Hacker News Reader

Comment by Mikeb85 | Hacker News Reader

Extreme position?

Given that so much software requires installing the JVM, or CLR/Mono run-time, or widget toolkit, or even is specific to an operating system, is it really that much to ask that users install a certain browser which literally runs on any OS, is free and open-source, and can be installed in seconds/minutes?

Why do we rail against people for using the wrong OS, make people dual-boot and run virtual machines, yet installing a different browser is completely unacceptable?

No one minds that so many apps are iOS/OSX/Android/Windows exclusive, but when web-apps don't run on IE it's a problem...

View on HN

> Given that so much software requires installing the JVM, or CLR/Mono run-time, or widget toolkit, or even is specific to an operating system, is it really that much to ask that users install a certain browser which literally runs on any OS, is free and open-source, and can be installed in seconds/minutes?

13 years ago this was not the case. That was my point. At that point, few alternative browsers existed, and Netscape had just released a bloated undesirable release.

Nowadays, the PC itself is a fortress under siege, and Windows only runs on 30-ish percent of all PC/tablets. Webkit is ascendant, and IE persists in being difficult for developers. Now is the time to code for Webkit or HTML5 compliance.

> is it really that much to ask that users install a certain browser which literally runs on any OS, is free and open-source, and can be installed in seconds/minutes?

Yes, it can be.

Can you think of certain situations where doing this is extremely costly (in money, time or both) or do I need to give you a few examples?

In my experience, people displaying this kind of naïveté have never been in a situation of large leadership (where you are in charge of a large organization or when your decisions can impact hundreds of employees across a company).

Of course it could be costly (in time mostly). But eventually, everything reaches end-of-life. Windows XP, IE6, IE10 will too...

For years, organizations said switching to Linux is more costly than paying the MS tax. Recently, many large organizations rolled out Linux installs on a massive scale (European government institutions).

Anyhow, installing Firefox on some workstations is relatively small compared to say, replacing COBOL, or Windows XP...

Edit - and while I don't manage a large computer install base, I use them at a large organization with thousands of installs (a University), and they somehow managed to install Firefox on every single computer.... (but they still advertise COBOL jobs)

And for those intranet sites which only work on old IE, you could use the IE tab add-on (see https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ie-tab/ ).

> Can you think of certain situations where doing this is extremely costly (in money, time or both) or do I need to give you a few examples?

Yes, I can.

But I can also think, actually, remember, the cost of supporting Microsoft's non-standard Web implementations. For some reason, many people on this thread assume it's legitimate to ask Mozilla to spend time supporting Microsoft products, but it is not legitimate to ask users who want this functionality to support Mozilla's product (by installing it).

Ladies and gentlemen: Actions and decisions have consequences. Choose Windows Phone, and lose a native YouTube app. Choose Internet Explorer and have no access to latest-and-greatest web stuff.

It's as simple as that. There is no reason for anyone to feel entitled to more work spent to support their favorite browser -- even if it was the most popular, which it hasn't been for quite a while now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com