Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | izacus's commentslogin

This is complete nonsense, it's a post hoc copium where you're trying to dishonestly rewrite history from your personal hatered.

Chrome was better than competition pretty much all its lifetime and there's plenty of historic articles to prove it, no matter how much your emotions refuse to accept the history.


You are incorrect. Chrome was widely bundled with third party installers for much of its history.

https://www.osnews.com/story/25184/adobe-tricks-users-into-d...

https://www.labnol.org/software/chrome-with-adobe-reader/201...

https://forum.filezilla-project.org/viewtopic.php?style=246&...

> nearly 10 % of the installers came with a third-party browser (e.g. Chrome)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016740481...


You can argue the merits of a product without personally attacking people.

The only personal insult to everyone here is such blatant lying and rewriting of history. And it's telling about the bottom barrel culture of the internet that you're angrier about having someone called out as a liar they are instead of actual lies.

We were there and we didn't install Chrome via some made up toolbar installer, but because it was significantly better than what Mozilla and Internet Explorer offered.


I am plenty calm, I do not know what gives you the impression I am angry. You, however, absolutely need to ease off the gas. You can’t talk to people like this here. You are being needlessly hostile and taking swipes at people. Treat people with respect or just don’t bother commenting. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

The marked used all the different apps available from both OEMs and on Play Store.

Don't be a prick.


Start with Apple which actually has a monopoly on mobile devices in USA and let's go from there then.

You do care about the market and aren't just angry because a corp doesn't listen to your orders, right? RIGHT?


You would have a heck of a job convincing a court that 60% domestic market share in a two competitor market constitutes a monopoly.

Then how is Google a monopoly at 40%?

It isn’t, and nobody said it is. The ruling in question did not find that Google had a mobile OS monopoly. It found that they had monopolies in both the ad server and ad exchange markets, and was using them to reinforce each other in an anticompetitive way.

So why would they breakup Android away from Google (essentially killing the product as a whole due to lack of funding from Play) instead of separating the Ad business?

That’s not the metric under which Google is seen as a monopoly, and you know it.

It’s search. And ads.


No I don't know it. Is that what echelon meant when saying Google needs to be broken up?

Wow, Apple really made the right business choice only catering to people who don't care about any of this. Google set different expectations, and it already bit them with Epic.

Wonder what will be first, the year of Linux desktop or the year of Apple AAA gaming ;P

Been hearing both for the same time.


No, this isn't what gaslighting is or means.

Saying that holding a particular opinion makes you irrelevant is not gaslighting? It's not nice to respond to a frustrated developer by saying they don't exist. It feels comparable to saying someone's concerns are not real, which does amount to gaslighting to me.

No one says graphene os doesn’t exist, or the developers don’t exist, just that their opinions don’t matter because they are a miniscule fraction of the market. 2% of active devices drives no decisions at Google.

Gaslighting is making a person question the validity of their own true memories.

EU was very clear that closing down the OS (Apple) is how they avoid fines with their latest rulings. They punished Google for open sourcing the OS and left Apple get away free with explicit explanation that closed OS doesn't need to adhere to same rules.

So yeah, don't expect EU to defend you here.


Why do you so desperately want to use their software then?

This whole topic is basically people demanding that Google continues giving them their code for free for their operating system.

If it's really such a cancer, why whine and demand the continued work then?


That's always been the deal: they can build their OS on the work of many volunteers, and we in turn can build our projects on top of the OS.

Google is trying to take from the community potluck without giving anything back.


The community is providing Google with nothing. A fraction of a sliver of market share running GrapheneOS isn't going to make Google care.

The community potluck has been replaced with a Google Play-shaped stock exchange over a decade ago.


Google also made that argument, and further argued that they could do it better.

Which is why they planned to replace the entire kernel and services with zircon and fuchsia, and a new Android runtime ontop.

Guess what, turns out Google actually does need the community contributions of the Linux and Java projects.


What community contributions? Linux is mostly corporately developed with Google being one of the major contributors.

Google also fully maintains the ART VM running on Android - despite Oracle, the owner and developer of Java - famously wanting a piece of it.

What community contributions are you talking about there? Where does this myth come from?


> What community contributions? Linux is mostly corporately developed with Google being one of the major contributors.

Linux has a lot of corporate contributors, but it's been a long standing problem that many of these only add new features that their new pet project needs. Long-term maintenace and improvements is often done by volunteers, and many important subsystems rely entirely on volunteer work.

This was also famously an issue with e.g. AMD's GPU driver, which was appreciated as it allowed a mainstream GPU to be fully supported with an in-kernel driver, but the disadvantage that now volunteers had to maintain hundredthousands of LOC of code, most of which was autogenerated hardware interfaces with little documentation, which made refactoring and cleanup work almost impossible.

> Google also fully maintains the ART VM running on Android - despite Oracle, the owner and developer of Java - famously wanting a piece of it.

Had you followed the release notes, you'd have noticed that that hasn't been the case since Android 8 Oreo, when the entire Java standard library on Android was switched from Apache Harmony to OpenJDK. That's why Android was finally able to move beyond Java 7 and introduce modern functionality, fix the broken NIO implementation, and add JSR-310 Date and Time fuctions, just to mention a few of the improvements since then.

These have been developed by the Java community, including corporations and individual contributors.


Can you link to patches or commits they upstteamed? I'm not aware Google ever accepted any.


Nothing in last 5 years; and if we ignore the last one, Nothing in almost 9-10 years. I am not sure how much weight it holds. Now if that's on Google on not accepting stuff that's different matter

Most of it is one liner config changes too, not much of actual code.

What about issue tracker discussions, mailing list discussions, security vulnerability reports etc.?

We've been using SSH keys which behave the same for years. At this point it's mostly clowning by old farts in these articles.

SSH keys are much easier to use and understand. Heck, passkeys could have just been a ZIP file holding a key-pair instead of whatever hostile design by committee we ended up with.

If they actually worked like SSH keys that would solve some of the problems with them. (like keeping a backup that you can still enroll into new accounts without it being present).

There's plenty of password managers available that keep the backup for you in multiple ways.

At some substantial risk to the important key material, yeah. You also don't get an offline backup.

We also have devices with yubikeys built-in now.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: