You must log in or register to comment.
When developing photon I always end up with more issues on chrome browsers than firefox. and half of those are because of its god awful scrollbar. Please use an overlay scrollbar instead of shifting the stupid page around, chrome.
ugh yeah classic chrome am I right? (I forgot how to center a div)
My website only works with Chrome, but it has to be a specific old version of it. And you also need to install some extensions. Very specific versions of these extensions. Few of them already removed from the store due to security backdoors.
I have a Docker image you can use to run Chrome though.
At that point, just release your website as an electron app.
What version of Docker do I need to run your container?
You’ll need my fork of docker, and you’ll need to apply a patch.
Can I run your patched version of docker on docker?
Yes, with
--privileged. It’s totally safe. Trust me.No. You need to run it in a VM that runs TempleOS.
Which version of TempleOS?
My code is portable enough to support all versions.
Greatest format ever. I present you with the Demi-God of memes award for best use of THEY LIVE if you originated the template. If you did not originate you get the cool assed dude award for sharing. Many thanks.
How did we get from “SGML varient for formatting text” to this?
I wish I could like this thrice
Make an alt account.
If your website only works with Chrome, it’s not a website. It’s a Chrome site.
You didn’t design for the web. You designed for Chrome.
I just design for IE6
I do this, but unironically.
An Antiquarian I see. Carry on my good fellow!
Fuck chrome. Such a dogshit unoptimized spyware browser that now disables ad-blocking plugins
I agree that Chrome fucking sucks, but it’s disingenuous to call it unoptimized. Chrome and chromium-based browsers are as fast as or faster than Firefox. Although I agree that manifest V3 is horrible to the web as a whole and shouldn’t have been created.
It also eats up like 99% of your CPU
Have you used chrome or chromium in the past few years? Source?
Their plugins were fucked from the beginning. You never had control of your extensions.
The problem for me is that the built-in translator is too convenient
Pretty sure Firefox have that too
*For a limited set of languages. Until they add Japanese I won’t be getting much use from it, sadly.
Firefox has translation now, too, on both mobile and desktop.
And you can optionally add the Google Translate extension to desktop Firefox if you want. (It really is convenient, isn’t it?)
And you can always just plug in the URL of whatever page you’re trying to translate directly into https://translate.google.com/.
AFAIK the built-in translator doesn’t support Japanese, which is 99% of translation I need and the extension (which is what is was trying to use before) either requires you to select the text that you want to translate one-by-one or run the whole page through translate.google.com, which doesn’t work with any page that requires an account to access or triggers ddos protection on some others.
Yeah, I think Firefox’s translation feature is technically still in beta.
Safari also has it built in. This person is just saying shit to say shit I guess.
Chrome is awful in nearly every way one can measure a browser. Anyone still using this as they’re main driver in 2025 is technologically challenged.
It’s wild to see Chrome going from the browser to use if you had any tech sense whatsoever to being universally derided.
Universally derided
lol try looking outside lemmy. 90% of people still just use it and don’t care
At least in my country, google is going balls-to-the-walls mode with the chrome psyop. Like every third ad on youtube is an ad for chrome. And if you’re a little older, you’ll remember their countless other ad campaigns that propelled chrome into the mainstream. The only reason so many people use chrome is because they’re brainwashed into it.
That’s not necessarily true. Circa 2016–17 I frequented a website that worked in Chrome but not Firefox. This was due to Firefox at the time not implementing web standards that Chrome did. Firefox only got around to it in 2019. So naturally, the developer of the site was telling people to use Chrome.
I don’t know the history of column span but the reason Firefox was “behind” on standards was because Google was pushing new standards through committee faster than competing browsers could keep up. Google would implement a new feature, offer it as a free standard, then get it through the committee. Because Google already had it in their browser, they were already compliant while Firefox had to scramble.
It was Google doing their variation of “embrace, extend, extinguish”
It got so bad that not even Microsoft had the resources to keep up. They said as much when they said they were adopting Chromium as their engine.
Google was actually later to implement this particular standard than Edge and Safari, at least according to MDN. And I believe this was before Chredge.
Chredge :D
Yeah it’s a very fun name, isn’t it?
I’m gonna be honest, if they used a feature that wasn’t ready for prime time, it’s still on them.
It got added because it worked extremely well on browsers that implemented it, and it solved a problem that was needed on the site in question, which was very difficult to solve otherwise. I can’t blame a site for using an open standard that works for a majority of its users and which makes the development effort significantly less.
This was due to Firefox at the time not implementing web standards that Chrome did.
Uhm, yeah, that’s what browsers do. There are somewhere about 150 web standards and some are hard requirement while others are soft. Blink has some implemented that Webkit hasn’t but Gecko has and that’s true for all three. Same for browsers.
Btw, the one with the most implemented standards is QtWebkit by far. It’s still slower tho.
