digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at readwriteweb.com

Browser Wars: A Disturbance in The Force

readwriteweb.com — So Google has released Chrome, its entry in the browser wars (bonus points, Google, for promoting it with a Scott McCloud comic). I know, I know, it uses the same rendering engine as Safari... but even still, Murphy's Law of Browsers dictates that weird little quirks and idiosyncrasies will somehow find their way in.

Who dugg this? Made popular Sep 7, 2008

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

161 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • cambob76, on 09/07/2008, -9/+218And more reason to not use IE, right?
  • postpostmodern, on 09/07/2008, -3/+181Web Standards FTW
  • Arramol, on 09/07/2008, -2/+135IE IS the reason not to use IE.
  • YHCIR, on 09/07/2008, -8/+114Even the submitter says it, it uses the same rendering engine as Safari, so nothing to worry about .............. ¬_¬

    The "comic" isn't even good, it's just a block of text with a vaguely related picture.
  • gw8t3st, on 09/07/2008, -3/+91What you said is true, but the comic is in the perspective of a web developer.

    Web developers would have to test all their pages on every browser (or at least every popular browser) out there. It adds a ton more work for the developers.
  • NexusV2, on 09/07/2008, -3/+76You don't need a reason not to use IE.
  • plana, on 09/07/2008, -2/+67Chrome is based on Webkit, so the web community should be breathing a sigh of relief now that webkit is well positioned now to beat out the rest.

    Web developers generally need to only care about what rendering engines are out there. This browser adds none.
  • Br3ach, on 09/07/2008, -3/+57Meah, bad joke at the expense of Star Wars
  • Winter35, on 09/07/2008, -8/+47Long Live Firefox!
  • Renton, on 09/07/2008, -0/+36As long as its standards compliant (which it is) then it shouldn't matter.
  • NexusV2, on 09/07/2008, -1/+29So far (being a web developer) I have to test everything I make on multiple browsers (4 (not including different versions of one browser)) but some developers do even more browsers, it's the most annoying part of any development.
  • nerdherder, on 09/07/2008, -1/+28To bad everybody does not follow them. Jerks...
  • Radan, on 09/07/2008, -0/+23Seriously, if everyone just followed the freakin' standards (thank you very much Webkit) I couldn't care less about what browser people use.
  • cypher35, on 09/07/2008, -0/+21Extra browsers I can handle... Extra rendering engines is what really drives developers crazy.

    Since Google Chrome uses WebKit, we can assume that if something renders correctly in Safari it will also render correctly in Chrome.

    Same goes for Firefox, Camino, and all of the other browsers which use the Gecko engine... outside of that there are usually only a few minor differences in Javascript implementation separating the browsers from the designer's perspective.
  • rpieszak, on 09/07/2008, -6/+22Another browser is only a problem if they decide it won't follow the GODDAMN STANDARDS! The only reason browser compatibility is a headache for web developers is because the industry leader (IE) decided to ignore the standards. The reason for standards is to avoid the mess we're in. I expect Google Chrome will follow the standards, so I'm not too concerned about it.
  • LeviTheSmith, on 09/07/2008, -1/+17Don't do magic outside of Hogwarts, Dumbledore will not be impressed.
  • debuggercll, on 09/07/2008, -0/+15Not if the competition uses unfair tactics like making their browser the default on nearly all home computers for years and years.
  • Trooper77, on 09/07/2008, -0/+14This digg fails. Chrome uses WebKit...which is the same renderer as Safari. Thus...web developers really only have to work with safari, FireFox, and IE.
  • renegadeafk, on 09/07/2008, -0/+7remember when digg didn't have a reply button?

    I do
  • debuggercll, on 09/07/2008, -4/+11You're not missing out on anything.
  • digitalpencil, on 09/07/2008, -0/+7the will to outdo one's competitors is a significant driving force in any creative field.
  • StarlessKnight, on 09/07/2008, -0/+6Can't have a standard based on a closed-source browser. Kind of difficult to model your browser after IE if you don't even know how or what IE is doing.
  • loqqq, on 09/07/2008, -0/+6You've probably used several Flex apps recently without even realizing it . . .
  • NanoStuff, on 09/07/2008, -0/+6"It adds a ton more work for the developers."

