Safari Ruined My Tuesday(fly.io)
fly.io
Safari Ruined My Tuesday
https://fly.io/blog/how-safari-ruined-my-tuesday/
139 comments
> However, I remember IE6. IE6 was a total fucking mess. Everything was broken on IE6. It wasn't just a bug, it was a complete support nightmare.
Indeed. While Safari does have its problems, it is a long, long way from being as bad as IE used to be. I recall one project where making it work on IE required that about 30% of the code be rewritten.
Indeed. While Safari does have its problems, it is a long, long way from being as bad as IE used to be. I recall one project where making it work on IE required that about 30% of the code be rewritten.
And that’s not even the worst part. The worst was all of the corporate sites that were built to run exclusively on IE6 and straight up couldn’t be used in alternative browsers. I’m talking scripts written in VBScript rather than JavaScript. ActiveX plug-ins rather than something cross-platform.
When I worked at the radar company we would have to go to a Unix machine on a different network and do our time cards. It was Firefox.
Then the time card website upgrade, which only worked in ie.
So now log onto Unix, use a VPN (Citrix) to log onto a windows NT machine, then use IE. It had to be done daily and wasn’t fun.
Then the time card website upgrade, which only worked in ie.
So now log onto Unix, use a VPN (Citrix) to log onto a windows NT machine, then use IE. It had to be done daily and wasn’t fun.
There were many websites that used just HTML, CSS and some JS and none of the "proprietary VBScript or ActiveX (or Flash)" that would not work on anything except IE6.
Most competing browsers chose to implement IE6 rendering (border box model, quirksmode etc), bug-by-bug. To at least have some of those "built for ie6 only" websites functioning and looking OKish.
But when those quirks would break the website on anything but IE6, many webmasters (is that still a function-title in 2021?) would not care, or not get budget to fix it: "96% of our users use IE6, why spend time for those 4%?". (which also begs the question: what are those 4% doing on a website that doesn't work at all for them? Shouldn't that be 100%/0%)
Most competing browsers chose to implement IE6 rendering (border box model, quirksmode etc), bug-by-bug. To at least have some of those "built for ie6 only" websites functioning and looking OKish.
But when those quirks would break the website on anything but IE6, many webmasters (is that still a function-title in 2021?) would not care, or not get budget to fix it: "96% of our users use IE6, why spend time for those 4%?". (which also begs the question: what are those 4% doing on a website that doesn't work at all for them? Shouldn't that be 100%/0%)
The browser landscape was very different when IE6 was new. In many cases the only way to write a performant, complex web app was to use ActiveX (or Flash). The problem is those apps were never updated as web technologies rapidly moved forward.
I bet a lot of corporations would have loved for Microsoft to launch a sandboxed version of IE6 that had enough "knobs" for the sysadmins to only allow it to work on an intranet or going to specific sites. Saves a lot of investment, but becomes the new COBOL.
Most CSS bugs just make things a bit uglier, rather than completely breaking your entire site.
On one of my sites it had made most important button "add to cart" unclickable
You might be surprised how often a CSS bug will break an entire site. I've seen it many times in my decades.
Oh, I’ve got a good one about this.
Back in 2000, I was living in a new city, and cold-calling graphic design firms. At the time, most of the web looked like utter ass, and my feeling was that it made more sense to try to be the in-house developer for designers, rather than try to bring design to web development firms.
So I put together a resume with my personal URL placed prominently across the top, and knocked on the door of every graphic design firm in Portland. I met a bunch of confused designers, and didn’t get a single call or email back. I noticed in passing — and importantly to this story — that the whole industry was still wedded to Macs running the non-memory-protected OS 8. Months passed and my savings trickled away.
Eventually out of desperation I took a job at a shipping company that was rewriting their in-house software suite. I noticed that they had a couple dusty Macs in the corner for browser testing that they never bothered doing, and thought it might be amusing to see how my site loaded.
It turned out that there was an error in the CSS engine in MSIE Mac that crashed the system. Not the browser, the entire computer. Click, smash. I realized with horror that I had spent months crashing the computers — along with the unsaved work — of every graphic designer in Portland.
Back in 2000, I was living in a new city, and cold-calling graphic design firms. At the time, most of the web looked like utter ass, and my feeling was that it made more sense to try to be the in-house developer for designers, rather than try to bring design to web development firms.
So I put together a resume with my personal URL placed prominently across the top, and knocked on the door of every graphic design firm in Portland. I met a bunch of confused designers, and didn’t get a single call or email back. I noticed in passing — and importantly to this story — that the whole industry was still wedded to Macs running the non-memory-protected OS 8. Months passed and my savings trickled away.
Eventually out of desperation I took a job at a shipping company that was rewriting their in-house software suite. I noticed that they had a couple dusty Macs in the corner for browser testing that they never bothered doing, and thought it might be amusing to see how my site loaded.
It turned out that there was an error in the CSS engine in MSIE Mac that crashed the system. Not the browser, the entire computer. Click, smash. I realized with horror that I had spent months crashing the computers — along with the unsaved work — of every graphic designer in Portland.
Similar story, I made an IE6 PNG transparency "fix" that used some IE specific image filter language (I can't even remember what anymore).
On some computers without enough memory the "fix" crashed the entire OS with a bluescreen (no idea what the bug was because I didn't have windows, and because... well it's windows, I think I developed it in WINE!). I only found this out through a client complaining about their clients computers bluescreening when visiting their site... this was probably 2008-ish, so not exactly peak IE6, but it was the phase where a bunch of orgs still forced everyone to use it under the ridiculous premise of "security".
On some computers without enough memory the "fix" crashed the entire OS with a bluescreen (no idea what the bug was because I didn't have windows, and because... well it's windows, I think I developed it in WINE!). I only found this out through a client complaining about their clients computers bluescreening when visiting their site... this was probably 2008-ish, so not exactly peak IE6, but it was the phase where a bunch of orgs still forced everyone to use it under the ridiculous premise of "security".
That's fantastic! I have the opposite story - we sold opinionated Mac software bundles, and one of the perks was we could use the latest Apple-only Safari CSS tricks (this was before Chrome forked from WebKit and Safari was actually leading the way with stuff like CSS transitions/animations and Canvas). Microsoft released free VMs for browser testing in IE and I tried it for kicks, and indeed, our page would literally crash IE when loaded (of course Windows had protected memory so the OS wouldn't crash). We wore it as a badge of honor.
Oh, it can definitely happen. In earlier drafts of the current iteration of my website, I used `mix-blend-mode: multiply` liberally (most significantly for the left sidebar), and discovered that in Chromium under Windows anything you used it on would stop rendering after a few thousand pixels (4096 or 8192 or something, my memory’s fuzzy and I don’t have the bug IDs handy), meaning that most of some of my articles were just missing. And that wasn’t even the only debilitating bug I found in Chromium in the process. So I regretfully removed some of the clevernesses that did produce better results in Firefox, because I found Chromium so terribly buggy in some of the slightly-newer stuff. (My general experience and impression is that Chromium ships fast with lots of bugs that tend to linger, and Firefox ships more slowly with decidedly fewer bugs.)
