Microsoft is Building a Chromium-powered Web Browser That Will Replace Edge on Windows 10: Report (windowscentral.com) 377
Microsoft is throwing in the towel with Edge and is building a new web browser for Windows 10, this time powered by Chromium, news blog Windows Central reported Monday. From the report: Microsoft's Edge web browser has seen little success since its debut on Windows 10 back in 2015. Built from the ground up with a new rendering engine known as EdgeHTML, Microsoft Edge was designed to be fast, lightweight, and secure, but launched with a plethora of issues which resulted in users rejecting it early on. Edge has since struggled to gain any traction, thanks to its continued instability and lack of mindshare, from users and web developers.
Because of this, I'm told that Microsoft is throwing in the towel with EdgeHTML and is instead building a new web browser powered by Chromium, a rendering engine first popularized by Google's Chrome browser. Codenamed Anaheim, this new web browser for Windows 10 will replace Edge as the default browser on the platform. It's unknown at this time if Anaheim will use the Edge brand or a new brand, or if the user interface between Edge and Anaheim is different. One thing is for sure, however; EdgeHTML in Windows 10's default browser is dead.
Because of this, I'm told that Microsoft is throwing in the towel with EdgeHTML and is instead building a new web browser powered by Chromium, a rendering engine first popularized by Google's Chrome browser. Codenamed Anaheim, this new web browser for Windows 10 will replace Edge as the default browser on the platform. It's unknown at this time if Anaheim will use the Edge brand or a new brand, or if the user interface between Edge and Anaheim is different. One thing is for sure, however; EdgeHTML in Windows 10's default browser is dead.
This is McDonalds breaking down & serving whop (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh no you DON'T just get to quietly admit defeat, there has to be public shaming! THEM'S THE RULES!
Re: This is McDonalds breaking down & serving (Score:5, Insightful)
It's probably more about someone finally realizing that, there's a high quality rendering engine available for free for them to use.
Microsoft will still have their own branded browser... But nobody is making money off of the rendering engine, and it's the hardest part of the browser to build/optimize.
Might as well leave the non-money making part to others while MS engineers focus on browser shell, money making services etc.
Won the war failed the objectives. (Score:5, Insightful)
Back in the late 1990's Microsoft won the browser war against Netscape. However they had failed to reach the objective of such war.
Microsoft never really liked the World Wide Web. With Windows 95 it came with rather limited IE browser (in essence a tool to download Netscape) but at the time they really didn't care much, because they were pushing MSN service to compete against AOL. These services at the time were less an ISP but a large multi-node BBS with graphics. That was the direction they wanted to go. The internet and WWW was just for academic and those looser who had those Unix based servers.
However the Web Grew in popularity, and Netscape was getting big, and showing a future of an OS independent system, where the browser was king. This future was a threat to Microsoft, however it seemed inevitable. So Microsoft started the browser war by beefing up IE to compete with Netscape (Which was a bold move at the time, as most applications that come with the OS were just small tools that just barely get the job done, eg. notepad, wordpad, calc, paint ). Now Microsoft is on its EEE strategy. Embrace the Web, Extend it with its own custom html commands and http protocol changes, then being able to kill it, because what everyone is using is so far from the normal web, there isn't any point to it anymore.
With Windows 98 and the embedded full feature browser. It fully Embraced the web, and basically killed Netscape. Then they were in the process of Extending, with some ideas that are still common such as CSS, and others that are just a bad idea such as Active X, and Sliverlight. However Microsoft got stuck on IE 6 for way too long, and the Active X became a security nightmare. Microsoft extensions made people to not trust Microsoft, as their systems were getting hacked, often working around firewalls and all the other best practices at the time, because a trusted sight may had a less then trustful advertiser which would run applications on your PC.
This security problem brought in a new lightweight browser called Firefox. Which supported the standards much better then IE, was faster and didn't use the stuff that allowed people to break into the computer. Then Firefox grew where it started to be too big, that is where Google Chrome came in (at around the same time Safari came in for Apple also based on WebKit)
Now the growth of the WebKit based browsers, now meant for browsing the Web, it really doesn't matter if you are using Linux, Windows, MacOS or even some of the lesser known OS's such as the BSD's. And Netscapes vision of nearly all your applications being web based is nearly true today. Now Microsoft is having to fight to keep its market share, and having to deal with mobile devices with Apple and Google based OS's. Microsoft is still going strong, but they had to change their business model a lot.
