8 ms·

Why does this keep happening? Browsers sell their soul to just be another coat of paint on top of WebKit. I honestly don't get it. If you're working on a web br

Why does this keep happening? Browsers sell their soul to just be another coat of paint on top of WebKit. I honestly don't get it. If you're working on a web browser as a personal or open source project, switching to WebKit is basically just replacing the entire project that you've worked on, and then writing your name on WebKit. There's not much more to a browser than a rendering engine. There really isn't a killer feature that Chrome won't just absorb anwyay. So why on earth would you decide to throw away your years of effort, and solely try to differentiate yourself based on slight variations in how your back button looks or your bookmarks work!?

Wowfunhappy 6y ago
Presumably because doing anything else is just impossible in this day and age. There are only two-and-a-half actively-maintained rendering engines in existence: Gecko, and Chromium/Webkit. There's a reason for that. A single person isn't going to be able to maintain their own.
- userbinator 6y ago
  There's also Netsurf, Dillo, as well as Links and the rest of the text-based ones. The monopoly should definitely be fought.
  - alexisread 6y ago
    I think the main problem is that the DOM and javascript are just too large for one person / small team to maintain, so you get feature lag. I'm hoping webassembly and canvas are a small enough target to overcome this, but if we were to look at what could have been, Scheme and something like Tk would've been better
  - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
    Are those actually usable as a primary/only browser in 2020? Unfortunately, I think the best way to fight the monopoly at this point is to use Firefox. As bad as 2½ browsers is, I'd much rather have 2½ than 1½. (On desktop, webkit is also fine, they need marketshare there. Anything that isn't Chromium.)
    - tapoxi 6y ago
      I still don't understand the "fight the monopoly" argument. Should I use Windows Server or FreeBSD to fight the "Linux dominance" monopoly?
      - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
        The problem is that, the web isn't really an open standard if there's only one implementation of the standard. The standard just becomes "whatever works in Chromium". It also gives Google the power to unilaterally add or remove anything from the standard as they think will benefit Google. Sure, Microsoft or Brave could choose not to go along with the change, but Microsoft doesn't want to spend resources maintaining a fork, so they're much more likely go go along with whatever Google does.
- NaOH 6y ago
  And this is a developer who also maintains iOS/iPadOS versions along with the Mac version, so not using Webkit on Mac would mean having to maintain and develop for two rendering engines since Apple mobile OSes require using Webkit.
  - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
    Well, you'd still only be maintaining one, since Apple maintains webkit for you.
    - NaOH 6y ago
      True. Bad writing on my part.
- why_only_15 6y ago
  Think the chromium one is called "blink"
  - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
    It absolutely is and I actually debated which term I should use in my post. Everyone seems to have settled on using "Chromium" to describe browsers based on Google's engine, and I want to use the word that the most people will be familiar with.
dclusin 6y ago
I think Adblock is a feature that disproves that hypothesis. If google continues to neuter ad blocking as they have with the changes to plugin architecture then it will open itself up to competition. Things outside the web rendering engine also prevent more widespread adoption of alternative browsers as well. Google's WildVine DRM is an example. That doesn't ship with chromium.
saagarjha 6y ago
Chrome doesn’t use WebKit anymore. Perhaps you’re thinking of Blink?
- yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
  Blink is a WebKit fork, so I could see a reasonable person clumping them together when complaining about monoculture. I suppose it really depends on the degree to which they've diverged; I personally suspect that being led by Google vs Apple does actually make a difference, especially around privacy and anti-tracking issues.
tomxor 6y ago
Modern HTML rendering engines are much much harder than you think, switching to webKit is a way to prevent obsolescence for any browser that doesn't have a huge team of devs behind it.
- asveikau 6y ago
  Is this space really evolving that much anymore though? I don't follow this field; what's been going on in web standards lately? Seems like lately, from a user perspective, the current emphasis is mostly on doing the same things faster. So an indie browser developer probably won't get JS JIT down as well as a megacorp, but is that it? It seems to me like if you are standards compliant as of 5 years ago there shouldn't be a lot to do today.
  - rched 6y ago
    I can understand why it might seem that way but it is actually evolving very quickly. Probably faster than any other time in history. There are a few things driving this evolution but I think the most important one is a desire to make the web a competitive platform for most types of software. This means lower level APIs, deeper integration with OS, and yes a large focus on performance. 3D graphics, offline support, push notifications, file system access, animation, Bluetooth, and more are all recent areas of focus for browsers. Web browsers really are becoming similar to operating systems in scope.
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      That sounds awful haha.
    - asveikau 6y ago
      There are a small number of people pushing that, but where is the adoption, and is the web at large really inaccesible without it? One example, I see a lot of websites offering to send me push notifications, and I always click no. A browser could not implement that feature and I would not notice, in fact it would be an improvement in experience.
evmar 6y ago
Back when Chrome was based on WebKit, my recollection is that WebKit was vaguely half the code. The other half was all the stuff that browsers do that's easy to overlook -- the network stack, process management, 2d graphics engine, cookie management, the URL bar, v8, extensions, etc. And these pieces are the very things that Chrome differentiated and succeeded based on. (WebKit on Mac includes more of these things, but many of them rely on Mac-specific implementations, which weren't as useful for a browser that is primarily used on Windows.)
1over137 6y ago
OTOH, you could look at it like using NSTextView. A basic building block that you add cool stuff atop.
totorovirus 6y ago
I think modern browsers could be a baseline for network based OS in couple of years to come. It is really complex and has zillion features that not many developers know exactly know
- SllX 6y ago
  Networking is already first class on most operating systems worth naming, even the ones without a good browser. A modern browser as a basis for the Shell/userland of an operating system is essentially Chrome OS with a difference in user experience that’s about as different as the set of features from browser to browser. A lean userland might be desirable, but even operating systems with lean out of the box userlands usually have a package manger that can quickly expand the base of software available to you on the system. And speaking of package managers, the stuff going on with Nix and Guix is a lot more interesting than reinventions of Chrome OS. Check them out, the system can be about as lean or thick as you like depending on how you configure it.
t0astbread 6y ago
As important as politics and implementation diversity are, if I were to take on the monumental task of developing my own browser I would rather focus on improvements that are actually manageable and useful to me as an independent dev or small team. Browsers are more than just webviews with tabs and a lot of potential in the non-core parts is left unexplored by the major players. And it's not like you're throwing away any effort. A browser isn't automatically worthless "just" because it's built on WebKit the same way an operating system isn't worthless "just" because it's built on Linux.
neurostimulant 6y ago
Is it really possible for a single developer to maintain feature parity with Chrome and Firefox (or even webkit)? If you're a single developer maintaining your own browser, you must choose between maintaining your own incomplete engine that lacks many html5 features the users want, or adopt blink/webkit/gecko and instantly gain feature parity with mainstream browsers.

