←back to thread

1034 points deryilz | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.42s | source
Show context
al_borland ◴[] No.44545060[source]
Even if bigs exists to work around what Google is doing, that isn’t the right way forward. If people don’t agree with Google move, the only correct course of action is to ditch Chrome (and all Chromium browsers). Hit them where it hurts and take away their monopoly over the future direction of the web.
replies(26): >>44545103 #>>44545185 #>>44545382 #>>44545931 #>>44545951 #>>44546164 #>>44546522 #>>44546599 #>>44546664 #>>44546763 #>>44547531 #>>44548200 #>>44548246 #>>44548399 #>>44548418 #>>44548820 #>>44549698 #>>44550098 #>>44550599 #>>44551061 #>>44551130 #>>44551663 #>>44553615 #>>44554220 #>>44556476 #>>44571602 #
janalsncm ◴[] No.44545951[source]
“Sorry, we don’t support any browsers other than Chrome”

I agree exploiting a bug isn’t a sustainable solution. But it’s also unrealistic to think switching is viable.

replies(6): >>44546025 #>>44546030 #>>44546084 #>>44546107 #>>44546632 #>>44548350 #
1. userbinator ◴[] No.44546632[source]
Find who is responsible for such sites and send them strongly-worded emails. If it's a commerce site, tell them they just lost a potential customer. In my experience it's usually the trendchasing web developers who have drunk the Goog-Aid and are trying to convince the others in the organisation to use "modern" (read: controlled by Google) features and waste time implementing these changes --- instead of the "deprecated" feature that's been there for decades and will work in just about any browser, and the management is usually more driven by $$$ so anything that affects the bottom line is going to get their attention. I've even offered to "fix" their site for free to make it more accessible.
replies(1): >>44553173 #
2. janalsncm ◴[] No.44553173[source]
This is common on internal company websites. Devs only support chrome officially.