It was bad.
But I'm actually fairly positive about MS getting into the chromium landscape and back into the game. Let's face it MS had lost all of its influence in the browser world before dropping IE and making this move. It is a Google/Chrome dominated world at the moment. But by adopting Chromium, MS can "catch up" on a technical level and also wield significant power inside the Chromium project itself. They have money and they have an experienced browser engine engineering team. They will be able to provide some balance to Google in this ecosystem. If push came to shove, forking chromium wouldn't be an idle threat from MS. They will have some power.
On a technical level it looks like a move towards a mono-culture, but politically it looks like a chance at more balance and diversity to me.
It's not like Gecko is an inherently inferior engine by any stretch, and it would significantly bolster their marketshare so that developers actually have to test against it.
For most users, the web browser is one of the biggest attack surfaces and having arguably the best security team behind the browser engine is a good thing.
Yes some of that might be thanks to PZ, but that’s beside the point, isn’t it?
Choosing Mozilla’s platform would have been better for code diversity, which has its own distinct security benefits.
Like if you have 3 different crypto imlpementations, you have times more teams that have to get a thing right. It seems way easier to try and get it right just once.
Perhaps there's a holistic idea of "if one browser has an issue, at least it doesn't affect 100% of them" but given what CVEs look like in reality (often variations of the same attack across multiple programs) it seems like the cost/benefit would not be in our favor
This happened with Cisco routers back in the day, Juniper had to add a flag to make a routing protocol compatible with Cisco because Cisco implemented it wrong but had so much dominance that Juniper had no choice if they wanted to get in the game.
Not everyone gets hit with every attack. Biological systems work this way too.
Without serious competition you eventually get IE6.
Is this really true? someone posted somewhere(can't find it) where it shows Firefox has a worst security record compared to Chrome.
Also, in the past, Firefox was left out from hacking browser competitions because it was to easy to hack.
Outside of the security teams, I think it's actually that Chromium is much better fuzzed and scrutinized. They just have so many more resources, including those for security.
Most of what I've read relates to Microsoft products - and I'm not saying that Microsoft is better/worse than the rest when it comes to security.
The web is the safest, most battle-tested sandbox environment to run apps in. It’s so safe that you click random links all day long, running 1000s of apps and never have to worry.
I’ll take web apps over native apps from a security perspective, thank you.
There are better ways to sandbox applications in 2020.
This is true despite the fact that on iOS, sideloading custom apps without a developer account is extraordinarily inconvenient.
What's sad is that Windows 98 fully supported desktop-based HTML+JS apps ("HTA Applications"), with access to native resources (using COM via `new ActiveXObject`) and it works with IE11 still - Microsoft just never pitched it as a serious development platform for some reason. Just imagine what today's world would be like if Microsoft did pitch HTA as a successor to VB6 (instead of the quickly-abandoned WinForms platform, now barely on life-support) (I'm mostly thinking we wouldn't be stuck with excessive memory consumption in Slack, and these apps would be able to use things like native context-menus and accessibility features)
That would have been a security nightmare.
Sadly, that doesn't make it wrong per se, just deeply discouraging. It makes me think we're past the point of no return.
> I don't see why it's Microsofts responsibility to do whats worse for their products, users and business just to bring some sort of benefit to Mozilla which has awfully mismanaged over the past 10 years or so.
The browser monoculture didn't happen over night it happened thanks to years of neglect from the other browser engines.
I don't like this situation and don't even use Chrome myself but this is the reality of the web today.
I would wholeheartedly agree with you if Firefox Quantum wasn't so damn good.
I didn't use Firefox for years except for occasionally testing sites. Quantum blew me away in terms of rendering speed; it reminded me of Chrome in the very early days. I know that benchmarks say Chrome is still ever-so-slightly faster, and I can't explain that, but Quantum legitimately feels quicker when I use it. At worst, it's certainly not a downgrade from Chrome.
