>Safari is also an awful browser in that it requires someone to buy an expensive machine to see if their site works on it.

I remember a long time ago they used to make a Windows version of Safari you could download and install, but at some point they stopped.

▲

2III7 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

For testing one could use any other webkit browser. Most of them have similar rendering quirks to Safari.

	▲	wongarsu 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Anecdotally that's not enough. I've deal with multiple quirks that only happen in Safari but not in linux-based webkit browsers

▲

oneplane 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They still have webkit builds for Windows and Linux etc, and you still don't need to buy anything special to run it. I think they also have a (mostly?) headless one, and a mini-browser which is intended to test the engine (so it doesn't have things like bookmarks or profiles or anything like that, a good fit). Similar options exist for FireFox and Chromium so it's not really a Safari/Webkit special. Usually gets used when you use a standard containerised browser testing CI step.

Either way, if someone is still manually testing their website instead of using a standard automated testing system you're probably not really in a league where this matters anyway.. and if they are, you probably have a device farm already.

Not sure where the "my thing is so important, I have to test it on a real device, but I can't pay for it" niche is.