Their actions against Java could have been a separate legal case.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    142. Re: Boo hoo by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Yes, when Edge first came out it was quite far behind in compatibility. Take a look at the html5 compatibility page I referred to above, however... you will see just how far Edge has come. It's actually apparently playing leapfrog with Firefox nowadays, with each successive version of each being ever so slightly more compliant than the latest version of the other browser.

      They both have a long way to catch up to Chrome, however.

      My point remains. Edge seems to be pretty darn respectable now... and quite comparable to Firefox in terms of overall compatibility.

    143. Re:Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just think that it is MS incompetent. If MS really follows the standard, then any changes like in the example the guy gave should not break their implementation. If something can be easily broken by adding a simple empty div into the page, it tells you that MS is hard-coding something which may not follow the standard. Don't you think?

    144. Re:Boo hoo by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Not only is the phrasing hilarious but I wonder how it even passed the Slashdot repetition filter.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    145. Re:Boo hoo by jbr439 · · Score: 1

      ...Of course I didn't RTFA, so I can't really say which is which.

      Please get with the program. You're supposed to not RTFA and then provide a strongly worded opinion and become belligerent when challenged on it. Sheeesh.

    146. Re:Boo hoo by grumpyman · · Score: 1

      Haven't seen Bill Gate cyborg logo for a while... need a new one from Pichai.

    147. Re:Boo hoo by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      A simple "we didn't test" would have sufficed.

    148. Re: Boo hoo by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      I'd take you for your word, but you shitpost on just about every thread I post in, so gonna need sources proving that there was only 1 case which went against them and it included all those things along with the integration.

    149. Re: Boo hoo by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Sounds like garden variety plausible deniability, nothing more.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    150. Re: Boo hoo by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      I have shown that you're flat out wrong or lying many, many times. You've refused to believe it when presented proof even for verifiable facts like the number of nuclear missiles in a country's arsenal. Why would this time be any different? For reference there is this thing called that you somehow refuse to use.

      Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5, 1999, which stated that Microsoft's dominance of the x86-based personal computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly, and that Microsoft had taken actions to crush threats to that monopoly, including Apple, Java, Netscape, Lotus Software, RealNetworks, Linux, and others.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    151. Re: Boo hoo by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Yeah, maybe that Edge is decent now. I have the choice among 5 browsers: Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Opera, and Edge. Unless Edge has some feature that is head and shoulders above the others, I'm not going to give it a second look.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    152. Re:Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not nearly the same thing. On one hand, you are upset that Microsoft didn't change IE 6 fast enough. The other is talking about how quickly google is changing YouTube, and its nearly impossible to both update Edge and then roll it out to everyone, especially to people like you who turn off updates.

    153. Re:Boo hoo by Rujiel · · Score: 2

      And now google is screwing over Firefox as well on its websites, you're happy now since you didn't give a shit when it was happening to a different vendor. Google's monopolistic urges here should on principle not be seen as a good thing.

    154. Re: Boo hoo by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      I have shown that you're flat out wrong or lying many, many times

      Nope, you've just shown you have a passion for following my comments and trying to detract from them (badly.)

    155. Re:Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So did Google also sabotage Microsoft products so edge doesn't work correctly with Sharepoint?

      Because I don't even use edge at work because it doesn't work with Sharepoint.

    156. Re: Boo hoo by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      I have again provided proof that you are completely wrong. And yet again all you've done is claim something without any sort of proof that was both wrong and easily verifiable. And yet again you deny the evidence. Seems like you are a denier.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    157. Re: Boo hoo by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      You keep claiming that, but you haven't.

    158. Re: Boo hoo by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Yes I have. You have yet to provide any single reference or link even when pressed for evidence. But you demand everyone else provide evidence. And then you deny anything that is presented to you. You are a denier. I'm surprise you haven't demanded proof the Earth is round yet.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    159. Re: Boo hoo by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 0

      Yes I have.

      Yet you haven't.

    160. Re: Boo hoo by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Please explain how every single link I've provided isn't good enough. Or is anything never good enough, denier.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    161. Re: Boo hoo by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 0

      You keep talking.

  2. Yes, we can imagine by NaCh0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can you imagine if all of a sudden ________ apps start performing better than anyone else's?

    Yes we can. Ask the DR-DOS team.

    1. Re:Yes, we can imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Right. This is exactly what MS did in the 90s and we still have the emails from Gates to prove they knew what they were doing and did it intentionally to harm the competition. If Google is doing this, they're taking a page right out of MS's playbook.

    2. Re:Yes, we can imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask Netscape team... oh yes, with Microsoft Internet Explorer.

      karma?

    3. Re:Yes, we can imagine by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Informative

      And speaking of trying out proprietary technologies in your own browser, we all remember Active X and IE HTML extensions and Frontpage server side extensions.

      This whole thing is bollocks anyway. Google isn't breaking sites in other browsers like Microsoft did, the are just developing new tech that eventually they propose as a standard if it works out. And the YouTube "attack" on Edge sounds more like a bug, especially since they fixed it in an update. Likely the Edge code was brittle and heavily optimized to win battery benchmarks at the expense of compatibility, i.e. it was tuned to YouTube so specifically that the addition of an invisible div broke it.

      Jog on Microsoft.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Yes, we can imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you imagine if all of a sudden Google apps start performing better than anyone else's?

      Someone call a Waaaaaabulance for Crybaby McPoopy-Pantz! Misroshit’s pulled that same trick for years! How’s it feel, BITCHES?

    5. Re:Yes, we can imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Can you imagine if all of a sudden ________ apps start performing better than anyone else's?

      Yes we can. Ask the DR-DOS team.

      The WordPerfect team would agree.

    6. Re:Yes, we can imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "DOS isn't done 'til Lotus won't run."

      Cry me a fucking river, Microsoft.

    7. Re:Yes, we can imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, that's what the whole "living standard" malarky is all about.

      It's the browser wars all over again, just with google as king of the hill this time. But they don't have the moral high ground, just like microsoft didn't when they fucked over ECMA and ISO for their "ooxml" abortion. So microsoft took a few risks too many with "edge". They aren't so great on code robustness seeing their problems on windows, anyway. So they're trying to get back at google by co-opting google's own source. Apart from the loss of face, it might be a good strategy, or backfire horribly, depending on just how devious and low google is willing to stoop.

      Either way, as far as I'm concerned, both are welcome to burn for their crimes.

    8. Re:Yes, we can imagine by ron_ivi · · Score: 4, Informative
      If anyone missed the DR-DOS history, this is a good summary: https://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/11/05/how_ms_played_the_incompatibility/

      "It's pretty clear we need to make sure Windows 3.1 only runs on top of MS DOS or an OEM version of it," and "The approach we will take is to detect dr 6 and refuse to load. The error message should be something like 'Invalid device driver interface.'" Microsoft had several methods of detecting and sabotaging the use of DR-DOS with Windows,

      ...

      Allchin replied: "You should make sure it has problems in the future. :-)",

      ...

      Silverberg replied: "What the guy is supposed to do is feel uncomfortable, and when he has bugs, suspect that the problem is dr-dos and then go out to buy ms-dos. or decide to not take the risk for the other machines he has to buy for in the office."

    9. Re:Yes, we can imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you imagine if all of a sudden ________ apps start performing better than anyone else's?

      Yes we can. Ask the DR-DOS team.

      I was just going to say that....

    10. Re:Yes, we can imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Attitudes like this are basically the reason people are going to pissed in about 10 more years when Google really is the new Microsoft. We have the chance to fix the issue now, but people like you are too obsessed with rubbing Microsoft's nose in the dirt over 15+ year old mistakes to realize you're enabling Google to do the exact same shit.

    11. Re:Yes, we can imagine by Luthair · · Score: 1

      The Youtube thing reminds me of a post by a Chrome developer where he talked about Chrome removing optimizations which were targeted at very specific behaviour in benchmarks. To me this sounds like Edge included code in order to very specifically improve performance on an iteration of Youtube's site, obviously its slightly different as its a site users actually use but as Microsoft's Edge team was also making battery life comparisons its also misleading if the improvements don't apply to every site with video.

    12. Re:Yes, we can imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Except that's not what actually happened.

      When Windows 3.1 was in Beta, Microsoft put in some code that displayed an error message if you weren't running Microsoft's own MS-DOS. But all it did was display an error message. You could just ignore it and Win 3.1 would still run -- I was running DR-DOS at the time and it worked just fine.

      A few beta testers were using DR-DOS and word got out that Microsoft had done something to prevent people from using anything other than MS-DOS. In the official retail release of Win 3.1 Microsoft changed the code and deactivated the error message. It was still in there but didn't display. You could activate it by using a hex editor to change a couple of bytes.

    13. Re:Yes, we can imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They certainly *are* breaking sites in other browsers. They didn't just "improve" YouTube for Chrome recently, they made it inferior on other browsers that didn't support their new "standards". They didn't just build Hangouts to a new standard, they built it to a pre-standard and never updated the damn thing afterward. Then they didn't bother fixing Chrome or Hangouts, and the net result was that the service never worked on browsers that DID adopt the actual final standard. They even push experimental tech like QUIC on their own services and browser, which gives them a false advantage over competing services and browsers, unless they do exactly what Google wants them to do. Hell, they never even pushed to fix the -webkit prefix problem that they inherited from WebKit. They didn't even bother documenting those pre-standard pieces of junk. Then, after years of that devil-may-care attitude, the web was stuck with those hacks. They've done the same for quirks in broadly accepted standards even, up to and including Flexbox.

      Theirs is not harmless, benevolent behavior. Google are not really friends of the web. The Blink team may try to be, and Google they have other great minds working there who genuinely care about these things, but Google ain't letting them be responsible web citizens. They do at least as much harm as they do good, whether through action or inaction.

    14. Re:Yes, we can imagine by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Fix what issue? Should Google stop developing new technology? A lot of the improvements to the standards have come from Google and other doing this kind of work. HTTP3 is based on Google technology that was pioneered with Chrome and Google sites, and it's excellent.

      Microsoft's stuff was closed source proprietary bug-ridden crap. Lack of support broke sites, while Google is careful to ensure that sites work fine in other browsers. Remember when you couldn't download stuff from Microsoft.com because it needed IE?

      What exactly has Google done wrong here?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re:Yes, we can imagine by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      A slightly less good site that still works, all because your browser doesn't support the features needed to provide the more advanced stuff, isn't breaking sites for other browsers. And in this case the guy is complaining that YouTube "broke" by stopping their brittle power optimizations from working by adding an invisible div - does that sound like robust production ready and standards compliant code?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    16. Re:Yes, we can imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rubbing Microsoft's nose in the dirt over 15+ year old mistakes

      Mistakes? That isn't what you call something done on purpose.

      Microsoft's mistake in this case was thinking that they could release a browser update every few months instead of every few weeks. Anyway, Microsoft is a big company and they could easily dedicate twice as many or even ten times as many developers to Edge if they wanted to, but the truth is that they don't want to. A browser isn't going to make Microsoft any money, at least not directly.

    17. Re:Yes, we can imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google isn't breaking sites in other browsers like Microsoft did

      Youtube runs on the prototype shadow DOM v0 API in Chrome, in all other browsers it runs in a slower fallback mode. Notably all other browsers support the finalized shadow DOM v1 API and even the framework Youtube uses for its frontend has long since moved to shadow DOM v1, youtube just never upgraded to it. The shadow dom API was designed by Google, the framework used by Youtube was designed by Google and despite every other browser vendor bending over backwards to integrate Googles crap you still get treated as a second class user if you aren't felating Googles chrome dick directly.

    18. Re: Yes, we can imagine by bursch-X · · Score: 1

      That is exactly what pisses me off about people so nonchalantly brushing this off as karma. I am (still holding on as) an Apple fan, and there is a lot of pleasure I find in seeing Microsoft being beaten at their own game. But I am also the first to acknowledge how much they have changed. Yes, their products still suck in my eyes, but all of their past sins do not make it OK for Google to go down the same path. Google are now just as evil and fucked up as MS was under Gates.