I do wish Firefox's interface was cleaner—the pocket integration and similar stuff just feels like icky clutter to me—but I've been able to mostly clean it up via about:config tweaks, and none of that's relevant to the rendering engine.
That Firefox managed to do all of this with much more limited resources than Chrome, and despite how many sites nowadays are built to target Chrome specifically... it's seriously impressive. I'd love to see what the engine could do with Microsoft's additional resources behind it.
So we switched to chromium/Blink in late 2015. Much later, when I visited Apple in early 2017, a devrel friend asked why we couldn't use WebKit. A WebKit founder in the meeting agreed with me that there was no way for Brave to do so on Windows w/o running out of capital. DRM again was an issue too, without WideVine. Don’t blame startup for not carrying a full engine — that needs deep pockets. While MS does have deep enough pockets, it is starting by using chromium/Blink and slow-forking.
The reason you gave here for Brave not choosing Gecko (or WebKit) is interesting – but given Microsoft's deep pockets and tech know-how those reasons don't apply to them.
I think this is a strategic blunder on Microsoft's part and I say this as a Linux user. :)
Microsoft has now warmly embraced Linux – and I think they could have chosen this time to warmly embrace Mozilla. Oh well.
I hear what you're saying – but! – a tech giant has to play the long game. The Web is an open (for now) platform and Microsoft, like Apple, like Google, need to have their own web client/server implementation. Makes no sense to be beholden to Google imho.
I'm stunned at how little desktop browser share Edge has (4.6%): https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worl... – however, changing browser engine is not going to change that, is it? I suppose, if Google and Microsoft end up equally and democratically sharing Chromium development then all's well.
Given the recent layoffs at Mozilla it's a pity (in hindsight – for the benefit of the open web) Microsoft didn't back them :(
Anyhow, thanks for the response.
In 2001, Apple could have picked Gecko but forked KHTML instead to create WebKit/Safari because it was smaller and seemed easier to work with.
It doesn’t change the fact that back in the day, high profile companies picked WebKit—Google, Blackberry, Nokia—for their browsers.
In 2013, Google forked WebKit to make Blink and nowadays, Microsoft, Opera, Brave and others have picked Blink/Chromium for their new browsers.
Even as Mozilla is making great strides with updating its engine (was Gecko; now Quantum), nobody else is going on that trip with them.
"I can code in X so I should be able to jump in to any other language and get to speed instantly." is obviously wrong.
You can nest functions nicely and work with closures when it makes sense, if you like that sort of thing.
The async programming model is also really nice to work with.
You also don't need to create classes for every noun, verb, and adjective in your system either - when all you need is a function, you just write a function, not some weird object to hold it.
You also don't have to write a f after all of your decimal values to tell the silly compiler that you mean for 0.25 to be a float. (this one truly does not matter, but there are a lot of little things like this that add up)
I finally got transferred to the client team one whole month later, in early May. Then I had ten days to demo-day.
Why do you feel compelled to make up a story? Because it sounds nicer to you to denigrate my work, it seems.
Because randos on the internet (especially business types) love to make stuff up in the name of puffery and deifying. Legends are rarely true.
Thank you for clarifying.
So, thank you very much for laying down the foundation for a whole generation of new programmers!
Friends from SGI recruited me (second attempt) in March 1995, I joined in early April but in the server group. I thought a lot -- but worked too little due to server commitments -- during the month of April, about "the scripting language" which was suggested to be Scheme when I was being recruited, but which by the time I joined could not be Scheme, due to the impending Java deal between Netscape and Sun.
Java meant either no scripting language, or a kid-brother language, which meant C-like syntax, primitive vs. object types as in Java, and other unfortunate consequences.
When I transferred to the client group in early May, I had to produce a demo very quickly. I chose first class functions and (barefly there at first) prototypes as the building blocks. The rest is history.
The Belgium Post built a whole web app+service architecture on LiveConnect.