Wowfunhappy 6y ago

Presumably because doing anything else is just impossible in this day and age. There are only two-and-a-half actively-maintained rendering engines in existence: Gecko, and Chromium/Webkit. There's a reason for that. A single person isn't going to be able to maintain their own.

userbinator 6y ago
There's also Netsurf, Dillo, as well as Links and the rest of the text-based ones. The monopoly should definitely be fought.
- alexisread 6y ago
  I think the main problem is that the DOM and javascript are just too large for one person / small team to maintain, so you get feature lag. I'm hoping webassembly and canvas are a small enough target to overcome this, but if we were to look at what could have been, Scheme and something like Tk would've been better
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  Are those actually usable as a primary/only browser in 2020? Unfortunately, I think the best way to fight the monopoly at this point is to use Firefox. As bad as 2½ browsers is, I'd much rather have 2½ than 1½. (On desktop, webkit is also fine, they need marketshare there. Anything that isn't Chromium.)
  - tapoxi 6y ago
    I still don't understand the "fight the monopoly" argument. Should I use Windows Server or FreeBSD to fight the "Linux dominance" monopoly?
    - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
      The problem is that, the web isn't really an open standard if there's only one implementation of the standard. The standard just becomes "whatever works in Chromium". It also gives Google the power to unilaterally add or remove anything from the standard as they think will benefit Google. Sure, Microsoft or Brave could choose not to go along with the change, but Microsoft doesn't want to spend resources maintaining a fork, so they're much more likely go go along with whatever Google does.
NaOH 6y ago
And this is a developer who also maintains iOS/iPadOS versions along with the Mac version, so not using Webkit on Mac would mean having to maintain and develop for two rendering engines since Apple mobile OSes require using Webkit.
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  Well, you'd still only be maintaining one, since Apple maintains webkit for you.
  - NaOH 6y ago
    True. Bad writing on my part.
why_only_15 6y ago
Think the chromium one is called "blink"
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  It absolutely is and I actually debated which term I should use in my post. Everyone seems to have settled on using "Chromium" to describe browsers based on Google's engine, and I want to use the word that the most people will be familiar with.