      --
      There are two rules for success:
      1. Never tell everything you know.
    19. Re:Yes, we can imagine by WaffleMonster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Fix what issue? Should Google stop developing new technology? A lot of the improvements to the standards have come from Google and other doing this kind of work. HTTP3 is based on Google technology that was pioneered with Chrome and Google sites, and it's excellent.

      HTTP3 is Google wrestling control over the remaining part of the stack Google doesn't have full ownership over.

      You might think pushing congestion control out to user space where Google has intentionally given themselves a 2x advantage over TCP is "excellent". When I look at that it's nothing more than a pure power grab for self-serving reasons actively harmful to everyone else.

      There is nothing substantive HTTP3 brings to the table TFO+TLS 1.3 does not already provide.

      Microsoft's stuff was closed source proprietary bug-ridden crap. Lack of support broke sites, while Google is careful to ensure that sites work fine in other browsers. Remember when you couldn't download stuff from Microsoft.com because it needed IE?

      How is memory lane at all relevant to the issue at hand? Microsoft sucks or sucked or whatever therefore ... what? Google gets a pass?

      What exactly has Google done wrong here?

      *IF* the assertions are true Google intentionally leveraged it's monopoly position to intentionally sabotage other browsers to get more people to switch to Chrome.

    20. Re:Yes, we can imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing to see here. Move along. Google clearly does no evil!

    21. Re:Yes, we can imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nothing to see here. Google clearly does no evil. They clearly had a good reason for an empty div tag. Move along.

    22. Re:Yes, we can imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that's not what actually happened.

      When Windows 3.1 was in Beta, Microsoft put in some code that displayed an error message if you weren't running Microsoft's own MS-DOS.

      word got out that Microsoft had done something to prevent people from using anything other than MS-DOS. In the official retail release of Win 3.1 Microsoft changed the code and deactivated the error message.

      In other words, it is basically what happened. Microsoft was well along doing exactly what was described above, poisoning Windows for DR DOS users. (As I recall things, they obfuscated the fake-error-tripping code so it wouldn't be easily found.) As you say, they got caught in the act so quickly swept it under the rug. "Nothing to see here. Move along."

    23. Re:Yes, we can imagine by tbird20d · · Score: 4, Informative

      Your experience was not representative of the full effect. I was at Novell at the time, and helped reverse-engineer some of the techniques Microsoft used to scare Windows users away from DR-DOS. I personally witnessed the deposition with the Microsoft engineer who wrote the code to show the messages (in Caldera's anti-trust case against Microsoft). This code appeared in more than just the beta, and DR-DOS did not work just fine. I saw evidence (from legal discovery) about how Microsoft stealthily undermined developers who wrote drivers for DR-DOS (driving at least one out of business). Microsoft's crusade against DR-DOS was intentional, and NOT slight or benign.

    24. Re:Yes, we can imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      HTTP2 is a piece of shit and everything has gotten worse, not better, thanks to stupid people who love change for the sake of change. Microsoft is indeed filth, but how you could praise Google's overcomplicated binary extensions to what should be a *SIMPLE* text-based protocol is truly disgusting. You must be desperate to eagerly welcome such shoddy, inferiour rubbish into your midst. You're fucking trash and I bet your life reflects that.

    25. Re:Yes, we can imagine by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While there's probably no doubt Google is trying to take over the browser market, this "We built our web browser so it will be especially fast when rendering YouTube, and Google broke it by adding a hidden element to a webpage" argument is a spectacularly bad example.

      Bear in mind what the Edge engineer is tacitly admitting here: Microsoft tried to cheat on a benchmark. They optimized the entire browser to render ONE popular website REALLY REALLY well, and their optimizations were so specific that the entire house of cards collapsed when Google added a single element, an element that wasn't even visible. So, they cheated, Google changed something, and suddenly Edge was rendering YouTube with the same performance it would render everyone else's video website.

      Let's focus on real examples of Google breaking standards or favoring those Chrome supports over better supported standards, not Microsoft trying to cheat on benchmarks and Google fucking it up for them.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    26. Re:Yes, we can imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that I disagree.

      But given the popularity of YouTube, it does make pretty good sense to highly tune for it.

    27. Re:Yes, we can imagine by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      They didn't just "improve" YouTube for Chrome recently, they made it inferior on other browsers that didn't support their new "standards"

      Technically yes, but I'd question however that anyone not holding a stop watch can really tell the difference between YT on Firefox and YT on Chrome. I flit between the two, as I use Firefox on my personal desktops, and I use a Chromebook. I can't honestly say I've ever been watching videos in Firefox and thought to myself "Oh my god, this sucks, clearly something is broken".

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    28. Re:Yes, we can imagine by AndrewFlagg · · Score: 1

      yep.

    29. Re:Yes, we can imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the book, "Undocumented DOS", the code that m$ added to detect drdos and display random error messages was xor encrypted, and unencrypted in memory before being executed. M$ knew they were up to evil and were trying to hide it.

    30. Re:Yes, we can imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is Google going to do? Create the next IE6? (Actually, the next IE6 is and has been Safari, especially on iOS.) Even if Google did create the next IE6 and it just sits stagnant for half a decade, it isn't as if somebody else can pick up the source and continue with it.

      Oh look, somebody DID pick up the source.

    31. Re:Yes, we can imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see someone doesn't like being called out as a liar. It's also apparent that squiggleslash is not only a Microsoft apologist, but also moderates via sockpuppets.

    32. Re:Yes, we can imagine by geekymachoman · · Score: 1

      > rubbing Microsoft's nose in the dirt over 15+ year old mistake

      Right. Mistakes that slowed down progress of technology for the sake of Microsoft dominance and greed. Fuck Microsoft forever for the irreversible damage they caused to the world, and their stupid browser that slows down if somebody puts a hidden div in the page.

      And fuck anybody that defends such ultimate expression of evil that just change their face now because they realize they can't just blatantly bully everybody around them anymore.

      Google, same shit, but nowhere near what Microsoft was doing to literally extinguish all innovation for the sake of ultimate dominance.

    33. Re:Yes, we can imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely. Optimizations that break down because a hidden element... typical "state of the art" quality from Microsoft.

    34. Re:Yes, we can imagine by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      How is creating an open, patent and licence free standard, with free and open implementation (BSD) and presenting it to the W3 for ratification "wrestling control"?

      By that logic then half the technologies that have been powering the web for decades are just a power grab. Javascript worked out really well for Netscape.

      And how is putting congestion control in the client a power grab? Surely it allows other browsers to implement their own even better schemes and creates the competition and innovation that will drive everyone forward.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    35. Re:Yes, we can imagine by ChoGGi · · Score: 1

      It's the browser wars all over again, just with google as king of the hill this time.

      It sounds like you're comparing the open-source Chromium browser to the closed-source Internet Explorer bullshit Microsoft pulled?

      If part of your web browser breaks from the addition of a div element to a website, then maybe Microsoft shouldn't be developing a web browser?

    36. Re:Yes, we can imagine by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You might think pushing congestion control out to user space where Google has intentionally given themselves a 2x advantage over TCP is "excellent". When I look at that it's nothing more than a pure power grab for self-serving reasons actively harmful to everyone else.

      There is nothing substantive HTTP3 brings to the table TFO+TLS 1.3 does not already provide.

      Make up your mind, is it 2x faster, or just the same?

    37. Re:Yes, we can imagine by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      *IF* the assertions are true Google intentionally leveraged it's monopoly position to intentionally sabotage other browsers to get more people to switch to Chrome.

      And yet if the assertions are true then this was facilitated by the means of the other browser falling over when presented with completely standards compliant code.

      I see little doubt that Google did it to punish Edge.
      I also see little doubt that Edge was designing to the benchmark rather than designing something that is able to work with standards compliant code.

    38. Re:Yes, we can imagine by beuges · · Score: 1

      It sounds a lot less straightforward than that to me. I (obviously) haven't RTFA but from the summary, it sounds like the addition of the empty div over the video frame caused Edge's hardware acceleration to suffer, which makes perfect sense. If there's an element over the video, then that element could have content in it, which means the video area can't be hardware accelerated because there's potentially additional content to be overlaid on top of the video. That overlay will have to happen in software, meaning switching over to software rendering, losing the hardware acceleration and the performance improvements that come along with it.

      You can't even decide to drop the empty div, because with today's sites that are driven entirely by javascript, who knows if that div will at some point include content that must be rendered? From the sounds of it, this div is doing nothing of the sort, which means that it was maliciously added by YouTube, especially if they're refusing to remove it despite it serving no purpose.

      I don't think MS is stupid enough to depend on the actual HTML structure of any site, since that can, and does, change at any time without notice. So it's more likely that Google is trying to cheat, because they can know if that div can be silently dropped or not, and can enable hardware acceleration where other browsers cannot.

      Nobody's saying Google is breaking standards, but it definitely does sound like they are deliberately trying to sabotage Edge's benchmark results, rather than Edge trying to cheat the benchmarks.

    39. Re:Yes, we can imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the problem nowdays - why everyone seemed to agree that Microsoft was anticompetitive back in the 90's, Google fanboys will do anything to defend their religion (same with Apple). And this is precisely why Google's behavior is much more dangerous than Microsoft's behavior back in the days. They can and will push almost anything to the public and everyone will praise them how innovative they are - while in fact they are destroying the little left of the open Internet. HTTP3 is a good example. But it's just the beginning - what do you think will Google do when the only browsers left are the ones running Chromium ?

    40. Re:Yes, we can imagine by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      people like you are too obsessed with rubbing Microsoft's nose in the dirt over 15+ year old mistakes

      By "mistakes" you mean "dirty tricks", and Microsoft did not cease playing them 15 years ago. They have never stopped playing dirty tricks.

    41. Re:Yes, we can imagine by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      You can't even decide to drop the empty div, because with today's sites that are driven entirely by javascript, who knows if that div will at some point include content that must be rendered?

      The empty div is on top the video player and is hidden. Is it capturing clicks on the video? Is it just an artifact of a framework update? Are there other examples of empty divs on Web sites floating on top things?

      It's also odd that the entire argument is over an empty div and not a slew of pattern behavior of Google sabotaging Edge.

    42. Re: Yes, we can imagine by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

      That is exactly what pisses me off about people so nonchalantly brushing this off as karma. I am (still holding on as) an Apple fan, and there is a lot of pleasure I find in seeing Microsoft being beaten at their own game.

      On this, we can agree. The Schadenfreude is delicious. It's kinda like when an obnoxious bully who picks on everyone gets his ass beaten by the new guy in school and he goes crying to the teacher.

      But I am also the first to acknowledge how much they have changed.

      Hold on there Hoss. If you want to know how much they've changed, just start your nearest Windows 10 or Windows 8 computer. Do you see that abominable interface? Do you see that horrible Metro/Modern app style? You see, that was Microsoft trying to leverage their rapidly fading desktop monopoly to shoehorn users into their mobile devices. Those are not the actions of a born again company. Even if you ignore the horribly broken installations every six months, the customer hating changes and the constant activation woes, you have to recognize that Microsoft has decided that their userbase is only only good for their own personal unpaid alpha and beta testers. No, Microsoft has not changed. While they may not be partnering with companies only to turn around and fuck them DriveSpace/DoubleSpace style, they are the same ruthless bunch they ever were.

      Yes, their products still suck in my eyes

      Once again, we agree here wholeheartedly.

      but all of their past sins do not make it OK for Google to go down the same path. Google are now just as evil and fucked up as MS was under Gates.