But still, most CSS bugs aren’t so severe.
But still, most CSS bugs aren’t so severe.
Your bug reported 16,384px after accounting for device scale: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=992398
I knew it'd be this number right away, because it's also the maximum screenshot height thanks to being the maximum height of a surface in Chromium (Actually last I checked this technically depends on the GL backend used, but 16kpx seems common)
I knew it'd be this number right away, because it's also the maximum screenshot height thanks to being the maximum height of a surface in Chromium (Actually last I checked this technically depends on the GL backend used, but 16kpx seems common)
4096 was a common max GL texture size on low end hardware.
Most Safari comment threads have people looking for an excuse to use the phrase "The new IE" as if it's a zinger they came up with.
[deleted]
Safari regresses more commonly, and those regressions are often more fundamental vs edge cases, and then they take ages to fix. Sometimes they don't even bother until the next major release which is maddening... Anyone remember how they completely broke iframe sizing on iOS some version or other back and then just left it there?
We were pretty much stuffed due to depending on iframes. Some users are stuck on that version of iOS because their device is "too old" for Apple's liking and we have to tell those users we can't support it, which is horrible because we are effectively being used by Apple to coerce those users to throw their devices away...
We were pretty much stuffed due to depending on iframes. Some users are stuck on that version of iOS because their device is "too old" for Apple's liking and we have to tell those users we can't support it, which is horrible because we are effectively being used by Apple to coerce those users to throw their devices away...
Heh, reading the title I thought this was going to be someone losing all their tabs because "clear history" on mobile Safari apparently does that: https://twitter.com/SaraSoueidan/status/1457307545815732233
> Oh dear God.. Clearing history on Safari iOS closes all currently-opened tabs?! Why is there nothing that warns you of that?! Why does clearing history on mobile work differently from the way it does on mac? I had 60+ important tabs open and now they're gone!!
> I had so many notes, bookmarks, and links I needed to use in my course + so many pages unrelated to work, all open for later reference. And no I don't have a backup to restore from. What the heck, Apple?!
> Oh dear God.. Clearing history on Safari iOS closes all currently-opened tabs?! Why is there nothing that warns you of that?! Why does clearing history on mobile work differently from the way it does on mac? I had 60+ important tabs open and now they're gone!!
> I had so many notes, bookmarks, and links I needed to use in my course + so many pages unrelated to work, all open for later reference. And no I don't have a backup to restore from. What the heck, Apple?!
I was struck by that too. Don't know why or how or with which action, but lost all my opened tabs on my iPhone a few weeks ago.
Luckily it was really just work "in progress", but never the less I've lost information. Which shouldn't happen in 2021.
Luckily it was really just work "in progress", but never the less I've lost information. Which shouldn't happen in 2021.
Tried that. Cannot reproduce (iOS 15.1; iPhone and iPad).
I have seen iOS on iPad suddenly start with a set of tabs from some time ago, though, and that can look identical to “losing all tabs”. Can’t repro that either, but it seems to happen after one runs multiple Safari’s side by side and then went back to full-screen (if you do that, multiple Safari’s show up in the Task Switcher)
Either way I think this is a bug, not by design.
I have seen iOS on iPad suddenly start with a set of tabs from some time ago, though, and that can look identical to “losing all tabs”. Can’t repro that either, but it seems to happen after one runs multiple Safari’s side by side and then went back to full-screen (if you do that, multiple Safari’s show up in the Task Switcher)
Either way I think this is a bug, not by design.
When I clear history from the Settings app, it closes all tabs (at least it did when I tried a few months ago). When I clear from Safari itself, it doesn't close tabs. Maybe you did the latter?
> I had 60+ important tabs open and now they're gone!!
This just doesn't seem a reasonable expectation that these are preserved - they would also be lost if the computer crashed wouldn't they?
If it's important then save it.
This just doesn't seem a reasonable expectation that these are preserved - they would also be lost if the computer crashed wouldn't they?
If it's important then save it.
> they would also be lost if the computer crashed wouldn't they?
In 2000, maybe, yes. But nowadays all browsers write important parts of their state to disk and will recover that on crash. If you do a `sudo reboot now` in a terminal, you'll find firefox opens all tabs when rebooting.
A lot of the content in those pages will be gone; e.g. sessions, SPA/JS-in-memory-state or this comment in a textbox before submitting. But the tabs, their URLs and even the placement of tabs is restored.
In 2000, maybe, yes. But nowadays all browsers write important parts of their state to disk and will recover that on crash. If you do a `sudo reboot now` in a terminal, you'll find firefox opens all tabs when rebooting.
A lot of the content in those pages will be gone; e.g. sessions, SPA/JS-in-memory-state or this comment in a textbox before submitting. But the tabs, their URLs and even the placement of tabs is restored.
Browsers these days routinely persist the contents of the current session to disk, exactly to defend against a crash (computer or the application itself).
Of course, bugs and disk corruption happen, but you need more than a computer crash to lose all your tabs.
Of course, bugs and disk corruption happen, but you need more than a computer crash to lose all your tabs.
>Of course, bugs and disk corruption happen
And Firefox has multiple backup of sessions to the point even if your previous session was corrupted you can still recover a session saved slightly earlier. This was partly done because there are people ( like me ) who have hundreds if not thousands of Tabs opened and they ( me ) complain a lot about it.
Chrome made something similar and put in protection that may corrupt the ex-session files. To the point for nearly a decade browsers have had bullet proof session restore. ( Apart from Safari which still happens from time to time )
And Firefox has multiple backup of sessions to the point even if your previous session was corrupted you can still recover a session saved slightly earlier. This was partly done because there are people ( like me ) who have hundreds if not thousands of Tabs opened and they ( me ) complain a lot about it.
Chrome made something similar and put in protection that may corrupt the ex-session files. To the point for nearly a decade browsers have had bullet proof session restore. ( Apart from Safari which still happens from time to time )
> And Firefox has multiple backup of sessions to the point even if your previous session was corrupted you can still recover a session saved slightly earlier.
Yup. You might have to root around in the profile's directory, though, which not every user knows how to do.
But it being a possibility is absolutely great.
> This was partly done because there are people ( like me ) who have hundreds if not thousands of Tabs opened and they ( me ) complain a lot about it.
Same.
Yup. You might have to root around in the profile's directory, though, which not every user knows how to do.
But it being a possibility is absolutely great.
> This was partly done because there are people ( like me ) who have hundreds if not thousands of Tabs opened and they ( me ) complain a lot about it.
Same.
Firefox has "Open previous windows and tabs" as a startup option. Is that something that Safari doesn't do?
Interesting, on both my phone and computer tabs stay until I close them? Sometimes they need to manually be "recovered" if crash.
They do persist. To the point of people forgetting that they are ephemeral.
It boggles my mind that people use tabs like bookmarks. Not only does this usually destroy your available RAM, but its just not the right tool for the job. You are using a hammer like a screwdriver.
