Cringeley on - Linux

This is a discussion on Cringeley on - Linux ; "What Google does not want is Microsoft creating a browser that sucks. Actually, Google doesn't mind if Microsoft's browser sucks. What they really don't want is Microsoft to make a browser that sucks and everyone ends up using it. And, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Cringeley on

  1. Cringeley on


    "What Google does not want is Microsoft creating a browser that sucks.
    Actually, Google doesn't mind if Microsoft's browser sucks. What they
    really don't want is Microsoft to make a browser that sucks and
    everyone ends up using it. And, if the IE8 beta shows us anything,
    making a really sucky web browser is Microsoft's true ambition.

    "Google's main concern is quite simple: Browsers should render pages
    accurately, and the JavaScript engine in the browser should be fast,
    efficient, and bug free. On both counts, IE8 is an abomination.
    JScript just doesn't behave very well and is buggy. And, IE's page-
    rendering engine simply does not follow the standard. Because of this,
    Google has to keep development on their Google Applications quite
    generic and simply cannot implement the features they want. You'll
    also notice that Microsoft recently has been putting on some very
    compelling web content that is only available if you use Windows and
    IE."


    http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2...05_005415.html

  2. Re: Cringeley on

    nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu wrote:

    >
    > "What Google does not want is Microsoft creating a browser that sucks.
    > Actually, Google doesn't mind if Microsoft's browser sucks. What they
    > really don't want is Microsoft to make a browser that sucks and
    > everyone ends up using it. And, if the IE8 beta shows us anything,
    > making a really sucky web browser is Microsoft's true ambition.
    >
    > "Google's main concern is quite simple: Browsers should render pages
    > accurately, and the JavaScript engine in the browser should be fast,
    > efficient, and bug free. On both counts, IE8 is an abomination.
    > JScript just doesn't behave very well and is buggy. And, IE's page-
    > rendering engine simply does not follow the standard. Because of this,
    > Google has to keep development on their Google Applications quite
    > generic and simply cannot implement the features they want. You'll
    > also notice that Microsoft recently has been putting on some very
    > compelling web content that is only available if you use Windows and
    > IE."
    >

    >
    > http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2...05_005415.html


    Absolutely, nessuno.

    As I see it, all this (Chrome) has nothing at all to do with browsers per se.
    Rather, it has to do with browsers as a way of delivering web apps.

    M.S. could foul that up for Google on I.E., and Google wouldn't be able to do
    much about that.
    Google needs *one* browser for which Google is in the driving seat, and for
    which it can make sure that standards are followed, and implemented
    sufficiently and efficiently enough to use Google apps.

    Once Chrome is out of beta, Google will simply point to it, and say "If I.E.
    doesn't work with Google Apps, just download Chrome"
    The code is open, and nobody should have much trouble following suit.

    Hence Google probably don't even need to release Chrome for Mac or Linux
    (though I'm sure they will) - they just need to have Chrome available for
    I.E. users to switch to if MS doesn't toe the line on browser standards.

    Neat:-)


  3. Re: Cringeley on

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    ____/ bbgruff on Sunday 07 September 2008 21:49 : \____

    > nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "What Google does not want is Microsoft creating a browser that sucks.
    >> Actually, Google doesn't mind if Microsoft's browser sucks. What they
    >> really don't want is Microsoft to make a browser that sucks and
    >> everyone ends up using it. And, if the IE8 beta shows us anything,
    >> making a really sucky web browser is Microsoft's true ambition.
    >>
    >> "Google's main concern is quite simple: Browsers should render pages
    >> accurately, and the JavaScript engine in the browser should be fast,
    >> efficient, and bug free. On both counts, IE8 is an abomination.
    >> JScript just doesn't behave very well and is buggy. And, IE's page-
    >> rendering engine simply does not follow the standard. Because of this,
    >> Google has to keep development on their Google Applications quite
    >> generic and simply cannot implement the features they want. You'll
    >> also notice that Microsoft recently has been putting on some very
    >> compelling web content that is only available if you use Windows and
    >> IE."
    >>

    >>
    >> http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2...05_005415.html

    >
    > Absolutely, nessuno.
    >
    > As I see it, all this (Chrome) has nothing at all to do with browsers per se.
    > Rather, it has to do with browsers as a way of delivering web apps.
    >
    > M.S. could foul that up for Google on I.E., and Google wouldn't be able to do
    > much about that.
    > Google needs *one* browser for which Google is in the driving seat, and for
    > which it can make sure that standards are followed, and implemented
    > sufficiently and efficiently enough to use Google apps.
    >
    > Once Chrome is out of beta, Google will simply point to it, and say "If I.E.
    > doesn't work with Google Apps, just download Chrome"
    > The code is open, and nobody should have much trouble following suit.
    >
    > Hence Google probably don't even need to release Chrome for Mac or Linux
    > (though I'm sure they will) - they just need to have Chrome available for
    > I.E. users to switch to if MS doesn't toe the line on browser standards.
    >
    > Neat:-)


    I haven't seen any writers yet hitting the point about OEM ties. Google, unlike
    Mozilla, has decent ability to get computer shipped with Chrome preinstalled
    (I think Dell UK already does this with FF2). gOS is an example of an O/S
    that's shipped to facilitate Web applications.