      Google would have to put out a lot of effort to be as evil as Microsoft once was and probably still is. People forget just how ruthless and corrupt Microsoft was; how much they bullied users, partners, competitors and allies alike. Don't think that IE/Netscape or even Media Player/Real Player was the worst of their actions. Those are just the ones that had mainstream publicity. Don't forget about the Microsoft requirement to OEMs for a license fee on all machines sold, not just the ones running Windows. Don't forget the $50 million "Baystar investment" to SCO/Caldera to scuttle Linux as it began hitting its stride or the Halloween documents. The list goes on and on and on.

      I know that Google hating is popular now, but TFA sounds like one of Microsoft's hot shot programmers whining about Microsoft's own shortcomings in their web rendering engine while wanting to place the blame on someone else. Given the current state of Windows and the fantastic, most recent 10.09 update, I'd tend to chalk it up to incompetence on Microsoft's part rather than malice on Google's part.

    43. Re:Yes, we can imagine by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      How is creating an open, patent and licence free standard, with free and open implementation (BSD) and presenting it to the W3 for ratification "wrestling control"?

      By that logic then half the technologies that have been powering the web for decades are just a power grab. Javascript worked out really well for Netscape.

      You are making an argument on procedural grounds and using it to make assumptions about outcomes. If x was created via y then x must be good or bad. What matters is the effect x has on the real world.

      Buy-in from other stakeholders (OS vendors) who own stream protocols and associated IETF standards are being bypassed entirely to enable a single company with end to end control over a huge percentage of clients, servers and now transport to push out any change they want without attaining permission or having to coordinate with other stakeholders. If Google wants to turn the screws even more on ICW, CUBIC like parameters they now have the power to do it unilaterally and nobody can do shit about it.

      And how is putting congestion control in the client a power grab? Surely it allows other browsers to implement their own even better schemes and creates the competition and innovation that will drive everyone forward.

      It's a blatant and obvious conflict of Interest. Google measures milliseconds in terms of millions of dollars in revenue. You don't give someone this kind of power and expect them to behave themselves. It's piss poor governance with an obvious predictable outcome we have already seen materialize. It's not like they invented some new better congestion algorithm. They are using the same exact algorithm found in most TCP stacks.. just with tweaked parameters to be twice as aggressive because THEY CAN.

      If you need another example of piss poor governance in action. Just look at what Google is doing to Firefox. They intentionally sabotage search interface on mobile versions of Firefox. You have to install an extension to change the user agent for search to be usable. Alphabet's objective function is to make money. They have demonstrated themselves to not be beyond unfairly leveraging their market position to achieve their aims.

      Congestion avoidance is like insurance. Nobody wants to pay premiums but everyone wants the benefits. Everyone would choose to pay less if they were able to. What Google is doing is doing is paying 2x less for insurance and not only expecting the same benefits as everyone else but getting priority service to boot as QUIC drowns TCP in a congested environment.

    44. Re:Yes, we can imagine by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      You might think pushing congestion control out to user space where Google has intentionally given themselves a 2x advantage over TCP is "excellent". When I look at that it's nothing more than a pure power grab for self-serving reasons actively harmful to everyone else.

      There is nothing substantive HTTP3 brings to the table TFO+TLS 1.3 does not already provide.

      Make up your mind, is it 2x faster, or just the same?

      This is a common misunderstanding that I try and clear up below. Personally I don't think most people really have a handle on the scope of the problem QUIC presents.

      2x faster is not the same as 2x congestion advantage which is actually very much on the conservative side. Papers I've read where people have run simulations show over a bandwidth constrained link a single QUIC flow is able to consume twice the bandwidth of sum total of any number of concurrent TCP flows. For example a single QUIC stream downloading something runs at 2x the rate of the sum total of 4 TCP streams downloading other things on the same bandwidth constrained channel. That 1 QUIC download is 8x faster than the 1 TCP download. Some are confusing this result to understand that QUIC is 2x or 8x faster than TCP when this is a dangerously false assumption.

      Obviously this is a zero sum game. You ultimately can't go any faster than the underlying capacity of the communications channel no matter what you do. The ultimate goal is FAIR use of available channel capacity while maximizing throughput and minimizing latency between everything communicating.

      What you can do is be more aggressive than everyone else and drown them out in an evolution of war that serves no productive purpose and is actively harmful to users and the network broadly. War doesn't provide fair use of channel capacity it simply selfishly monopolizes it. This is the key difference. The ability for QUIC to drown out TCP doesn't make it better it just creates an evolution of war that doesn't need to exist in the first place. It doesn't increase capacity or help more people transmit more information.

      Unnecessary aggression is not actually an improvement in the same way aggressive driving rarely gets one to their destination in any meaningfully faster way. What it does do is significantly increase accident rates.

      Modern TCP is well designed and efficient. TFO addresses the major performance issue on the web today which is round trip latency from unnecessary round trips. All other issues are effectively rounding errors in the grand scheme of things. They too (e.g. tail loss) and more adaptive/predictive parameters can and have been addressed via improvements to implementations and TCP extensions. The daylight between QUIC and TCP over an unconstrained loss free channel without competition is rounding error.

    45. Re:Yes, we can imagine by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Obviously this is a zero sum game. You ultimately can't go any faster than the underlying capacity of the communications channel no matter what you do.

      That is obvious, but also only a problem on constrained networks. QUIC may not be the solution to my parent's ADSL, but what about my gigabit fibre to the home?

      Unnecessary aggression is not actually an improvement in the same way aggressive driving rarely gets one to their destination in any meaningfully faster way.

      Interesting comparison. There is a well researched phenomenon (that we even covered on Slashdot about 10ish years ago) that to make optimum use of infrastructure and flow the maximum number of people you need 30%-60% of people to drive aggressively depending on town planning and road designs of different countries.

      Modern TCP is well designed and efficient. TFO addresses the major performance issue on the web today which is round trip latency from unnecessary round trips.

      Indeed it does, but from what I've read on IETF presentations on the topic it relies on proper routing and handling of traffic between server and client and a there's a significant portion of TCP connections that despite attempting to be negotiated as fast open proceed to fall back due to network support. It's one fo the key benefits QUIC presents over TFO.

    46. Re:Yes, we can imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Google isn't breaking sites in other browsers like Microsoft did,"
      sure, that's why mozilla also have complained....

    47. Re:Yes, we can imagine by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      That is obvious, but also only a problem on constrained networks. QUIC may not be the solution to my parent's ADSL, but what about my gigabit fibre to the home?

      No difference of substance between TCP and QUIC on loss free unconstrained networks so no affirmative reason to use QUIC in this instance.

      Much of the world is stuck with wireless and assorted low bandwidth morbidly oversubscribed last mile. Gigabit to the home with a reasonable oversubscription ratio to actually support using it is currently very much an outlier. Of course the Internet itself isn't just limited by last mile.. tier-2 and tier-1 networks and associated long haul links are often constantly saturated as well. Best achievable performance is dictated by weakest link not last mile.

      To put it into perspective people who use the Internet for bulk data transfers often use a "trick" to move data. They don't move it all at once from point a to point b. What they do is move it regionally during times of low local utilization when everyone is sleeping and in doing so are able to transfer way more data in the aggregate per unit time than would be possible directly copying data across the Internet in one step.

      https://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/k...

      Interesting comparison. There is a well researched phenomenon (that we even covered on Slashdot about 10ish years ago) that to make optimum use of infrastructure and flow the maximum number of people you need 30%-60% of people to drive aggressively depending on town planning and road designs of different countries.

      Only intent was to convey an example of the idea of aggression leading to suboptimal outcomes.

      Dynamics of road networks at this level of detail don't map to the Internet which is way better engineered than road networks. The goal is to keep it that way. To prevent devolution of the Internet where road dynamics become applicable.

      In real life anyone can drive anywhere at any time regardless of capacity of road network. You can't delete cars from existence if there are too many drivers on the road. Unless you live in a dictatorship you can't do much to control when people chose to drive. It's chaos day in and day out with very little in the way substantively of usable congestion avoidance leading to predictable outcomes: millions stuck in daily rush hour bumper to bumper traffic.

      The Internet is way different. Each packet travels at the same speed. Number of packets on the road is dynamically controlled by the originator based on continuous feedback acting as proxy for current capacity of the network. Each node of the network performs some manner of queue management deleting packets from existence as thresholds are exceeded. As a result generally only the repercussions of having insufficient capacity to meet demand are felt rather than more dire outcome of congestion precipitating reduction of usable capacity.

      When you take away congestion avoidance or in this case eat into it with aggression and evolutions between competing actors to gain advantage the Internet not only devolves into uncontrolled, unmanaged roadways. The attempts to make up for data loss with aggressive policies can when taken too far create even more packets driving loss even further creating a feedback loop known as congestive collapse.

      What we should be doing is improving the network by creating mechanisms to provide better more unambiguous feedback so senders can make better estimations not participating in power grab evolutions that don't actually help anyone.

      Indeed it does, but from what I've read on IETF presentations on the topic it relies on proper routing and handling of traffic between server and client and a there's a significant portion of TCP connections that despite attempting to be negotiated as fast open proceed to fall back due to network support. It's one fo the key benefits QUIC pr

  3. I Believe It by SpaceForceCommander · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I believe this 100%. Google Docs has basically become unusable unless you're using Chrome.

    1. Re: I Believe It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Only sheeple store their files with NSA. Free people run their own little server.

      The googlers are communists at their heart and want to collectivize your IP. Moscovite elite commies.

    2. Re: I Believe It by Cito · · Score: 1

      Hehe amen... I use no "cloud" I hate that name btw, it's used like it's some "new" thing back when the name started being used everywhere... Network storage has existed since 60s... But I digress.

      Personally I use freenas for backups at home and for off-site stuff I own a colocated server which I run nextcloud for me and a friend. Luckily I own the box that is colocated. But even if I didn't have a Colo, I'd use freenas and/or nextcloud at home. I have my freenas box on a vlan so my systems have access but the box itself has no net access. I wouldn't trust another company with my files, especially free services where it's only free because you and your data are the commodity that is sold and traded.

    3. Re: I Believe It by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      how much does Microsoft pay for shilling these days? Do they pay in real money or Xbox credits?

    4. Re:I Believe It by LetterRip · · Score: 2

      I believe this 100%. Google Docs has basically become unusable unless you're using Chrome.

      It is fairly unusable within Chrome - any document more than a few pages is ridiculously slow to navigate and enter text into.

    5. Re: I Believe It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Office 365 is as evil, minus the Soros component.

      Run your own server and be a free man.

      Also ditch the windows 10 NSA keylogger.

    6. Re:I Believe It by ahadsell · · Score: 2

      I use FireFox, both mobile and desktop, and google docs and spreadsheets work fine for me. Haven't tried Slides recently but it worked fine the last time I did.

    7. Re:I Believe It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, stop using Google Docs. Clearly it's a broken mess. Of course, I could have told you that before you started. Go with Libreoffice or an older version of MS Office (I still have a copy of MS Office 2000). If you worry about collaboration...probably use a newer version of MS Office. That's about it.

    8. Re:I Believe It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe this 100%. Google Docs has basically become unusable unless you're using Chrome.

      It seems to work fine for me in Firefox. I have to use Docs/Sheets at work all the time and I haven't had any issues, other than it being kind of slow, but it's like that in Chrome too from what I've seen.

    9. Re:I Believe It by alexo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I use FireFox, both mobile and desktop, and google docs and spreadsheets work fine for me. Haven't tried Slides recently but it worked fine the last time I did.

      Open Google's image search in mobile Firefox.
      Then do it in mobile Chrome.
      See the difference in functionality?
      Now change Firefox's user agent to masquerade as Chrome.
      Suddenly the full functionality is back.

    10. Re: I Believe It by MicroSlut · · Score: 1

      So you use no "cloud?" No "hosted" services? No IMAP? No Web hosting? No QuickBooks online? No Gmail account? No Adobe online? No DNS registrar? No DDNS service? No server other than your own? Well good job, but I'm sure that's not for everybody.

