OSDev.org

lollynoob wrote:Why do we need another browser?

Because competition creates innovation - competition improves products. Capitalism 101.

Firefox works fine; IE7 works fine; hell, even IE6 and before worked fine.

Firefox is slow and has memory leaks. IE7 crashes and has security flaws. IE6 and previous had security flaws, poor rendering, were non standards compliant, the list goes on. No browser on the market at the moment is perfect. (Note: I only said the bad things about each browser - each also has good properties, this was not intended to provoke a flamewar).

The internet is fine as it is, we don't need any more innovation.

Firstly, when innovation is being stifled you know you have a problem. If innovation had been stifled in the medieval ages - "These longbows work fine as it is, we don't need more innovation like this 'gunpowder'." - we wouldn't be where we are now.

Secondly, the internet is a changing space. What used to be all static pages and CGI is now dynamic client-side javascript and asynchronous requests. Each current browser was at least written with the premise of the former space and has had to adapt. Something designed from the start to cope with the current space can only foster improvement all round, IMHO.

Also before ten people quote where I've mentioned IE and yell BUT SECURITY FLAWS, I could really care less about security honestly.

...and that's just silly (and I think you meant "couldn't" or "could not". It's a negative statement.)

Every one is saying it's fast, but when I used it I visited OSDev and opened about 10 tabs of unread threads and it hanged. Though there could be a lot of factors involved rather than the browser in general.

http://www.thehackerslibrary.com/?p=229#more-229 , please have a look at this .

Bwi ha ha ha ha ha ha .

Truly Evil
Saint Lucifer

Well, you have to admit that all this hype over Google Chrome has started to die down...

Here's a very strong article about why Google Chrome will not replace Windows: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/08/dziuba_chrome/

And I was hoping that in the future I could play C&C 3 and develop my own web browser OS under Google Chrome for SPARC! The Linux devs better be panicking...

Because competition creates innovation - competition improves products. Capitalism 101.

The current products are fine.

Firefox is slow and has memory leaks. IE7 crashes and has security flaws. IE6 and previous had security flaws, poor rendering, were non standards compliant, the list goes on. No browser on the market at the moment is perfect. (Note: I only said the bad things about each browser - each also has good properties, this was not intended to provoke a flamewar).

But they all show webpages to where the content is readable, right? That's the only important thing, really.

Firstly, when innovation is being stifled you know you have a problem. If innovation had been stifled in the medieval ages - "These longbows work fine as it is, we don't need more innovation like this 'gunpowder'." - we wouldn't be where we are now.

Your example only works because there was a reason to improve upon the longbow: a better weapon was needed. My case would be something like "These DVDs work fine as it is, I don't need to switch to blu-ray." In that example, there's really no tangible benefit to the newest technology if you don't really care about seeing the individual blades of grass in a field or whatever the newest technology can do.

Secondly, the internet is a changing space. What used to be all static pages and CGI is now dynamic client-side javascript and asynchronous requests. Each current browser was at least written with the premise of the former space and has had to adapt. Something designed from the start to cope with the current space can only foster improvement all round, IMHO.

Personally, I can't stand the "current space," and would be fine with static text web pages.

...and that's just silly

Why is it silly? Security is not that great of a concern for me, and if adding more security (although every new version of a program always seems to have new security vulnerabilities) means changing the interface or how the program works or what the program looks like, I'll take the more risky version any day (for example, I've been running firefox 2 since it came out, don't like how firefox 3 looks, and don't plan on upgrading).

Also woo hoo thanks mods for deleting all my posts I sure do love the free speech around here.

lollynoob I do web development every day for living. And based on my experience I can't agree to several points you make.

The current products are fine.

This depends on how you look at them. Firefox, safari, opera, ... are fine. I like them. They could do with a speedier JavaScript though (both safari and Firefox are working on this and we will see dramatic increases in future releases)

However the biggest problem is IE. Maybe you don't care - but from web developer's point of view it's a nightmare. Code that you spend hours/days working and designing on that is standard compliant, passes all kinds of validations simply fails to work properly on IE. Worse yet there are simple cases to lead IE to crash itself. The only way to pressure Microsoft into compliance is if too many people start moving away from IE. And that is what is happening. In MS's world we would still be stuck with IE4 if there would have been no Firefox/opera/safari around.

