Because I want the web to be a real application platform so I can develop things that run on any device. Google and Mozilla are committed to making that a reality, but Microsoft isn't because they provide a large application platform themselves in the form of Windows.

Then why are Chrome and Firefox more compatible with each other than Internet Explorer is with any of them?

That ship has long left the harbour. HTML5 is a reality and it has been for quite some time now. Whatever the W3C decides to do isn't really relevant as long as the browser vendors are on the same page. The W3C could have had a nice role in this, but they're just too slow and overly bureaucratic to keep up with what is going on in the real world.

It would be almost instant, as Web Audio API provides a way for a web application to interact with the native audio capabilities of the host environment through the browser. There are lots of demo's on the web where you can see all sorts of applications running without any problems or hiccups, even on older systems. Even filters, reverbs, delays and all sorts of processing is possible without perceivable lag.

I think Plink is a cool example of the possibilities: http://labs.dinahmoe.com/plink... - it's a real-time multiplayer audio game that runs in the browser. Every player controls an instrument and together you can make "music" by changing your sound and pitch. It seems they haven't updated their code to work with Firefox yet, but since Firefox switched to the "common" Web Audio API, it's totally possible to do cross platform audio now with a single code base.

I also like this simple synthesizer a lot: http://www.femurdesign.com/the... - it works great on a touch device, but also works in desktop browsers.

It isn't stupid. Not at all. Both Google and Mozilla are taking the web serious by adding features frequently. They want to get to a point where the web could be a real viable application platform that's available on any device. Since we're still a long way from that, we need new stuff and we need it now. Microsoft however doesn't really want this to happen at all, because it means the web will make Windows obsolete. So they're stalling it for as long as they are able to. They have been since the days of IE6 and the only reason they have somewhat stepped up the pace of development on IE is because are switching to other browsers.

It's not a hype, we need things like Web Audio API to enable the web to be a real application platform. Audio-intensive apps are simply not possible without something like what Web Audio API provides.

Firefox introduced the Audio Data API in 2010. Chrome has supported Web Audio API since 2011. Apple introduced Web Audio API support in 2012 on both Mac OS X as well as iOS. Mozilla deprecated Audio Data and supported Web Audio API since 2013. October 2013 was the point that for example a web game could support audio in Chrome, Firefox and on the iPhone/iPad. But where is Microsoft in all this? Nowhere to be found. It took them another 7 months to just announce they were going to have support for this in their _next_ version.

If that isn't a prime example of IE holding back the web I don't know what is.

And how many new features have they introduced in those patches? None. That's the point, they're just plugging the holes in their buggy software instead of enabling developers to fully make use of new features on the web.

With the stupidly slow release cycles of IE, Microsoft will always play catch up with the "real" browsers.

Google Chrome had Web Audio API implemented in version 10. That was release in 2011. Google in the meantime has shipped *25 versions* of Chrome. Same goes for Firefox, which had Web Audio implemented for even longer than Chrome, but used a different API. They've been on the same API since Firefox 25, which was released in October of last year. Since then, Mozilla has shipped another 4 versions of Firefox.

Microsoft in the meantime was only able to announce they were going to have Web Audio in their next major release. That's because since October last year (when IE11 came out), they have released a staggering *zero* versions of IE. While the rest of the world was moving forward, they were just shipping security updates. They just can't keep up like this. Every time they release a major version they're sorta on the same page again as the competition, but it's a matter of a few months and they're so way behind again it's impossible to ever compete in a serious way.

Microsoft still hasn't learned their lesson from IE6 as IE is still holding the web back. Get your act together, Microsoft. Stop slowing everyone down.

These kinds op optimisations in Javascript compilation will barely speed up real-world web page performance anyway. The slowness is all in the DOM, the overhead introduced by compiling & running Javascript is already near negligible.

Well apparently Valve found some, didn't they?

If I were complaining about missile guidance systems or CPU building you might have had a point. But to answer your question, no you're not an idiot for not knowing how to add to the Linux code base. I didn't say that and I didn't imply that, the only one calling names is you. I just find it ironic that you feel you are in a position to say other people are idiots while showing you do not have any knowledge or skills on the subject at hand yourself.

And yet you are calling me the idiot.

I'm just saying Linux can be whatever the public wants it to be, not that you personally have to code all of the features you can think of. The case is really simple: Valve needed a feature, so they created it and now that's part of Linux and everyone can enjoy it. If you or Valve want something changed in the way Windows or Mac OS X work, they have to approach Microsoft or Apple and chances are they tell you to go jump in a lake. But on Linux, you can just get started and make it happen. How is that not just great?

So Linux might not be there yet for your personal needs. Too bad for you. But instead of being angry or sad about it, you could also celebrate the fact that Linux is open to anyone and therefore adapts to whatever people are asking for. So chances are it will feed your needs in the future. Especially for gamers, with all the weight Valve is putting behind Linux, I think there are great times ahead for people looking to get rid of Windows for their gaming needs.

That's probably true, things only really change when someone brings a lot of dollars to the table. That's what Mark Shuttleworth did with Ubuntu, Google did with Android and Valve is doing now with SteamOS.

But that's really what I was trying to say at the start of this thread: the fact anyone can step in and add to the platform is what I think is cool about Linux. So having a real impact in businessland may cost some money, but it's not like that's going to Linus Torvald's personal bank account. Linux is open for everyone and not charging a dime. So why are people giving it a hard time?

I'm not the one saying Adobe should release Photoshop for Linux. I'm just saying the *only* reason why Photoshop isn't available for Linux is because Adobe doesn't want it to be on Linux. That may well be the result of some business calculation, or politics, or something personal or whatever, but certainly not because Linux is in some way not suitable for running an application like Photoshop.

I'm just saying if people want Photoshop on Linux, you should talk to Adobe, not Linus Torvalds or Mark Shuttleworth.

Yet we have interstate roads and the internet, just like we have threaded shader compilation on Linux now.

If someone wants to create a feature for Linux, one can. That is the freedom Linux provides. If nobody is willing to take on something, then apparently it isn't such an issue.

I really don't get why people are giving Linux so much hate for empowering it's user base in this way. If you have a complaint about Windows or Mac OS X, Microsoft and Apple tell you to go fuck yourself. But if you want Linux to have something it doesn't have already, you can just go ahead and build it.

I think that's cool.

So how come Autodesk is able to ship Maya for Linux? Or MathWorks has no trouble releasing Matlab for Linux?

You're talking like it's impossible to create software for Linux. Clearly this is not the case, as there are numerous applications available for Linux and have been for years, in all sorts of forms and business models.

The lack of Photoshop and MS Office is not really because of any technical reason. The reality is that Adobe and Microsoft don't want their products available on Linux.