    11. Re: I Believe It by Gorshkov · · Score: 1

      "On the internet" != "In the cloud"

    12. Re: I Believe It by Cito · · Score: 1

      I definitely know it's not for everyone, just saying maybe an option for some.

      For dns I use pihole at home, but I know owning a Colo server for nextcloud is not something most will do it is cheap and easy to run a NAS on your home network.

      Pihole can also be ran simply and free in a virtual machine if folks wanted to.

      It cost nothing to abandon 3rd party companies controlling your data and you can control it yourself.

      But I agree with you 100 percent not everyone will or does like more advanced users with "home labs". I was just wanting to point out its free or extremely cheap to do so yourself and it's so much more satisfying and just learning how to do so is a valuable skill itself.

      Just an opinion of course

    13. Re: I Believe It by MicroSlut · · Score: 1

      "Hosted Services" = "In the cloud" = "Someone else's computer". Where did I mention "On the Internet?"

    14. Re:I Believe It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe this 100%. Google Docs has basically become unusable unless you're using Chrome.

      Same with Google Earth on the desktop. Requires Chrome: https://www.google.com/earth/versions/

    15. Re: I Believe It by Gorshkov · · Score: 1

      Because you mentioned a bunch of internet services that have absolutely nothing to do with "the cloud".

      Do I use hosted services? No.
      Do I use IMAP? Yes.
      Do I use Web hosting? Nope.
      Do I use QuickBooks online? Nope
      Do I use Gmail? Yes.
      Di I use Adobe online? Nope
      Do I use a DNS registrar? Yes
      Do I use DDNS? No.

      But guess what? *I* don't use "the cloud". The point being that just because you use somebody else's service, does not mean you use "the cloud". Every one of those things you mentioned as examples existed before "the cloud" did. And just because some of those services may use or be cloud providers themselves does NOT mean that I also do. It's not transitive. My accountant has a housekeeper - that does not mean that I have one too.

    16. Re:I Believe It by Ormy · · Score: 1

      If someone has the good sense to use a FOSS browser, why are they still relying on google services when there are plenty of FOSS alternatives for every (useful) service that google offers? Or if not (e.g. youtube) there are useful (often FOSS) wrapper-apps that will let you view the google content without being tracked or subjected to tons of ads. For example for viewing youtube I use Newpipe (available on fdroid).

    17. Re:I Believe It by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Suddenly the full functionality is back.

      Now do a complete functional test of all features while masquerading as Chrome. I'll bet you a marsbar that it'll fail.

      Firefox mobile is a buggy piece of shit, it's no surprise that it is presented with a kids version of internet content. Although maybe that's changed. I gave up my open source zealotry and uninstalled it a few months ago.

    18. Re:I Believe It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's odd. I use it to write novels without much issue. Sure, it takes a little bit to load the pages, but after the initial delay it works well for my 400+ page stories. There's lots of "oops, we hate this computer" bugs in chrome lately.

  4. Embrace Extend Extinguish by Pentium100 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We may be seeing Microsoft getting a taste of its own medicine.

    1. Re:Embrace Extend Extinguish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And we should not be cheering. Bad for the web is bad for the web.

    2. Re:Embrace Extend Extinguish by Freischutz · · Score: 1

      We may be seeing Microsoft getting a taste of its own medicine.

      Satisfying as that may be, it still change Google into a bunch of hymn singing angels.

    3. Re:Embrace Extend Extinguish by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Except I have not had any of these problems with other non-google browsers such as with Firefox.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:Embrace Extend Extinguish by youngone · · Score: 1

      I suppose we are seeing Microsoft get a taste of their own medicine, and it feels weird.
      Remember when Microsoft were so dominant no-one would try messing with them? Times have changed.

    5. Re: Embrace Extend Extinguish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soros = Emanuel Goldstein

    6. Re:Embrace Extend Extinguish by Imazalil · · Score: 2

      Ah, do tell how you got Google Earth working in FF.

    7. Re:Embrace Extend Extinguish by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We may be seeing Microsoft getting a taste of its own medicine.

      So is it really okay if Google screws over other web browsers with Chrome-specific hacks, just because Microsoft did it a decade or so ago? Cuz in doing so, Google is also causing problems for people who aren't using Edge or Internet Explorer.

      I think if it was evil when Microsoft did it, it's also evil if Google does it.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    8. Re: Embrace Extend Extinguish by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      I think you misspelled Koch Brothers there (/clippy)

    9. Re:Embrace Extend Extinguish by markdavis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >"Satisfying as that may be, it still change Google into a bunch of hymn singing angels."

      Exactly. Which is why it is more important than ever to support Mozilla Firefox. We absolutely do NOT want to end up with Google in control of everything.... any more than what we dealt with when Microsoft was ruining the web.

      There was a time when Chrome pulled ahead of Firefox in performance. That time ended. It is a good time to switch to or switch back to Firefox. You will have web-standards-based browsing on all platforms, open source, open development team, just as many addons, but with more user control and customization.

    10. Re:Embrace Extend Extinguish by Pentium100 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, but it's like seeing the previous dictator swinging on a rope, put there by the new dictator who is exactly the same. The state of the things didn't change, but the good feeling of "an asshole getting what was coming to them" is still there.

    11. Re:Embrace Extend Extinguish by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      We may be seeing Microsoft getting a taste of its own medicine.

      Well whoop-de-doo.

      I mean don't get me wrong. the old 90s era Micro$oft basher in me feels some sense of glee at them getting their comeuppance. But there's a bit of a problem here. While they are getting a taste of their own medicine, we're also getting a taste of their medicine all over again.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    12. Re:Embrace Extend Extinguish by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Yep, they are BOTH jerks for doing such. Microsoft probably cannot publicly complain about it because their hypocrisy would be readily pointed out. It's kind of like Trump making fun of Kim J.U.'s hair.

    13. Re:Embrace Extend Extinguish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why we can't have nice things. It feels good to replace an evil dictator with a more evil dictator, so you are happy. I don't like Microsoft AT ALL but this shit is not ok. You should have a sick feeling that we are going to have an ever increasing amount of evil, even if Google gets replaced by god knows who.

    14. Re:Embrace Extend Extinguish by DarkRookie2 · · Score: 2

      But Firefox looks to be heading the same direction.
      They already look like Chrome, and behave like Chrome
      They are a rendering engine away from Chrome.

      Which is why I stop using it after 56.

      --
      http://progressquest.com/spoltog.php?name=Son+Of+Son+Of+DarkRookie
    15. Re:Embrace Extend Extinguish by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"But Firefox looks to be heading the same direction. They already look like Chrome, and behave like Chrome. They are a rendering engine away from Chrome."

      The default look of Firefox has been Chromified, no doubt. And by that, I mean the menus and "minimalistic" approach and the forced tabs-on-top. However, most of it is surface. Many users, me included, were able to remediate many of the changes we didn't want because Firefox is still much more configurable. Example- a simple user-chrome was all it took to get tabs back on the bottom (where they belong). Turning the top menus back on is also simple with no hacking, as is restoring the separate back/forward/home/reload button and the leading "http://" stuff. And as the newer API's for the UI start to resurface, even more things should be possible (with addons).

      >"Which is why I stop using it after 56."

      To what? If Palemoon or something, I could understand. If to Chrome, that is illogical (but I hear it all the time from people).

    16. Re:Embrace Extend Extinguish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We may be seeing Microsoft getting a taste of its own medicine.

      So is it really okay if Google screws over other web browsers with Chrome-specific hacks, just because Microsoft did it a decade or so ago?

      Where in the sentence you quoted do you believe it said that was okay?

      Is it the word "own" because it starts with a circle? Is it the word "taste" because it's almost the same length?
      Help us out to determine why you believe anything said means that so we can explain how you are mistaken.

      This may be too simplistic to understand, but Google did something wrong, and Microsoft is now feeling the effects of that wrong just like they wronged others in the past.
      Yes, both of those facts can be true, and both true at the same time. I know, right?

    17. Re:Embrace Extend Extinguish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just as many addons

      The number does not matter. Is which add-ons are available, what function do they perform, how well do they work, etc.

      For example, the most important thing to me is having a function that correctly darkens web pages.
      The simplistic color inverter add-ons available to FF at the moment are all complete garbage in comparison to the Hacker Vision add-on for Chrome (yes, I did pay money for it; and I would pay even three times as much if they asked).
      Until and unless FF or any other browser implements this function or supports this add-on I won't even consider using them.

    18. Re:Embrace Extend Extinguish by dissy · · Score: 2

      So is it really okay if Google screws over other web browsers with Chrome-specific hacks

      If by "chrome specific hacks" as used in this case, which actually means "valid html in an html page rendered perfectly fine by all browsers except edge" then yes, yes it is really ok.

      You see, using HTML in a valid way, which all web browsers render fine, is called "doing the right thing"

      Firefox can display youtube pages and accelerate them.
      WebKit in Safari can display youtube pages and accelerate them on OS X. I suspect WebKit on iOS can too else we would be hearing about it by now.

      If using valid html breaks nothing except Edge, then I say Google did not break Edge, Microsoft broke Edge from the start by not making a web browser that understands HTML, yet continuing to mislabel that program as if it was a web browser.

      Microsoft is just going to need to get used to the fact they will need to render HTML properly like everyone else does, and we will not be throwing in some ActiveX bullshit for them.
      Nor will we tolerate them blaming anyone but themselves that their "web browser" is uniquely incapable of rendering HTML or accelerating standards compliant video streams.

    19. Re:Embrace Extend Extinguish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If by "chrome specific hacks" as used in this case, which actually means "valid html in an html page rendered perfectly fine by all browsers except edge" then yes, yes it is really ok.

      You see, using HTML in a valid way, which all web browsers render fine, is called "doing the right thing"

      Worthless purely philosophical sentiment unmoored from reality. It's just as flawed as classic proclamations all bugs are shallow because source code is public.

      The fact of the matter is in any system as complex as browsers there is ample room for asshats to map out and exploit tradeoffs in competing products for anti-competitive aims. It doesn't necessarily indicate a mistake or bug exists.

      If using valid html breaks nothing except Edge, then I say Google did not break Edge

      More worthless zero information proclamations. Why not get actual specific evidence of the situation before saying anything?

      Nor will we tolerate them blaming anyone but themselves that their "web browser" is uniquely incapable of rendering HTML or accelerating standards compliant video streams.

      TFA is not about being incapable of rendering something. It's about rendering performance.

    20. Re:Embrace Extend Extinguish by thomst · · Score: 1

      Pentium100 mused:

      We may be seeing Microsoft getting a taste of its own medicine.

      No, we are seeing Microsoft getting a taste of its own medicine.

      Back in the 1990's, when Billg was running the show, web pages built with Microsoft tools would routinely omit the closing <html> tag. IE was designed to ignore that egregious violation of the HTML standard, but it reliably crashed Netscape Navigator.

      What do you think are the chances that little gotcha! was accidental ... ?

      --
      Check out my novel.
    21. Re:Embrace Extend Extinguish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't about UI. Firefox could be a pixel perfect match of Chrome as far as this discussion is concerned. The question is whether you want an open-source platform that doesn't have a corporate bottom line to feed parsing the web or Chrome with the Google backend.

    22. Re:Embrace Extend Extinguish by bmo · · Score: 1

      I saw a meme go by in my feed and it had a picture of a star, a tree ornament, a candy-cane, and Benito Mussolini.

      "Which of these don't belong?"
      "Right, you don't hang a star"

      --
      BMO

    23. Re:Embrace Extend Extinguish by AndrewFlagg · · Score: 1

      yep. NN 4.5 vs. IE 3/4 -- IE was a big fat pig and won for the time being.

    24. Re: Embrace Extend Extinguish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google earth has so many buttons and features, you should really be using the standalone program for it.

