4 ms·

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 wi

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.)

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.)