To each their own, I guess. Just don't get mad when your browser crashes from overloading with tabs, or when you clear your history and it triggers the expected behavior of closing them. It would be a huge privacy concern if your open tabs didn't close when you clear the browser history.
To each their own, I guess. Just don't get mad when your browser crashes from overloading with tabs, or when you clear your history and it triggers the expected behavior of closing them. It would be a huge privacy concern if your open tabs didn't close when you clear the browser history.
I fully disagree. IMHO other open tabs are part of the current app state (not its history) just as the currently active tab. Do you expect clearing history to close the window you are currently looking at? None of the multiple browsers I use would close any open tabs when you clear browser history, at least on computers - mobile UX might be different, though, but I don't use mobile browsing much perhaps this is a source of differing expectations?
Regarding crashes, I fully expect that a browser which crashes or gets forcibly closed (e.g. the computer losing power) will restore all the open tabs afterwards, and modern browsers do succeed in doing that, if they did not, I would consider that as a bug to be fixed.
Regarding crashes, I fully expect that a browser which crashes or gets forcibly closed (e.g. the computer losing power) will restore all the open tabs afterwards, and modern browsers do succeed in doing that, if they did not, I would consider that as a bug to be fixed.
Leaving a million tabs open is analogous leaving all your silverware on your countertop instead of putting it in a drawer where it belongs. Regardless of how convenient it is, it's chaotic and incorrect user behavior. People need to take accountability for not using internet browsers correctly. Learn from your mistakes. PEBKAC.
This actually gave me an idea: a web browser with a feature that automatically saves open tabs into a "tab list," which functions the same way as bookmarks. Oh wait, that's the browsing history.
This actually gave me an idea: a web browser with a feature that automatically saves open tabs into a "tab list," which functions the same way as bookmarks. Oh wait, that's the browsing history.
If I have two tabs open, click "erase history" and one of these two tabs gets discarded, I have "used browsers correctly" (unless using the browser-provided tab functionality is always wrong) and still lost current application state. In such a situation there is no mistake to learn from, just broken user expectations (since no other browser does it that way) i.e. broken UX.
Also, I must point out that your choice of words with respect to users who have different habits than you - "PEBKAC", "need to take accountability for not using browsers correctly" is condescending, arrogant and simply rude - please do not do that. Not respecting users' choices and behavior is not an appropriate way to design user interfaces and is not an appropriate position from which to argue how user interfaces should be implemented. If browsers provide functionality for more than one tab, then browsers must work properly for more than one tab. In this case, the expected functionality for n=2 is the same as for n=1000, so the number of open tabs is not particularly relevant.
Also, I must point out that your choice of words with respect to users who have different habits than you - "PEBKAC", "need to take accountability for not using browsers correctly" is condescending, arrogant and simply rude - please do not do that. Not respecting users' choices and behavior is not an appropriate way to design user interfaces and is not an appropriate position from which to argue how user interfaces should be implemented. If browsers provide functionality for more than one tab, then browsers must work properly for more than one tab. In this case, the expected functionality for n=2 is the same as for n=1000, so the number of open tabs is not particularly relevant.
On mobile, iOS will aggressively swap out webpages that haven’t been looked at in a while, though it still maintains the presence of the tab in the window. Navigate back to a paged out tab and it will force a page reload.
The swapping behaviour seems to be good at stopping leaky sites from ruining your browsing experience.
Personally I am also guilty of using tabs like bookmarks. Especially on mobile. Though I do think that if the aggressive swapping wasn’t done, this behaviour wouldn’t be so prevalent.
The swapping behaviour seems to be good at stopping leaky sites from ruining your browsing experience.
Personally I am also guilty of using tabs like bookmarks. Especially on mobile. Though I do think that if the aggressive swapping wasn’t done, this behaviour wouldn’t be so prevalent.
This is a user experience problem. It is easy to close a tab. It is hard to delete a bookmark, and easy to end up with a giant list of things you will never care about again.
50 tabs open is an indication that there is a stage between "I am actively reading" and "I care about this enough to make a permanent record."
50 tabs open is an indication that there is a stage between "I am actively reading" and "I care about this enough to make a permanent record."
> This is a user experience problem. It is easy to close a tab. It is hard to delete a bookmark, and easy to end up with a giant list of things you will never care about again.
Precisely. Personally, I created a browser extension[0] for myself where I just save the webpage and set a reminder to read, and then just close the tab. This way, I just close the tab immediately, and then I would be able to revisit the page later via reminders. This kind of works fine for me.
[0] - https://palerdot.in/remindoro/
Precisely. Personally, I created a browser extension[0] for myself where I just save the webpage and set a reminder to read, and then just close the tab. This way, I just close the tab immediately, and then I would be able to revisit the page later via reminders. This kind of works fine for me.
[0] - https://palerdot.in/remindoro/
Yeah, you hit the nail on the head. There should be some sort of middle ground, which I suspect is what tab groups try to solve.
My use case for tabs is quick ingestion of information that I tend to look at immediately, in rapid succession. Say, a Google search for something, and I open the top ten links to ingest the info.
I do not use bookmarks or keep tabs open. I do not save browser history either. Everything important to me, for the past or future, is in my head. If I want to bookmark something, I'll make a shortcut instead. Hacker News is a good example of a shortcut I'll make on my homescreen.
Overall, I think it's important to exercise our memory or we risk losing it. Having a cognitive load is important to our aging brains, and I feel that things like bookmarks and open tabs reduce our cognitive load too much. There are also privacy merits to not retaining bookmarks, tabs, or browser history. My ideal web browser is completely stateless.
My use case for tabs is quick ingestion of information that I tend to look at immediately, in rapid succession. Say, a Google search for something, and I open the top ten links to ingest the info.
I do not use bookmarks or keep tabs open. I do not save browser history either. Everything important to me, for the past or future, is in my head. If I want to bookmark something, I'll make a shortcut instead. Hacker News is a good example of a shortcut I'll make on my homescreen.
Overall, I think it's important to exercise our memory or we risk losing it. Having a cognitive load is important to our aging brains, and I feel that things like bookmarks and open tabs reduce our cognitive load too much. There are also privacy merits to not retaining bookmarks, tabs, or browser history. My ideal web browser is completely stateless.
> when you clear your history and it triggers the expected behavior of closing them
As the tweeter mentions, no other browser has that behaviour, nor does Safari on MacOS, nor did older versions. A sibling comment also reported not being able to reproduce it, so it sounds like a bug - in any case, definitely not expected behaviour.
As the tweeter mentions, no other browser has that behaviour, nor does Safari on MacOS, nor did older versions. A sibling comment also reported not being able to reproduce it, so it sounds like a bug - in any case, definitely not expected behaviour.
Part of the problem is the very slow release cadence of Safari. Features are tied to annual OS releases, bug fixes seem to often not meet the bar for incremental updates, which have no discernable schedule.
This here is for me one of the biggest problems with Apple. I imagine this sort of eye of Sauron inside the company, whatever the eye rests on gets attention, anything else takes a back seat. They don’t seem to be able to multitask.