    25. Re:Embrace Extend Extinguish by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      Perhaps not. But there is the old proverb about "the enemy of my enemy."

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    26. Re:Embrace Extend Extinguish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All this is nice, but consider this:
      - Edge had a bug. Just that, a regular bug.
      - Google found the bug, and changed youtube to trigger it, thus making Edge less performant.

      You need to ask the following:
      - Is the empty div valid html? (yes)
      - Did the empty div add anything useful to the site's functionality? (dunno)
      - Did anyone in the chain at google that knew about the change know about the Edge bug?

    27. Re:Embrace Extend Extinguish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha ha! Karma's a "witch" !

    28. Re:Embrace Extend Extinguish by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      with Chrome-specific hacks

      I didn't know presenting a standards compliant invisible div which causes some other's browsers Youtube specific optimisations used to cheap benchmarks was considered a "chrome specific hack".

      English is a hard language, I think you for clarifying it for me.

    29. Re:Embrace Extend Extinguish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too little, too late. We are almost there now, nothing seems to evidence the contrary. It's matter of time when it will happen, but sure it will.

    30. Re:Embrace Extend Extinguish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do know that Microsoft is more profitable now than it has ever been in its history, right?

    31. Re:Embrace Extend Extinguish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, we're talking about bullshit like AMP.

  5. Pot, meet kettle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Haaa Ha!

    /Nelson

  6. Awwwww by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Waaaah, MS didn't like someone else doing what they were trying to do years ago.

  7. The pupil has become the master by george14215 · · Score: 1

    embrace and extend...lesson learned sensei!

  8. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  9. Man google really showed them. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    Google site supported open standards, and its features were build around open standards. And not Microsoft specific features, that other browsers don't support.

     

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Man google really showed them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. Pretty much all of Google's "open standards" were pushed onto the web regardless of whether other browsers supported them, or if others had even vetted them. Microsoft isn't a saint, but neither is Google.

  10. Chrome is the new IE by PhunkySchtuff · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Chrome is repeating all the tricks that Microsoft used in the 90's to ensure browser dominance.
    Don't be evil. Yeah, right. Sell eyeballs at any cost.

    1. Re:Chrome is the new IE by Billy+the+Mountain · · Score: 1

      Don't be evil, be EvilAF.

      --
      That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
    2. Re:Chrome is the new IE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or word or excel or ms-dos, even.. word perfect, lotus 1-2-3 and dr-dos all got shafted by similar tactics. and iirc, microsoft also teamed up with intel to do the same to non-intel processors.

  11. NDA by jtara · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I guess Microsoft does't require interns to sign an NDA...

    1. Re:NDA by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      Naturally he signed an NDA, and has now broken it. Very stupid. This guy shouldn't be blabbing, even if he thinks he's defending his team. Sometimes people have to learn the hard way not to spout what they know to the internet. He may very well face some consequences because of this, depending on how serious Microsoft takes this breach.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    2. Re:NDA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Microsoft might let this one slide.

    3. Re:NDA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He might not get a job, but not everyone works for a shitty company that implements NDA.

      Furthermore, it isn't proprietary that IE has its own engine, or that Google is an ass.

    4. Re:NDA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes a bitch doesn't know how to be a bitch; it is a very frustrating thing to see.

  12. Well this is a new one. by TheZeitgeist · · Score: 0

    A Microsofty complaining their cool little piece of tech was ruined by vast heartless corporation using a virtual monopoly. Does he see the irony there? Or the karma?

    1. Re:Well this is a new one. by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      Whoever wins... we lose.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:Well this is a new one. by desdinova+216 · · Score: 2

      strange game...the only way to win is not to play.

    3. Re:Well this is a new one. by pak9rabid · · Score: 2

      A Microsofty complaining their cool little piece of tech was ruined by vast heartless corporation using a virtual monopoly. Does he see the irony there? Or the karma?

      He (the intern) is probably too young to even remember those days.

  13. Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Office 365 performs like an absolute pig on Chrome. It's the only site my fan on my laptop gets loud enough to hear.

  14. Karma is a bitch by vlakkies · · Score: 1, Informative

    Remember Explorer vs. Nautilus and the rest?

  15. He that is without sin among you... by PaoloAgati · · Score: 1

    In Italy we say "Chi la fa l'aspetti", in other words what goes around comes around

  16. Bork Bork Bork by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.computerworld.com/article/2581294/enterprise-applications/opera-unleashes-swedish-chef-on-msn.html

    The cheeky move, announced today, comes in retaliation for the discovery two weeks ago that the MSN portal was targeting Opera users by providing them with a purposely broken page, Opera said.

    The Oslo-based software maker has been at odds with Microsoft for quite some time, claiming that the leading Internet browser maker has been engaging in not-so-friendly competition. Opera said that its users were completely blocked from the MSN site in October 2001 and that although Microsoft has changed its policy since then in response to user complaints, the software giant continues to single Opera out by sending its users what appear to be intentionally broken pages.

  17. Remember "DOS ain't done until Lotus won't run"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Long ago, Microsoft was rumored to sabotage their DOS operating system so that competitor's software (Lotus 123) wouldn't run. So everything old is new again!

  18. Google's websites work fine in Safari and Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How come Microsoft has so many problems?

    If it is really true that Microsoft thinks Google is being unfair to them, then why is it a Microsoft *intern* who is writing the complaint?

    This seems suspicious/FUD.

  19. Nope. Wrong. by Qbertino · · Score: 2

    Contrary to MS in the 90ies, Chrome (Chromium) is FOSS. Everyone can use it, everyone can fork it, everyone can deploy it to their platform. Even MS. (sic) The technology and the core software itself is objectively good, while MSes was objectively evil.

    Googles tactics were probably neccessary to prevent MS from doing their MS-threestep. Given, Google, like no other, profits from a strong web, especially because they own it with their key product, Google Search, but no one is preventing MS from building their own video streaming site that competes with youtube.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    1. Re:Nope. Wrong. by Etcetera · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's not the point... Just because OSS is involved doesn't mean Google isn't asserting dominating control over the Internet.

      This is not something to cheer on no matter how much irony there may be in Microsoft being the victim this time.

    2. Re:Nope. Wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google, like no other, profits from a Google-centric ecosystem. People use Google Search, YouTube and Chrome and the profits all flow back to Google.
      Google profit from locking people in to their browser - sure, the core may be open source and anyone can fork it (and MS are forking it for their browser engine), but the actual Chrome browser is now exerting it's market dominance to ensure that people are using Chrome and no other browser.

      Google encourage web developers to create sites that either only work in Chrome, or work better in Chrome, by explicitly bypassing established web standards or extending existing standards in unofficial ways (embrace, extend, extinguish - anyone remember this mantra?). Google put measures in place to cheat on performance metrics - the transparent div above YouTube videos to disable hardware acceleration in Edge for example, ensuring that Chrome benchmarks better than other browsers. Google also make sure that their own software stack (Gmail, Docs etc) works best in Chrome and can take advantage of all the unofficial extensions that Google are using (just like ActiveX was used in the 90s?) and the fact that their stack works at all in competing browsers is merely a happy coincidence.

      Web standards are there for a reason - to ensure no one browser maker can exert dominance on what software people can and can't use. It's not so that Google can go their own way and then turn around and say "Hey, but our browser core is open source, why don't you just fork it?" That's beside the point - Google should play by the same rules that everyone else uses.

    3. Re:Nope. Wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh my god, you are just Google's bitch. Some component of their software is open source and that excuses all bad behavior.

      Goddamn fuck you.

    4. Re:Nope. Wrong. by markdavis · · Score: 2

      >"Chrome (Chromium) is FOSS."

      Chromium is FOSS. Chrome is a binary blob with who-knows-what in it, which is based on Chromium to some mystery extent. And something like 99.9% of Chrom* users are Chrome users, not Chromium.

      >"Everyone can use it [Chromium], everyone can fork it, everyone can deploy it to their platform."

      Except nobody has... yet (that I am aware of). And if they did, rest assure that somehow it will never keep up with actual Chrome.

      >"The technology [of Chrome/Chromium] and the core software itself is objectively good

      That depends on your perspective. It is NOT good if Google uses its dominance to ruin other players... especially if this continues to hurt Firefox (like it has been). Firefox development, unlike Chrom* has far, far, far less tie-ins to web control, Google-specific "products", and potential marketing of users' actions and data. Google is being put into a unique position that is dangerous for all of us.

      Firefox is now just as fast and web-standards-based as Chrome. There is little reason not to support it... which I suggest people do. Mozilla cares about security and privacy as much as Google, perhaps more-so, and with far less incentive to do bad things.

    5. Re:Nope. Wrong. by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      But lets face it - between a couple of corporate behemoths fighting it out over standards that will eventually dictate how the web works, etc. I would much prefer for one of the players to be backing a F/OSS based standard/implementation. Better of course would be all backers being behind various F/OSS standards/implementations and letting the technical best win

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    6. Re:Nope. Wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because why? Because they inserted a HIDDEN empty div in a webpage, which any non-poop browser would just totally ignore in it's rendering layouts? It sounds like Microsoft was using lame hacks to speed up their rendering instead of actually making a browser that works. I applaud the YouTube folks for giving them the finger.

    7. Re:Nope. Wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Except nobody has... yet (that I am aware of). And if they did, rest assure that somehow it will never keep up with actual Chrome.

      If by nobody, you mean nearly everyone, then yeah. Opera bases their browser on the Chromium engine. QT based their new webengine widget on chromium. Many embedded systems use a browser based on Chromium, or Chromium itself.

      Google forked Apple's rendering engine not the other way around, but in any event they're both using rending engines forked from WebKit (which itself was a fork of KDE's KHTML).

      This entire article comes in the wake of Microsoft building future versions of Edge on the Chromium engine. It is pretty clear, given the history that led to Chromium, that everyone is free to use and/or fork a web engine if it is FOSS.

      The only major browser left standing that won't be using code that originated from KHTML/WebKit/Chromium is Firefox, which of course is also FOSS and has a few forks/derivatives of its own.

      Because the browser code is FOSS, this isn't exactly the same situation as Microsoft had with IE6. There are similarities given Google's dominance and behaviour, but it will ultimately be less harmful than the IE6 monopoly thanks to the open source movement.

    8. Re:Nope. Wrong. by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      Contrary to MS in the 90ies, Chrome (Chromium) is FOSS. Everyone can use it, everyone can fork it, everyone can deploy it to their platform.

      What does this have to do with the issue at hand? The claim is Google deliberately fucked with their own sites in very specific ways to advantage their browser over competing products.

      Googles tactics were probably neccessary to prevent MS from doing their MS-threestep. Given, Google, like no other, profits from a strong web, especially because they own it with their key product, Google Search, but no one is preventing MS from building their own video streaming site that competes with youtube.

      Ends justify means.
      If Google does it then it's ok.
      Microsoft did it first.

    9. Re:Nope. Wrong. by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      Because why? Because they inserted a HIDDEN empty div in a webpage, which any non-poop browser would just totally ignore in it's rendering layouts?

      There is no such thing as an empty div. It still exists in the dom and is still addressable. You can't just "totally ignore it".

  20. This was still a secret by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This has been well known for a while. The biggest problem for MS was that they buried the browser updates with OS updates. It should have been able to be updated separately to confront these issues.

  21. Googlebully by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Microsoft had to ditch EdgeHTML rendering engine in Edge browser and switch to Chromium was to keep up with the changes (some of which were notorious) that Google pushed to its sites. These changes were designed to ensure that Edge and other browsers could not properly run Google's sites, he alleged.

    I guess this is Google's version of the old Microsoft "It ain't done 'til Lotus won't run".

    "The sites not rendered 'til Edge won't, uh, render" Ok it needs works.

  22. Re:Google's websites work fine in Safari and Firef by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because the intern is the one who sees the problem? Go figure - an intern is more up to date on the latest stuff?

