#Adblock for safari 5.1.7 free#

Why would a for-profit company develop a web browser more or less unprompted and give it away for free? To draw people into the system and get them comfortable with staying there. > Was it really just to become the world's most comprehensive search engine? Hell no, it was to get people into the ecosystem and to stay there, and be content with doing so. Lest we forget why these things play out the way they do. But let's not forget what funded them, or why they were developed in the first place. To be sure, Google and Facebook have produced tremendous advances in science and technology. Similar arguments could be made about Facebook. Now that they have monopoly power, they can start tightening their grip with the good old embrace, extend, extinguish.

#Adblock for safari 5.1.7 free#

Just think how much money and manpower went into each of those free products we take for granted, not the least of which includes the Google search engine now think about how they make so much money off your attention that they can offer it free of charge, because sucking you into the ecosystem is just that profitable.Ĭhrome is the same thing. Why else do you think Google Maps is free? Gmail? Why did they drive around 1,000s of cities with cameras on a car taking photos for Street View? Was it really just to become the world's most comprehensive search engine? Hell no, it was to get people into the ecosystem and to stay there, and be content with doing so. Why do people act like this is all some great big accident, the result of eternal human fallibility? “Only works in Chrome,” is poor engineering for anything more than a prototype or proof of concept. Not for the web itself, but for one particular rendering engine. These need to be protected if we don’t want Google and the ad network to totally control the browsing experience.Īlthough, controversially, we as a web dev collective have learned nothing if we continue to only develop for a single browser. We still have WebKit and Firefox and (sooner or later), more of Servo at least. Like we never learned this lesson the first time. It’s frustrating that MS copped out and went Chromium. The web has empirically suffered through homogeneity and the lack of strong competitors in the browser space, not helped by the underlying HTML/JS spec becoming exponentially more convoluted to the point where building your own renderer is nigh impossible.Īnd since everyone is standardising on a Google, their decisions on ad blocking and supporting APIs are automatically going to flow down into every dependent product. We were still dealing with legacy IE6 (and IE 7/8 by that point also) in 2013! Almost a decade since we got Firefox and the first version of Chrome. Electron, various browsers that are just skins over the embedded framework. I'd disabled the few plugins that I'm using (Adblock, Stand), and I'm running the latest Safari 5.1.7 on OSX 10.7.4.Īny insight would really be appreciated.This is why it’s so unfortunate and frustrating that people are depending so much on Chromium/Blink. But if someone were to directly link the images in the header of this site, and I were to click it, the URL would change in my title bar but the image wouldn't load until I force-refreshed the page. It happens on just about every site that I go to - embedded images work fine, even embedded images from the sites I'm having problems with. If I do a force refresh, the image comes up just fine. However if someone were to post a direct link to in image on another site (imgur, tinypic, etc) the image doesn't load - I'd still be looking at this page, though the title bar would change to the URL of the remote image. If I'm browsing the web (for example, this page), images load just fine. I'm having an odd problem with Safari that I was hoping you guys could help me out with. I'm not sure if this belongs in the App forum or here, so my apologies if this is the wrong spot.