4 ms·

and then it takes over, does whatever it wants, and now you've got IE6 again. open source is our insurance policy against the next IE6. One may come again, but

and then it takes over, does whatever it wants, and now you've got IE6 again. open source is our insurance policy against the next IE6. One may come again, but we can head it off at the pass before it dominates the market.

big_chungus 7y ago
People can run legacy open-source code, too. I fail to see how open-sourcing IE would have solved the old versions. For a better example, look at python 2.7. Open-source legacy code every one's stuck with, drawn-out deprecation dates, etc. Old Java versions are the same thing.
tomcooks 7y ago
While I agree with you, open source chrome didn't really help push for anything good. Thanks to chrome we now have AMP and basically total web domination by the GOOG company.
- jefftk 7y ago
  > Thanks to chrome we now have AMP How does Chrome enable AMP? (Disclosure: I work for Google, speaking only for myself)
  - mooncake 7y ago
    Then you know the answer
    - jefftk 7y ago
      I honestly don't know what you might be thinking of Chrome doing that 'enables' AMP. If you said Google Search enabled AMP, by only allowing AMP documents in the carousel for example, I would agree. But I can't think of any Chrome-specific features that AMP depends on, and I believe Google (and Bing) currently serve AMP to Firefox, Safari, Edge, etc.
squiggleblaz 7y ago
As opposed to having Chrome, which contributes to Google's ownership of the whole internet? Google does what it wants and developers write for Chrome. Users of Firefox find websites that won't work because someone used some Chrome extension to the spec. People writing software are no match for behemoth.
- gpderetta 7y ago
  At the very least Chrome allows forking (and has happened in practice multiple times), so a competitor need not start from scratch. That's will always be an insurance.
  - wtmt 7y ago
    There's hardly any point forking if most or all websites are tested for Chrome and its idiosyncrasies, and don't work well on other browsers. We have seen that playing out for sometime.
    - true_religion 7y ago
      It means we can’t end up in an IE6 scenario, where the caretaking company loses interest in developing the browser, and we are all stuck using old technology forever. Someone can simply fork it, with all its idiosyncrasies, then build new versions with new features. Do you want a browser that natively supports a language other than JavaScript? Chromium is a great starting point.
      - palashkaria 7y ago
        Well, I think the argument was more about Webkit, then Chrome itself. Even flow here does not use a JS engine written from scratch - they use SpiderMonkey. PS: As a webkit-based Chrome alternative, Brave browser does really well.
        ksec 7y ago
        Interesting they choose Spidermonkey over Webkit's JS Engine . I could sort of understand not choosing v8 which is now quite bloated as it is also optimising for lots of other things, but Spidermonkey?
rimliu 7y ago
IE6 was the best browser by far when it was released. We got IE6 partly because of that: why to work on something, that is the best in the market. So the team was disbanded. When alternatives started to appear, one of them, and quite popular in some areas was Opera–also closed-source browser. Despite being closed-source they cared a lot about the Web Standards and many of the biggest advocates worked for Opera.

big_chungus 7y ago

People can run legacy open-source code, too. I fail to see how open-sourcing IE would have solved the old versions. For a better example, look at python 2.7. Open-source legacy code every one's stuck with, drawn-out deprecation dates, etc. Old Java versions are the same thing.

tomcooks 7y ago

While I agree with you, open source chrome didn't really help push for anything good. Thanks to chrome we now have AMP and basically total web domination by the GOOG company.

jefftk 7y ago
> Thanks to chrome we now have AMP How does Chrome enable AMP? (Disclosure: I work for Google, speaking only for myself)
- mooncake 7y ago
  Then you know the answer
  - jefftk 7y ago
    I honestly don't know what you might be thinking of Chrome doing that 'enables' AMP. If you said Google Search enabled AMP, by only allowing AMP documents in the carousel for example, I would agree. But I can't think of any Chrome-specific features that AMP depends on, and I believe Google (and Bing) currently serve AMP to Firefox, Safari, Edge, etc.

squiggleblaz 7y ago

As opposed to having Chrome, which contributes to Google's ownership of the whole internet? Google does what it wants and developers write for Chrome. Users of Firefox find websites that won't work because someone used some Chrome extension to the spec. People writing software are no match for behemoth.

gpderetta 7y ago
At the very least Chrome allows forking (and has happened in practice multiple times), so a competitor need not start from scratch. That's will always be an insurance.
- wtmt 7y ago
  There's hardly any point forking if most or all websites are tested for Chrome and its idiosyncrasies, and don't work well on other browsers. We have seen that playing out for sometime.
  - true_religion 7y ago
    It means we can’t end up in an IE6 scenario, where the caretaking company loses interest in developing the browser, and we are all stuck using old technology forever. Someone can simply fork it, with all its idiosyncrasies, then build new versions with new features. Do you want a browser that natively supports a language other than JavaScript? Chromium is a great starting point.
    - palashkaria 7y ago
      Well, I think the argument was more about Webkit, then Chrome itself. Even flow here does not use a JS engine written from scratch - they use SpiderMonkey. PS: As a webkit-based Chrome alternative, Brave browser does really well.
      - ksec 7y ago
        Interesting they choose Spidermonkey over Webkit's JS Engine . I could sort of understand not choosing v8 which is now quite bloated as it is also optimising for lots of other things, but Spidermonkey?

rimliu 7y ago

IE6 was the best browser by far when it was released. We got IE6 partly because of that: why to work on something, that is the best in the market. So the team was disbanded. When alternatives started to appear, one of them, and quite popular in some areas was Opera–also closed-source browser. Despite being closed-source they cared a lot about the Web Standards and many of the biggest advocates worked for Opera.