  23. Anti-trust investigation time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, Google's strayed from "Do No Harm"

  24. Edge sucks by WCMI92 · · Score: 1

    Because Microsoft programmed it. Of course Windows 10 is good but the next version will suck.

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
    1. Re:Edge sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows 10 is good? Are you on crack? You wanna know how I know you don't support it?

  25. Fairly simple - start shouting antitrust vs google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slap them about with that a bit, have an investigation into it (A proper intrusive one where engineers get carted off to be interviewed on the record, alone) and we'll see what happens then.

    It'll cost a fair bit, but if there is a big smelly pile of shit that someone inside google did, then this will likely find it, espeically if the evidence is as suggested.

  26. Hillarious.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Can you imagine if all of a sudden Google apps start performing better than anyone else's?"

    Ha! This kid is likely too young to realize it, but the rest of us sort of remember a certain company doing the same thing with IE. It was perhaps just about 6 years ago I recall several features of Outlook Web Access ONLY worked in IE, and not in Firefox or Chrome. (IIRC it was setting up a mail filter).

    So yes, Joshua, I _can_ imagine that!

    I also don't know if I can quite believe it. Not because I don't think Google would try something like that, but because I don't think it'd work. The web world is nowhere near as mono-culture in 2018 as it was in 2005 when IE and Microsoft did these tricks. I distinctly remember the Microsoft website basically not working very well at all in anything but IE for years in the early 2000s.

    Chrome is only about 67% of the market, and while that's too high, it's still the fact that breaking changes that only work in Chrome would affect a LOT of people, and you wouldn't be hearing about this from just some lowly intern, it'd be obvious things didn't work.

  27. Not running Silverlight killed it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They had pushed their own stupid DRM-filled crap as the holy grail for video distribution for years, and then suddenly decided to break it in their own browser.
    It made everyone at work hate Edge.

  28. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  29. This is funny by Miser · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Time for Microsoft to get a taste of their own medicine perhaps? (i.e. DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run, etc)

    -Miser

    1. Re:This is funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, because something a company did over a decade ago, means that other companies should do the exact same thing now. The people working on Edge are probably not even the same people from the IE6 days. It's different people being screwed over because "lolz, revenge".

    2. Re:This is funny by Miser · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying Google is doing it on purpose.

      What I'm saying is that Microsoft needs to look itself in the mirror (even if it was a long time ago, as the Internet (or at least I don't) doesn't forget) before it cries foul too loudly.

      It's things like this that make me wonder what the technology world would have been like if Microsoft's anti-trust trial had had some REAL punishment behind it (break up, etc).

    3. Re:This is funny by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Yes, because something a company did over a decade ago .....

      Microsoft are shitting on people right up to the present day.

  30. shoe on the other foot by jryland · · Score: 1

    So M$ doesn't like it when the shoe is on the other foot.
    I guess Google have been studying and learning from MS.

    1. Re:shoe on the other foot by DarkRookie2 · · Score: 1

      They have.
      They are getting good at it.

      --
      http://progressquest.com/spoltog.php?name=Son+Of+Son+Of+DarkRookie
  31. Bwahahaha! by Shotgun · · Score: 0

    I have to say, this made my day. As someone who watched throughout the 90's as M$ used market dominance and dirty business tricks on every piece of superior technology that challenged its hegemony, this is just a beautiful turn about. The evil villain is finally getting justice.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    1. Re:Bwahahaha! by DarkRookie2 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but its another villain doing it. Not really much justice to it.
      It is schadenfreude thou.

      --
      http://progressquest.com/spoltog.php?name=Son+Of+Son+Of+DarkRookie
  32. The hell is up with this thread? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is everyone laughing...nay...CELEBRATING the fact that Google is technologically undermining other browsers to achieve market dominance? So what if Microsoft did it in the 90's? This intern was probably sucking on his mother's teet then. All that matters is that tech companies should work together on these issues, and Google clearly isn't playing ball as nicely as Microsoft is now.

    1. Re:The hell is up with this thread? by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Are you sure you've got hold of the right end of the stick, and read the other comments here? Seems that "other browsers" are not affected except Edge. Seems that Edge had some benchmark cheating flummery in it that no longer works with Youtube, despite Youtube remaining standards compliant.

      As for what Microsoft did in the 90's, they didn't stop their dirty tricks back then and continue them right up to the present - take the Win10 "upgrade" saga for example.

  33. what goes around comes around... by phik · · Score: 1

    Payback's a bitch

  34. young/fresh MS employee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess this MS employee doesn't know much about the history of the company they work for.
    Anyway, it would be better for everyone if MS just stopped making browsers. Isn't the first thing you do after installing windows if you have to is to install a different browser to what windows came with.

    1. Re:young/fresh MS employee by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      I guess this MS employee doesn't know much about the history of the company they work for.

      Perhaps he does and assumes that MS can keep working the same way that they did - ie being in control of things, and expecting website developers to conform to their browser rather than being able to follow standards. Microsoft cannot cope with developing to standards, it is just not in their company culture, never has been.

  35. I wouldn't put it past Google to do this, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most likely it's Microsoft's ineptitude and either way it's payback for all the shit Microsoft has pulled over the years to lock out competitors from the market or bully OEMs and consumers.

  36. I'll take "Karma's a bizotch" for 500, Alex by bdrasin · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Anyone who remembers Microsoft from about 1988 through 2005 has to find the irony just delicious

    1. Re:I'll take "Karma's a bizotch" for 500, Alex by E-Rock · · Score: 1

      It might be funny, but two wrongs don't make a right.

  37. Pot calling kettle black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guess this Edge person wasn't around when Microsoft was doing similar stuff with IE to kill off other browsers. But in the end if you can't beat them, you end up joining them. Firefox and its Gecko engine have been left to fend for themselves now.

  38. If true by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    It would be a nice example of poetic justice: if a company is deserving of comeuppance, Microsoft is it. Mind you, Google is next in line for comeuppance, although that might take a few more years.

  39. Counterpoint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to work for Google. We worked actively to learn more about Edge, so we weren't caught flatfooted by it. But the Edge team decided to use a user agent that wasn't distinguishable from other browsers, while it definitely worked differently than other browsers, so we were screwed trying to optimize for Redmond's choices on that one. :-/

    In the meanwhile, if your engineering is screwed up by a single empty div tag? You're going to be not-great on the vast majority of the web, which has me really confused!

    1. Re:Counterpoint by DarkRookie2 · · Score: 1

      Why are you optimizing for one specific browser
      There are standards. If you page is writing with them, then you shouldn't need to do it.
      I doubt even Google follows them on their sites. Just make it so Chrome works the best.

      --
      http://progressquest.com/spoltog.php?name=Son+Of+Son+Of+DarkRookie
    2. Re:Counterpoint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, they don't follow their own standards in regards to adsense, but harasses others over it

      www.digitaljournal.com/tech-and-science/technology/vivaldi-ceo-attacks-google-for-evil-monopoly-over-online-ads/article/501604

  40. How many IE's are still installed only to... by ffkom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    run "web"-services that relied on Microsoft-proprietary extensions that were built only to make it impossible for non-Windows-browsers to be compatible?

    It's hilarious when it is Microsoft who complains about the strategy they have been using for decades to suppress healthy competition.

    Google can go to hell, but Microsoft should lead the way.

  41. IE6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like Google is trying to out-IE6 Microsoft. As I use neither of these lovely browsers, I'll just sit back and enjoy the show!

    Captcha:condom

  42. Ha Ha came to say the same thing by SuperKendall · · Score: 0

    Microsoft spent so long, in so many ways tweaking what they had control of so many different applications or systems or what have you would not run well, that this frankly is kind of deserved.

    I don't know how much of it is deliberate "let's see how we can mess with IE" on the part of Google, vs. MS Edge developers struggling to keep up with advances in WebKit and Chromium. But in a way it makes me feel a little better having Microsoft THINK it was done specifically to target them, so they can understand the pain they caused so many others...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  43. Re:Evil Empire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only for the consumers, and who even cares about those?

  44. Let me get this straight... by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So Google embraced some new piece of technology, extended it and then used that to extinguish the competition.

    Where have I heard of a company doing that?!?

    I love it when Microsoft gets to eat the same shit sandwich they've feed to so many others.

    --
    Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    1. Re:Let me get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Very nice. Now break up Google into several irrelevant companies, please.

    2. Re:Let me get this straight... by mce · · Score: 1

      I love it too, having had more than enough problems with MickeySoft...

      But that is besides the point. If we now accept this kind of behavior because MS is the apparent short term victim, it's actually us "the users" who are the real victims. Google has heft behind "do no evil" a very long time ago and has actually become more evil for the people than MS has ever been. At least MS was being evil against it's competitors and just crushing innocent victims in the process. Google has gone way beyond that: with their level of tracking people's every move and their "search bubble" capturing people in whatever they already know/think and what Google wants them to think, they are being evil against everyone of us at a scale well beyond what MS even imagined back in the browser war days. The fact that Google can have a stab at Microsoft is "just for laughs". The real reason why they would like to see Edge (and Firefox) die, is that they get more data and power and control over all of us if we blindly ease into their traps.

    3. Re:Let me get this straight... by Bandraginus · · Score: 1

      Just like Microsoft was broken up, right?

  45. Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google sucks. Fuck them.

  46. Say what?! by gosand · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I agree with a lot of the other up-modded comments, but let me get this straight... MS worked on EdgeHTML for 4 years, and finally threw in the towel because of changes that Google kept implementing on their sites? Edge hardly even broke 2% of the browser market share - EVER.

    Google makes a lot of little changes, all the time. And they probably do get 'insight' into the benefit of those before others. But I think it's pretty clear that MS didn't fail with Edge because of Google. MS failed because they still really don't play well with others. It's just that now, the others are the big dogs in the yard.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    1. Re:Say what?! by technosaurus · · Score: 1

      See Google Groups... by far one of the worst forum sites in existence - even when viewed in chromium.

    2. Re:Say what?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Working on one of the major Google user-facing products when Edge was on its way, I call bullshit on this intern's claims. We spent at least half a year leading up to the release to test, shift through bugs. We were in direct video meetings with Microsoft engineers to understand the top issues. At release, there were none or few major problems.

      That the Youtube team didn't manage the same due diligence is not that surprising. However, to cry foul and deliberate sabotage just comes across as naive and immature. That an intern over at Microsoft is not aware of how the rest of the world works is also not that surprising.

  47. Maybe Edge just sucks in the first place? by mattyj · · Score: 1

    That might be the #1 reason M$ is ditching their own engine ...

    I find it hard to believe a company with 10's of thousands of software developers have a hard time overcoming an empty div. I'm old enough to regard anything coming out of Microsoft, regardless of the vehicle, as FUD.

  48. Microsoft "Teams" sabotages Chrome by ffkom · · Score: 5, Informative

    BTW: The web version of Microsoft "Teams" runs fine with Chrome on Linux, but only if the "UserAgent" is faked to indicate a Windows-based browser. Exactly the same evil strategy, used as of today, by Microsoft.

    1. Re:Microsoft "Teams" sabotages Chrome by jasonharrop · · Score: 1

      Really? That's not my experience. I run it in Chrome on Manjaro/KDE.

  49. Firefox too by PineHall · · Score: 1

    I have noticed some slowness with the loading of Google sites with Firefox. I think these changes are also affecting Firefox. My initial reaction to slow loading gmail was to wonder how did the Firefox team mess up this up, but when I got thinking that it was very unlikely that they would not test on such a popular site. I then wanted to blame Comcast, my provider, but that also seemed unlikely with other sites loading okay. This makes a lot more sense. Come on Google, you can do better!

    1. Re:Firefox too by pecosdave · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, even though I know it's supposed to be in its deaththrows I use Hangouts so I don't have to type on a stupid touchscreen for text messages. It takes an annoying amount of time to load and they eventually started making "Chrome only" modifications so you had to use Chrome to do video.

