4 ms·
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
by 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 agoAt 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 agoThere'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 agoIt 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 agoWell, 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 agoInteresting 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?
- Terretta 7y agoRemember when you could test on WebKit, to hit both Chrome and iOS, with OSX Safari as a bonus?