Think of LiveConnect as "Active Scripting" on MS's platform, which enabled Java components to be developed and glued together by JS.
Edge still has (had?) so many rendering issues on sites we make. One thing I find really impressive about Firefox, despite the completely different engine I _very_ rarely find FF-specific bugs.
Many (all?) Oslo postcodes start with 0, and their site truncates the 0 when you try to enter your postcode. Their stated solution was to use Chrome, so they don't get any of my business.
> User agents must not allow the user to set the value to a non-empty string that is not a valid floating-point number. If the user agent provides a user interface for selecting a number, then the value must be set to the best representation of the number representing the user’s selection as a floating-point number.
If Chrome is your only target, the standard ceases to mean anything. The real standard is just whatever Chrome does.
The usual answer to that complaint is that Gecko is harder to embed. MDN pages on the subject even mention it’s deprecated and that the documentation is obsolete.
I think it will be around anyway btw, although I'm perhaps less sure.
We had a customer push us to support Edge.
The dev team (3 dudes) just looked at eachother and laid down the "No, Firefox or Chrome...".
It's just so much pressure to dance around the "this one does this, that one doesn't" and generally we rarely run into any Firefox and Chrome issues. Edge, just not worth it for a small team.
I'm glad we probabbly can direct them to the new Edge now (after some testing).
We treat Chrome/Safari/Edge/FF all as 1st class browsers and haven't had many problems (aside from Safari lacking U2F and exotic CSS props like motion-path).
mix-blend-mode is another thing that EdgeHTML doesn’t support that I was using for a bit, but I stopped using it because I kept finding critical bugs with it in Chromium, most notably https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=992398 which was impossible to work around, simply stopping rendering the page after 8192px!
1. The :focus-within CSS pseudo-class doesn't work
2. object-fit only works on images
3. These SVG loaders don't work: https://samherbert.net/svg-loaders/
I'll be glad if/when Edge (blink) is deployed with a windows update.. the sooner the better, as far as I'm concerned.
We've been using TypeScript for all scripts longer than ~20 lines for years - so we got async functions for free (it compiles async/await TypeScript functions to IE11-compatible ES5 just fine).
Not to mention all the issues you'll have if you try to use CSS Flex or Grid.
Support IE11 only if you absolutely must, is my advice, and do that with differential serving:
I'd rather not support a dead browser, that's been dead for years now, that has clear replacements and alternatives. Not to mention security concerns above and beyond development pain..
The beauty of the approach is that the big pollyfill payloads are only borne by the users who choose (or likely are forced by employers) to use those browser versions.
IE11 is another story, though.
It's a pet peeve of mine that apps don't support Edge/Trident, Vivaldi, etc. It's easier to write cross-browser code than ever, but it seems like we're in the process of reverting back to the bad old days when IE6 was the only browser people supported, but it's Chrome now instead of IE.
People are literally doing User Agent Sniffing again, and even though these browsers carefully craft their UA string to pass naive checks, the sniffers are hacking around that and urging me to "Download Chrome" to use a website.
Notable Offenders: Google Hangouts, and banks. Not impressed, Google.
I lived through the IE6 years, so I was never thrilled with any version of IE I had to support, but Edge was actually a good browser. Strange UI, solid engine.
...and that's one of the reasons everyone hates Edge. I'm a long-time IE user and that stupid dumbed-down UI is absolutely repulsive. If they'd just put the Chromium engine in the normal IE UI I bet they'd get far more users naturally using it.
I would be surprised if they still want to be a customer.
I just can't get behind this lazy "small team" excuse; it's really unnecessary hubris.
I worked on a "small team" of 1 (just myself - I was the only dev) for several years on an enterprise webapp. The kind that does complicated stuff - not a simple CRUD app. [Sidenote: I would have killed for a team of three!!] Yet I supported Edge since the day it came out and never dropped support of IE. In fact, I even supported old versions of IE (7 and up) until the day Microsoft EOLed older version of IE (that was January 12th, 2016, FWIW). It honestly isn't very hard these days. Annoying sometimes, yes, but not difficult.