      Yep, Google can be assholes too.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  50. Remember MS Antitrust Lawsuit? by BECoole · · Score: 1

    Hopefully Google will get a taste of that medicine too.

  51. So this is why Youtube got so shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not only is it bad on IE, it is atrociously bad on old Chrome installs too, which I noticed by accident and rare times when I used Chrome on an old netbook on XP.
    Mobile site rendered fast, even with the higher resolution. Instant it was full site, grinded to a fucking halt with constant stuttering.
    They have recently changed this on both sites and now both of them are bad. I've started using hooktube and I suggest you tell everyone else to as well. Mind you, only so long before they try to block that.
    I can't use Youtube on my up-to-date Chrome on Tablet without the piece of shit stuttering on mobile. It never used to do this. It only happened about a few months ago when they changed the browser.
    They even broke the stupid player with whatever changes they made to try get around adblocking. Any videos that had ads no longer responded to clicking the videoplayer to pause, you could only use the pause button. Literally broke media players UX 101. The most common feature in every media player in existence, broke.
    Actual fucking potatoes at the Youtube team. Not that this is a surprise to anyone. They probably have a solid 2 years experience between every programmer combined. Idiots.

    Ignore the fact that Microsoft deserve everything they get, we don't. It's us that suffer the most.
    Speak with your bandwidth. Abuse theirs. You are legally in the right anyway.
    Website ToSes are not legally binding no matter what anyone tries to tell you. At least not in any sane countries.
    The only thing they can do is block non-logged in accounts, and that is easy to get around. (see niconico dougas dumb system)

  52. Re:I wouldn't put it past Google to do this, but.. by DarkRookie2 · · Score: 1

    Then we would switch Microsoft for Google.
    Not an improvement.

    --
    http://progressquest.com/spoltog.php?name=Son+Of+Son+Of+DarkRookie
  53. Contradictions, and a non-authoritative source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An intern (not an employee, not a PR person, not anybody really) said a lot of things, and suddenly it was true, or taken as such? Must be a slow news day.

    The things done were potentially anti-trust-ish, but no lawyers from one of the biggest legal hounds in the world were involved? Does that seem to give this story credit?

    "We could not keep up", except now we have, by patching our lousy browser.

    "They were breaking the web by doing what microsoft used to do to Firefox", except only Edge seems to have noticed the problem. Troubleshooting 101 kid: if only one thing is broken, and everything else using the same interface works, you don't blame the interface.

    Maybe there is something to this after all, but with a sample size of one (1), and the obvious logic issues, this doesn't feel like a Google problem.

  54. Dos is not done until Lotus won't run by kansas_plainsman · · Score: 1

    I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you.

  55. poor babies by NikeHerc · · Score: 1

    Either (1) stop crying and put your big boy pants on or (2) get out of the computer business. I hope you'll choose #2; the world will be a better place.

    --
    Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
    1. Re:poor babies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, a company acts in a way to hurt everybody and your response is to defend them?

      Ass.

    2. Re:poor babies by NikeHerc · · Score: 1

      defend them...

      If you think either option defends ms, your reading comprehension skills are pathetic.

      --
      Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
  56. Eat your own medicine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eat your own medicine

  57. An intern? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously?

  58. He's an intern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He lacks experience and highly likely has no clue what he's talking about.

    1. Re: He's an intern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least Edge is Agile built from the ground up without internal test team. Like stinky shitting down people's throats.

  59. no different by renegade600 · · Score: 1

    It is no different that what microsoft did with each major os update. they always expect computer manufacturers, software companies and others to update their products to work with their new operating system. the shoe is on the other foot.

    but if you want to talk about sabotage, microsoft has a history of it, all the way back to drdos and os/2

  60. At this stage Google is Pure Evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those commie bastards need to go

  61. the insuperable hidden empty div tax by epine · · Score: 2

    Microsoft can't keep up with a hidden empty div?

    Apparently, Microsoft's goal was to create a fast rendering path that only worked on the one site they wished to brag about, and only if that one site never changed. "Good grief," they all whispered among themselves, "if we're forced to make our fast path robust we'll never climb this mountain fast enough to overtake competent competition".

    If Google inserted custom code into Chrome with the only function of ignoring a hidden empty div, then I might enlarge my tiny violin to the manly scale of Schroeder's baby grand. After DR-DOS, it shrunk so small that my personal Jiminy Cricket hauls it out only when he needs a good mosquito repellent. I've got one earlobe that hasn't been bitten, yet.

    Netscape had to contend with random and erratically documented behaviour from the entire operating system they ran on top of. One suspects that just one of those old Netscape greybeards from the 1990s could log roll the entire Edge team all by himself. While drinking scalding hot tea from bone china with those dainty handles—and not spilling a drop.

  62. Pot meet kettle. by CptLoRes · · Score: 1

    Microsoft world leader in Embrace, extend, and extinguish.

  63. Bullshit by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

    Look, google may have been dicking around with the code, I'll grant you that, but Edge was horrible even on non-google sites. Shit, it's horrible on MS sites.

    They gave up because they haven't been able to bring a solid browser to market in nearly 2 decades and someone, somewhere, finally decided to call ToD.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  64. Oct update? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...(should now be fixed in Win10 Oct update)..." Great. Now when will they fix the Win10 Oct update?

  65. And we come full circle. by ahodgson · · Score: 1

    Can you imagine? Why yes, I enjoyed Microsoft using this exact playbook throughout the 90s, thanks.

    - former ECNE

  66. How to stay good by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    When your a start up.

    Listen to your workers, the people buying your products. The bugs they report.
    Fix problems and thank the people who reported them.
    Hire smart staff who can work on complex problems.

    When your a national computing brand?
    Listen to the gov/mil/brands/NGO/edu buyers using your products and services.
    Have teams that can build, support and help the use of your products. Products you use in your company too.

    Made it full multinational?
    Language support and art work to help average users around the world rent and buy into your advanced systems.
    Thank the people who reported problems with understanding the art work and text translations.

    Let the competition make mistakes. Watch on as they hire average staff and their products lines become more difficult to support and use.
    Want to be a great brand? Always look after your users. Always get the very best staff. Hire only on merit and have the best code, results every generation.

    Code getting too complex? Hire better much workers.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:How to stay good by ffkom · · Score: 1

      I don't think any corporation has a deficit of knowing how they could "stay good", if only they wanted to. But corporations want to maximize profits, and "staying good" is believed to be an obstacle to that.

  67. let's just get this out of the way right now by Thud457 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's not fair!

    Refrain of bullies everywhere when they're on the receiving end of the abuse.
    The ironing is delicious.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:let's just get this out of the way right now by psnyder · · Score: 3, Funny

      The ironing is delicious.

      Yes, but not the best way to add fiber to your diet.

    2. Re: let's just get this out of the way right now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was thinking of this: https://cdn.foodbeast.com/content/uploads/2015/09/uIPsM.jpg

    3. Re:let's just get this out of the way right now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. That would be not be irony, that would be cellulosy.

    4. Re:let's just get this out of the way right now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not fair!

      Refrain of bullies everywhere when they're on the receiving end of the abuse.

      The ironing is delicious.

      well the starch can be tasty.

  68. Bullshit... by bblb · · Score: 1

    I've removed edge from hundreds of computers, not because of anything Google did but because of everything Edge didn't do. Worst browser ever.

  69. No, Chrome is great by grungeman · · Score: 2

    Have you ever written a bug report for any browsers? There are currently two types of development communities:

    1. Chrome and Firefox: You write a bug report and someone will take a look. There will probably be a short discussion and your bug may get fixed or there is a reason why it won't be fixed. I wrote a but report last week for Chrome and the bug got fixed within two days. The current Chrome Canary build already contains the bugfix. Filing bug reports for these browsers is fun, because the development community works.

    2. Edge and Safari: You write a bug report and nobody gives a sh&t. I wrote a bunch of bug reports for WebKit and the feedback was exactly zero. Nothing. Not even a confirmation that the bug is valid (or invalid). And of course the bugs are still in there and they are getting more and more, because the development community is broken.

    So no, Edge and Safari are the new Internet Explorer, they suck and they will continue to suck. Chrome is almost years ahead, and the distance will grow. Mozilla has the right attitude and is trying hard to catch up with Chrome. I hope they will succeed, because otherwise we will be left only with Chrome, Opera and Vivaldi, which are all based on Chromium.

    --

    Signature deleted by lameness filter.
    1. Re:No, Chrome is great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It would be nice if it were true, but no. When you open a bug on Firefox, either you're ignored, or you're lectured by a pompous developer on how his spyware knows more than your bug report.

    2. Re:No, Chrome is great by grungeman · · Score: 1

      I had good and bad experiences. Once a Mozilla developer got out of his way to make sure that a bugfix would make it into the next release. That was absolutely outstanding.. At another occasion some dickhead told me that my test case was stupid, so he saw no reason to fix the bug. Luckily another developer stepped in and raised the priority of the bug.

      --

      Signature deleted by lameness filter.
  70. Use Dillo - the lightest browser out there! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Use Dillo - the lightest browser out there!

    It fixes youtube and all of the google apps. I swear.

  71. It's the compatibility, stupid. by PGaries · · Score: 1

    I think the real reason Microsoft Edge is a failure is because it's exclusive to one platform: Windows. People might embrace their products more if they didn't only work on one platform.

    Unfortunately, Microsoft has a persistent problem of creating products not for the sake of making a good product, but to promote other products. In this case, Edge exists purely to promote Windows and is therefore an afterthought; if it were otherwise and Microsoft were serious about promoting it as a great browser that should be used by as many people as possible, it would be multi-platform.

    1. Re: It's the compatibility, stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Edge is available on Android in the Google app store.

  72. So a millenial dev is introduced to by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    Best viewed in Internet Explorer or Netscape experience of the late 90's

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  73. Uh, Teams? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This from the same Microsoft that refuses to make teams work fully on Chrome, so it works on other OSs, even though their own Windows teams client uses chromium internally??

    Personally I think MS got a taste of the suffering they inflicted on the world with IE by having to make all their own internet properties work with chrome and even. They just realized it want worth it. Write it once for chrome, run everywhere, almost.

  74. Karma's a bitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Here's to the 90's and early 2000 when Microsoft did the exact same shit

  75. DOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone remember "DOS won't be done till LOTUS won't run?"

  76. Your own fault by Guspaz · · Score: 1

    > Google kept making changes to its sites that broke other browsers, and we couldn't keep up.

    Maybe you would have been able to keep up if you updated your browser more than twice a year?

  77. Revenge by genfail · · Score: 1

    All I can say to Microsoft is that revenge is a dish best served cold with a side of irony. It sucks that the other browsers have to deal with this shit but Microsoft deserves this since it was their favorite thing to do back in the 90s.

  78. Google is better than Microsoft at everything. by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

    Google is even better than Microsoft at being Microsoft. Microsoft came to dominance in a time where there were no dominant software players. They were pioneers in using their dominance to push out competitors to the detriment of consumers. Somehow they managed to completely fail and allow google to dethrone them in several key areas. While Google has not succeeded in their attempt to dominate every market, I don't think there are any examples of them ceding their existing dominance in any large markets.

  79. It's like.... by bmo · · Score: 1

    ...I'm back in the 80s

    Excuse me while I cue up some XTC and Cure.

    --
    BMO

  80. sounds like IE6 by kiviQr · · Score: 1

    If you browser breaks b/c of empty div then I am glad that we are done with IE. Don't design software that is that fragile in the first place. We have wasted enough lifetimes with IE6.

  81. I just have two words to say about this by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

    Pot. Kettle.

  82. Intern says "sabotage"! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People who know tech history say "status quo".

  83. Google does evil. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And Microsoft, remembering the good old days when they wore the most powerful horns, whines.

