Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Breaking Windows.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.transterrestrial.com/admin/mt-tb.cgi/10197
4 Comments
Pete Zaitcev wrote:
Remember you wanted a browser with better isolation and compartmentalization. Here's your answer. And it only exists because Mozilla was dragging their feet on this something important, while making useless features a priority. Now they can stuff their Awesome Bar (and the related sqlite retardity) where Sun does not shine. Well, sure, if not for the associated performance hit, the Awesome Bar would've been awesome, but even then what is more important: know what tabs east your CPU or having a search through bookmarks?
Brock wrote:
A lot. Microsoft didn't kill Netscape out of sheer spite. The browser has always been a mortal threat to Microsoft. But now there are four dynamic companies (Google, Apple, Mozilla and Opera) who have started cooperating on an alternative to Windows (and two of them have too much cash and political power to shut down forcefully, not that MS could get away even with killing Netscape these days).
Everything that article says about Chrome is true, but no less true than about Mozilla or Safari. Google just advanced the bar a step or two and has a habit of getting good press.
If Google really makes this into an application browser (as opposed to a web content browser), complete with extensions to effectively replace AJAX techniques with a more complete and simple application-centric API, and if they open source the browser at that point (and the server), they could create a platform-neutral application service that would make the OS irrelevant for corporate apps. If they do that, and do it well (which Google has a record of doing), Microsoft should be very afraid.
Larry J wrote:
Google's Chrome sounds interesting but I'm only willing to trust the company so far. Their motto is something like "do no evil" but they've cooperated with China to suppress and track down the Chinese people. Sounds pretty evil to me. Why they get a pass while Microsoft is constantly bashed (often deservedly so) is a mystery to me.
Web applications are fine so long as you have network connectivity. For a lot of the work I do (classified stuff), web connectivity isn't an option, nor is the idea of allowing outsiders have access to the data. Even within organizations that don't work with classified information, the need to protect proprietary information will likely make them hesitant to go with web applications.
Leave a comment
Note: The comment system is functional, but timing out when returning a response page. If you have submitted a comment, DON'T RESUBMIT IT IF/WHEN IT HANGS UP AND GIVES YOU A "500" PAGE. Simply click your browser "Back" button to the post page, and then refresh to see your comment.
About this Entry
This page contains a single entry by Rand Simberg published on September 2, 2008 4:49 PM.
Remember you wanted a browser with better isolation and compartmentalization. Here's your answer. And it only exists because Mozilla was dragging their feet on this something important, while making useless features a priority. Now they can stuff their Awesome Bar (and the related sqlite retardity) where Sun does not shine. Well, sure, if not for the associated performance hit, the Awesome Bar would've been awesome, but even then what is more important: know what tabs east your CPU or having a search through bookmarks?
A lot. Microsoft didn't kill Netscape out of sheer spite. The browser has always been a mortal threat to Microsoft. But now there are four dynamic companies (Google, Apple, Mozilla and Opera) who have started cooperating on an alternative to Windows (and two of them have too much cash and political power to shut down forcefully, not that MS could get away even with killing Netscape these days).
Everything that article says about Chrome is true, but no less true than about Mozilla or Safari. Google just advanced the bar a step or two and has a habit of getting good press.
If Google really makes this into an application browser (as opposed to a web content browser), complete with extensions to effectively replace AJAX techniques with a more complete and simple application-centric API, and if they open source the browser at that point (and the server), they could create a platform-neutral application service that would make the OS irrelevant for corporate apps. If they do that, and do it well (which Google has a record of doing), Microsoft should be very afraid.
Google's Chrome sounds interesting but I'm only willing to trust the company so far. Their motto is something like "do no evil" but they've cooperated with China to suppress and track down the Chinese people. Sounds pretty evil to me. Why they get a pass while Microsoft is constantly bashed (often deservedly so) is a mystery to me.
Web applications are fine so long as you have network connectivity. For a lot of the work I do (classified stuff), web connectivity isn't an option, nor is the idea of allowing outsiders have access to the data. Even within organizations that don't work with classified information, the need to protect proprietary information will likely make them hesitant to go with web applications.