I suspect the agility of any team is heavily influenced by not just numbers, but tech debt, and other choices.
All future work we do is compatible with Edge, it's not like NOTHING works with Edge, but to say "We support Edge"... customers expect that to mean everything.
Fortunately I don't think we'll have to have that conversation anymore.
Still not an excuse to alienate your customers who want to use a browser that comes with their OS. Enterprise customers never want to go through the hassle of installing external software company wide just to use your services.
Lots of customers still on Windows 7... that's bad, but we can't change that.
I get that they wanted to use the same browser as Electron, now that they own it...it just sucks.
> WebKit and Firefox are good starting points, and both could use the extra help maintaining their open-source core.
If Firefox needs "help" from a big boy like Microsoft, it is probably the worse starting point. If WebKit is a good starting point, why is Blink worse? Chromium is more than Blink, and means that the moment Microsoft started with Chromium, they were already close to done. Whereas with WebKit, they would still have to build and test a shell.
It doesn't suck.
Is MS foolish enough to believe they can have influence on the evolution of the web through github.com/google/chromium pull requests?
Alternatively, has MS has given up? Perhaps they are content to rebrand Chrome and collect the bing.com seignorage from new Windows installs.
Unless they fork, it's either naïveté or negotiated surrender.
I mean, "influencing the web" or otherwise, they accept heaps and heaps of patches that aren't about their core business. The Chromium project is really healthy.
> Unless they fork, it's either naïveté or negotiated surrender.
They can fork, but they probably won't need to. Even if they wanted to maintain an entirely separate shell, it is basically trivial to link such a thing in to Chromium.
Can almost guarantee this will happen in 2-5 years.
Given Microsoft's history, I don't see Microsoft and Google playing nice for too long.
Will it have bugs that make the web unusable? Probably not. What makes it bad? The world's biggest ad company is in charge of it, so privacy is at risk.
I am a web developer too, and for me, the biggest annoyance is feature inconsistency between browsers. Only yesterday, I was cursing under my breath, because webkit-based browsers allow scrollbar styling, but firefox doesn't. In our org, we have embraced CSS grid, but by doing so, made a conscious decision to finally ignore IE11 (rather than to use @supports and write fallback CSS for browsers that are left behind). Even considering the wildly improbable scenario that browser monopoly would lead to feature stagnation - at least you will have a single target with a known set of features to develop against. How can this be worse than what we have now?
Just focussing on the browser itself:
* Today's developers enjoy a large and rich platform of (relatively) bug free functionality and APIs on which to build. The hellscape had very limited APIs and were riddled with bugs. For a long time IE and the other browsers didn't even agree on how to compute the width/height of an element w.r.t. padding and borders. (CSS box-models did not match!). We spent a lot of time just working around bugs and keeping up to date on the latest work-arounds for all the problems.
* Today's browsers have high performance JS JITs with very few user visible bugs. The hellscape had slow buggy JS implementations. I remember having to unregister event handlers on page unload otherwise the browser would leak memory.
* Today's browsers have excellent debugging tools built in. In the hellscape, if you had a trailing comma in a JS list on IE, it would give an error message (pop up) with either no file and line number or a bogus one. Yes, that bad.
Even when supporting just one browser, development was often a miserable experience. MS had won the browser war and was trying to kill the idea of apps on the web by neglect. It wasn't until Firefox got going that things improved.
I completely agree, but the points that you then make simply show how modern browsers are vastly better than the old ones. I love developing for a modern browser, such as Chrome. I just fail to see how the claim that having competing browser engines that do not have complete feature parity can be in any way considered desirable by web developers. I can understand this argument from end users' perspective (and even then not quite, because remember the days when sites would say that they were "best viewed in Netscape Navigator", or when you could watch Apple keynote presentation on Apple's site only in Safari?), but not from web developer's perspective. Wouldn't a single healthily evolving browser engine be better from web developer's point of view than multiple engines, each with its quirks?