  84. Extremely high bogosity ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One must assume that this bullshit is complete unadulterated bullshit.

    Google has absolutely nothing of any value whatsoever, so if they DID something like the Microsoft Shill is alleging then the use of Google spyware would decrease. This would mean that Google would make less money from their products (the dweebs who use YouTube for example). While "pissing in the soup" is a valid and common marketting ploy, it DOES NOT work if the sales of the soup and the piss DECREASE in sum.

  85. Meet the new boss Same as the old boss by ctbarker32623 · · Score: 1

    Meet the new boss Same as the old boss -Pete Townshend

  86. What kind of browser trips over an empty div? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And how is having empty elements on a webpage "sabotage"?

  87. Microsoft set the web back over a decade with IE6 by NitroWolf · · Score: 2

    Microsoft and IE6 set the web back over a decade (throw in some Adobe Flash to add insult to injury) and Microsoft wants to whine about fair?

    What they should do is say "Hey, we did the same thing 20 years ago and it was a mistake. We are sorry for being such assholes and screwing the entire world with regards to HTML. We see Google is apparently doing the same thing, and while it's karma coming to bite us in the ass, it doesn't mean it's good for anyone, so maybe someone other than us, since we are biased and anything but above reproach, should look into it."

    While I disagree with what Google may be doing if it's intentional just to break Edge, I can't anything but joy in seeing Microsoft get fucked in the exact same way they fucked the rest of the world 20 years ago. I know I should be more angry, but I can't get past the fact that Microsoft is crying about being bullied the same way they bullied everyone else. So someone else needs to take the reigns on this and drive the discovery and corrective action (if possible).

  88. Mildy Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering Microsoft did similar things with Java, and IE, probably others I'm forgetting.

  89. Anyone remember what MS tried with IE/JavaScript? by BeCre8iv · · Score: 2

    Suckitup Buttercup - MS invented the 'crush the competition under the weight of a vertically integrated monopoly by breaking their own peripheral product' business model.

    Douchebag behaviour from any monopolist but hearing MS browser devs bleat about being on the receiving end. on /. of all places.

    --
    This perpetual motion machine Lisa made is a joke, it just keeps getting faster and faster. - Homer
  90. Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See Subject.

  91. Automatic paver block laying machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are a company for the manufacture of Concrete Hollow Blocks making machines - Curbstone machines - Paving block machines - and Concrete Batching Plants.
    If you interested in to buy our machines, you can able to reach us, below you can see the details for contact information.

    For more details about our machines and for conversation please contact with us : E-mail : sales.en2@beyazligroup.com or WhatsApp : +90 549 325 66 70

    Site web 1 : https://bessconcreteblockmachine.com
    Site web 2 : http :// vessmachine.com/

    Machines For Producing Concrete Hollow Blocks | Semi Automatic Machine For Producing Concrete Paving Blocks
    Semi Automatic Machine With Good Price | Automatic Machine For Concrete Blocks | Concrete Hollow Blocks
    Price For The Semi Automatic Paving Block Making Machine | Price For Concrete Hollow Block Making Machine
    High Quality Paving Blocks Making Machine | Semi Automatic Machine For Producing Hollow Blocks And Paving Blocks

  92. What goes around comes around by Darkness+Of+Course · · Score: 1

    MSFT was well known for doing exactly this. And often. I'm sure the ex-intern is much too young to know that the honor system doesn't work at MSFT, much less their browser team.

    United States v Microsoft Corp. Look it up. It was sort of a big deal back in the day.

    MSFT is just collecting karma, their account has been deep in the red for since last century.

  93. How it is different from what MS does for 15y by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do not see any difference between this and what MS was doing in the past.
    Playing quick and dirty with office document format? Check.
    Playing very dirty against Samba team? Check.

    But ... that was different. We were doing this to others.
    MS stopped in monolithic product life cycle counted in years.
    If somebody else is more agile that is bad.

  94. Don't say i didn't warn you. by The123king · · Score: 1
    --
    If you gave me a choice between a printer and a giraffe with explosive diarrhoea, i'll get my ladder and my raincoat
  95. Well this sucks but... by pyhoff · · Score: 1

    Back in the day (94-200x) MS pulled the same stunts so donâ(TM)t cry foul. But I will concede on the premise, yes we loose when companies do this type of crap instead of inovating. I have to use 2 browsers at work Firefox and Brave because of issues. Stuff that requires AD integration on FF and the rest on Brave. Compromise because Chrome and IE, Edge just suck!!!!!!! FF worked really well but having some issues on Guite Apps hence Brave. If I load chrome it just eats all resources up with the software_explorer and the sand boxing security containers, how can chrome eat up 1.5 gbs of ram in an hour, WTF is that, our machines are almost unusable. And yes we are a Google apps shop I have to put up with the childish loss of features like losing right click context menus. Unfortunately standard users donâ(TM)t have the ability of using these browsers and are stuck with Chrome and IE and are having to restart daily, sometimes twice a day because of this crap. In Corp where AD authentication integration is a requirement all of us just want something that works; users donâ(TM)t give a crap who makes it. Hoping Edge is the answer so we can finally rip out the frankenstein of a browser chrome off our image and reduce our calls about machine slow,â(TM) I think Inhave a virusâ(TM), nope you have 30 zombie chrome sessions reboot or run the kill chrome process script we have had to put on the start menu.

    1. Re:Well this sucks but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow so I thought you need a dual core and 8GB for Windows and to browse the web, now you'll need to consider 16GB RAM and a quad core (or dual core/quad thread, should be good still). I mean, as a preventive measure. All these years spent waiting for RAM price to come down aren't paying much.

      Also, I managed to underclock a recent laptop with a dead fan. I can't believe that neither Windows nor Intel vendors nor OEM crapware allow this! (could have been straightforward e.g. lock Speedstep to a slow crappy speed). I had to find a recent 3rd party utility, and web searches return all the ones from the 00s unmaintained since. I found ThrottleStop, from Tech Power Up.

      Anyway, I managed to underclock the laptop, and I can't believe how slower the web is!, just by making the CPU between 3x and 4x slower.
      The good side is the CPU manages to stay under 60C, with the CPU fan dead.

  96. MS still playing tricks by sad_ · · Score: 2

    MS is still playing the same tricks as it ever did before.
    A lot of MS web based applications only work properly when using IE or Edge; you get bogged up pages or slow response when using other browsers, some things don't even work.
    Think sharepoint, but also o365.

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
    1. Re:MS still playing tricks by kzwork · · Score: 1

      One monopolist complains from a monopoly. How times changed.

  97. Microsoft deliberately broke Opera browser by najajomo · · Score: 1

    Opera Software has accused Microsoft of deliberately engineering the MSN home page in order to make it look as if the Opera browser has a serious flaw in itlink

    We will bind the shell to the Internet Explorer, so that running any other browser is a jolting experiencelink

    1. Re:Microsoft deliberately broke Opera browser by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

      We had a lot of those problems over at Opera. In fact, we had an entire team dedicated to people who simply contacted website authors with recommendations to make their web sites work better with the standards. They did an amazing job... I mean REALLY amazing. You'd probably be surprised to learn just how much of an impact Opera had on the web... I mean beyond the fact that while Microsoft and Netscape were suing each other, we did more to evolve the web than pretty much any company out there. And to be fair, we did it in a company smaller than the legal teams from either Microsoft or Netscape working on that case.

      We sometimes had to go to the press because we couldn't get companies to make their pages work with other browsers. Some of us would cry like babies that it was unfair and all that. Some of us were more pragmatic and figured... what's the point in wasting money on 4% of the users of the web.

      You'd be shocked how many problems we went through more or less reinventing the web for telephone screens. These days, with things like reactive web development and things like Bootstrap, it's a no brainer... you make a site that fits different screens. Back then, we had to more or less massage the whole web to render properly using some magical style sheets.

      The good news is, articles like the one you sited often would help us. At least while Microsoft and Netscape were in court. This is because MS had to fix their shit or it would look like they were taking over the web as opposed to Netscape just being useless because they spent their money on lawyers instead of developers.

  98. Intern is now an authority? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did this fool even get a job with Microsoft ir is his claim to fame just being an intern?

  99. Former Opera Developer here by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 2

    I'd like to say "Boo Hoo" like the others. The truth is, it's just a boo hoo.

    Here's the deal. What Google did was absolutely and completely compatible with the web. It wasn't a violation of standards. It wasn't much of anything other than a legitimate case where by using a transparent div, they could choose to provide overlays on the video. Now, if they had no intention of using it, it wasn't particularly relevant. But there's nothing particularly wrong with what they did.

    If you read the HTML5 specs and you see the nasty crap associated with how the video tag works, modern browsers have to be coded to render to a 3D context (webgl is easiest). Video, for battery performance if often pipelined in a way that would offload rendering from the GPU. As such, it can be really problematic to render if there's overlays (meaning divs) while not hogging battery. So, the solution is to redirect video rendering directly to the frame buffer bypassing the fancy 3d rendering bits if there's nothing to render as an overlay on the video. In other words "If stuff on top of video is invisible, don't waste cycles rendering stuff on top of video". This is a simple optimization which they should do anyway.

    I would love to call Boo Hoo, but in reality, we went through this for 20 years with Netscape and Microsoft and Google. We dumped our own rendering engine a million years ago because the web is just too damn big these days.

    The best solution is that everyone just dumps their own rendering engines and all standardizes on Chromium at the core and then build something like the Linux foundation to support it independently. If Microsoft, Google, Apple and Firefox were to honestly try to stay compatible with each other through standards documents, it would just be a waste of time. We don't really need 50 different web browser engines anymore. Just make a single one and commit to it.

    1. Re:Former Opera Developer here by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      The best solution is that everyone just dumps their own rendering engines and all standardizes on Chromium at the core and then build something like the Linux foundation to support it independently.

      What if we wrote a brand-new rendering engine in C#?

  100. DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run.

  101. You're all doing bad things. Not any one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're all doing bad things. Not any one.

  102. market share by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No browser should have more than 50 percent market share.

  103. Been there done that by Brian+Kendig · · Score: 1

    "For example, they may start integrating technologies for which they have exclusive, or at least 'special' access. Can you imagine if all of a sudden Google apps start performing better than anyone else's?"

    Boo hoo hoo.

    - Former Netscape engineer

  104. MS getting a taste of their own medicine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's bitter isn't it?

  105. I really hope the intern sees this thread by phik · · Score: 1

    ...if you didn't know about MS's sordid history, young one, then you've got a lot to learn. I suggest googling (or bing-ing) "cancer + linux" and "Embrace Extend Extinguish" also, just for fun, "developers, developers, developers"

  106. Re: Ain't is a contraction of am not, not is not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No it ain't. And usage gets the final word anyhow

  107. Ahhh What's the matter Billykins ? by Big+Bipper · · Score: 1

    You say it only works on IE6 ! And that nasty old Dr Dos is up to his old tricks again causing all those bugs on patch Tuesday ! Ain't payback a bitch

    --
    You live and learn, or you don't learn much.
  108. Seam Sale Anyone? by mt2mb4me · · Score: 1

    Anyone remember when Steam was complaining that every update caused Steam to crash in a new and interesting way. They accused Microsoft of intentionally breaking the Steam Marketplace to get people to use the Microsoft Store.

  109. Microsoft of the late 90's. by pecosdave · · Score: 1

    I seem to recall Microsoft telling the world "There's not need to close the table tag" then proceeding to put an open table tag in their pre-CSS server side templates and encouraging others to do the same for no reason other than to break Netscape.

    Some of us have memories and don't feel sorry for Microsoft even if we think Google of today is as bad as Microsoft of the late 90s.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  110. scraping bottom of the barrel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Joshua Bakita, a former software engineering intern on the Edge team at Microsoft,

    ..because interns know what they're talking about...