dclusin 6y ago

I think Adblock is a feature that disproves that hypothesis. If google continues to neuter ad blocking as they have with the changes to plugin architecture then it will open itself up to competition. Things outside the web rendering engine also prevent more widespread adoption of alternative browsers as well. Google's WildVine DRM is an example. That doesn't ship with chromium.

saagarjha 6y ago

Chrome doesn’t use WebKit anymore. Perhaps you’re thinking of Blink?

yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
Blink is a WebKit fork, so I could see a reasonable person clumping them together when complaining about monoculture. I suppose it really depends on the degree to which they've diverged; I personally suspect that being led by Google vs Apple does actually make a difference, especially around privacy and anti-tracking issues.

tomxor 6y ago

Modern HTML rendering engines are much much harder than you think, switching to webKit is a way to prevent obsolescence for any browser that doesn't have a huge team of devs behind it.

asveikau 6y ago
Is this space really evolving that much anymore though? I don't follow this field; what's been going on in web standards lately? Seems like lately, from a user perspective, the current emphasis is mostly on doing the same things faster. So an indie browser developer probably won't get JS JIT down as well as a megacorp, but is that it? It seems to me like if you are standards compliant as of 5 years ago there shouldn't be a lot to do today.
- rched 6y ago
  I can understand why it might seem that way but it is actually evolving very quickly. Probably faster than any other time in history. There are a few things driving this evolution but I think the most important one is a desire to make the web a competitive platform for most types of software. This means lower level APIs, deeper integration with OS, and yes a large focus on performance. 3D graphics, offline support, push notifications, file system access, animation, Bluetooth, and more are all recent areas of focus for browsers. Web browsers really are becoming similar to operating systems in scope.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    That sounds awful haha.
  - asveikau 6y ago
    There are a small number of people pushing that, but where is the adoption, and is the web at large really inaccesible without it? One example, I see a lot of websites offering to send me push notifications, and I always click no. A browser could not implement that feature and I would not notice, in fact it would be an improvement in experience.

evmar 6y ago

Back when Chrome was based on WebKit, my recollection is that WebKit was vaguely half the code. The other half was all the stuff that browsers do that's easy to overlook -- the network stack, process management, 2d graphics engine, cookie management, the URL bar, v8, extensions, etc. And these pieces are the very things that Chrome differentiated and succeeded based on. (WebKit on Mac includes more of these things, but many of them rely on Mac-specific implementations, which weren't as useful for a browser that is primarily used on Windows.)

1over137 6y ago

OTOH, you could look at it like using NSTextView. A basic building block that you add cool stuff atop.

totorovirus 6y ago

I think modern browsers could be a baseline for network based OS in couple of years to come. It is really complex and has zillion features that not many developers know exactly know

SllX 6y ago
Networking is already first class on most operating systems worth naming, even the ones without a good browser. A modern browser as a basis for the Shell/userland of an operating system is essentially Chrome OS with a difference in user experience that’s about as different as the set of features from browser to browser. A lean userland might be desirable, but even operating systems with lean out of the box userlands usually have a package manger that can quickly expand the base of software available to you on the system. And speaking of package managers, the stuff going on with Nix and Guix is a lot more interesting than reinventions of Chrome OS. Check them out, the system can be about as lean or thick as you like depending on how you configure it.

t0astbread 6y ago

As important as politics and implementation diversity are, if I were to take on the monumental task of developing my own browser I would rather focus on improvements that are actually manageable and useful to me as an independent dev or small team. Browsers are more than just webviews with tabs and a lot of potential in the non-core parts is left unexplored by the major players. And it's not like you're throwing away any effort. A browser isn't automatically worthless "just" because it's built on WebKit the same way an operating system isn't worthless "just" because it's built on Linux.

neurostimulant 6y ago

Is it really possible for a single developer to maintain feature parity with Chrome and Firefox (or even webkit)? If you're a single developer maintaining your own browser, you must choose between maintaining your own incomplete engine that lacks many html5 features the users want, or adopt blink/webkit/gecko and instantly gain feature parity with mainstream browsers.