The primary reason why the hellscape was bad, and remained bad for so long, was because we had a single "winner" of the browser wars. Microsoft won and they immediately tried to strangle the web for years. There were no alternative browsers for a long time to provide some kind of competition which might improve the matter. Sure, we could just test on IE and only support IE, but it was still an awful browser and MS wanted it that way.
The point is that the bad "technical" level situation was sustained by the browser political mono-culture. I'm somewhat positive now about the current situation with MS getting more involved because it will add more diversity to our current political browser situation. This should translate into better results for everyone on all levels, technical, user, privacy (I hope), etc.
So maybe from a pure browser engine point of view there is the same or less diversity, but this situation is very different from the early 2000s one.
I also called for it to happen over 5.5 years ago:
Apparently it was not so bad that we needed a multitude of JS to JS compilation stages and instead could just, you know, execute the same JS in the browser that we actually wrote.
Also, MS invented DHTML and AJAX single handedly, against backlash from "pure" web developers.
Starting mid-2006, I spent almost a year building a full-stack internal SPA for tracking manual and checklist testing at my company. I made the (then brave) decision to target Firefox instead of IE6, which everyone was using at the time - since FF was more standards-compliant.
It was a very good decision in retrospect. But I had to spend 4-5 weeks just getting the front-end to work in IE6. So many HTML/CSS hacks, trying to wrangle the layout engine to do my bidding. Check out the Wikipedia article on the Acid2 test, and the image at the bottom of IE6's rendering, to get an idea how far IE6's layout was from standards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid2
More importantly, during extension submissions and reviews I did not feel abused as a developer, something which I cannot say about the Chrome Web Store .
So I am happy that Microsoft has not only renewed their effort in this space, but they're also offering a decent alternative for developers who would rather not deal with Google.
Google has never been about the developer experience, and is quite hostile to developers even when they need them. (See, e.g., Stadia.)
Microsoft's C++ IDE and debugger are the gold standard for productivity and ease of use - everyone who writes native applications for Windows uses Visual Studio. You can try it out for free and the price per developer is very reasonable if you want to publish a paid product.
Google's C++ IDE and debugger are nonexistent. Whatever they've built is kept inside the Googleplex never to see the light of day. From time to time we see the occasional free software reimplementation of some facet of the beast (e.g. Kythe) but I haven't seen something catch on.
In fact, the biggest contributors to developer productivity on Linux have been Microsoft (with Visual Studio Code and the lsp protocol) and Apple (investing in clang led to the development of advanced C++ indexers which were impossible to write using gcc due to Stallman making a conscious decision to not allow it)
Of course there is a good reason for this - Microsoft and Apple make platforms. The easier they make software development, the more developers they get, which leads to more software being written, which leads to more users, which results in profit. Google on the other hand doesn't win by making development easy for others. They're themselves a third party and other developers are competition rather than partners. For Microsoft, the existence of developers outside the company using Microsoft's development tools to create software for Microsoft's platform is a win. For Google, the best case scenario is there being no developers outside Google.
The navigation is nearly unusable. Don't focus the project navigation on a tree browser if you're not going to integrate it into the rest of the navigation workflow.
NuGet regularly fails silently to restore packages.
It uses a virtual filesystem that usually maps 1:1 to the actual project folder.. except files created outside of VS are completely invisible to it, unless manually added to the project.
The project/solution files are very verbose and aren't designed to be edited by humans.
The migration path from .NET Framework to .NET Core seems to be "create a new project, copy the files over manually, and copy over your old settings one by one".
Some of these have been fixed for new projects, but there is no option to migrate to the new structure. Except, again, starting over with a new one.
You are talking about the biggest architecture change of. Net in 30 years ( going cross platform) and they are still going to support VB 6, WPF,..
