Re: Please, Firefox, just go away already!
Well you asked for it, so...
> And to be more precise on the browsers' specific tag, or I would call it the vendor prefix, is not something limited to IE6 in the old era as this was implemented in every browser until recently (even Firefox invented their -moz- tag if you didn't know).
You're talking about CSS prefixes. I'm talking about HTML tags. All the browsers added all kinds of daft tags that didn't work cross-broswer like <center>, <marquee>, etc. These were implemented with the specific intent of making sure that a particular page would work properly ONLY in a specific browser
CSS vendor prefixes, on the other hand, were intended to allow experimental features of CSS to be exposed for developers to play with. They were different from tags in several important respects:
* CSS affects appearance, not behaviour. If a browser doesn't recognise a particular CSS element then it will affect how the page looks, but not how it behaves. CSS (in theory at least) shouldn't break a page if a browser can't parse it
* The prefixes exposed features that were proposed updates to the specs that hadn't been ratified yet. They weren't there to deliberately break cross-browser compatibility.
* One set of vendor prefixes would play nicely with another set of vendor prefixes. For example you could use -moz and -webkit in the same stylesheet and be sure that each browser would only parse the prefixes relevant to them. This made it entirely possible to write stylesheets that were cross-browser (albeit requiring more work). This was impossible with vendor-specific HTML
> I think your history information is pretty far off
As a compute science student at the time it was a big issue for me whilst working through the newfangled web design module of my course. Some students were using Netscape, some were using IE, hell, some were even using Mosaic or Lynx. Same deal with the lecturers. You could build a page that looked beautiful on your computer, only for your lecturer to return it with a frowny face because it failed to render properly on his machine. Meanwhile, commercial websites (such as they were in the 90s) would sometimes just plain fail to work if you used the wrong browser. Then when Netscape was finally killed off, MS lost all interest in developing and improving its browser offering because there was nobody left to compete with it.
> What surprised me is that people usually think Chrome and IE are the same despite the fact that IE is a close source proprietary software while Chromium, which Chrome is based on, is open source that's free to use and you can modify its code without any license restriction
Chromium is not Chrome. Chrome has a load of propriety crap bolted onto the open source core designed to exploit your data for Google's benefit. Also, the comparison between Chrome and IE are based on how their enormous marketshare were damaging to the open internet. When one vendor dominates the open standards no longer matter.
> To say that Chromium can't be trusted just because Google is backing it is no different than saying Linux kernel can't be trusted because for a long time Red Hat, a commercial company, is the one who contributed to the kernel the most
That's a ridiculous comparison and I'm pretty sure you know it (At least I hope you know it, because otherwise you're not very bright!). Red Hat doesn't dominate Linux the way Google dominates with Chrome. There are plenty of competitors to Red Hat, and the Linux distro marketplace is far healthier than the browser marketplace. Hell, you don't even have to use linux at all, you could go with a BSD fork instead if you like.