There are severe bugs in iOS Mail app for instance that have been there for years, through major iOS versions. How difficult would it be to have a team dedicated to fixing bugs outside the release cycle? It would provide a great environment for up and coming developers. And I can’t help thinking that fixing these paper cut issues would gain Apple respect, maybe not from the average user, but certainly from the sort of user that notices those details.
And perhaps also an easier way of raising bugs…
There are severe bugs in iOS Mail app for instance that have been there for years, through major iOS versions. How difficult would it be to have a team dedicated to fixing bugs outside the release cycle? It would provide a great environment for up and coming developers. And I can’t help thinking that fixing these paper cut issues would gain Apple respect, maybe not from the average user, but certainly from the sort of user that notices those details.
And perhaps also an easier way of raising bugs…
I think Safari is now the only big non-evergreen browser remaining out there, and I think it's really holding it back. On both security fixes and features.
I hope some point in the future Apple untie Safari from macOS and iOS so they can be updated independently without having to wait months to operating system updates to come out..
I hope some point in the future Apple untie Safari from macOS and iOS so they can be updated independently without having to wait months to operating system updates to come out..
Safari actually does get backported to previous macOS releases, at least during betas. You can run the Safari "Technology Preview" on n-1 macOS. https://developer.apple.com/safari/technology-preview/
But they aren't backported on iOS, I assume purely for marketing (look at our new tab layout! you'll get it in the fall), which doesn't make sense considering the last time anyone cared about a browser feature was probably when tabs were added to IE7.
But they aren't backported on iOS, I assume purely for marketing (look at our new tab layout! you'll get it in the fall), which doesn't make sense considering the last time anyone cared about a browser feature was probably when tabs were added to IE7.
Yeah they've always updated Safari on the previous version of macOS, but that's pretty far from being evergreen, and the average user isn't going to be using the technology preview.
Take Chrome for example, where there's roughly an update every 60 days and the option for them to push out security fixes quicker.
Imagine having to wait for an operating system update (major or minor version) to just get the latest secure version of Chrome. That's pretty much where Safari is, especially on iOS.
Don't get me wrong, I think Safari gets a lot of unwarranted hate and it can certainly be a bit quirky here and there, but if they didn't have to wait for the next major/minor release of macOS/iOS to update Safari I think it'd be in a much better place.
Take Chrome for example, where there's roughly an update every 60 days and the option for them to push out security fixes quicker.
Imagine having to wait for an operating system update (major or minor version) to just get the latest secure version of Chrome. That's pretty much where Safari is, especially on iOS.
Don't get me wrong, I think Safari gets a lot of unwarranted hate and it can certainly be a bit quirky here and there, but if they didn't have to wait for the next major/minor release of macOS/iOS to update Safari I think it'd be in a much better place.
Honestly just isn't in their interest to do so anymore, and that's messed up.
I encounter random CSS bugs all the time in Chrome, it's just trendy to say Safari is behind the times.
Google wants everything to be done in the browser, their browser, so they can track everything without cookies to sell ads
Google wants everything to be done in the browser, their browser, so they can track everything without cookies to sell ads
It's really not just "trendy". Safari is the bane of my existence. On Big Sur, our WebGL app was occassionally sporadically rendering floating objects and black primitives into infinity on our CEOs laptop.
On the plus side, our competitor's product didn't work at all. So I guess it's not all bad.
In this case, Catalina had worked fine, and upgrading to Monterey fixed the issue. So props to Apple for fixing the problem. However, at the same time, our app worked flawlessly in both Firefox and Chrome running on the same hardware. Granted, it's not as simple as pointing the finger at Safari. The issue was a combination of Safari's behaviour paired with less than perfect graphics drivers.
Although, this is just one example. Mobile Safari not supporting full screen APIs on iPhone, but supporting them on iPad is just, well, weird. Is that a conscious effort to cripple the web on iPhone, or could they just not figure out the UX?
On the plus side, our competitor's product didn't work at all. So I guess it's not all bad.
In this case, Catalina had worked fine, and upgrading to Monterey fixed the issue. So props to Apple for fixing the problem. However, at the same time, our app worked flawlessly in both Firefox and Chrome running on the same hardware. Granted, it's not as simple as pointing the finger at Safari. The issue was a combination of Safari's behaviour paired with less than perfect graphics drivers.
Although, this is just one example. Mobile Safari not supporting full screen APIs on iPhone, but supporting them on iPad is just, well, weird. Is that a conscious effort to cripple the web on iPhone, or could they just not figure out the UX?
I actually like that they do this and let me use the UI I know and that will definitely work. 99% your video playback UX is not as good and you mostly want to take over full-screen so you can prevent the user from doing things (you may fall in the 1%, but I’m generalizing so apologies if you’re one of the few exceptions). It’s annoying on the iPad when sites build half-cocked full-screen UIs with buggy custom controls.
As mentioned, our app is WebGL i.e. interactive real-time rendering, not at all video playback.
That said, I agree with you on custom video UIs being horrid.
That said, I agree with you on custom video UIs being horrid.
Oh neat, and sorry for missing that. I can totally see why you might have valid reasons for that.
There's nothing wrong with the browser being the next generation cross-platform execution environment. All the older options for this (Java, Flash etc.) sucked...
I would like to see a strong competitor to Chrome someday though... - Firefox still has weird issues occasionally (most recently scroll position randomly jumping sometimes). I still keep it around though because its sane when it comes to standards and will remain sane even if things like HW acceleration are not available. - Safari is out of the question as it is not even cross-platform (might as well be IE6) - Chromium and derivatives aren't distinct enough from Chrome and a lot of the new ones have weird cryptocurrency integrations that just don't feel right. - Is Opera still alive?
I would like to see a strong competitor to Chrome someday though... - Firefox still has weird issues occasionally (most recently scroll position randomly jumping sometimes). I still keep it around though because its sane when it comes to standards and will remain sane even if things like HW acceleration are not available. - Safari is out of the question as it is not even cross-platform (might as well be IE6) - Chromium and derivatives aren't distinct enough from Chrome and a lot of the new ones have weird cryptocurrency integrations that just don't feel right. - Is Opera still alive?
> Safari is out of the question as it is not even cross-platform (might as well be IE6)
It's a bit funny, and a bit sad, that this wasn't always so; I rather liked the Windows version of Safari, and IE for UNIX was apparently pretty good.
It's a bit funny, and a bit sad, that this wasn't always so; I rather liked the Windows version of Safari, and IE for UNIX was apparently pretty good.
Yeah.
I don't miss doing web dev in the Win XP days when one had to test everything on IE, Chrome, Safari, Opera, Firefox, etc. but at least there were options back then and things legit ran with different HTML and JS engines.
Now it's just Chrome/Chromium and Firefox representing cross-platform browsers, and most other things are platform specific WebKit mods or Chromium reskins...
I don't miss doing web dev in the Win XP days when one had to test everything on IE, Chrome, Safari, Opera, Firefox, etc. but at least there were options back then and things legit ran with different HTML and JS engines.
