5 ms·

The alternative is an internet completely locked down in native apps in proprietary and unaccountable app stores. I'll take a bloated web browser over a corpora

The alternative is an internet completely locked down in native apps in proprietary and unaccountable app stores. I'll take a bloated web browser over a corporate monoculture any day.

konjin 6y ago
Sorry which is which? Because right now Chrome engine has more control of the web then IE did in it's heyday when Microsoft was ruled to be a monopoly.
- vntok 6y ago
  Are you aware that Blink, Webkit and V8 are all open source?
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    With most people working out of Apple, Microsoft and Google salaries, good luck getting a bunch of random weekend coders to pick up and counterattack an alternative browser based on that open source.
    - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
      Doesn't this depend how high we set the bar? The ungoogled-chromium project [0] presumably doesn't take all that much manpower as it's just taking Chromium and paring it down a little. A true alternative browser codebase like Firefox, with its own rendering engine and JavaScript engine, takes a great deal of effort, of course. [0] https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium
      - pjmlp 6y ago
        Depends, check the recent stories about X.org being abandonware, yet it is open source.
- modeless 6y ago
  Sorry, that's just wrong. Non-IE browsers had less than 5% market share at its peak. Non-Chrome browsers have more than 6 times that (~30%). And web standards are developed much more collaboratively these days, with less unilateral action.
- cageface 6y ago
  The current situation isn't ideal but I can still build apps and reach users without the permission of any company's review board. There's a big difference between controlling technology and controlling content.
tannhaeuser 6y ago
Yes the universal portability argument and fear of closed ecosystems is the carrot to put in front of a generation who experienced MS monoculture and the dangers of app stores not welcoming to GPL and other F/OSS licensing scheme. With the consequence of the web becoming a closed network itself, like AOL and CompuServe which the web was intended to replace. It's a selfish, narrow-minded motive of nerds putting their stuff into the browser using their preferred language and uniform platform/toolchain, without benefit for end-users.
- cageface 6y ago
  What benefits end users can change very quickly. Take Apple yanking HKMaps as an example. Dictatorships have always had some advantages over messy democracies.
adrianN 6y ago
I don't see a freedom or accountability difference between native apps from an appstore and webapps from a webserver.
- cageface 6y ago
  It's very simple. One requires the good graces of an unaccountable and opaque corporate review process. The other requires nothing more than a simple webserver using open standards hosted anywhere in the world.
  - tannhaeuser 6y ago
    Hosted at an IP that can be blocked, over a protocol (HTTP/3, QUIC) so complex and opaque that almost no F/OSS implementation exists, and takes away transparency over regular DNS resolution, that is.
    - xorcist 6y ago
      The play around control of DNS infrastructure is an interesting one, and it will be exciting to see how that plays out over the coming decade. Should a trifecta of corporates control resolution, it would be only natural for alternative roots. Over a certain market penetration threshold this could form a perfect moat. Everything that made AlterNIC and its ilk fail is irrelevant now.

The alternative is an internet completely locked down in native apps in proprietary and unaccountable app stores. I'll take a bloated web browser over a corporate monoculture any day.

konjin 6y ago

Sorry which is which? Because right now Chrome engine has more control of the web then IE did in it's heyday when Microsoft was ruled to be a monopoly.

vntok 6y ago
Are you aware that Blink, Webkit and V8 are all open source?
- pjmlp 6y ago
  With most people working out of Apple, Microsoft and Google salaries, good luck getting a bunch of random weekend coders to pick up and counterattack an alternative browser based on that open source.
  - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
    Doesn't this depend how high we set the bar? The ungoogled-chromium project [0] presumably doesn't take all that much manpower as it's just taking Chromium and paring it down a little. A true alternative browser codebase like Firefox, with its own rendering engine and JavaScript engine, takes a great deal of effort, of course. [0] https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      Depends, check the recent stories about X.org being abandonware, yet it is open source.
modeless 6y ago
Sorry, that's just wrong. Non-IE browsers had less than 5% market share at its peak. Non-Chrome browsers have more than 6 times that (~30%). And web standards are developed much more collaboratively these days, with less unilateral action.
cageface 6y ago
The current situation isn't ideal but I can still build apps and reach users without the permission of any company's review board. There's a big difference between controlling technology and controlling content.

tannhaeuser 6y ago

Yes the universal portability argument and fear of closed ecosystems is the carrot to put in front of a generation who experienced MS monoculture and the dangers of app stores not welcoming to GPL and other F/OSS licensing scheme. With the consequence of the web becoming a closed network itself, like AOL and CompuServe which the web was intended to replace. It's a selfish, narrow-minded motive of nerds putting their stuff into the browser using their preferred language and uniform platform/toolchain, without benefit for end-users.

cageface 6y ago
What benefits end users can change very quickly. Take Apple yanking HKMaps as an example. Dictatorships have always had some advantages over messy democracies.

adrianN 6y ago

I don't see a freedom or accountability difference between native apps from an appstore and webapps from a webserver.

cageface 6y ago
It's very simple. One requires the good graces of an unaccountable and opaque corporate review process. The other requires nothing more than a simple webserver using open standards hosted anywhere in the world.
- tannhaeuser 6y ago
  Hosted at an IP that can be blocked, over a protocol (HTTP/3, QUIC) so complex and opaque that almost no F/OSS implementation exists, and takes away transparency over regular DNS resolution, that is.
  - xorcist 6y ago
    The play around control of DNS infrastructure is an interesting one, and it will be exciting to see how that plays out over the coming decade. Should a trifecta of corporates control resolution, it would be only natural for alternative roots. Over a certain market penetration threshold this could form a perfect moat. Everything that made AlterNIC and its ilk fail is irrelevant now.