    - --
    "There's a lot of Linux out there -- much more than Microsoft generally signals
    publicly -- and their customers are using it..." --Paul DeGroot, a Directions
    On Microsoft analyst.
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAkjEVAoACgkQU4xAY3RXLo7aZgCgraa6ChkjXT ujwHaIgp1tDKch
    R6MAoJqh6/HebsNZ+pYE7CGm4Z6Hl/4F
    =RZGf
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  4. Re: Cringeley on

    nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu wrote:
    >
    > "What Google does not want is Microsoft creating a browser that sucks.
    > Actually, Google doesn't mind if Microsoft's browser sucks. What they
    > really don't want is Microsoft to make a browser that sucks and
    > everyone ends up using it. And, if the IE8 beta shows us anything,
    > making a really sucky web browser is Microsoft's true ambition.
    >
    > "Google's main concern is quite simple: Browsers should render pages
    > accurately, and the JavaScript engine in the browser should be fast,
    > efficient, and bug free. On both counts, IE8 is an abomination.
    > JScript just doesn't behave very well and is buggy. And, IE's page-
    > rendering engine simply does not follow the standard. Because of this,
    > Google has to keep development on their Google Applications quite
    > generic and simply cannot implement the features they want. You'll
    > also notice that Microsoft recently has been putting on some very
    > compelling web content that is only available if you use Windows and
    > IE."
    >


    MS Sharepoint is a good example of using the the IE only lever.

    >
    > http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2...05_005415.html


  5. Re: Cringeley on



    The rest of Cringely's article explains his own theories, which are
    not really in conflict with this view. They conjure up fears at
    Google of what Microsoft might do to sabotage their search business,
    and how Chrome fits into strategiess to prevent that.

    Chrome is the most interesting news I've heard all year. IE was down
    one percentage point last month, even before Chrome came out. It will
    be interesting to see what the impact is in the next several months.
    I've already heard some people say they love it. Another article I
    read said that Chrome was showing up on the charts, and mainly taking
    IE users, not Firefox.

  6. Re: Cringeley on

    In article
    <4be88287-3696-409b-a056-b287029f5e0e@a2g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
    "nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu" wrote:

    >
    > "What Google does not want is Microsoft creating a browser that sucks.
    > Actually, Google doesn't mind if Microsoft's browser sucks. What they
    > really don't want is Microsoft to make a browser that sucks and
    > everyone ends up using it. And, if the IE8 beta shows us anything,
    > making a really sucky web browser is Microsoft's true ambition.
    >
    > "Google's main concern is quite simple: Browsers should render pages
    > accurately, and the JavaScript engine in the browser should be fast,
    > efficient, and bug free. On both counts, IE8 is an abomination.
    > JScript just doesn't behave very well and is buggy. And, IE's page-
    > rendering engine simply does not follow the standard. Because of this,
    > Google has to keep development on their Google Applications quite
    > generic and simply cannot implement the features they want. You'll
    > also notice that Microsoft recently has been putting on some very
    > compelling web content that is only available if you use Windows and
    > IE."
    >

    >
    > http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2...05_005415.html


    What about Firefox? If it follows the standard, then they don't need
    Chrome, as Firefox can fulfill the role of being a standard following
    alternative to IE8. If it does not follow the standard, then even if IE
    did not exist, they would still have keep their apps generic and be
    unable to implement the features they want.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  7. Re: Cringeley on

    In article
    ,
    "nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu" wrote:

    > The rest of Cringely's article explains his own theories, which are
    > not really in conflict with this view. They conjure up fears at
    > Google of what Microsoft might do to sabotage their search business,
    > and how Chrome fits into strategiess to prevent that.


    Interesting spin there: "sabotage their search business". I thought ad
    blocking was usually hailed as a great thing. Free, effective ad
    blocking is often touted as a big advantage of Firefox. But if
    Microsoft blocks ads, then it is suddenly bad.