So they had won the browser war but failed the objective. Now with them trying to put effort into a rendering engine is just wasting resources. Going to a WebKit chromium browser will probably just let them focus more on what they really want to focus on and less on trying to get a better HTML5 support score.
Re:Won the war failed the objectives. (Score:5, Informative)
Back in the late 1990's Microsoft won the browser war against Netscape
Microsoft didnt win. Netscape lost. It was a do-it-yourself mugging.
Netscape committed suicide. [joelonsoftware.com]
Re:Won the war failed the objectives. (Score:5, Insightful)
While it may have been ill-advised, realistically netscape was screwed by the gigantic disadvantage of having to be downloaded in a time when 57 kbit was the typical internet bandwidth.
So they suffered from two things:
-Microsoft bundling it into the OS meant that *everyone* had a serviceable browser
-Netscape did not manage to overcome this through getting the OEMs to bundle their alternative (Hardware vendors wouldn't do this without getting paid to do so, and MS stood there with always deeper incentives for OEMs to *not* bundle Netscape).
There's no amount of doing the technology part of the browser better that could have saved them.
Re:Won the war failed the objectives. (Score:5, Interesting)
You missed a third thing:
Netscape sucked. A lot. Everybody talks about 'standards' but Netscape was as guilty of being non-standards based as IE at the time. In fact a lot of the DHTML stuff that IE pioneered ended up forming the basis of quite a few technologies.
Also I'm just going to point out that CSS Box mode from IE is making a large resurgence because it was always arguably the more sane model.
IE vs Firefox or Opera was a completely different landscape than IE vs Netscape. IE vs Netscape was two incredibly proprietary non-standard browsers competing in the wild west. I switched to IE not because it was bundled but because I was so fed up with Netscape's poor technology.
Once it died and was resurrected as firefox while Microsoft abandoned IE development, Firefox started offering compelling technological advantages to switch but at the time Netscape was bad. That's what I think most people forget. They remember the Firefox vs IE days and just back project their memories of Firefox onto Netscape when that was far from the case.
Re: (Score:3)
At the time, the PC wasn't dominant except in homes. The corporate world was still using a lot of workstations, especially in technical areas which was where the web was more popular originally. When workstations started being replaced by lower powered PCs a lot of technical users still stuck to Netscape (and it's honory child, Mozilla). Many corporations had policies against using Internet Explorer, but other corporations had IT support groups that just did whatever Micrososft asked and they'd go and cr
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Won the war failed the objectives. (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know which parallel Universe you come from, but Safari pre-dates Chrome by more than five years. Also, Google used WebKit, Apple's fork of KHTML, until Chrome version 27. Starting with Chrome 28, it used Blink as its rendering engine which is Google's fork of WebKit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
January 7, 2003, at Macworld San Francisco, Steve Jobs announced that Apple had developed its own web browser, called Safari. It was based on Apple's internal fork of the KHTML rendering engine, called WebKit.[9] The company released the first beta version, available only for Mac OS X, later
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The browser was first publicly released on September 2, 2008 for Windows XP and later, with 43 supported languages, officially a beta version,[33] and as a stable public release on December 11, 2008.
Firefox was never lightweight (Score:3)
Now it still is larger, takes up more RAM, starts slower, has more bloat and is removing old standards.
Re:Won the war failed the objectives. (Score:5, Informative)
This security problem brought in a new lightweight browser called Firefox. Which supported the standards much better then IE, was faster and didn't use the stuff that allowed people to break into the computer. Then Firefox grew where it started to be too big, that is where Google Chrome came in (at around the same time Safari came in for Apple also based on WebKit)
A couple important missing bits to note in your history here:
- Firefox is powered by Mozilla which was also the core of Netscape Navigator, so Firefox was basically the revenge of Netscape.
- WebKit was created by Apple (as a fork of the KHTML renderer from KDE) specifically to power Safari (all of the OSX/OpenStep/NeXTSTEP libraries are named something-Kit), and then Google adopted that for Chrome, so Safari isn't really just a side note, Safari is essentially the ancestor of Chrome.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Now Microsoft is on its EEE strategy. Embrace the Web, Extend it with its own custom html commands and http protocol changes, then being able to kill it, because what everyone is using is so far from the normal web, there isn't any point to it anymore.
Note this is what Google is doing now, too. While they don't seem to be actively malicious about it, it would be nice to have some browser diversity to prevent them from making poor design decisions.