Web IS changing a lot. More and more clients come and want to have exciting web site solutions with lot of images, animations, features ... JavaScript is here to stay. Like it or not. If you feel nostalgic go and use Lynx.

But they all show web pages to where the content is readable, right? That's the only important thing, really.

You are free to use ANY browser you like. If I made a website/solution where layout is screwed, half the functionality doesn't work I would not get paid. And probably got fired in the long run. Part of my job is to test my work on many browsers. So no. nowadays it no longer is enough.

Your example only works because there was a reason to improve upon the longbow: a better weapon was needed. My case would be something like "These DVDs work fine as it is, I don't need to switch to blu-ray." In that example, there's really no tangible benefit to the newest technology if you don't really care about seeing the individual blades of grass in a field or whatever the newest technology can do.

I don't understand what is your problem against new things? If you want go back to Mosaic. It is capable of showing text... Perhaps you fail to see/understand that there is entire industry behind and a LOT of competition. Billions of dollars and countless jobs -all for developing and moving the web forward. I as a web developer am very excited over the fact that JavaScript is becoming a more serious tool. This means we can now start doing things on the web that were not possible before.

Personally, I can't stand the "current space," and would be fine with static text web pages.

This is your right. The rest of us like to move into future and see better looking and more functional websites and solutions.

Why is it silly? Security is not that great of a concern for me, and if adding more security (although every new version of a program always seems to have new security vulnerabilities) means changing the interface or how the program works or what the program looks like, I'll take the more risky version any day (for example, I've been running firefox 2 since it came out, don't like how firefox 3 looks, and don't plan on upgrading).

In an imaginary situation if I were to consider employing you to work for me -if you said anything of the like I would refuse. No matter what education/resume/portfolio you got. Security nowadays is paramount. And so do clients -no one likes some ******* hacking into your system and use your mailing list to send out naked Britney Spears, penis enlargement and Viagra. Or sniff on your browser while you visit internet banking, make online payment, ...

Sadly these things happen all the time. There are entire criminal organisations that earn their dirty living this way.

I don't understand what is your problem against new things? If you want go back to Mosaic. It is capable of showing text... Perhaps you fail to see/understand that there is entire industry behind and a LOT of competition. Billions of dollars and countless jobs -all for developing and moving the web forward. I as a web developer am very excited over the fact that JavaScript is becoming a more serious tool. This means we can now start doing things on the web that were not possible before.

How do you know that fancier graphics and multimedia content and whatever javascript does is moving forward? Yes, it's change, but if anything it seems like websites have only gotten more complex (in both the interface and the code behind them, making them at the same time harder for a person to use and slower for a browser to render) and less useful (e.g. myspace). As far as functionality goes, I'd take a website written entirely in HTML any day, over one with CSS or AJAX or whatever the newest acronym is.

This is your right. The rest of us like to move into future and see better looking and more functional websites and solutions.

I don't think you get it, new web sites are less functional and harder to use. Pictures and moving things don't make anything easier.

Also:

Web IS changing a lot. More and more clients come and want to have exciting web site solutions with lot of images, animations, features

Hahahahah

exciting web site solutions with lot of images, animations

ahahahahaha

exciting web site solutions

hahahaha

What the hell does that even mean? How is being exciting or having lots of pretty pictures or having animations useful? Shouldn't web sites just display information describing the topics they cover? It seems like that would make more sense than EXCITING WEB SOLUTIONS CLIENTS FUTURE LOOK AT ME I KNOW USELESS MARKETING WORDS THAT DON'T MEAN ANYTHING.

that's the way market is. Web is no longer simply a place for gathering information. It's more and more about entertainment, multimedia, business.

Moving pictures and animations don't imply usefulness. However they are more and more part of the modern web design.

And yes - anything that makes my job easier is welcome. If for example IE would be more standard complient it would mean no longer solving IE specific problems. And hopefully IE8 will be that.

Just because you fancy retro and stuck in the past doesn't mean other's should. Go back to you IE3 or whatever browser you prefer. Don't use any modern web site that makes even slightiest use of CSS/JavaScript. Including this Forum. And learn what is the difference between Ajax and CSS and what they are used for. And btw most browsers support using no style at all. See how cool this forum is without CSS. I'm sure you'll love it.

I agree with albeva... But I think you are going Off-Topic. If you want to talk open another topic

Amen to that.

