3 ms·

What’s amazing about Apple, Microsoft, Google using open source browsing engines as their core? Or being open source currently? They completely control their br

What’s amazing about Apple, Microsoft, Google using open source browsing engines as their core? Or being open source currently? They completely control their browsers. Besides electrons rise, what major difference would there be if Safari, Edge, Chrome weren’t open source?

hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
Safari, Edge, Chrome are NOT open source. Edit Removed suprious '?'
- skinnymuch 7y ago
  What are you asking? I said browser engines initially so I meant the browser engines. I also brought up Electron. Which doesn’t depend on Chrome. But the browser engine. So I could’ve for a third time repeated WebKit, Edge’s open source Blink, and Blink/Chromium. I’m not sure if that’s the only point of your comment? Based on another comment it seems like being pedantic is your only point. So what does it matter if the browser itself or as it is now, the engines are open source? Since that is still my question. What difference does it make? The pedantry doesn’t change anything.
  - hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
    It is very much not pedantry. Chrome, Safari etc are proprietary programs. Calling them open source is like calling a peanut an orange. Foss comes with the requirement that you as the user have certain freedoms. With Chrome etc you do not have those freedoms.
    - skinnymuch 7y ago
      And yet I clarified all that. And all you’ve done is repeat stuff that has already been clarified. Nothing you have said has been of any substance or use. Still you have said nothing of substance or use. It’s pedantic in this thread because I had already referred to the browser engines as open source and referred to electron. I didn’t explain what electron was either. You didn’t find a big problem with that. And I’ll ask again, what differences would there be if the browsers themselves were open source? We already have Chromium vs Chrome. So what would be different if Chrome was open source? Not to mention responding to anything else.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
Given we understand the difference between an open source application and a closed source application that uses open source libraries... Then I can answer. If Chrome etc were actually open source then the vendors would have less control of the browsers and users would have more control. End users could then build Chrome themselves. Since these browsers are in reality proprietary it would make little difference to end users vs vendors level of control if they used 0% code from open source projects rather than 99% as they do at the moment. No one but Google can build Chrome either way. So we broadly agree that there is nothing amazing about the current situation. I however claim that if these browsers were Foss this would be different. --- Yes I am aware of Chromium. But Chromium is not Chrome. For example Netflix supports Chrome and blocks Chromium.

hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago

Safari, Edge, Chrome are NOT open source. Edit Removed suprious '?'

skinnymuch 7y ago
What are you asking? I said browser engines initially so I meant the browser engines. I also brought up Electron. Which doesn’t depend on Chrome. But the browser engine. So I could’ve for a third time repeated WebKit, Edge’s open source Blink, and Blink/Chromium. I’m not sure if that’s the only point of your comment? Based on another comment it seems like being pedantic is your only point. So what does it matter if the browser itself or as it is now, the engines are open source? Since that is still my question. What difference does it make? The pedantry doesn’t change anything.
- hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
  It is very much not pedantry. Chrome, Safari etc are proprietary programs. Calling them open source is like calling a peanut an orange. Foss comes with the requirement that you as the user have certain freedoms. With Chrome etc you do not have those freedoms.
  - skinnymuch 7y ago
    And yet I clarified all that. And all you’ve done is repeat stuff that has already been clarified. Nothing you have said has been of any substance or use. Still you have said nothing of substance or use. It’s pedantic in this thread because I had already referred to the browser engines as open source and referred to electron. I didn’t explain what electron was either. You didn’t find a big problem with that. And I’ll ask again, what differences would there be if the browsers themselves were open source? We already have Chromium vs Chrome. So what would be different if Chrome was open source? Not to mention responding to anything else.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]

hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago

Given we understand the difference between an open source application and a closed source application that uses open source libraries... Then I can answer. If Chrome etc were actually open source then the vendors would have less control of the browsers and users would have more control. End users could then build Chrome themselves. Since these browsers are in reality proprietary it would make little difference to end users vs vendors level of control if they used 0% code from open source projects rather than 99% as they do at the moment. No one but Google can build Chrome either way. So we broadly agree that there is nothing amazing about the current situation. I however claim that if these browsers were Foss this would be different. --- Yes I am aware of Chromium. But Chromium is not Chrome. For example Netflix supports Chrome and blocks Chromium.