4 ms·

Multiple rendering engines are probably a good thing in the long term for the web, and arguably losing other technology that Mozilla has worked on like Rust wou

by ece 6y ago

Multiple rendering engines are probably a good thing in the long term for the web, and arguably losing other technology that Mozilla has worked on like Rust would be a big loss if Mozilla couldn't be as competitive as it has been. I'm not so sure weaponizing privacy against Google by breaking a good amount of websites embedding Youtube videos is really the best way to get market share though, so by that metric, Google losing would hopefully mean Mozilla could work just as well as other browsers by default and actually gain market share.

treis 6y ago
>Multiple rendering engines are probably a good thing in the long term for the web, I think people forget how terrible browser compatability used to be. You had to use jQuery and worry about what you could and couldn't use. Pax Chromana in comparison is a dream. It's possible that chrome stagnates like IE did. But I don't think so. Google is primarily a web company and so it's in their interest to keep innovating on the browser to make their websites better.
- rurp 6y ago
  I agree that Google will keep the basic end user functionality working well once they have a full monopoly. But I expect them to accelerate their attacks on ad blocking and tracking protection. A browser that is great at rendering websites but makes it extremely difficult to block ads and trackers is probably Google's ideal goal.
- pyrale 6y ago
  Browser compat issues arose precisely because a dominant browser maker gave zero shit about standards, and what you call "pax chromana" is a repetition of that, with many webapps targeting only chrome. I understand that having the main browser actually decent is an improvement from the IE days, but for those of us that don't use chrome, the increasing tendency to only target one browser feels like a step back.
  - edgyquant 6y ago
    It’s also that Chrome is derived from an open source core which allows companies like Microsoft to use their engine to compete with them. So it is better than the IE days in that way.
    - nikitaga 6y ago
      Much good that "open source" will do you if you can't get a Widevine license from Google. https://blog.samuelmaddock.com/posts/google-widevine-blocked-my-browser/ https://blog.samuelmaddock.com/posts/google-widevine-blocked... And this bullshit even before "Pax Chromana". Imagine the things to come. It's like we've learned nothing.
      - srtjstjsj 6y ago
        Widevine is DRM so there's no reason for a freedom activist to want it.
        nikitaga 6y ago
        This has nothing to do with "freedom activists". Besides, "freedom activists" don't need to watch news clips or youtube? Or are they so short-sighted they think DRM will remain limited to entertainment services like Netflix and Hulu? Do "freedom activists" want to live in a world where you need Google's permission to compete with their browser? Is that the kind of freedom they're activisming about? Freedom from the tyranny of non-Google choices?
  - treis 6y ago
    >for those of us that don't use chrome, Sure, but that's like being one of the tribes of Europe before the Romans. When the tribes got crushed and everyone became Roman peace and prosperity (mostly) reigned. Having to use chrome if you don't want to sucks, but it makes things way easier for developers to have one browser to target.
    - 6y ago

by ece 6y ago

treis 6y ago

>Multiple rendering engines are probably a good thing in the long term for the web, I think people forget how terrible browser compatability used to be. You had to use jQuery and worry about what you could and couldn't use. Pax Chromana in comparison is a dream. It's possible that chrome stagnates like IE did. But I don't think so. Google is primarily a web company and so it's in their interest to keep innovating on the browser to make their websites better.

rurp 6y ago
I agree that Google will keep the basic end user functionality working well once they have a full monopoly. But I expect them to accelerate their attacks on ad blocking and tracking protection. A browser that is great at rendering websites but makes it extremely difficult to block ads and trackers is probably Google's ideal goal.
pyrale 6y ago
Browser compat issues arose precisely because a dominant browser maker gave zero shit about standards, and what you call "pax chromana" is a repetition of that, with many webapps targeting only chrome. I understand that having the main browser actually decent is an improvement from the IE days, but for those of us that don't use chrome, the increasing tendency to only target one browser feels like a step back.
- edgyquant 6y ago
  It’s also that Chrome is derived from an open source core which allows companies like Microsoft to use their engine to compete with them. So it is better than the IE days in that way.
  - nikitaga 6y ago
    Much good that "open source" will do you if you can't get a Widevine license from Google. https://blog.samuelmaddock.com/posts/google-widevine-blocked-my-browser/ https://blog.samuelmaddock.com/posts/google-widevine-blocked... And this bullshit even before "Pax Chromana". Imagine the things to come. It's like we've learned nothing.
    - srtjstjsj 6y ago
      Widevine is DRM so there's no reason for a freedom activist to want it.
      - nikitaga 6y ago
        This has nothing to do with "freedom activists". Besides, "freedom activists" don't need to watch news clips or youtube? Or are they so short-sighted they think DRM will remain limited to entertainment services like Netflix and Hulu? Do "freedom activists" want to live in a world where you need Google's permission to compete with their browser? Is that the kind of freedom they're activisming about? Freedom from the tyranny of non-Google choices?
- treis 6y ago
  >for those of us that don't use chrome, Sure, but that's like being one of the tribes of Europe before the Romans. When the tribes got crushed and everyone became Roman peace and prosperity (mostly) reigned. Having to use chrome if you don't want to sucks, but it makes things way easier for developers to have one browser to target.
  - 6y ago