Now it's just Chrome/Chromium and Firefox representing cross-platform browsers, and most other things are platform specific WebKit mods or Chromium reskins...
> Safari is out of the question as it is not even cross-platform
At the moment. Apple has a fairly long history of keeping cross-platform ports alive even if they aren't publicly available (that's why the transitions from 68K->PowerPC->Intel->Apple Silicon have been relatively smooth).
I would bet that Apple could roll out a cross-platform Safari in fairly short order, should the powers that be decide that it makes business sense.
At the moment. Apple has a fairly long history of keeping cross-platform ports alive even if they aren't publicly available (that's why the transitions from 68K->PowerPC->Intel->Apple Silicon have been relatively smooth).
I would bet that Apple could roll out a cross-platform Safari in fairly short order, should the powers that be decide that it makes business sense.
But they have not, so "Apple has a fairly long history of keeping cross-platform ports alive even if they aren't publicly available" means a load of nothing at the moment.
I get that Apple are not trying to make a Chrome/Chromium competitor because it is not worth it for them and in that they have succeeded --- Safari is indeed not a competitor to Chrome/Chromium... So... good job?
I get that Apple are not trying to make a Chrome/Chromium competitor because it is not worth it for them and in that they have succeeded --- Safari is indeed not a competitor to Chrome/Chromium... So... good job?
I doubt there's any Windows version developed at Apple even in secrecy; they definitely abandon that operating system and decided focusing on their own macOS and features it comes with and their cloud services is the only way. While they do support iCloud on Windows to some extent, there's no support on Linux nor under Android. At least no official one that's done in super-easy way.
> Apple has a fairly long history of keeping cross-platform ports alive even if they aren't publicly available (that's why the transitions from 68K->PowerPC->Intel->Apple Silicon have been relatively smooth)
I don’t fully follow that logic. There never was a cross-platform Mac OS until PowerPC. The 68k to PowerPC transition had the first PowerPC version running most of the OS in emulation, and an incredible hack (in the good sense) to allow 68k code call PowerPC code and vice versa for all the different calling conventions that the 68k version of the OS used.
I think the later transitions only worked because they had moved to the Unix-based Mac OS X before that, ditching lots of assembly code. It’s Unix that’s portable.
For both PowerPC to Intel and Intel to Apple Silicon I guess it also helped that they already had code for lots of time-critical parts of the OS. For the first, they had Intel code in QuickTime for Windows, for the second, ARM code in iOS.
I don’t fully follow that logic. There never was a cross-platform Mac OS until PowerPC. The 68k to PowerPC transition had the first PowerPC version running most of the OS in emulation, and an incredible hack (in the good sense) to allow 68k code call PowerPC code and vice versa for all the different calling conventions that the 68k version of the OS used.
I think the later transitions only worked because they had moved to the Unix-based Mac OS X before that, ditching lots of assembly code. It’s Unix that’s portable.
For both PowerPC to Intel and Intel to Apple Silicon I guess it also helped that they already had code for lots of time-critical parts of the OS. For the first, they had Intel code in QuickTime for Windows, for the second, ARM code in iOS.
Except when it's Chrome, it's probably a feature and not a bug. Remember that Google effectively controls the web "standards".
I want everything in the browser too - except the ads.
And FF isn't keeping up :( WebUSB for example.
And FF isn't keeping up :( WebUSB for example.
WebUSB is insane security-wise.
About the only worse thing would be a WebPCIe.
About the only worse thing would be a WebPCIe.
Don't give them ideas. Also, with Thunderbolt, USB is pretty much just a transport for PCI-e.
Edit, here's how Google justifies the existence of WebUSB (https://web.dev/usb/):
"""
Let's see the behavior you could expect with the WebUSB API:
1. Buy a USB device.
2. Plug it into your computer. A notification appears right away, with the right website to go to for this device.
3. Click the notification. The website is there and ready to use!
4. Click to connect and a USB device chooser shows up in Chrome where you can pick your device.
"""
The goal is to make Chrome the OS. As long as your USB device works on Chrome, who cares about it working on the rest of the system. Absolute madness.
Edit, here's how Google justifies the existence of WebUSB (https://web.dev/usb/):
"""
Let's see the behavior you could expect with the WebUSB API:
1. Buy a USB device.
2. Plug it into your computer. A notification appears right away, with the right website to go to for this device.
3. Click the notification. The website is there and ready to use!
4. Click to connect and a USB device chooser shows up in Chrome where you can pick your device.
"""
The goal is to make Chrome the OS. As long as your USB device works on Chrome, who cares about it working on the rest of the system. Absolute madness.
I mean isn't it a lot more manageable than things like PCIe that support DMA.
Given the seemingly extensive support for doing emulated USB passthrough/redirection to VMs, I'm assuming people have looked into the security implications to the host.
Given the seemingly extensive support for doing emulated USB passthrough/redirection to VMs, I'm assuming people have looked into the security implications to the host.
Be careful what you wish for, USB4 supports PCIe tunneling. Looks like we're just a slippery slope away.
Oh yes it's trendy to criticize Apple but it's not trendy to criticize Google.
Honestly I don't know the reality some HN commenters live in.
Honestly I don't know the reality some HN commenters live in.
Chrome fucked up one of my days, because it suddenly changed the way updating a video element's source worked. On Android 11, and not even all platforms, by the looks of the log files. So, you hack around it, deploy, shrug, and add a notch to your eternally flaming hatred for everything the internet has become.
Yikes, that's an awful bug. I make heavy use of pointer-events none. And I've _already_ had to have a special case for Safari, because it didn't seem to support setting `pointer-events: all` on SVG tspan elements. Now I have to double check to see if/what is broken in Safari 15 :(
My general recommendation is to make Safari your main browser for development work. Check your work in Firefox later. By that point it should be good.
If any weirdness shows up in Chrome, you'll just end up comparing it to IE6.
If any weirdness shows up in Chrome, you'll just end up comparing it to IE6.
A recommendation predicated with "Get a Mac first for development work"?
Last I checked Safari unlike Firefox and Chrome is not cross platform.
Small aside: Webkit browsers used to have problems with CSS (especially things involving 3d) when hardware acceleration is unavailable. Spent so many hours back in the day debugging why certain CSS effects did not work. Switched to Firefox and worked like a charm... Only really understood the problem when I eventually switched to a system with HW acceleration support.
Last I checked Safari unlike Firefox and Chrome is not cross platform.
Small aside: Webkit browsers used to have problems with CSS (especially things involving 3d) when hardware acceleration is unavailable. Spent so many hours back in the day debugging why certain CSS effects did not work. Switched to Firefox and worked like a charm... Only really understood the problem when I eventually switched to a system with HW acceleration support.
GNOME Web is officially recommended by Apple for testing WebKit on Linux. The devtools even look identical to those on Safari.
Hmm, so I'm assuming from this post that this same Safari CSS bug is present in GNOME Web too?