    Not if it renders identical to other browsers. If you stay within the CSS2 spec, it should. IE makes us paranoid that more browsers = more work, when in reality it's just more versions of IE = more work.
  • inactive, on 09/07/2008, -0/+6With more browsers comes more cache files to clean to hide your tracks.
  • rbk303, on 09/07/2008, -0/+6I agree. I often wish the internet would just stop developing and evolving. It's way too uppity.
  • forevernomad, on 09/07/2008, -0/+6Do any browsers?
  • Arramol, on 09/07/2008, -1/+7It's a decent browser with some interesting new features (especially the separate process for each tab), but it's not going to knock out Firefox for me (at least on my main machine) when I already have it customized to my exact preferences with mouse gestures, Sage reader, Adblock/NoScript, etc. Although when they release the Linux version, it might be a nice lightweight alternative for my laptop.
  • havelava, on 09/07/2008, -0/+5With more browsers come's great responsibility

  • gtapro92, on 09/07/2008, -3/+8then you have a ***** computer
  • debtman7, on 09/07/2008, -0/+5Yeah, as long as they track webkit no biggie. One of our designers was pissed, saying yet another browser to have to test in. But I reminded him, based on webkit so it shouldn't be a big deal. The only thing I worry about is that now Chrome, Safari, Firefox, etc are all moving to 'next gen' advanced javascript engines and I really hope that doesn't introduce bizzare js bugs between them.

    Also I'm a big excited about chrome as it might get some more webkit market share. That means more bugfixes, and maybe more browser supporting some of webkit's css features. It's CSS3 support is the best out there, and it supports a lot of cool features like transitions, animations, drop shadows, etc out of the box.
  • loqqq, on 09/07/2008, -5/+10Flex developers didn't even feel a ripple.
  • jamonterrell, on 09/07/2008, -0/+5remember when digg's comment system didn't suck?

    I don't.
  • melonhedd, on 09/07/2008, -1/+6unfunny
  • latova, on 09/07/2008, -1/+5Hi I'm a web developer and I use adblock. :P

    Chances are the kind of people whom use adblock are the kind of people who won't click the ads anyway since it annoys them THAT much to go download a plugin to get rid of them.

    Besides, I think you should be blaming the advertisers, who will go to insane lengths to get the most annoying ads onto websites, which make people want to do this.
  • ajbl, on 09/07/2008, -0/+4Because web developers already hate the number of browsers they have to test on.
  • shakin, on 09/07/2008, -0/+4That's exactly what people have said about MS products for decades. The folly is assuming that money + resources = good product. This is not the case in software development. It's the same logic that says doubling the number of programmers halves the time it takes to develop software, which is also wrong.

    Microsoft will begin developing good software when they put the interests of individual pieces of software ahead of corporate interests.
  • hmunkey, on 09/07/2008, -0/+4Really? I hadn't noticed.
  • MeltingIce, on 09/07/2008, -0/+4For me its become:

    web development -> use firefox
    site browsing -> use chrome

    Chrome really is noticibly faster but it lacks all the essential web developer features that firefox can get through addons. On another note, anyone think its a bit strange that Google chose to name their browser the same name as Firefox's interface name?
  • Jhiaxuz, on 09/07/2008, -0/+4Kind of like anything involving Mark Hamil.
  • MrMontpetit, on 09/07/2008, -1/+4The only way I will switch to Chrome is if it becomes as popular as Firefox, and people start to develop add-ons and themes for it. I heard it will allow themes, so add-ons should follow soon.
  • skinjester, on 09/07/2008, -1/+4yeah all those Flex apps have such a huge userbase
  • nathanww, on 09/07/2008, -0/+3Try getting ajax to work on IE, 'fox, Safari, and Chrome, then come back.
  • falafelkiosken, on 09/07/2008, -0/+3and 99% of all webpages that work in Gecko work in WebKit
  • oxdeltaxo, on 09/08/2008, -1/+4There is only reason to hunt it down and delete it.
  • inactive, on 09/07/2008, -1/+4@ ZerawBanned, Remember when the internet did not have banner ads?

    I do. ;-
  • drgmdp, on 09/07/2008, -1/+4web developers are a bunch of whiners
  • Syujinkou, on 09/07/2008, -0/+3With less and less people using IE, it DOES seem "stranded."
  • Lutremi, on 09/07/2008, -1/+4I'd be okay with ads if there aren't 5 of them in a single freakin page asking me to meet single women in my area.
  • dtfinch, on 09/07/2008, -0/+3Can't wait until they add SVG and Canvas support in IE14. That'll be great.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 163 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...

© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.