Re:Won the war failed the objectives. (Score:4, Informative)
The big problem with Active X security is if you ever downloaded a control and checked off "Trust Microsoft".
At that point any website could force a different version of an Microsoft signed active-x control to download.
So if there was a serious exploit was found in version 1.2 of a control, does not matter it is 5 years later and the user has version 1.8. When they visit your site you can force the download of version 1.2 and then execute your exploit.
There was just no way round this. If you had to do business with a trusted site that had active-x controls, if they ever got hacked AND you had ever clicked "Trust Microsoft" there was no way to defend against that.
Re: This is McDonalds breaking down & serving (Score:5, Funny)
Luckily Chrome doesn't spy on you
Re: This is McDonalds breaking down & serving (Score:5, Insightful)
I know but the world's most popular browser is Chrome so privacy is not why people are avoiding Edge.
Re: (Score:3)
I avoid it because it's just a way to try to make me use Bing/Cortana.
open sourcery FTW (Score:5, Funny)
Re:open sourcery FTW (Score:4, Informative)
At least part of Edge is already open source:
https://github.com/Microsoft/C... [github.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Chrome comes from khtml, that's a Linux (KDE) project, not *nix.
Re:open sourcery FTW (Score:4, Informative)
The KDE Project was mainly designed for a UI experience for *nix systems.
Re: (Score:2)
Just run all that legacy Windows stuff on Wine.
Re: (Score:3)
just guessing here to be honest
Re: (Score:3)
I think Microsoft WINE would run much better. A lot of the problems with WINE is the fact there is a lot of components that are hacked to mimic what windows does.
If it had full MS support, these wouldn't be hacks but components straight from the specifications.
Re: open sourcery FTW (Score:5, Informative)
KHTML is a fork of webkit
Wrong, it's the other way round. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
KHTML is a fork of webkit, built by apple.
Other way around... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:open sourcery FTW (Score:5, Insightful)
I like Linux and Unix systems and they are my preference when I can use them. However with Windows being turned to a *nix OS like OSX we will no longer have much diversity in Operating Systems, they will all be Unix or Unix Like OS's.
20 years ago, We had Windows, *Nix, VMS, MacOS...
A slew of OS's all with their own advantages and disadvantages. Going to one Style OS we are loosing options.
Re:open sourcery FTW (Score:4, Insightful)
Relax, MS will only screw it up so it really won't be nix.
Really? That won't help. (Score:4, Insightful)
Spoiler: The rendering engine is not the reason I don't trust your web browser, nor will switching to Chromium get me to actually use it.
Re: Really? That won't help. (Score:4, Informative)
I guess we still haven't forgiven or forgotten IE6. Any MS web browser should be treated with extreme suspicion.
Re: (Score:3)
This is slashdot after all. Microsoft is permanently evil and bad in literally everything they do (even when they do things we say they should do) because of their behavior two decades and two CEOs ago.
Microsoft has a history of playing O/S games that others find distasteful, and it isn't all ancient. Surely Windows 10 contributes to the negative viewpoints about Microsoft. On the other hand, I appreciate MS Office, and was glad that it was an alternative to WordPerfect (back in the day) and is still around today as a de facto standard for basic business documents.
Re:Really? That won't help. (Score:5, Insightful)
They are probably not doing this to gain your trust.
It is probably either or both of
1. Rendering engine is not the differentiating feature of browsers anymore (for me it is, plugin ecosystem, security and privacy choices in design).
2. They understand that they cannot win the browser wars and chose not to spend any further money on the most expensive part of browser development.
They did this before. Microsoft only invested money in the browser when they intended to win the browser wars, and they did with IE. After that, they downsized their dev team. The web stagnated for years until Firefox emerged.
Re:Really? That won't help. (Score:4, Interesting)
Which browser does AC trust?
Firefox - slyly installs binary plugins without consent, keeps adding new bullshit like Pocket
Chrome - allegedly spies on you
Vivaldi - has the same telemetry as Chrome (unique ID, IP address, some system info), malware protection
Opera - Chinese owned, same spying as Chrome
Safari - bundles more Apple crapware, UI is janky on Windows, Apple spies on you the same as Google does
Edge - Microsoft spyware
Maybe IE6 wasn't so bad...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Safari - bundles more Apple crapware, UI is janky on Windows, Apple spies on you the same as Google does
Safari for Windows hasn't been available since 2012... just sayin'.