'Cause if it isn't then it's not really a good proxy for testing Safari behavior in this context...
'Cause if it isn't then it's not really a good proxy for testing Safari behavior in this context...
WebKit is the engine safari uses so anything that uses WebKit should in theory provide the exact same rendering experience.
Safari itself is not open source so it's unclear how much/little they have modified WebKit and the JavaScript engine. Given that this bug involves JS (events not firing), and MacOS doing its own thing with JS, it's entirely possible that this is a Safari only bug that resides in the proprietary parts of the codebase...
That’s good to know actually, thanks.
>My general recommendation is to make Safari your main browser for development work.
How do you that if you don't own a mac?
How do you that if you don't own a mac?
Well, you can't, but it'd be the same story as if you only had a Mac in 2006 and wanted to test IE6. Consumers have a choice for the devices they use, so it might make business sense to test changes with hardware your customers use at the same frequency or more often than you do on your own preferred hardware.
Exactly, hence the implication should be that _Safari_ is the IE6 of 2021 rather than, according to the OP, Chrome.
As dumb as it was, IE was providing free VMs preloaded with IE versions for developers. Apple is horribly developer hostile.
My company refuses to test and run around with Safari bugs, the advice is to install a better browser.
Then I won’t be a customer. Is the best quality browser for me. Not perfect, but better than the alternatives. I’m happy to walk away from the tiny number of sites that break in Safari. And that’s just on desktop where I could use something besides Safari if I wanted to.
Whereas you’re literally saying you’re happy to walk away from over 35% of mobile users, while telling them to do something they can’t do without replacing their device. That’s… one way to run a business.
Whereas you’re literally saying you’re happy to walk away from over 35% of mobile users, while telling them to do something they can’t do without replacing their device. That’s… one way to run a business.
Depends on the context of course but this generally rings true.
The amount of business we would be losing by ignoring mobile safari users is staggering. For whatever reason it's also the majority browser, I dont think its safe to assume that the users of your site using safari are equal to the percentage of the market share even.
Ignoring it is a very unusual stance unless your site/app is basically exclusively desktop.
The amount of business we would be losing by ignoring mobile safari users is staggering. For whatever reason it's also the majority browser, I dont think its safe to assume that the users of your site using safari are equal to the percentage of the market share even.
Ignoring it is a very unusual stance unless your site/app is basically exclusively desktop.
> As dumb as it was, IE was providing free VMs preloaded with IE versions for developers.
Not in 2006 no. MS started providing free VMs for browser testing circa 2013, after the release of IE10.
Not in 2006 no. MS started providing free VMs for browser testing circa 2013, after the release of IE10.
As other have said, the problem is that Safari is only available on Mac OS.
Say what you will about IE, at least Microsoft make an attempt to make it available to everyone (via free Windows VM preloaded with specific IE version).
Say what you will about IE, at least Microsoft make an attempt to make it available to everyone (via free Windows VM preloaded with specific IE version).
A more reasonable approach is to code to standards then do these things:
1. Tell customers it will cost x more money to fix bugs on Safari (likely zero will pay this premium)
2. Put a notice or banner for Safari users that they are using a non standards compliant browser and they may see minor or major issues and maybe should use Firefox or Chrome.
3. Educate customers on standards and show them alternatives so they can do the same for their customers.
4. Record actual brower useage data and demonstrate the low count of actual Safari visitors and star back at #1 above with this newly applied info.
1. Tell customers it will cost x more money to fix bugs on Safari (likely zero will pay this premium)
2. Put a notice or banner for Safari users that they are using a non standards compliant browser and they may see minor or major issues and maybe should use Firefox or Chrome.
3. Educate customers on standards and show them alternatives so they can do the same for their customers.
4. Record actual brower useage data and demonstrate the low count of actual Safari visitors and star back at #1 above with this newly applied info.
Code to webkit's standards. Also you're forgetting iOS is largely Safari (or chrome/firefox wrapped in webkit).
Tbh, personally, I only care about Safari because iOS. If iOS user are able to use other browsers, I wouldn't really hesitate to not support Safari.
Are you saying you basically want a Chrome monoculture? It would be terrible to give that much power to Google.
They're saying that they won't put up with Apple's laziness. If Apple wants developers to target their browser, they should provide a working browser.
There's Firefox.
i sympathize with the author.
safari and browsers aside, there is something bigger going on. there is a massive disconnect between applications users and makers nowadays. i have started to think that they a) don't care b) have misaligned priorities c) have weird notions of "acceptable" errors.
i have a long list of applications that break every time there is an update. even UX updates introduce bugs nowadays. i have started to dread updates and upgrades.
we have lost all notion of stability.
safari and browsers aside, there is something bigger going on. there is a massive disconnect between applications users and makers nowadays. i have started to think that they a) don't care b) have misaligned priorities c) have weird notions of "acceptable" errors.
i have a long list of applications that break every time there is an update. even UX updates introduce bugs nowadays. i have started to dread updates and upgrades.
we have lost all notion of stability.
"...i have a long list of applications that break every time there is an update..."
Updates to Wordpress / WooCommerce and accompanying plugins can make one go suicidal.
Updates to Wordpress / WooCommerce and accompanying plugins can make one go suicidal.
Why should any developer care about supporting Safari? Chrome and Firefox support most (all?) of the current web standards. Every site I use works on both. I don't hear any concerns about Brave, Edge or Opera either. How is it that Safari is the only broken browser these days?
As for 'acceptable' errors, I find software to be pretty reliable these days. I remember way more things being messed up back in the day...
As for 'acceptable' errors, I find software to be pretty reliable these days. I remember way more things being messed up back in the day...
Safari - for better or worse - is setting the standard for many privacy updates, especially around 3rd party cookies and tracking.
Those updates broke a lot of websites - you might have noticed SSO failing, iframes failing, or websites confusing unmodified Safari users for adblock users.
Firefox adopted the changes a bit later. By the time they made the switch, I think most had resolved their sites because of Safari. Last I read, Chrome is slated to implement similar for 2022.
Not intended to be a defense of Safari, especially for OP's bug. But at least some breaking changes were deliberate and in the name of privacy enhancements.
Those updates broke a lot of websites - you might have noticed SSO failing, iframes failing, or websites confusing unmodified Safari users for adblock users.
Firefox adopted the changes a bit later. By the time they made the switch, I think most had resolved their sites because of Safari. Last I read, Chrome is slated to implement similar for 2022.
Not intended to be a defense of Safari, especially for OP's bug. But at least some breaking changes were deliberate and in the name of privacy enhancements.
Mobile safari… since it’s the only engine on iOS … that ends up being a good chunk of users depending on your user base probably many try to use your website on an iPhone … if blink engine was allowed by apple on iOS - safari would die tomorrow
And if enough developers simply ignored Safari then maybe it would force Apple to either simply adhere to web standards or allow competing browser engines... Catering to them signals that their shitty behaviour is condoned.
It is the Mobile Safari engine... "simply ignored Safari" = "simply ignore iPhone users".