Yeah? I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that. I’m saying it’s bullshit to say a developer has done a crap job when one browser doesn’t implement a web standard that is perfect tailor-made for their site’s use case.
If your job is to make websites and you make sites that don’t work on a browser that has over 100 million users you’re not doing your job.
Still a bad job tho, if his implementation requires things that aren’t common and has no workarounds in place.
This has been a problem for a very very long time
I agree with you that failing to support multiple browsers is an old problem, but I think the cause has shifted.
Back in the last century, supporting both browsers amounted to sniffing the browser and implementing the same feature twice.
document.layersvsdocument.allfor example.Nowadays I think the problem is different: we just don’t know what’s going on. The site is transpiled from TypeScript, written on top of React or Vue which drastically switches paradigm (bonus for Tailwind), packed with building tools, and the average dev has little understanding of what actually comes out. It’s a tall stack of leaky abstractions on top of the already tall one of the web. The dev is pretty sure it works on Chrome so they say it does work there, but it was not even a deliberate choice.
For most sites it’s a testing matrix issue. Most testing teams look at browser stats and choose how to apply their limited resources based on that. So the dev probably doesn’t even see the bug that exists for an old Firefox version as there’s no testing done on it.
I like this template so much better than the Spider-Man one that people constantly use backwards.
But this one’s also backwards? I haven’t seen the movie, talking purely about the two photos.
In the movie the glasses let the wearer see the truth. This template is often used backwards but it’s correct in this case.
What’s the movie?
“They Live!” A guy finds some strange sunglasses that lets him see the subliminal messages hidden in all our print and media and advertisements. He can also see aliens walking amongst the population, disguised as regular humans!
Turns out, Earth had been invaded by aliens long ago and they’ve been keeping us under their control with subliminal messages for decades.
And the aliens definitely aren’t allegory for capitalists
The Full movie is worth a watch.
“I have come here to chew bubble gum and kick ass, and I’m all out of bubble gum”
Perhaps the best line ever uttered in any movie. Rowdy Roddy Piper maybe a B movie actor at best, but he was meant to play that role in that movie.
I have often wondered: Who wore a kilt best. Bruce Campbell or Rowdy Roddy Piper. Campbell was a Sharp Dressed Man in his kilt for sure. But Piper wrestled in one for years-- it was his trade mark garb.
One of the best fight scenes in any move too.
Or… The client wanted a WordPress site and that’s just the result of it.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I’m going to have to go down the rabbit hole of making my own website soon. Just curious but would there be an easy way to show a pop up just to people using chrome?
No reason in particular… 😏
lol i did something like what i assume your goal is on my neocities when i detect
!!window.chrome === true
Why the double negation?
It’s a handy way to convert any value to a Boolean. If
window.chromeis defined and done non-empty value, double negation turns it into justtrue.I’ve been wondering why not
window.chrome == trueorBoolean(window.chrome), but it turns out that the former doesn’t work and that==has essentially no use unless you remember some completely arbitrary rules, and that JS developers would complain that the latter is too long given the fact that I’ve seen javascript code using!0for true and!1for false, instead of justtrueandfalsebecause they can save 2 to 3 characters that way.I’ve never seen the
!0and!1, it is dumb and indicates either young or terrible devs.Boolean(window.chrome)is the best,!!window.chromeis good, no need to test if it’s equal totrueif you make it a boolean beforehand.==has essentially no use unless you remember some completely arbitrary rulesIf you make sure the types match, like by explicitly converting things on the same line on that example, then you can use it just like if it was
===.In fact, there are people that defend that if your code behaves differently when you switch those two operators, your code is wrong. (Personally, I defend that JS it a pile of dogshit, and you should avoid going to dig there.)
JS “idiomatic” way to cast to boolean. But could just be written as
!window.chromeinstead.
Not sure if serious, but there’s a million ways to do this, some that require importing thousands of lines of code and none of which are guaranteed to work in all possible circumstances. But here’s a simple one.
Im stupid Stones but I think it’s in the user agent information, browser and version and other shit
User agents cannot be fully trusted anymore since every browser puts every possible word in it so they are not excluded by anything.
Well, some browsers have made User-Agent strings useless. Technically, it’s like this:
Firefox: “Mozilla based browser, Gecko engine, Firefox.”
Chromium: “We’re totally a Mozilla based browser we swear. Also KHTML, which is like Gecko basically. I guess also a bit like WebKit. Has anyone ever heard of those? No? OK. Fine, here’s some actual information then…”
In most cases yes.
However I did find this really weird bug where Firefox was caching something to do with sockets (that would disallow connecting a new socket) that could only be cleared by restarting Firefox itself.
Is that http2? Cause http2 allows for reuse of a connection for additional requests.
This caught me out with envoy reverse proxy doing a few subdomains using a wildcard cert.
The browser would reuse the connection cause the cert authority and IP was the same, but envoy couldn’t figure out how to route the request correctly. Absolute head scratcher!