And I think Apple's spy model is a little different than Google's.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I used to like Pale Moon but it has severe performance issues, and one of the updates deleted a lot of user data. I don't have confidence in the developers or that performance will ever get competitive. While it doesn't seem to have spying built in, the fact that it's using an old version of the Firefox codebase with known vulnerabilities being exploited in the wild means you will probably be p0wned by someone far worse than Google anyway.
My post above was really just mocking the Slashdot posters who always
Re: (Score:3)
Similar on mobile. My mileage is billboard-free.
Re:Really? That won't help. (Score:5, Informative)
Brave has advertising spyware built in. https://brave.com/about-ad-rep... [brave.com]
They gotta make their money somehow.
Re: (Score:3)
- Unique install ID, sent when checking for updates
I agree that unique IDs can be problematic, but the devil is in the details. For example, I worked on some Kindle stuff for Amazon many years ago, and they went from telemetry that could be associated with every user to a unique but anonymous reporting scheme. Metrics are now supposedly logged in a way that research can be done on large population of users, but enough information is redacted in the telemetry to make it difficult to associate information with a particular account. It's not perfect, more of a
Time to move fro IE to Edge (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Time to move fro IE to Edge (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Time to move fro IE to Edge (Score:5, Informative)
Not to mention SharePoint 2013/2016 still needs to run in IE10 mode on IE11.
as the old saying goes (Score:5, Funny)
Edge downloads Chrome faster than any other browser
Re:as the old saying goes (Score:4, Informative)
PROTIP: Use a package manager like Chocolatey to avoid needing to open Edge at all! Install it from a flash drive and then easily install/update all the software you need without visiting a dozen websites.
Scoop (https://github.com/lukesampson/scoop) is pretty good too. Fewer packages but you can install it directly from PowerShell without even a flash drive or browser.
Windows will run on a Linux kernel too (Score:5, Interesting)
Next thing they will be replacing the Windows kernel with the Linux kernel with a Win32 compatibility layer for running Windows apps on Linux, and a driver compatibility layer for existing Windows drivers. I'm not kidding. Mark my words. It will happen. Will also include even moving the Windows GUI over to Microsoft's own Wayland server. The UI look and feel will be maintaining but the underlying architecture replaced with wayland with a compatability layer for Win32 apps.
Microsoft is a cloud company, the Windows kernel really is just an added expense that it wants to shed so will move Windows over to a Linux kernel, seamlessly, due to the compatibility layer, windows apps and drivers will run fine. They can thus share development costs with other users of Linux.
This is exactly whats happening with Edge as well. Overall, its a pretty good thing, actually.
Re:Windows will run on a Linux kernel too (Score:4, Interesting)
It seemed like they have wanted to get rid of the kernel since at least the days they were sued from inter-coding IE and windows. Will be interesting to see the timeline.
--
The Internet is becoming the town square for the global village of tomorrow -- Bill Gates
Re: (Score:3)
they will be replacing the Windows kernel with the Linux kernel with a Win32 compatibility layer for running Windows apps on Linux
If they can get DirectX working the Linux kernel with a minimal performance penalty then I say HELL YES!!!!
Re:Windows will run on a Linux kernel too (Score:5, Interesting)
Fuck that. DirectX should just die. If you want to play "older" DX based games then there is always WINE and the Vulkan implementation of D3D11/D3D10. [github.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I would love nothing more than to see DirectX DIAF but the truth is no developer is going to rewrite their existing code because there is no $$$ in it. Therefore, if I can get all my Steam games to work on a Linux kernel via a Microsoft derived Linux kernel/DirectX implementation I'm all for it.
Nobody implied developers should go rewrite their shit to remove DirectX
You could use the Linux version of Steam with Proton [steamcommunity.com] to make the Windows games from your Steam account work on Linux
And I just played the Windows version of Starcraft 2 on Linux using Lutris [lutris.net] to configure the correct Wine version etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. DirectX was a bad idea right from the start, fueled by a lot of money and not a lot of understanding.
Re:Windows will run on a Linux kernel too (Score:5, Interesting)
The groundwork for doing this is already there.
SQL Server 2017 for Linux required the creation of a PAL (platform abstraction layer) that allows essential kernel function for SQL Server to run.
It's really interesting stuff.
Add a dash of gdi borrowed from wine and you might have something.
