Time and time again, they just refuse to properly implement CSS3 gradients.
Version after version, no progress on https://code.google.com/p/chro... at all
See http://slashdot.org/comments.p... from version 38.

It's pretty clear at this point, use Firefox or IE10+ if you want good HTML5/CSS3 support. Chrome only cares about what benefits Google and their ability to advertise to you.

I think Firefox is the only good browser, and the only one people should be using. It renders the best, has the best adblock, and is secure and respects privacy as best as possible.
As a web developer, when all I care about is how the site renders, I want people to be using Firefox, or at least IE10+. Using Chrome or Safari is like using IE9. Is sort-of works with modern HTML5/CSS3 design, but with a graceful fallback to a crappier, sub-par look due to missing support for all the CSS3 features I want to use.
But I guess Chrome is a lot better than IE8 and below, but at that point we have to start comparing Netscape 4, so it's best to just forget about anything that old now.

That's a great excuse. IE6 sucked so Chrome 38 might as well still suck. Yeah CSS3 support is split up all over the place, but there are a certain small set of really useful core features that just about every browser supports, and are particularly more useful for webpages than other features. Pretty much everything in that small list of features is supported by IE10+, Chrome 10+, and FF 4+. Sometimes support requires with vendor prefixes, but it still works. Except gradients on Chrome. Up to version 38 still and you can't make basic angled striped patterns for backgrounds, or smoothly blend two colors over a large distance.

And sorry, if you're talking about security, let's talk about privacy. Google is to the point where I'd rather trust Microsoft with my personal information over Google, so that's a huge sting against Chrome, and I'm not really trying to advocate IE here. Firefox is pretty much where people want to be, especially given how much better adblock support is there.

Firefox and IE are basically the only good browsers still, I'm so sick of bugs like this on really important features.
https://code.google.com/p/chro...
http://jsfiddle.net/7C7ey/

Can it render large CSS gradients without horrible banding yet?

Why are people using public CAs and purchased certificates for private networks?

Wouldn't it make more sense to set up your own internal CA, or at least just force via policy certain certificates onto each computer's browser as trusted?

The double images are faint, blurry, and off centered slightly. I'm guessing they are focus aberrations due to healing that will slowly fix themselves over time. I don't think its permanent by any means, but some aspects of Lasik heal very very fast, while others take months and months. For most daily activities, you will never notice the ghost images at all. They warn you about this only in saying that your nighttime driving vision may be bad because of "halos" but really what they mean is starbursts and ghost images around bright light sources with a dark contrast, and it manifest in anything such as small LEDs on computers/smoke alarms/etc or high-contrast white-on-black text.

Weird. I don't remember my eye being poked by anything during the pre-exam measuring. I just looked into various machines that took pictures, stared at a red dot or something. They did a LOT of measuring too. Took way longer than the actual surgery takes.

Some lasers are only approved to -5 or -6. Others are approved up to -15.0: http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevi...
Although the doctor can always choose to do "off-label" corrections with any laser, the approved value is not a hard limit.

Chances are, if you can't get Lasik because of your prescription strength, then your cornea just isn't thick enough. It's a real concern once you get into the -8.00 and worse range, but some people have enough thickness, and others don't.

I've read it's pretty normal, and it should correct itself over time. It's still annoying, but it *only* is noticeable around the edges of bright lights with dark backgrounds. My right eye is pretty good, it's my left eye that has some "ghost" images to the left and up of the main image, when looking at bright lights, little LEDs, white on black text, etc. I still have red spots on my eyes from the suction used for the Intralase to cut the flap, so I know it's still healing, even if it doesn't hurt or anything.

Where I went, everybody got 1 Valium and they gave you a stress ball to squeeze while everything was going on. Everything else sounds the same, except I didn't get a band-aid of any sort, they just put the flap back and I went home. Drove myself to the follow up the next morning at 8am.
Agree that you can smell the laser burning your eye away. That's one thing they never said up front. You can't feel or see anything other than a blurry blinking red spot, and you hear some clicking as the laser pulses, but that was all expected.

I'm in my mid 30s and had -8.00 with another -1.00 astigmatism and I just had custom waveform Lasik done this month. The double and triple vision around bright objects is still very annoying after 3 weeks, even if my eyesight is 20/20 now. It's particularly bad in PuTTY or anything else that uses white text on a black background. I seriously hope it goes away within the next few months.

Sure, if you just open Terminal and don't use anything else. NextStep is pretty much a pile of junk.

I understand how bad managers can create situations like this for developers, that's a given. All I was arguing is that IE10 and IE11 should both be pretty good browsers, capable of HTML5/CSS3 mostly on par with all the other major browsers now. I don't see how you can purposefully create *new* code that works on just IE10, and not IE11, without trying REALLY hard to be an idiot.

For legacy corporate sites, you just need to stick in a X-UA-Compatible to force IE to render in the version-mode you were originally targeting, and for the most part, I think things will keep working. Your IE10 and IE11 browsers can be forced to render everything as if they were IE9, or IE8, etc... This is only a "fix" for old, legacy sites though. For any new development, you should really stick a with IE=edge for X-UA-Compatible and just code to HTML5/CSS3 standards.

Like I said, you have to try REALLY hard to get yourself into such as situation, by explicitly NOT writing webpages to standard HTML5/CSS3. It's probably the result of poorly trained developers copy/pasting in tons of blobs of ancient javascript, or activeX controls that aren't going to work on newer versions of IE, or using some "toolkit" that spits out your HTML/CSS/JS for you instead of writing streamlined code yourself. Who knows. Like I said though, if you write standard HTML5/CSS3, you will have literally no trouble on IE10+ and Firefox, Chrome, Safari, etc. I can pretty much guarantee it.

IE9 will generally also gracefully fall back, as it supports some HTML5, it's just missing lots of features you might want to use in CSS such as gradients, transitions, transformations, text-shadow, and then some basic HTML things like the placeholder attribute for form fields. With IE9 having support for CSS rgba, opacity, box-shadow, nth-child, calc, and some other important things like Javascript's addEventListener and JSON.parse, you can also pretty easily target IE9+ if you know which handful of neat CSS things to avoid.

Targeting IE8 and below requires all kinds of IE-specific code like attachEvent instead of addEventListener, and it's generally not worth targeting IE8 without some shim like JQuery. And for this reason, I've pretty much stopped using JQuery (as it's now mostly superfluous), and stopped targeting IE8 completely. Sorry Windows XP users, but you're going to need to use a 3rd party browser of some sort if you want to stay on the web.