Re:Show HN: CSS Pokemon – created with clip-path and CSS var...
by taf2 on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @01:50PM
(#13169474)
so 1997 to 2001? MS was innovating. What about from 2001 to 2006? 5 years of zero development? Big difference between Chrome and IE6. IE7 (2006 - 2009) IE8 (2009 - 2011) You can't seriously tell me this is comparable progress to Chrome/Mozilla/Safari? My issue with anyone equating IE6 to recent browsers is they are not comparable. It was really bad during the IE6 days and we had no alternative. Today when new features land in Chromium they are opensource, available for the Mozilla, Webkit, and IE teams to study. IE is still closed source. Whether it calls itself Edge or IE it is still a closed source browser. A closed source browser is what allowed 5 years of zero. If you want to point out privacy concerns with Chrome please run Chromium - https://www.chromium.org/getting-involved/download-chromium or run Firefox. These are at least Open Source e.g. our internet is free. IE is the ultimate evil to the internet and any business that operates on the internet should remember IE is a threat because it is closed source.
Re:Show HN: CSS Pokemon – created with clip-path and CSS var...
by lucideer on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @02:32PM
(#13169995)
As I already said above, I'm analogising; pointing out minor inconsistencies doesn't undermine the comparison. No two scenarios are ever identical. The post-IE6 history you're referring to is a bit moot: we have yet to see where Chrome will go.
Minor factual note: the Edge engine is open-source, so your arguments for studying Chrome's implementation source applies equally to Microsoft at this stage.
> IE is the ultimate evil to the internet
This is straying very quickly into hyperbole.
The debate about open-/closed-source somewhat misses the mark anyway. Opera (Presto) was always entirely closed-source and it did much more for the open web than most. The killer is market dominance - lack of diversity leads to bad things. And IE has long since lost its market crown.
Re:Show HN: CSS Pokemon – created with clip-path and CSS var...
by Manishearth on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @03:13PM
(#13170499)
> the Edge engine is open-source,
Only the Javascript engine is open source, fwiw. That's not the majority of the browser.
(Unless EdgeHTML was open sourced since I last checked.)
I'm not really sure what you mean when you say "I'm not buying your quick dismissal": I never dismissed anything nor made out either that there is or isn't a large difference between the engines. I just corrected a statement that is definitely factually incorrect (and unfortunately believed by all too many).
On the actual differences between them, Chrome may be "almost identical" to Chromium, but unless you're working for Google, or have very comprehensively disassembled it, the differences is not easy to measure. What could be tiny in binary size could still be a massive change in behaviour, particularly in terms of things like telemetry.
Beyond that, they are of course not equivalent, they're just analogous. Finding a few tiny chinks in the comparison is not the same as invalidating it though. The primary analog is the approach to interop, and the resultant behaviour of the development community. Participation in standards bodies is an improvement over the IE6 days, but if you take a deeper look at Blink development, you quickly realise it's a pretty insignificant one in practice. Google controls the HTML5 spec. (the editor is a Google employee and the WHATWG is not a democratic body like the W3C), and outside of that the Blink team basically just implement what they want and specify later, rather than the reverse. The response of the development community: supporting the monopoly by ignoring interop - is pretty self-evident from links like this one.