3 ms·

> Preventing the web from devolving into a closed garden. For this we need alternative browser engines and hence Brave does not make the cut. 1. all web engine

by kmlx 7y ago

> Preventing the web from devolving into a closed garden. For this we need alternative browser engines and hence Brave does not make the cut. 1. all web engines are open source 2. we had multiple engines. it didn't work out, at all. user experience was thrown out the window, technologies weren't implemented, the web was massively fragmented. 3. we're now trying to have a single open source engine that everyone contributes to since it's better for everyone's experience.

saagarjha 7y ago
> all web engines are open source Open source does not mean open development. Forking a browser doesn’t help if nobody cares about your fork. > technologies weren't implemented They’re still not implemented. Sometimes this is because the teams are slow; sometimes it’s because the technology is a privacy nightmare. > we're now trying to have a single open source engine that everyone contributes to since it's better for everyone's experience. No, see above.
The_Colonel 7y ago
Everyone can contribute to chromium/blink but only one side calls the shots. In other words you can contribute all you want as long as it fulfills google's needs. Of course you can fork it and do it your way but then you will be left behind since you need massive man power to be able to do development on your own.
foepys 7y ago
1. It doesn't matter. When Google decides to implement something (or doesn't), Edge, Brave, Chrome etc. will get this feature (or lack thereof). Only Safari and Firefox will be different. As an independent developer you don't have any say about this in a Blink-only system. 2. That's what the WHATWG is about. No more -moz, -ie, -webkit prefixes, just agree on a standard and implement it. 3. It's not truly open. Google has the last say. Do you want a Google-only internet? Just look at the recent ad-block controversy.
feanaro 7y ago
> 2. we had multiple engines We have multiple engines. This is a fact. > 3. we're now trying to have a single open source engine that everyone contributes to since it's better for everyone's experience. We are not trying that at all. The experience is perfectly fine with our currently existing multiple engines. > 1. all web engines are open source This does not matter much if your goal is to maintain a single engine. What matters is control of software releases. In order to maintain a web which is not exclusively controlled by a single entity, the releases need to be controlled by more than a single entity. This sounds like a tautology because it almost is one. The only thing the free software aspect helps with is that it is easier to assume control of the releases, but as soon as you do this, you've forked the engine and there are now multiple engines. Hence, there is actually no way of maintaining a single engine while also decentralizing control. Short of Google relinquishing control of Chrome and forming some kind of international browser development committee, but that sounds like a creature from nightmares and is yet again a central point of failure.

by kmlx 7y ago

saagarjha 7y ago

> all web engines are open source Open source does not mean open development. Forking a browser doesn’t help if nobody cares about your fork. > technologies weren't implemented They’re still not implemented. Sometimes this is because the teams are slow; sometimes it’s because the technology is a privacy nightmare. > we're now trying to have a single open source engine that everyone contributes to since it's better for everyone's experience. No, see above.

The_Colonel 7y ago

Everyone can contribute to chromium/blink but only one side calls the shots. In other words you can contribute all you want as long as it fulfills google's needs. Of course you can fork it and do it your way but then you will be left behind since you need massive man power to be able to do development on your own.

foepys 7y ago

1. It doesn't matter. When Google decides to implement something (or doesn't), Edge, Brave, Chrome etc. will get this feature (or lack thereof). Only Safari and Firefox will be different. As an independent developer you don't have any say about this in a Blink-only system. 2. That's what the WHATWG is about. No more -moz, -ie, -webkit prefixes, just agree on a standard and implement it. 3. It's not truly open. Google has the last say. Do you want a Google-only internet? Just look at the recent ad-block controversy.

feanaro 7y ago

> 2. we had multiple engines We have multiple engines. This is a fact. > 3. we're now trying to have a single open source engine that everyone contributes to since it's better for everyone's experience. We are not trying that at all. The experience is perfectly fine with our currently existing multiple engines. > 1. all web engines are open source This does not matter much if your goal is to maintain a single engine. What matters is control of software releases. In order to maintain a web which is not exclusively controlled by a single entity, the releases need to be controlled by more than a single entity. This sounds like a tautology because it almost is one. The only thing the free software aspect helps with is that it is easier to assume control of the releases, but as soon as you do this, you've forked the engine and there are now multiple engines. Hence, there is actually no way of maintaining a single engine while also decentralizing control. Short of Google relinquishing control of Chrome and forming some kind of international browser development committee, but that sounds like a creature from nightmares and is yet again a central point of failure.