    --
    --Tim Smith

  8. Re: Cringeley on

    nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu wrote:

    >
    >
    > The rest of Cringely's article explains his own theories, which are
    > not really in conflict with this view. They conjure up fears at
    > Google of what Microsoft might do to sabotage their search business,
    > and how Chrome fits into strategiess to prevent that.
    >
    > Chrome is the most interesting news I've heard all year. IE was down
    > one percentage point last month, even before Chrome came out. It will
    > be interesting to see what the impact is in the next several months.
    > I've already heard some people say they love it. Another article I
    > read said that Chrome was showing up on the charts, and mainly taking
    > IE users, not Firefox.


    Yes, I saw that too (taking I.E. Share rather than FF) and I'm absolutely
    baffled! Can you offer any reasons for it?
    I expected it to be FF that would suffer, based on the thought that those that
    are savvy enough to change from I.E. have already done so. Why would more
    start to abandon I.E. at the moment?


  9. Re: Cringeley on

    Tim Smith wrote:

    > What about Firefox? *If it follows the standard, then they don't need
    > Chrome, as Firefox can fulfill the role of being a standard following
    > alternative to IE8. *If it does not follow the standard, then even if IE
    > did not exist, they would still have keep their apps generic and be
    > unable to implement the features they want.


    It's a good question, Tim.

    I saw this as Google wanting (needing) to be in the driving seat for the
    development of a browser that was fast/efficient for web apps. Since it's
    OSS there's no reason wht FF (or anything else) can't duplicate any
    facilities that Chrome offers, at least to the extent of running Google web
    apps?
    Once Google has Chome going though, they won't need to wait for community
    effort to solve any problems that affect Google - they will just go ahead
    with their own developers, won't they?

    To me, it's all starting to make a lot of sense.


  10. Re: Cringeley on

    On Sep 7, 4:06*pm, Tim Smith wrote:
    > In article
    > ,
    >
    > *"ness...@wigner.berkeley.edu" wrote:
    > > The rest of Cringely's article explains his own theories, which are
    > > not really in conflict with this view. *They conjure up fears at
    > > Google of what Microsoft might do to sabotage their search business,
    > > and how Chrome fits into strategiess to prevent that.

    >
    > Interesting spin there: "sabotage their search business". *I thought ad
    > blocking was usually hailed as a great thing. *Free, effective ad
    > blocking is often touted as a big advantage of Firefox. *But if
    > Microsoft blocks ads, then it is suddenly bad.
    >
    > --
    > --Tim Smith


    OK, *you* paraphrase what the second half of Cringely's article was
    trying to say.

  11. Re: Cringeley on

    In article
    ,
    "nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu" wrote:
    > On Sep 7, 4:06*pm, Tim Smith wrote:
    > > In article
    > > ,
    > >
    > > *"ness...@wigner.berkeley.edu" wrote:
    > > > The rest of Cringely's article explains his own theories, which are
    > > > not really in conflict with this view. *They conjure up fears at
    > > > Google of what Microsoft might do to sabotage their search business,
    > > > and how Chrome fits into strategiess to prevent that.

    > >
    > > Interesting spin there: "sabotage their search business". *I thought ad
    > > blocking was usually hailed as a great thing. *Free, effective ad
    > > blocking is often touted as a big advantage of Firefox. *But if
    > > Microsoft blocks ads, then it is suddenly bad.
    > >
    > > --
    > > --Tim Smith

    >
    > OK, *you* paraphrase what the second half of Cringely's article was
    > trying to say.


    OK: Google is afraid that Microsoft might add ad blocking to IE. This
    is a popular feature available for other browsers, and so having it by
    default in the #1 browser could harm Google's business.


    --
    --Tim Smith

  12. Re: Cringeley on

    Tim Smith writes:

    > In article
    > ,
    > "nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu" wrote:
    >> On Sep 7, 4:06*pm, Tim Smith wrote:
    >> > In article
    >> > ,
    >> >
    >> > *"ness...@wigner.berkeley.edu" wrote:
    >> > > The rest of Cringely's article explains his own theories, which are
    >> > > not really in conflict with this view. *They conjure up fears at
    >> > > Google of what Microsoft might do to sabotage their search business,
    >> > > and how Chrome fits into strategiess to prevent that.
    >> >
    >> > Interesting spin there: "sabotage their search business". *I thought ad
    >> > blocking was usually hailed as a great thing. *Free, effective ad
    >> > blocking is often touted as a big advantage of Firefox. *But if
    >> > Microsoft blocks ads, then it is suddenly bad.
    >> >
    >> > --
    >> > --Tim Smith

    >>
    >> OK, *you* paraphrase what the second half of Cringely's article was
    >> trying to say.