Visual studio is actually a very robust IDE. The issue you are mentioning is .net framework project files and if you copy files within or to Visual Studio it will be added. .net framework only wants to add files you want to deploy ( not perfect, but okay).
For migrating to. Net standard 2.0, remove assemblyinfo.cs and change the. Csproj file. You should manually add the Nugget packages again or change it to the new structure. The biggest issue is entity framework though, in a lot of projects. From. Net standard to . Net core is a lot easier.
Seems pretty reasonable to me, updating other things ( eg. Android) have caused more issues than this.
Ps. Navigating is mostly f12 of control+f12
The project/solution files are bog standard xml, and well documented, but in general you shouldn't need to touch them.
The migration from framework to core 3.0 is now very simple thanks to xaml support, but it used to be a huge hassle. You can literally just edit the tags in your csproj/fsproj/etc to enable different target frameworks, or you can use the ui , and then you'll need to do a nuget reinstall. One command .
As for running into bugs, they built bug/feature requests into the visual studio 2019 ide, or you can access it via the website . They are usually very responsive, typically something within a couple of days.
 open package manager console, type 'update-package -reinstall'.
Project files are "bog standard" XML (except for all the weird magic, like variable resolution and conditionals), but solution files are some unholy VB-like abomination.
But regardless, that doesn't help much when the schema is clearly not designed for human editing (incredibly verbose, UUIDs everywhere for references, etc).
> The migration from framework to core 3.0 is now very simple thanks to xaml support, but it used to be a huge hassle.
No idea how a GUI description language is supposed to help you here.
> You can literally just edit the tags in your csproj/fsproj/etc to enable different target frameworks
Didn't work for me.
> or you can use the ui , and then you'll need to do a nuget reinstall. One command .
Keep in mind that that command is free to update dependencies as it feels like.
At the very least you could have given an example of an IDE that you consider is better. You were just talking out of your arse.
If you're going to pick a mode of navigation then at least commit to it. It's subjective whether or not any particular choice is good. The quality of the implementation, not so much.
> 2. Downright bullshit. You are starting to whine.
Sorry for wanting a package manager to... manage packages, I guess.
Or maybe it's configured wrong? I guess it's too much to expect two Microsoft tools to work well together..
> 3. Subjective but far from something that makes the IDE a "piece of crap"
Do you never edit your project files from outside the IDE?
> 4. You are starying to sound like you are in the wrong industry.
Compare a typical SBT build definition or Cargo.toml to a typical VS solution or project. Which would you feel the most confident about when modifying by hand?
(Hint: For me, it's definitely not the one that is full of autogenerated cartesian products.)
> 5. No. Change the .csproj and drop the AssemblyInfo.cs usually work for something that can actually be migrated.
So why couldn't Microsoft include a tool for that migration? That seems like table stakes for such a migration project. We're not exactly talking about 2to3 or rustfix here...
> If you expect any project that targeted Windows to just migrate to cross platform using a NNF you are an idiot.
Amazing how Microsoft are completely unable to even get close to what the Wine and Mono people did years ago.
> At the very least you could have given an example of an IDE that you consider is better. You were just talking out of your arse.
Throw a dart and you'll find something. If you want the out-of-the-box live-in-your-IDE experience then JetBrains' stuff is miles better than VS. Personally I moved on to Spacemacs after a few years each of VS and IntelliJ.
The only reason people went there usually was for the money and once they got enough to follow their passion, they left because none of them were passionate about Microsoft.
I've had some issues during Firefox extension reviews too, and Mozilla employees have usually changed their opinion after feedback. When they've made a mistake, sometimes they said they were sorry, which was a decent thing to do and it felt right. They talked and acted like human beings whom are capable of compassion and reasoning.
The "old" Edge store was utterly mismanaged . I'm glad they've improved if this one is different, but they definitely left a sour taste in my mouth.
