namingthingsiseasy

joined 2 years ago
[–] namingthingsiseasy@programming.dev 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Of course developers wanted this. They wanted to push all the complexity into the browser so they didn't have to worry about it themselves. Google was happy to provide this because it meant that they could be the only ones that could write a browser. That was the "conspiracy" you're talking about - but it wasn't a conspiracy, it was more of a strategy on behalf of Google, who knew that they were the only ones that could provide this level of support, and so if they did it, nobody else would be able to compete with them. Even Microsoft gave up on their own engine.

But the only reason Google could do this is because they were deriving revenue from their advertising monopoly. If their web browser was honestly funded, many, many of the features that we see in Chrome today would have never existed.

And the ones that stay behind will be the kinds of teammates nobody wants to work with.

Google is already falling behind in pretty much every area where they have competition and getting sued in all the areas where they have driven the competition out. It will really be great to see their business shrink given what they have become in the 2010s.

On the other hand, it's also really sad to see what they've become too. They used to be a really admirable company around the early 2000s. So many people were cheering for them as a company run by engineers, doing things differently and running all over the incumbent assholes everybody hated like Microsoft. There was a time when it felt like Google was a company for real people fighting back against the machine. But then they became the machine themselves.

The good Google is dead. I'd love to see them get completely buried.

[–] namingthingsiseasy@programming.dev 49 points 2 months ago (24 children)

This is great in my opinion. Web browsers are infernally complicated and need to be simplified. CSS is a bloated mess. Javascript is a bloated mess. I would love to see large swathes of both of them eliminated from existence, and maybe the maintenance burden leaves a very small chance that we could start to see some of these technologies starting to get dropped. I personally would love to see web components disappear most of all.

Regardless, Google really fucked over the web when they decided to add all these unnecessary technologies to Chrome. No doubt a EEE strategy to take over all browser development on the web. Something should have been done much earlier about it, but now we'll have to see how this mess gets sorted out.

Good. Operating systems should be neutral. The people who make them should not be allowed to dictate the terms that others use to interact with their platforms.

[–] namingthingsiseasy@programming.dev 123 points 2 months ago (11 children)

Of course you can. Instead of committing the code to a repository, you just take screenshots of the everything and commit that instead.

I didn't read the article, but I presume this is under the DMA which has provisions for increasing fines for repeat offenses - something like 10% of global revenue or something like that. I'm also a bit discouraged by how small the number is, but there is still some hope that it will either increase or get them to change their practices. But it is quite frustrating how slowly it's going.

In fact, chances are that Apple is going breaking the law until the last minute so they can squeeze every penny they can out of this scheme until they can't do it any longer.

Exactly. It's just a matter of time before President Dumbass wakes up with another batshit insane idea and throws the world into total disorder again because of whatever idiocy he thought up. And this is on top of the fact that "doing whatever he wants" is a dangerously stupid policy for any country to adopt to begin with.

How about neither? Both China and the USA have proven themselves to be unreliable trade partners. In fact, a lack of reliability is inherent in any trade relationship. The conventional theory is that trade brings prosperity (true!) and governments want to maintain that prosperity, so they have a (literally) vested interest in preserving that - and this latter part is not so true anymore these days. (We all know why of course, it's because the prosperity is not shared equally in the USA, and China is unstable because it's a totalitarian state that will happily immolate itself in order to save face - but this is besides the point.)

The important point is that while trade is nice because it brings greater prosperity, it also comes with security risks and as we move into a new age of geopolitics, we need to be aware of this and find a better balance between trade and security. It will be hard, because it's so easy to be greedy and focus only on economics, but hopefully we will continue learning the lesson of finding this balance as we see more and more crazy things unfold over the course of this decade.

[–] namingthingsiseasy@programming.dev 21 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Git turns 20: A Q&A with Linus Torvalds

Pretty sure he's older than that. And calling people names isn't nice!

[–] namingthingsiseasy@programming.dev 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

When is the last time anything Microsoft made was an upgrade...? Word 97??

[–] namingthingsiseasy@programming.dev 39 points 3 months ago (2 children)

There may still be lawsuits, however. There are still many ways that he could lose a lot of what he gained.

Why just 90%? Make it 99%! 100%! 150%!

view more: ‹ prev next ›