Examples?

https://honda.americanhondafinance.com

(Sure, it's Chrome-oriented ones. We've seen similar previously with IE, by the way.)

We have standards for the web. Real ones: the docs, which are discussed and approved in the industry. We have them for a long time!

So if some browser does not comply to the standards, it's really not the best strategy to adapt a site to the browser instead of the standards.

We are in the situation when (effectively) one company (Google/Alphabet) can lead anything to the whole market, step by step (even when changes contradict the web standards that are in place). The market is not the browsers market, of coyrse, but the internet ads through browsers control, which brings the most money to Google. By projecting its power to each and any aspect of it, Google ensures the uninterrupted market control for years ahead. So Google will continue to do. In the long run, we need to rely on standards instead of specific browsers. Otherwise it's just the monopoly of Google and web tech "market" is just their own backyard. That will bite us all hard.

It's not too good. It's just wealthiest. Because it holds ads market monopoly. Because it happens to be the popular search engine at the same time.

But it's not the best. Firefox is on par (I know they get some (most?) payments from Alphabet). And people were using Firefox/Netscape browser long before Google existed.

So it's not super frequent, but every few months there are important things I can't do in firefox.

If I used chrome daily perhaps I would see the opposite (broken on chrome, works on firefox).

I get the same feel from DuckDuckGo. I use it, till it doesn't work, then switch to google when it doesn't. Of course google would perform better, as I only use it for the cases where DDG fails.

It's a very clear trade-off in the hands of the user, which is correct.

I'm not sure I trust people who say something doesn't work in Firefox, unless they tried it in a fresh profile with default settings.

You'd need some tinkering to open a new browser window per monitor, couple of routes on 127.0.0.1 for config.

If it was something like a modern POSIX I don't think you'd have much complaining. But it's a lot heavier than that.

Help me understand why this is. Is it because there aren't native programs for the platform you're using? Is it to allow plug-ins or other abilities that wouldn't otherwise be available? Is it so that you can sync up with other musicians and play together in a way that wouldn't be possible without a browser?

choose a browser that doesn't implement those things.

The way feature creep have been going lately, in about six months that will mean Lynx.

Plus, plenty of languages have cross-platform runtimes and libraries, so not a big issue, not everything needs to be JavaScript.

Easier to create, easier to share and run. Mainly easier to create because the ones I'm sharing small MIDI sequencer experiments with are also web developers, so we just send each other links where we can run stuff direction from, and we can help each other out as we all use the same technology. Really easy to understand what the other is doing too, as you just open up the source of the page and that's it.

I've played around with other languages/runtimes for doing the same thing, but nothing is as fast to implement as with JavaScript, probably mostly due to familiarity.

It's like saying "if you don't like the laws(/taxes/whatever) where you live, go somewhere else" and acting as if I can just hop on over to Mars. I can't.

As we all spend most of our time inside of browser interfaces its not a surprise we see app, features and interfaces move to that process portal to. (Online IDEs, Cloud, Photo editing, etc.) Sure you can use your solution but in general, as always, its whats most efficient for the masses.