 I required Native App Messaging and needed to include a 32 bit binary to read an SQLite database. The extension was rejected and was only told to wait while they worked on this feature (which was already in a tutorial I was following). Nobody ever contacted me back for over a year until the news broke that they were moving to Chromium.
I suspect that would change if Edge gained significant market share. I think what happens is that as these platforms grow, they get targetted by spammers, malware, and scammers and consequently their processes harden and tolerances go down.
Microsoft: developers, developers, developers, developers!
Google: advertisers, advertisers, advertisers, advertisers!
* not all operations, but enough for it to become a cliche
Also, happy to report that 1password has an extension for Edge as well - that's awesome.
Only thing I'm missing is a dark mode extension. I don't trust the somewhat sketchy ones that I see so far on the store.
I chose focused. It's a nice option.
Too bad it doesn't respect your search engine preferences, because any searches you do with it seem to always go to Bing, regardless of what address-bar search engine you have selected.
In my opinion, this does more to keep Google in check than had they gone with Firefox's engine, or stuck with their own. (I know not everyone agrees)
People use Chrome because they consider it a better overall experience than other alternatives, and I happen to agree. (again, I get that not everyone here agrees with that) For whatever reason, Google has the resources and talent to make a browser that is preferred to the alternatives, by most regular users.
Chromium based Edge allows users to get the best of Chrome without the worst of Google. Google knows that if they get too aggressive with decisions that are biased toward Google's bottom line (such as how they handle ad blocking and various privacy features), Microsoft can easily push back by changing these decisions in Edge. This is a very good thing.
True, there is also pressure on Google from Firefox (people can abandon Chrome for Firefox if Google is too aggressive), and there is also Brave (and others) if you want the benefits of Chrome/Chromium without the worst stuff. But moving to Firefox is simply too big a move for most users and many don't like the downsides . And Brave has their own revenue model to protect, and they don't have the deep pockets Microsoft has to resist the temptation to make decisions that benefit their bottom line in the short term.
 In my case, I do a lot with MIDI in the browser, i.e. connecting a digital piano and using it within web sites that support it. Firefox doesn't support this yet, after years and years of talking about it. https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/58 There are a ton of other things, but that one is a deal breaker for me. Works beautifully in the new Edge.
This would put more pressure on Google than privacy fines from EU. Competition works best. I'm not an MS fan (using Linux at home, with vscode), but I'll happily switch.
I wondered why MS didn't do this or partnered with Ubuntu instead of closing their Windows Phone business, fully giving up the mobile market.
Right... I mean, a certain very strategic kind of competition. Co-opetition? Direct competition would be simply offering a competing fully in-house browser or competing fully in-house mobile OS. This is kind of sneaky in that it lets Google do a lot of the heavy lifting, while still being able to yank the things (or add the things) that Microsoft wants.
With regard to Edge adopting Chromium, I have to wonder whether Google sees this as a victory, or if they feel like Microsoft pulled one over on them.
I am done with that after all the crap that previous software with admin rights installed. I cleaned it up and swore I would not install anything that required admin rights again - for my own security and peace of mind. What does it need admin rights for?
Why do I need to give Adobe admin rights to install Photoshop? Why do I need to give Microsoft the same to install Word? And now for a web browser?
If I'm installing something low-level like a window manager or a keyboard shortcut tool, I get it. But for a normal mainstream flagship consumer application, what on earth do they need admin privileges for?!
I hate the fact I have to hand over the keys to my computer just to run basic industry standard software and I have no choice because it's industry standard and I have requirements to use it.
On the other hand, for most people this admin vs regular user separation is almost meaningless and provides little extra security. Sure, if I install malware as admin it will be harder to get rid of it, but except for that, it can hurt me just as much, since all of the files I really care about (documents, photos, game saves etc) are already accessible with my user, and any program running as my user can already connect to the internet and send information about what my user is doing (not to mention bother me with ads). Some of the really damaging ransomware that recently made the rounds didn't even require admin privileges, it simply encrypted data in some common user-owned folders, if I'm not mistaken (it probably did need some privilege escalation to spread, though, which is a big problem on office networks).
