Technology
Which posts fit here?
Any news that are at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies or tech policy.
Post guidelines
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
view the rest of the comments
Lemme guess: it works perfectly fine in chrome. Google has been using this sort of anticompetitive tactic for years to wage war against other browsers.
Yes. I regularly have to either close Firefox or kill the GPU process in it so it'll free up RAM. Worst I saw it was at 13GB.
Unpopular opinion: If it works in the engine that 70+% of devices are using, then it works. If it doesn't work in your non-Chrome browser, then your browser is what's broken.
Not also unpopular, but also wrong.
Often times firefox is following the css specifications in how to process it and chrome isnt. Developers then do things, see it works in chrome and leave at that, not knowing what they did is wrong and broken.
On top of that logic of yours, ie10 was like the perfect browser and everyone should have kept making stuff compatible with it
What you're saying is that Firefox isn't doing what developers are expecting it to do; that just means that Firefox isn't compatible with what developers are actually making. That's hardly a strong defense for Firefox, as all that situation does is create a subsection of the internet that only works on Firefox.
There's a difference between following the standards as-written, and the standards as-practiced. If 99% of developers are doing something one way, then that's the way it's done, regardless of what some consortium of developers at Mozilla thinks. Firefox saying "erm excuse me but ThE rUlEs say yadda yadda so I won't render the page as you expected" while Chrome just says "fuck it, here's your page", is precisely why Chrome has the higher userbase and is the de facto standard; it does what the users and the developers both expect it to do, and doesn't give any fuss about it. Not saying it should be this way, but it is.
Firefox's random incompatibilities don't actually make for a safer internet, as the average user is going to pursue the path of least resistance. So if their pages stop working in Firefox, they're just gonna switch to Chrome, or worse.
Except that it has been found in the past that Google/YouTube has been serving different html to Firefox than to Chrome. If they would be serving the same html, then you might have a point. But even then, Google can push through non standard changes to both chrome and YouTube before Firefox even has had a chance of making it compatible.
For what it's worth, the bug in this article is partially replicable in Chrome, and isn't even unique to YouTube. Due to the way I keep my windows positioned, I sometimes get the mobile layout of a web page on my desktop because I opened it in a narrow window, and quite often those sites will go into the same flickering, rapid loop of layout adjustments the article describes. I ran into this quite often while I was applying for jobs last year.
Though I've not seen the extensive resource usage happening when Chrome does this. That part of it could very well be a side effect that's compounded by the user agent shenanigans Google does with YouTube.
You'd be rooting for ie6 some years ago. Indeed an unpopular opinion.
The problem here is that antitrust does not work correctly and google hasn't been legally forced out of the industry due to anticompetitive tactics
that would be a more relevant opinion if google hadn't made itself head of the web standards committee and is changing things so fast that the only party able to keep up is google.
Not to mention the amount of websites that suddenly start working of Firefox once you change the user agent to Chrome. And I remember Google slowing downs youtube/gmail on the server side when it detects a non-google browser.
Turns out that's not how standards work. If all browsers implement the standard and your product doesn't function properly on every single one of them, the problem is your product, even if it's just a single one.
That's exactly the issue: Firefox isn't implementing the same standards as other browsers.
firefox is implementing the standard. google, with something like fifteen times the devs and control of the WHATWG, modifies the standard so that their stuff is in there. in that situation it's impossible to do anything but play catch-up. and right now they're the only other browser that matters.
like, imagine if the same company sold 50% of all cars on the road as well as 70% of gas stations, then suddenly switched to a new proprietary nozzle that only works in their cars, leaving everyone else scrambling to try and design something compatible. would you say the remaining 30% of gas stations were doing it wrong?
If that was the case, pages would work in Firefox as they do in other browsers.
Whatever the reason or whoever you want to blame, the bottom line is that Firefox does not meet the standards of modern browsers, period. You can blame Google if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Firefox doesn't do what is expected of it. For better or for worse. It's not a matter of "who is more evil?" because they're all evil (including Mozilla), it's a matter of "which of these products actually work?" And Firefox doesn't work.
And I say this as somebody who used to be a diehard Firefox supporter. The Mozilla Foundation was the first charitable donation I made when I first started working and earning money. I liked the promise they showed, but they've become just like the rest.
of course theyre both evil, but only one of them is using their monopoly-like position to gradually close the market so that no other browser engine can ever be compliant again.
out of curiosity, what do you encounter that doesn't work?
Funny that playing videos and use any other websites except YouTube works on Firefox without crashing the browser, don't you think?
Keep the faith