4 ms·

There are several comments on this post wondering why a browser monoculture is bad or speculating that a browser engine monopoly is inevitable and ought to be a

There are several comments on this post wondering why a browser monoculture is bad or speculating that a browser engine monopoly is inevitable and ought to be accepted. Let's just replace 'browser' with OS (ironically the similarities are becoming more with each passing day) above... would we still say the same? Is an OS monoculture good, regardless of whether it is inevitable? Have we forgotten the power that MS had with Windows during the 90s and early 2000s before Linux, MacOS and Android became viable alternatives? Given that browsers are becoming the new OS and VM, we need competition in this space more than ever, going forward. Let's not accept Chrome/Google as the One Ring.

tokyodude 8y ago
Unfortunately that's not really a valid comparison at all. Browsers all try to stay compatible with each other. OSes do not in any way try to stay compatible with each other. Programming apps for Linux, Mac, and Windows requires entirely different code. Programming for Firefox, Chrome, Edge, Safari do not (or at least not supposed to unless you're used new APIs or edge cases) You can't currently make an alternative browser in the same sense that you can make an alternative OS. An alternative browser would not use HTML, CSS, JavaScript. It would use something else in the same way that MacOS/iOS push ObjectiveC and Swift where as Android pushes Java/Kotlin and other OSes other languages and each OS as it's own UI API
- gronne 8y ago
  I disagree. MS has recently pushed the “linux on top op windows” solution. Making windows programs run on linux has attracted plenty of ressources (commercial and unpaid): open framework clones, wine, steam play vm’s. The same can be said for osx. iOS and Android not so much though.
- rincebrain 8y ago
  As people have observed historically, browsers have competing incentives - to support the most use cases, and to be better in some way than their competitors. Supporting the most use cases is where you get the compatibility from. Being better than your competitors is where you get browser-exclusive functionality from. If something (e.g. ActiveX, Java, Shockwave, Flash, some new CSS that's not standardized yet, a new feature on some top 500 website, ...) works in your browser, that's a win for both goals - and if it works only/best in your browser, that's also a win. Monocultures can be toxic in part because the disincentives to adding lockin (e.g. losing users and other negative feedback sources) get weaker/less likely as one participant becomes more dominant. I'm old enough to remember the fun with "works only/best in IE/Netscape/...", and Microsoft's old Embrace/Extend/Extinguish policies. While I do not have any reason to believe any of the parties involved in browser development would behave pathologically, history suggests that monopolies in any space tend to eventually become pathological. (I work for Google, not on anything browser related, all opinions above are mine personally, etc.)
AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
> Let's just replace 'browser' with OS (ironically the similarities are becoming more with each passing day) above... would we still say the same? From what I've seen, yes absolutely, as long as it is Linux.
- holtalanm 8y ago
  precisely. I wholeheartedly agree with this statement as well. The differentiator? Linux, like Chromium, is open-source. I would welcome an OS monoculture with every OS being based upon a linux kernel.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
    Just so we're clear, I definitely do not agree with this sentiment.
  - oehpr 8y ago
    I don't think I understand the desire that something be open source. I feel like, if I wanted to, I could contribute to the linux kernel. All that I would need to do is submit pull requests, have it vetted, and gain reputation within that community. Could you say that about any arbitrary pull request for chromium? Even if it was against googles interests to merge it? Is your contention that I just fork it and compete with chromium with my PR integrated? I don't view these projects as equivalent at all.
holtalanm 8y ago
I'll echo tokyodude. Not a valid comparison in the least. The biggest differentiator I can see is that Windows is not, and probably never will be, open sourced. Chromium is. I would place myself squarely in the camp of those that don't see every browser using Chromium under the hood as a bad thing. It makes every company that has their own browser invested in improving together, for one thing. Also, compatibility across browsers will only get better if that is the case, which is also something that people tell horror stories about from the time when IE was king.

tokyodude 8y ago

Unfortunately that's not really a valid comparison at all. Browsers all try to stay compatible with each other. OSes do not in any way try to stay compatible with each other. Programming apps for Linux, Mac, and Windows requires entirely different code. Programming for Firefox, Chrome, Edge, Safari do not (or at least not supposed to unless you're used new APIs or edge cases) You can't currently make an alternative browser in the same sense that you can make an alternative OS. An alternative browser would not use HTML, CSS, JavaScript. It would use something else in the same way that MacOS/iOS push ObjectiveC and Swift where as Android pushes Java/Kotlin and other OSes other languages and each OS as it's own UI API

gronne 8y ago
I disagree. MS has recently pushed the “linux on top op windows” solution. Making windows programs run on linux has attracted plenty of ressources (commercial and unpaid): open framework clones, wine, steam play vm’s. The same can be said for osx. iOS and Android not so much though.
rincebrain 8y ago
As people have observed historically, browsers have competing incentives - to support the most use cases, and to be better in some way than their competitors. Supporting the most use cases is where you get the compatibility from. Being better than your competitors is where you get browser-exclusive functionality from. If something (e.g. ActiveX, Java, Shockwave, Flash, some new CSS that's not standardized yet, a new feature on some top 500 website, ...) works in your browser, that's a win for both goals - and if it works only/best in your browser, that's also a win. Monocultures can be toxic in part because the disincentives to adding lockin (e.g. losing users and other negative feedback sources) get weaker/less likely as one participant becomes more dominant. I'm old enough to remember the fun with "works only/best in IE/Netscape/...", and Microsoft's old Embrace/Extend/Extinguish policies. While I do not have any reason to believe any of the parties involved in browser development would behave pathologically, history suggests that monopolies in any space tend to eventually become pathological. (I work for Google, not on anything browser related, all opinions above are mine personally, etc.)

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago

> Let's just replace 'browser' with OS (ironically the similarities are becoming more with each passing day) above... would we still say the same? From what I've seen, yes absolutely, as long as it is Linux.

holtalanm 8y ago
precisely. I wholeheartedly agree with this statement as well. The differentiator? Linux, like Chromium, is open-source. I would welcome an OS monoculture with every OS being based upon a linux kernel.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  Just so we're clear, I definitely do not agree with this sentiment.
- oehpr 8y ago
  I don't think I understand the desire that something be open source. I feel like, if I wanted to, I could contribute to the linux kernel. All that I would need to do is submit pull requests, have it vetted, and gain reputation within that community. Could you say that about any arbitrary pull request for chromium? Even if it was against googles interests to merge it? Is your contention that I just fork it and compete with chromium with my PR integrated? I don't view these projects as equivalent at all.

holtalanm 8y ago

I'll echo tokyodude. Not a valid comparison in the least. The biggest differentiator I can see is that Windows is not, and probably never will be, open sourced. Chromium is. I would place myself squarely in the camp of those that don't see every browser using Chromium under the hood as a bad thing. It makes every company that has their own browser invested in improving together, for one thing. Also, compatibility across browsers will only get better if that is the case, which is also something that people tell horror stories about from the time when IE was king.