Anyway I find Chrome browser awesome and like it a lot. Although I am still using FireFox because it has all the tools I need and it's just as good. But I am very impressed with Chrome. Especially it's light UI. And I've dreamed long time of tabs like that. Exactly what I want

I think that the ideas behind chrome are quite ingenious but I will probably wait for it to come out of beta before I switch, I just like Adblock too much to loose it.

haha lol. knowing Google you'll be waiting for the next 5 years

that's the way market is. Web is no longer simply a place for gathering information. It's more and more about entertainment, multimedia

But that's not progress, nor is it "moving forward," as you mentioned earlier; It's simply diluting a useful source of knowledge with useless entertainment.

Moving pictures and animations don't imply usefulness. However they are more and more part of the modern web design.

This is a bad thing.

Just because you fancy retro and stuck in the past doesn't mean other's should.

How am I stuck in the past? Would it be "stuck in the past" to not like television as well (which I don't), just because everyone else seems to like it? Maybe I just don't like sifting through meaningless fluff when I'm looking for content.

Don't use any modern web site that makes even slightiest use of CSS/JavaScript. Including this Forum.

Can't really do that, now can I, if nearly every website uses them? I'm not saying people shouldn't use websites that use these (that would be dumb, there's still content on said websites), I'm saying they shouldn't be used to make websites in the first place.

And learn what is the difference between Ajax and CSS and what they are used for.

Lol I don't really care to.

And btw most browsers support using no style at all. See how cool this forum is without CSS. I'm sure you'll love it.

Actually it's pretty terrible because this forum wasn't designed to be used without CSS (by the looks of it). No breaks between posts, etc. (which could be done in HTML).

PS: This isn't off topic. Since the selling point of Chrome is the better integration of things like javascript and CSS, arguing about the quality of those things would fit right in. Also if it bothers you you can just ignore the "off-topic" posts.

lollynoob in a way I can understand your point of view. and essentially it comes down to: why windows vista? Windows 95 does the job well... Why some ultra fancy mobile phone (iPhone) when simple Nokia 1610 (i think -it was a black and white brick) does the job well. Why mouse when you can get done using only keyboard? And one could argue endlessly over why use something newer while old gets it's job done anyway.

But that's not progress, nor is it "moving forward," as you mentioned earlier; It's simply diluting a useful source of knowledge with useless entertainment.

I agree. Our society is deluted with mass media and entertainment. And personally I don't like a lot of it. Say these social networking sites? I despite the very idea of those. People start loosing touch with reality and living out their lives diconnected in some cyber space. Imagine meeting a nice girl/guy in some of those that you think you like, would like to meet etc... while in reality this person is actually some 60yo fart living out some sort of perverse fantasy?

On the other hand multimedia is useful as well. Take YouTube for instance -90% of it is crap. But 10% of the videos I find very useful and interesting. There are loads of documentaries and tv shows that you wouldn't be able to find otherwise ( http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=Zuke696 ) take wikipedia - it is nice source of information. And say whatever you think a picture says thousand words. Or NASA / ESA websites that contain large photo galleries of photos of other planets, space, universe ...

All the fancy stuff can be used wrongly. But on the other hand what is wrong with designing better looking websites? And if all these new technologies can make the experience better/easier I'm all for it. And as I said -web is no longer simply source of information. It is a becoming a hub of multimedia, finance, entertainment. For many many people it is a very serious work tool. It allows to build applications on-line and make them accessible from anywhere. And this is where speed of JavaScript comes in and browsers like Chrome start paying off. You would be suprised to know how much "hidden" corporate applications are being written to solve all kind of problems.

This is a bad thing.

This is your personal opinion. There are lot of bad designs. But there are also very good designs out there. People don't like static gray monotome websites anymore. You go tell that to the web industry... no one will take you seriously. As I said it's your own personal preference. I tend to like well designed web sites.

How am I stuck in the past? Would it be "stuck in the past" to not like television as well (which I don't), just because everyone else seems to like it? Maybe I just don't like sifting through meaningless fluff when I'm looking for content.

Oh let me see: we don't need multimedia, web technologies ... Let's do websites as we did them in 1993 ...

Lol I don't really care to.

Then why are you commenting on things you don't understand nor even care to learn about?

Actually it's pretty terrible because this forum wasn't designed to be used without CSS (by the looks of it). No breaks between posts, etc. (which could be done in HTML).

You can design without using CSS... there is a reason why CSS was invented and implemented.

wow this topic is going downhill. Still I wait until Google fix their bugs.