"SQL Server on Linux: How? Introduction":
https://cloudblogs.microsoft.c... [microsoft.com]
Re:Windows will run on a Linux kernel too -WSL... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the may decide on an xBSD kernel instead, due to the licencing. And they may make the GUI simply a window-manager on top of X.org. But essentially, you are right. They spend an extreme amount of money to maintain their island of incompatibility and all the reasons for doing that are vanishing. I also agree that it is a good thing.
You know, that would be the last step for the UNIX kernel API to take over the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Windows will run on a Linux kernel too (Score:4, Informative)
Port Wine to Windows :) (Score:2)
MS will soon port Wine to Windows in 2020
Re: (Score:2)
The Windows kernel is quite well engineered. The VMS team did a good job there. It is just the mind-boggling quantities of Win32API+MFC+.NET+VB6+... heaped on top that stink up the system.
Re: (Score:2)
Too much trouble.
Microsoft: No one is managing well? (Score:3)
Cloudy thinking?
Microsoft seems to me to be extremely badly managed. Some of the many, many stories:
Windows 10 is possibly the worst spyware ever made. [networkworld.com] "Buried in the service agreement is permission to poke through everything on your PC." (Aug. 4, 2015)
Microsoft's Intolerable Windows 10 Aggression [ecommercetimes.com] (May 27, 2016)
Microsoft is infesting Windows 10 with annoying ads [theverge.com] (March 17, 2017)
Microsoft, stop sabotaging Windows 10. [infoworld.com] (March 21, 2017)
There is no wa
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And yet that's horseshit.
Re: (Score:3)
Linux backwards compatibility with closed source apps has bitten me twice.
The 64 bit transition and a glibc update back when bungie was making Linux software.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
That is nonsense. Take any old Unix code and you can compile and run it on Linux. You probably are thinking about binary compatibility though. That is a problem on your side.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That was a good one.
In reality, just changing compilers is often enough to break software.
Re: (Score:3)
Bahahahha, oh thats rich!
Is that why MS has deprecated a host of older processors and hardware? Mint runs all my older hardware ( printers, scanners, motherboards, processors) just fine, really doesnt care how old stuff is, Windows dropped support for my scanner 8 years ago, its a fucking USB scanner! Come on! Ya there are bodge workarounds, but why should I have to do that when Linux will run it natively with no bothers at all....
Re: Windows will run on a Linux kernel too (Score:5, Insightful)
At the time of XP it was a joke. At the time of vista it was an amusing idea. At the time of Windows 10 it seems that things look that way. Or, at least, Microsoft is working hard to abandon OS market altogether.
Frankly, IT market would be much better without Microsoft. At this point it is just an obstacle.
Re:Windows will run on a Linux kernel too (Score:5, Interesting)
A compatibility layer on top of a Linux kernel? The only reason I have trouble seeing it happening is because the compatibility layer would take more effort than just keeping the Windows kernel around.
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason I have trouble seeing it happening is because the compatibility layer would take more effort than just keeping the Windows kernel around.
Not at all. The compatibility layer is a temporary thing until all new apps and drivers are compiled on the Linux kernel. Microsoft is becoming Redhat
Re: (Score:3)
Maintaining the Windows kernel is not a v
That work, too, has already been done (Score:3)
Several such compatiblilty layers already exist. Without Microsoft's help, or patents and copyrights. Microsoft could buy Codeweavers (Crossover) for less than Microsoft spends on toilet paper.
Projects like Wine have to develop a shim for each part without even seeing the code they are working with, much less being able to change anything. Microsoft would have the luxury of being able to adapt their systems to make compatibility easier. That makes the task easier than what Crossover and others are already
Re: That work, too, has already been done (Score:2)
Hope can be bitter (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft could really change some minds and win some hearts. They've done a lot of good things, and Satya Nadella has done a lot to win me over. I wanted to love Edge, and I've tried over and over, but never succeeded. If Microsoft is really willing to change their course, this could be a huge step in winning me, and people like me back.
Unfortunately I can't forget the past. Twenty years of pain and suffering from their decisions has made me reluctant to trust them. I can't help but remember all the things they've done to abuse their customers. I was a Linux at home guy for decades thanks to Microsoft failing to provide a system I could really make do what I wanted or needed. I've been on Windows 10 at home for nearly a year now and thanks to WSL and Chrome, I almost don't miss it. Give me bash and Chrome and they're getting close. An abused dog takes a long time to learn to trust. We've all been the abused dog by Microsoft, we want to love and hope, we want to believe. This time, we hope it will be different, but we don't trust easily.
