Hacker News Reader

Comment by eznzt | Hacker News Reader

The evergrowing scope of browsers, designed so only Google (and, by now, Mozilla, but only because Google allow them to exist) can create one and keep it updated.

View on HN

So what's the other option? Apple world where browsers are crippled and everyone builds software for proprietary platforms with gatekeepers?

Ther other path is to view browsers as viewers of sometimes dynamic documents. There is a certain power in limiting the amount of expressiveness in the web - it allows for a lot more creative repackaging.

Unfortunately this path doesn't allow for much targetted advertising opportunities, so that's why Google et al wisely abandoned this path. ( /s )

Dynamic documents fundamentally can't achieve the usefulness of modern web applications though.

The fact of the matter is that web still seems to be the last bastion of freedom where you have a decent chance of publishing your software without begging for approval from a Californian. It's also inherently portable and doesn't care which brand of laptop or phone did you buy.

Which is why the rent seekers are trying so hard to dismantle it instead of empowering it.

ChromeOS is the end goal of Google, beware of the basket where you are putting your eggs on.

I wish there could be a clear distinction between applications (like gmail) and web pages (like nyt).

I agree with you on that.

4 javascript devs disagree, apparently.

I'd say 99% of sites out there don't need the "usefulness of modern web applications" at all. They are strictly linked sets of documents, with some interactivity through forms and such.

It's also inherently portable and doesn't care which brand of laptop or phone did you buy.

...as long as it's running Google's software.

> Apple world where browsers are crippled

I’m perfectly fine with crippled browsers. In fact I prefer them to be. Even current browsers are way beyond scope and IMO should be slimmed down.

What you're perfectly fine with is slimmer browsers. Crippled browsers, as in the ones in Apple's world, are browsers where the supported specs and features are selectively chosen for political / competitive reasons. It's absolutely not healthy.

Apple doesn't cripple Safari. They just don't want to engage in a losing war of implementing half-baked underspecified standards that Chrome rushes against any objections.

Mozilla is increasingly on the Apple's side these days.

>> but only because Google allow them to exist

It is good that Google still allows Firefox to exist. I hope this love for my go to browser lasts. Every day I pray it will last. I'm scared though, because deep in my heart of hearts, I know it won't last.

Yeah. Browsers are unfortunately OS:es now, finally realizing pmarca's dream of reducing Windows to a "poorly debugged set of device drivers".

Alan Kay reckons they aren't OS:es enough https://www.quora.com/Should-web-browsers-have-stuck-to-bein...

Very interesting, thanks for posting!

Edit: I removed some stuff I first wrote.

> It’s both surprisingly and dismayingly difficult to get people — especially computerists — to criticize the web and the web browsers — even more so perhaps today.

Definitely agree with this. People tend to view it as something handed down to them by Gods. It's not.

Edit 2: This needs a larger discussion. I just posted it as a new submission.

It's still not is but it is has all the necessary APIs to replace native desktop APIs. So browser are the new display server. The Xorg replacement

Doesn't the fact that it's all open-source put a damper on that particular conspiracy?

and, by now, Mozilla, but only because Google allow them to exist

Why does Mozilla need permission from Google to exist? That sounds very very wrong.

Because if Google stops paying them, they will go out of business.

It needs their money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com