This seems to be a pattern among Google employees, as least as I'm seeing from the outside.
They have their own company reality bubble, and clashes or inconsistencies with the outside world are met with disbelief.
They have their own company reality bubble, and clashes or inconsistencies with the outside world are met with disbelief.
Not just for MV3 (or even Google), but many of those "API teams" actually don't have a good understanding on its actual use cases so the incentives are usually aligned with their own goals and directions rather than the actual customers because what they see everyday is just their code base and some OKR. I guess they really didn't want to miss out the opportunity to clean things up so they put every single wish list into the bucket without much user study and then it's spectacularly exploded as we know.
I've seen a bunch of "internal migrations", which is supposed to be a way easier than this kind of external ecosystem migration. Unless it was planned and executed very well, those teams are usually shocked by the initial backlash and how "creative" their users are. Sometime those teams are able to come up with reasonable compromises, but in many cases they just deny the reality then blow things up (which sometime works if there's not much dependencies though, but many case it's just wasted as soon as upper managements kick in). This is why almost all successful API migrations are accompanied with some sort of extensive user study from the beginning rather than some arbitrary metrics/goals set by themselves.
This is a huge problem, also for the Safari extensions team. Google doesn't ship many of its own extensions, and Apple ships none. Moreover, there's no evidence that either of these companies actually talk to extensions developers—i.e, have actual conversations with them—before shipping extension APIs.
Did Google talk with the developers of uBlock Origin or Tampermonkey before designing MV3? Not doing so is negligence.
They simply could not conceive of a use case that was offline or didn't trust Google to be reliable. I honestly don't think they ever used a real desktop office suite. They had no model in their head to understand it.
Microsoft's web-based stuff does this just fine, just like the offline stuff has for decades. I can edit on an app wherever I am, then have my laptop back home do some magic on the OneDrive folder and process/store/whatever I want, and I never have to invoke a magic menu item to ask Microsoft to let me. It's just there.
I don't see why I have to adjust my workflow for Google's failure of imagination. I've also had too many cloud things decide to limit/remove export functionality to trust it.
Yes, yes they do.
Here in Australia it's a rare thing for me to see a Linux server. They exist, sure, but are generally in the minority.
I have some self-selection biases as well, but I regularly work for large orgs with more than 10K staff and I've been to orgs with over 1K IT staff, and in all cases Linux servers were 30% of the fleet or less.
By some[1] metrics, Windows Server is about 50% of the worldwide server OS market[2]: https://www.t4.ai/industry/server-operating-system-market-sh...
[1] Market research related to server OS usage is notoriously unreliable, with idiotic things such as counting "NGINX" load balancers as a "Linux web server" even if it is one tiny load-balancer VM in front a whole fleet of Windows IIS servers running ASP.NET. There are also the "hyperscalers" that skew distributions. The FAANGS alone add hundreds of millions of Linux instances, but in huge farms of essentially identical clones. At a single medium-sized customer, they have over 1K distinct Window Server VMs or HA pairs, but they also have 1x HPC cluster with 1K Linux nodes. Do you count that as "1" Linux install, or "1000"?
[2] Again, is it just counting the "for money" market, or just the "list of all systems used for servers, including the unsupported free distros?" Microsoft doesn't publish a separate line-item for their Windows Server revenue, for example, making it hard to determine how much it's still being used.
Huh, here in Norway, for big oil service companies, for government and electricity infrastructure, the wast majority of servers I see are Linux in the cloud.
Last time I saw a Windows server was a month before the pandemic, some old stuff that I inherited from another consultant that had been squatting there since last millennium I think.
Windows is exceedingly rare, from a Silicon Valley perspective. The sales people often (not always) ask for windows laptops, but that's it. Everyone else is Mac or Linux. Servers are 100% Linux in the last decade, before that it was either Linux or Solaris. I've never encountered a windows server in 25+ years in the field and never used it myself for anything other than gaming.