3 ms·
In addition to what the other comments are saying, it's not at all clear that maintaining a suitable fork of Chromium would be less work than maintaining a comp
by feanaro 6y ago
In addition to what the other comments are saying, it's not at all clear that maintaining a suitable fork of Chromium would be less work than maintaining a completely different browser implementation. Google is clearly trying to drive the web into an unsavoury direction so the divergence burden of such a fork might increase with time.
Also, it's never a bad idea to implement the same thing twice, from scratch. Working with an existing codebase necessarily puts you into a certain mindset with its own trade-offs and constraints where moving in a certain direction might be much harder than if you are starting from scratch. Would we ever see innovations that Servo brought forth if all we had were Chromium forks? It's hard to say, but it's definitely not obvious.
- rswail 6y agoRemember that SQLite (the obvious choice) was rejected for browser local storage because there was only one implementation. Would W3C apply the same rule if there was only Chromium?
- zelly 6y agoW3C would cease to be necessary if there were just one browser. That'd be it, end of history, the WWW would now be a Google product served over a Google developed binary protocol (QUIC).
- MR4D 6y agoBut Edge and Opera are built on Chromium as well. So that makes 3 browsers built on Chromium source. If Firefox were as well, would that be bad?