    >
    > OK: Google is afraid that Microsoft might add ad blocking to IE. This
    > is a popular feature available for other browsers, and so having it by
    > default in the #1 browser could harm Google's business.


    Chrome will not support ad blocking?

    Oh dear. Well, thats that then.

    --
    "Of course, by the time Gnash gets its act together, we'll
    probably all have to start all over again with Silverlight
    (or Moonlight)."
    -- The Ghost In The Machine in comp.os.linux.advocacy

  13. Re: Cringeley on

    * nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu peremptorily fired off this memo:

    >
    > "Google's main concern is quite simple: Browsers should render pages
    > accurately, and the JavaScript engine in the browser should be fast,
    > efficient, and bug free. On both counts, IE8 is an abomination.
    > JScript just doesn't behave very well and is buggy. And, IE's page-
    > rendering engine simply does not follow the standard. Because of this,
    > Google has to keep development on their Google Applications quite
    > generic and simply cannot implement the features they want. You'll
    > also notice that Microsoft recently has been putting on some very
    > compelling web content that is only available if you use Windows and
    > IE."
    >

    >
    > http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2...05_005415.html


    Hmmm:

    Now back to Bob. Everything Dave says makes sense and I agree with
    it, but it doesn't answer my real question, which is not "Why did
    Google have to do a browser?" but rather, "What made it impossible
    for Google NOT to do a browser?"

    The answer to this latter question begins with Dave noticing
    Microsoft's recent IE- and Windows-specific web content, which cracks
    open the door on Google's greatest fear -- that Microsoft will turn
    off ads in IE.

    Microsoft can't do that, can they?

    Microsoft can do pretty much whatever it wants in this area. There is
    plenty of browser competition. They can hobble their own product if
    they like, though it would drive users away from IE -- from a product
    that brings Microsoft no direct revenue anyway -- so what's the risk?

    Microsoft turns off the ads in IE and what happens? Google takes a
    huge revenue hit, is knocked down three pegs in the eyes of Wall
    Street, while pretty much nothing happens to Microsoft, which would
    have just shown the world who is still the sheriff.

    And an anonymous Munchkin chimes in:

    It's called a removable hard drive, moving 750 gigabytes was never
    faster, easier or cheaper.

    On another note your captcha works in IE 8 beta 2 but not in Firefox.

    anonymous | Sep 08, 2008 | 3:22AM

    --
    A cloud does not know why it moves in just such a direction and at such
    a speed, if feels an impulsion... this is the place to go now. But the
    sky knows the reasons and the patterns behind all clouds, and you will
    know, too, when you lift yourself high enough to see beyond horizons.
    -- Messiah's Handbook : Reminders for the Advanced Soul

  14. Re: Cringeley on

    * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > In article
    > ,
    > "nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu" wrote:
    >
    >> The rest of Cringely's article explains his own theories, which are
    >> not really in conflict with this view. They conjure up fears at
    >> Google of what Microsoft might do to sabotage their search business,
    >> and how Chrome fits into strategiess to prevent that.

    >
    > Interesting spin there: "sabotage their search business". I thought ad
    > blocking was usually hailed as a great thing. Free, effective ad
    > blocking is often touted as a big advantage of Firefox. But if
    > Microsoft blocks ads, then it is suddenly bad.


    Company blocks ads. Bad.

    Individual blocks ads. Good.

    Got it, McLuhan?

    --
    The number of computer scientists in a room is inversely proportional
    to the number of bugs in their code.

  15. Re: Cringeley on

    On Sep 8, 3:58 am, Linonut wrote:
    > * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    > > In article
    > > ,
    > > "ness...@wigner.berkeley.edu" wrote:

    >
    > >> The rest of Cringely's article explains his own theories, which are
    > >> not really in conflict with this view. They conjure up fears at
    > >> Google of what Microsoft might do to sabotage their search business,
    > >> and how Chrome fits into strategiess to prevent that.

    >
    > > Interesting spin there: "sabotage their search business". I thought ad
    > > blocking was usually hailed as a great thing. Free, effective ad
    > > blocking is often touted as a big advantage of Firefox. But if
    > > Microsoft blocks ads, then it is suddenly bad.

    >
    > Company blocks ads. Bad.
    >
    > Individual blocks ads. Good.
    >
    > Got it, McLuhan?
    >
    > --
    > The number of computer scientists in a room is inversely proportional
    > to the number of bugs in their code.


    Thanks. That was just about my thought after reading the article a
    second time.

+ Reply to Thread