• AeonFelis@lemmy.worldEnglish
    5·
    5 days ago

    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.

  • henfredemars@infosec.pubEnglish
    8·
    6 days ago

    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.

      • Lena@gregtech.euEnglish
        2·
        5 days ago

        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.

    • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
      2·
      6 days ago

      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.

      • borari@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        2·
        5 days ago

        It’s wild to see Chrome going from the browser to use if you had any tech sense whatsoever to being universally derided.

        • morrowind@lemmy.ml
          1·
          5 days ago

          Universally derided

          lol try looking outside lemmy. 90% of people still just use it and don’t care

    • Zagorath@aussie.zone
      0·
      6 days ago

      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.

      • MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
        0·
        5 days ago

        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.

        • Zagorath@aussie.zone
          0·
          5 days ago

          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.

          • Ethan@programming.devEnglish
            0·
            5 days ago

            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.

      • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
        0·
        6 days ago

        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.

  • Xylight@lemm.ee
    1·
    5 days ago

    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.

      • KingOfTheCouch@lemmy.ca
        1·
        5 days ago

        In the movie the glasses let the wearer see the truth. This template is often used backwards but it’s correct in this case.

          • cobysev@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            5 days ago

            “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.

  • BroBot9000@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    6 days ago

    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… 😏

        • rektdeckard@lemmy.world
          0·
          5 days ago

          It’s a handy way to convert any value to a Boolean. If window.chrome is defined and done non-empty value, double negation turns it into just true.

          • Faresh@lemmy.mlEnglish
            0·
            5 days ago

            I’ve been wondering why not window.chrome == true or Boolean(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 !0 for true and !1 for false, instead of just true and false because they can save 2 to 3 characters that way.

            • ivn@jlai.luEnglish
              0·
              5 days ago

              I’ve never seen the !0 and !1, it is dumb and indicates either young or terrible devs.

              Boolean(window.chrome) is the best, !!window.chrome is good, no need to test if it’s equal to true if you make it a boolean beforehand.

            • marcos@lemmy.world
              0·
              5 days ago

              == has essentially no use unless you remember some completely arbitrary rules

              If 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.)