Apple's the one ignoring them by shipping them a broken browser.
This is the kind of thing that only web devs care about. If someone can't use your web app on their phone, they're going to never try your app again, not demand changes to the browser.
It's generally the first thing we check for when trialling new software. Does it work in Chrome/FF/Safari and on iOS/Android. If not then we won't continue the trial.
users won't see it like that
Hard for developers to ignore when the developers' manager is using an iPhone or iPad.
Who will the developers' manager blame: Apple or the developers?
Who will the developers' manager blame: Apple or the developers?
There are no web standards in the era of WHATWG. It’s just a living spec composed of whatever vendors build and convince other vendors to add to their own products. Chrome is constantly spitting out new proposals that are already half-baked-but-live in their browser and then people start using them and complain they aren’t yet in other browsers. Yet when Safari or Firefox add new features we don’t act like Chrome is slow? Chrome’s rapid pace is almost surely an effort by Google to overwhelm the competition so they can make more ad money through dark patterns via Chrome dominance.
Erm. So it works on Blink and Gecko... And Blink, and Blink, and Blink, but not WebKit? That's a symptom of a worse problem IMO.
Simple: iPhones. If you aren't worried about iPhones then ignore safari all you like.
In my brief experience in front-end, I've encountered weird Safari bugs on every single project.
In one case the code failed because the form object there doesn't implement the method to validate and submit. In another, it wasn't sending a form field if it was styled with "display: none;" (had to change to "left: -9999px;"). In another, playing a non-muted video would error out some of the time, if clicking an element wasn't recognized as a user event. In yet another, the mobile version refused to center text inside <button> no matter what. And so on.
In one case the code failed because the form object there doesn't implement the method to validate and submit. In another, it wasn't sending a form field if it was styled with "display: none;" (had to change to "left: -9999px;"). In another, playing a non-muted video would error out some of the time, if clicking an element wasn't recognized as a user event. In yet another, the mobile version refused to center text inside <button> no matter what. And so on.
> CSS includes a handy pointer-events attribute that makes buttons and links flip to non-interactive
Except that it doesn't, you can still focus those with keyboard and click them. You should always disable buttons with `disabled` property instead of that hack.
Except that it doesn't, you can still focus those with keyboard and click them. You should always disable buttons with `disabled` property instead of that hack.
In this case, the rule is for all interactive elements. It's not just buttons, but anchor tags as well (or any other element a user decides to put a `phx-click` and friends on. Phoenix LiveView internally already noops if it's not connected, but we used the css rule so the cursor pointer would not reflect an interactive element while in a loading state.
It's quite interesting to read the history of how Blink came to be[0]. Seems like it started on what amounts to a misunderstanding. And now, because of it, Safari's fallen hopelessly behind in web standards support, security, and even resource use (see RAM use in Safari vs Chrome with many tabs open, Safari uses 1.5x-2x more RAM). Apple's big weakness is that it has laser focus on a few cash cows, and lets everything else linger; the quality of Chrome developer relations, carefulness to not break things in updates (see Safari & IndexDB), huge resources invested in Chrome security, and focus on features and power users (tab list in the menu bar! tab search that doesn't take seconds to load on x86! better UI! tabs on top! multiple profile support! ability to open local HTML files without going into the Develop menu!). Why can't Apple just care to make a good browser?
Does anyone have any insights into how the Safari team functions at Apple, and why they're not catching up?
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5489641
Does anyone have any insights into how the Safari team functions at Apple, and why they're not catching up?
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5489641
I had the weird experience of someone reporting that a SSL issue was occurring in Safari but not with Chrome.
After a bunch of investigation and rabbit holes it turned out that it was an app issue where the "_" character wasn't being filtered from sub-domains.
https://my_name.domain.com -> works in Chrome, not in Safari
This is interesting to me as Safari is _correct_ in their implementation (that the underscore character isn't valid in domains), but again an instance of FF+Chrome working where Safari doesn't.
After a bunch of investigation and rabbit holes it turned out that it was an app issue where the "_" character wasn't being filtered from sub-domains.
https://my_name.domain.com -> works in Chrome, not in Safari
This is interesting to me as Safari is _correct_ in their implementation (that the underscore character isn't valid in domains), but again an instance of FF+Chrome working where Safari doesn't.
> This is interesting to me as Safari is _correct_ in their implementation (that the underscore character isn't valid in domains), but again an instance of FF+Chrome working where Safari doesn't
It's IE/Netscape all over again; a big driver of bugs back in the day was the one of them (usually but not always IE) was overly tolerant of some sort of bad behaviour).
It's IE/Netscape all over again; a big driver of bugs back in the day was the one of them (usually but not always IE) was overly tolerant of some sort of bad behaviour).
I didn't even have to open the article to know it's a CSS bug.
When you're doing cross-platform development like this for the web, you're going to have a "least common denominator" that you have to design for. Safari is that least common denominator right now only because Microsoft switched to using Chromium.
But if Apple switched Safari to use Chromium, then Firefox would be the least common denominator and supporting Firefox would suddenly seem like a burden.
It's fine to criticize Safari and encourage Apple to do better in the space, since Apple isn't super incentivized to improve Safari. But this narrative that always targets the browser with the smallest feature-set at any given time will only stop when all browsers are Chromium based. (At which point they'll start complaining about other browsers using a Chromium version that's slightly behind Chrome.)
It's fine to criticize Safari and encourage Apple to do better in the space, since Apple isn't super incentivized to improve Safari. But this narrative that always targets the browser with the smallest feature-set at any given time will only stop when all browsers are Chromium based. (At which point they'll start complaining about other browsers using a Chromium version that's slightly behind Chrome.)
Firefox releases every 4 weeks. Safari releases twice a year. That's a significant difference. We should all expect more from a $2.5T company (whose browser engine is the only allowed browser engine on iOS).
To clarify: it's not an attack on developers of Safari. The point is that Apple is severely underinvesting while at the same time blocking competition.
To clarify: it's not an attack on developers of Safari. The point is that Apple is severely underinvesting while at the same time blocking competition.
The * in that css rule is pretty painful.
I guess moving all your logic to the server means you can waste cycles in the CSSOM? /s
I’m curious if more explicit selectors would’ve fixed this, since the * exposes you to anything weird about your layout.
I’m curious if more explicit selectors would’ve fixed this, since the * exposes you to anything weird about your layout.
[deleted]
I’m not at my desk to try it right now, but I wonder if this can be worked around by forcing a repaint. Animating a custom property, for instance, can fix “stuck” styles for eg scroll shadows (see https://www.bram.us/2019/10/24/pure-css-scroll-shadows-verti...).
Here’s my latest browser issue that drove me crazy: In Safari the TextMetrics.actualBoundingBoxRight returned from CanvasRenderingContext2D.measureText() includes dangling spaces, and Chrome does not. So you’ll get different text measurements if the text has a space on the end, which broke my app’s logic of rendering multiline rich text in Chrome. Ugh.
I'm trying to figure out which browser is the biggest cancer for the WWW.