So all they should require is to be dragged into the /Applications folder (or /System/Applications in Catalina). That's it.
That's how a macOS app should be installed. That should be the end of the process unless it needs to install kernel extensions (and even then, from Catalina onwards, such extensions should become userland extensions).
Applications also don't need to be (and third party apps on most single-user systems arguably shouldn't be) in /Applications. Users can put apps wherever the heck they like (I keep mine in ~/Applications which even gets the same icon automatically if you create it).
Apple could really streamline this because all apps that can be drag-drop installed really belong in one's own home directory, where they'll be seamlessly migrated when you move to a new computer, or brought with you if you have a roaming profile. As it is right now, I just keep both Applications folders in my Finder Sidebar and remember that the bottom one is "mine."
In an ideal scenario, users could still drag apps to the "one" Applications folder and if they are not an Admin the app itself would actually be stored in a default-invisible ~/Applications. Then when you opened "/Applications" the system would show you the superset of both locations.
This is of course nearly exactly how the Windows Start Menu works except that it always had "installers" do the work of putting those program shortcuts in the respective directories, and only well-behaved apps ever asked which place you wanted apps installed.
The question of how a regular user could be allowed to install something for all users in this fashion, placing the app bundle in the /Applications folder, is no different than when using an installer: ask for an administrator password.
On Windows at least, UWP apps are deduplicated across all users on the same system so when user #2 installs the same app already installed by user #1, it will just point to the same existing shared instance of the app's files. I don't know much about MacOS but I'd guess there's a similar packaging system. These systems also incorporate sandboxes which address the other problems you mentioned in your last paragraph.
The problem is just when the OS teams can't convince other developers (even ones inside the same company in Microsoft's case) to actually use their packaging and sandbox systems.
It wouldn't be wasteful if I didn't want to install it for the other users, which I might not.
In this case, it's installing Edge and the universal Microsoft AutoUpdater app. Given the range of stuff that thing has to support (including all the Office apps) and the privs it will need to run at to do so, I think the admin requirement is not entirely unreasonable.
Yeah, I realize there’s probably nothing left if the old KHTML but it still does give me a chuckle.
What a world we live in.
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_14_6)
AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko)
Chrome/79.0.3945.117 Safari/537.36 Edg/79.0.309.65
My lord, this ridiculous header is f'ed (and I don't mean this string, just this entire ridiculous slow-motion trainwreck that requires every browser to pretend to be every browser that ever came before).
\* presuming that spelling means 'please don't lock me out like Edge' -- modern Chromium Opera identifies as OPR, similarly
Although, all copyrights are Apple's on that particular file. I wonder if everything's been done by the book.
I just still wish they would have at least OSS'd EdgeHTML instead of just shoving it in a closet somewhere.
There is a reason why Electron, QT etc use Chromium.
Firefox is comparable in that department.
What magic are you using to be able to build Chromium?
I get the Electron reason...it just sucks.
0 - https://github.com/mozilla/positron
Maybe they're better at API backwards compatibility now? Not sure; I'm unlikely to try again given previous experience. Which is a shame; I still use Firefox since it was called Phoenix…
If anybody has more recent experience working on their stack, I'd be happy to be correctly though. Preferably with examples of projects that _haven't_ been burned.
Even their docs for XUL shows it all as archived:
Edit: Chromium connects to Google servers to update extensions and for captive portal detection. Firefox does pretty much the same.
(note that I think there's nothing wrong with this at all, just pointing out that this isn't chromium-specific)
Both chromium and Firefox can be customized and vendor branded (see the countless privacy oriented browsers built on top of Firefox).
That's pretty misleading. When you want to sync state across Chromium installs, you use a Google account, and that's really just scratching the surface.
Chromium comes with quite a bit of Google baked-in.
Iridium was developed specifically to degoogle all attempts at phoning home.