Re: Hope can be bitter (Score:2, Funny)
Stockholm called and wanted their developers back.
Re: (Score:2)
You think things with Windows are getting _better_? You must be the only one that thinks this.
Re: (Score:2)
He plays good politics so the media says good things about him.
Just...ugh. (Score:2)
That's just awful.
Not quite as awful as IE or Edge.
But still.
I'm confused... (Score:2)
Did we just time warp to April 1st?
Bad to have a Chromium monoculture (Score:5, Insightful)
If there ends up being only one main source for all vendors then HTML will be defined by whatever the code does rather than by any standards process. And then it will be very difficult to move on if Chromium goes bad. Which means that there will be no incentive to make Chromium good.
Re:Bad to have a Chromium monoculture (Score:5, Insightful)
>"If there ends up being only one main source for all vendors then HTML will be defined by whatever the code does rather than by any standards process. And then it will be very difficult to move on if Chromium goes bad. Which means that there will be no incentive to make Chromium good."
I agree. It is one of many reasons I use Firefox. And I suggest you do, too. And recommend it your friends and family.. It is a fine browser and deserves support. A mono culture (or near mono culture) in browsers is VERY VERY bad.... we lived through that nightmare once before.
having a single dominant product is bad... (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure if Microsoft is preparing to do evil, or finally found the much sought after vaccination/cure...
It's microsoft. Of COURSE they're going to do evil. The scorpion [wikipedia.org] is more likely to stop stinging.
It was not available on Windows 7 and 8 (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft used to bridge between OS versions, e.g. IE6 and .NET were available for Win 9x, IE7 and IE8 were available for XP.
No such work was to run Edge on previous versions, so a billion people were not able to run Edge and had to run other browsers for years. Millions people using Windows 10 for the first time in 2017, 2018 or 2019 thus have little reason to run Edge.
I think this is a reason for Windows 8 (RT) store and apps failures as well, back then people may have had been curious about tablet-like ipad-like applications on their desktop (this was still relatively new in 2012, smartphones not universal yet, blackberry still around). They didn't backport it to Windows 7 so they left out hundreds millions users.
I'm dumbfounded by this news still. A very bad news it means Google Chrome dictating the web. Does the oligarchy divide the cake (entire globalized world) between themselves? Microsoft keeps the desktop OS and legacy Office, Google gets the web, Amazon gets retail, Facebook is the ultimate real identity verifier and anonymity killer, Atlantic Council pilots the censorship, European Union writes the laws, Finance e.g. Goldman Sachs and central banks blackmail the governments.
Sorry Microsoft, it won't help much (Score:2)
obligatory (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
I'd rather they used Servo (Score:2)
It's faster, and it's not Google. It just needs a little bit of UX polish to really shine, including such bare necessities as global scale factor that Firefox flat out refuses to implement.
Firefox? (Score:2)
I have been thinking lately that IMHO Firefox would be an ideal candidate for a co-op with MS. They could do a little more good, regain some of that long lost karma, FF quantum would get the attention it deserves and MS would still be giving Google and Apple the finger. That works be a win win win Situation for both MS and Mozilla IMHO.
weird (Score:4, Informative)
Obligatory (Score:2)
http://nelson-haha.api-meal.eu... [api-meal.eu]
Comment removed (Score:3)
Ditching Chromium soon (Score:3)
Re:I feel bad for Microsoft (Score:5, Informative)
I feel bad for Microsoft. They have been trying very hard to support all the standards.
Don't because those assholes only implement standard when they have no other choice. Microsoft has a long history of trying to undermine standards with purposely shitty support.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't feel bad for Microsoft (Score:2)
They have been trying very hard to support all the standards
Then why do I have the feeling I'm back in the browser war? As a web developer, I recall that you first made your site standards compliant, and then made it work in IE as well. Then came Firefox (it was a great browser in those days), and finally Microsoft started adhering to some standards as well. Nowadays, I have the feeling we are back in the browser war again. I wouldn't know who Microsoft is fighting this time, but again I have to make my sites standards compliant first, and then "fix" them for Intern
Re: (Score:2)
That wasn't about developers employed by Microsoft - it was about trying to ensure that Windows is the preferred desktop OS for developers in general.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. but who embraces what ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)