On the one hand, you have Safari whom has a parent company that isn't interested in making it have useful feature parity with the others because it'll then allow escape from their gravy train app store (fully working PWA's, non-compete with rendering engines in iOS). Their lack of keeping up is starting to look a bit like IE6 days.
And on the other, you have Chrome whom has a parent company that claims it wants to improve privacy (FLoC), but to me it is more of a "pulling the ladder up on everyone else" because they have so many other methods to track you (DNS, GA, Android, etc.) that limiting everyone would be disingenuous. Pushing AMP is another example of bullying behavior.
On the one hand, you have Safari whom has a parent company that isn't interested in making it have useful feature parity with the others because it'll then allow escape from their gravy train app store (fully working PWA's, non-compete with rendering engines in iOS). Their lack of keeping up is starting to look a bit like IE6 days.
And on the other, you have Chrome whom has a parent company that claims it wants to improve privacy (FLoC), but to me it is more of a "pulling the ladder up on everyone else" because they have so many other methods to track you (DNS, GA, Android, etc.) that limiting everyone would be disingenuous. Pushing AMP is another example of bullying behavior.
I think Safari, flaws and all, is pretty much the only browser that has any weight against Chrome.
Tell your manager that you want the web site to support Firefox or Brave or something else, and they'll tell you it's a waste of time.
Tell them that the web site won't work on their MacBook, and it's a four-alarm fire.
In a lot of ways, I wish Safari would deviate even more from Google's "standards" just so that maybe it would pull Big G back to the center some how.
Tell your manager that you want the web site to support Firefox or Brave or something else, and they'll tell you it's a waste of time.
Tell them that the web site won't work on their MacBook, and it's a four-alarm fire.
In a lot of ways, I wish Safari would deviate even more from Google's "standards" just so that maybe it would pull Big G back to the center some how.
> I think Safari, flaws and all, is pretty much the only browser that has any weight against Chrome.
This is a terrible argument. That an inferior, proprietary, broken browser made by a company trying to cripple the web to protect their lucrative walled garden should be more popular in order to prevent Google from having more market share just for reasons?
Chrome became popular and is popular because it works. It's cross-platform, it implements all the newest standards, it's just a good product.
This is a terrible argument. That an inferior, proprietary, broken browser made by a company trying to cripple the web to protect their lucrative walled garden should be more popular in order to prevent Google from having more market share just for reasons?
Chrome became popular and is popular because it works. It's cross-platform, it implements all the newest standards, it's just a good product.
It's your opinion that Safari is inferior and broken. IMO desktop Safari is better on UI, privacy, and features like autofilling SMS 2FA codes. It's "behind" on APIs like WebUSB or Idle Detection, and that's another plus: I don't want that stuff.
> Chrome became popular and is popular because it works.
Google promotes Chrome by leveraging the most valuable real estate on the web: the google.com homepage, and GMail popups. This ad space is unavailable to everyone else. They also bundled Chrome with Adobe Flash installers.
I agree Chrome is a good product, but Google uses their influence in search and email to gain Chrome market share. That's fine, it's their prerogative, but it means Chrome's rise is not pure organic growth based on its technical merit.
> Chrome became popular and is popular because it works.
Google promotes Chrome by leveraging the most valuable real estate on the web: the google.com homepage, and GMail popups. This ad space is unavailable to everyone else. They also bundled Chrome with Adobe Flash installers.
I agree Chrome is a good product, but Google uses their influence in search and email to gain Chrome market share. That's fine, it's their prerogative, but it means Chrome's rise is not pure organic growth based on its technical merit.
It's more reality than an argument, apple has a lot of high end users that most companies don't want to alienate whereas there is much less worry about breaking things for lower market share browsers like Firefox, etc.
an inferior, proprietary, broken browser made by a company trying to cripple the web to protect their lucrative walled garden
Wait... are you talking about Apple and Safari? Sounds like a description of Google and Chrome.
Wait... are you talking about Apple and Safari? Sounds like a description of Google and Chrome.
Microsoft Edge is gaining some serious ground and is closing in on Safari [0]. Their aggressive conversion tactics seem to be paying off.
The problem with Safari is that they either simply haven't, and, in some cases, even flat out refuse to implement certain standards that they themselves have had a hand in establishing. And then most of what is available comes half-arsed, undocumented, and is not supported/iterated upon.
[0] https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worl...
The problem with Safari is that they either simply haven't, and, in some cases, even flat out refuse to implement certain standards that they themselves have had a hand in establishing. And then most of what is available comes half-arsed, undocumented, and is not supported/iterated upon.
[0] https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worl...
Just because Google adds something to Chrome doesn't make it a standard.
That is a fact (one that Google is trying very hard to make people forget [0]).
I was actually referring to the proper global standards that are set forth by the W3C [1] and WHATWG organisations (now merged... I think). Both of which all major browser vendors are registered and actively contributing members of.
[0] https://web.dev/
[1] https://www.w3.org/
[2] https://whatwg.org/
I was actually referring to the proper global standards that are set forth by the W3C [1] and WHATWG organisations (now merged... I think). Both of which all major browser vendors are registered and actively contributing members of.
[0] https://web.dev/
[1] https://www.w3.org/
[2] https://whatwg.org/
Edge is now another Chrome-clone.
iPad Safari should count as desktop Safari in those statistics. They are basically the same since last year.
Isn't Brave essentially a Chromium skin?
No. They provide a lot of extras and privacy protections. It's actually a pretty good browser, although I prefer Firefox with my favorite 3 or 4 plugins. I use Brave sometimes just to see where it's at and the occasional site that can't be used with Firefox (even with user agent swapping).
Yes, it is, regardless of what it adds on top.
I use Brave so I can “use Chrome” without google.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> This is a post about a bug in Safari, but if you just want to ship a Phoenix app, the easiest way to learn more is to try it out; you can be up and running in just a couple minutes
I'm sort of sick of this phenomena/trend of marketing/promotional material being masked as technically helpful content.
This is exactly like the appalling methods of native advertising (aka sponsored content), but now used for self-promotion.
I'm sort of sick of this phenomena/trend of marketing/promotional material being masked as technically helpful content.
This is exactly like the appalling methods of native advertising (aka sponsored content), but now used for self-promotion.
However, in this case it was technically helpful content and sharing a frustrating story. It was one paragraph that was easy to ignore. There was no popup or call to action past that simple paragraph. As far as native advertising, this is as benign as it gets.
The concept is terrible, whether it was done "as benign as it gets" or not. The idea that this kind of bullshit content (that's obviously only written to be a marketing channel) is accepted as normal is exactly why it's a problem. Your comments only highlights it even more.
There is a CSS bug.
CSS bugs are dirt common. It's a miracle that there are as few CSS bugs as there are. However, I remember IE6. IE6 was a total fucking mess. Everything was broken on IE6. It wasn't just a bug, it was a complete support nightmare.
I routinely encounter problems with CSS that reveal maddening differences between Chrome, Firefox, and Safari. That's just for desktop. But it's still way better than dealing with IE6.