> If you are using Java applets, then yes, migrate away. That's a technology that's effectively deprecated since at least 5 years.
That's simply not true, though it is very revealing that you think it is.
In fact, every browser has made major developments in Java applet support far more recently than that, Java itself has evolved significantly in that time, and of course there are now several rather advanced programming languages that compile down to Java bytecode and the applet mechanism lets you use those languages in developing web-based tools.
Whether or not you personally know anything about it, Java applets are widely used in several significant industries, often for configuration of networked hardware or UIs for in-house tools. The global investment in this technology is probably rather large, and you are basically asking that everyone who has spent time and money on the technology should throw it away because your pet browser can't manage a point release without breaking it? Well, sorry, but other people's browsers can, and you just look like your quality control is broken with that argument.
> And yes, my point is: move faster.
Why? Quite a few of these tools just work, and need little if any maintenance, because the systems behind them also just work and are still in use. You are arguing that people should completely rewrite systems that are working fine and have no current issues, so your browser can advance into untold new territory without bothering about backward compatibility. Your reality check is about to bounce.
> Regarding stability: yeah sure. Amazon never works, Google.com is always down, ebay doesn't render in half of the browsers.
You do realise that both Amazon and Google have had major outages recently, taking down huge numbers of sites that rely on their service infrastructure, right?
In fact, contrary to all the advocacy about how cloud-based computing is less risky than doing things in-house because the Internet giants have redundant this and scalable that and on-call the other guy, the record so far is pretty poor.
As far as their front-line services, of course the real giants manage to keep something up pretty much all of the time, but even then Amazon has suffered from several obvious bugs in recent months, which must be hitting them in the budget for both the PR and customer support departments.
Google aren't much better. Their main site works fine, but for example one client of mine uses Google Docs and I'm not sure we have ever managed to get a meeting together when one of the team's systems didn't have basic access or drawing bugs while trying to use it. They fix one thing and break another. So do Facebook. Don't even get me started on smaller sites like Reddit falling over every ten minutes (remind me again what their infrastructure is and how often they've attributed total system failure to that outsourced infrastructure).
So yes, I stand by my comments on stability, and I think you have a very rose-tinted view of the reliabilty of big name sites such as those you mentioned. The facts just don't support your argument.
That's simply not true, though it is very revealing that you think it is.
In fact, every browser has made major developments in Java applet support far more recently than that, Java itself has evolved significantly in that time, and of course there are now several rather advanced programming languages that compile down to Java bytecode and the applet mechanism lets you use those languages in developing web-based tools.
Whether or not you personally know anything about it, Java applets are widely used in several significant industries, often for configuration of networked hardware or UIs for in-house tools. The global investment in this technology is probably rather large, and you are basically asking that everyone who has spent time and money on the technology should throw it away because your pet browser can't manage a point release without breaking it? Well, sorry, but other people's browsers can, and you just look like your quality control is broken with that argument.
> And yes, my point is: move faster.
Why? Quite a few of these tools just work, and need little if any maintenance, because the systems behind them also just work and are still in use. You are arguing that people should completely rewrite systems that are working fine and have no current issues, so your browser can advance into untold new territory without bothering about backward compatibility. Your reality check is about to bounce.
> Regarding stability: yeah sure. Amazon never works, Google.com is always down, ebay doesn't render in half of the browsers.
You do realise that both Amazon and Google have had major outages recently, taking down huge numbers of sites that rely on their service infrastructure, right?
In fact, contrary to all the advocacy about how cloud-based computing is less risky than doing things in-house because the Internet giants have redundant this and scalable that and on-call the other guy, the record so far is pretty poor.
As far as their front-line services, of course the real giants manage to keep something up pretty much all of the time, but even then Amazon has suffered from several obvious bugs in recent months, which must be hitting them in the budget for both the PR and customer support departments.
Google aren't much better. Their main site works fine, but for example one client of mine uses Google Docs and I'm not sure we have ever managed to get a meeting together when one of the team's systems didn't have basic access or drawing bugs while trying to use it. They fix one thing and break another. So do Facebook. Don't even get me started on smaller sites like Reddit falling over every ten minutes (remind me again what their infrastructure is and how often they've attributed total system failure to that outsourced infrastructure).
So yes, I stand by my comments on stability, and I think you have a very rose-tinted view of the reliabilty of big name sites such as those you mentioned. The facts just don't support your argument.