7 ms·

It is easier for Brave to deliver new features when the biggest work is done by Chrome team.

pbhjpbhj 6y ago
I don't quite follow, are you saying Mozilla's structure is poor so making modifications is harder? Or perhaps that Chrome's developers did the work on IPFS and adding Tor and that you feel Brave rubber stamped them? Mozilla has something like a $200M pa income (from Google alone). I wonder how that compares with Brave's income.
- Legion 6y ago
  I think the person's point is that Mozilla is making a complete browser, rendering engine and all, while Brave is basically a shell of stuff on top of Chromium/Blink.
  - killingtime74 6y ago
    I don’t think the customer cares as long as you can use it
    - the_other 6y ago
      Some of us care.
    - bawolff 6y ago
      The type of people who are into decentralizing the internet are also usually against a single company (google) controlling the rendering engine of most users. If you're talking about typical user of the average web browser, they care about IPFS as much as they care about the rendering engine - i.e. not at all.
      - 00000000000h 6y ago
        I am that person. I moved away from Brave because its still chrome/chromium based. I am also not confident in their "blockchain" advertising model and don't trust they are actually any less private with my data than chrome/chromium. It would be cool to see IPFS integrated and enabled by default on all browsers. I doubt Google would ever take the leap, but maybe Mozilla would. I also have doubt that Microsoft would but they would be more willing than Google. Anyways, I hope this can happen before Mozilla's market share shrinks more.
        jonathansampson 6y ago
        You don't have to participate in the advertising bits of Brave; those are optional. But, they're a privacy-centric way to generate rewards which can be passively contributed to your favorite sites, sustaining their content creation. I would love to hear more about your privacy concerns; we have excised quite a bit from Chromium. You can read about those changes [on GitHub](https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Deviations-from-Chromium-(features-we-disable-or-remove) https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Deviations-from-...). We also audit our network activity to make sure nothing ever slips out. You can read about our [desktop](https://brave.com/brave-tops-browser-first-run-network-traffic-results/ https://brave.com/brave-tops-browser-first-run-network-traff...) and [iOS](https://brave.com/ios-browser-first-run/ https://brave.com/ios-browser-first-run/) audits on our blog. Perhaps more of interest would be an independent, third-party review and comparison. Trinity College's School of Computer Science and Statistics did a comparative review of Chrome, Brave, Edge, Firefox, Yandex, and Safari. They found that Brave was the "most private" in terms of phoning home. You can [read their review online](https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf). Always happy to discuss any specific concerns you may have.
        jernejzen 6y ago
        Thanks for this clarification. I use Brave less because I am actually afraid to install extensions, because addition phoning to Google. Or how does Brave handle that?
      - jjcon 6y ago
        > against a single company (google) controlling the rendering engine of most users That isn’t really applicable here though. That’s kinda like claiming we should be against Linux because it runs all the web servers. There is a difference between centralization and standardization.
        pseudalopex 6y ago
        Linux isn't controlled by an advertising company.
        jjcon 6y ago
        Neither can an open source project be controlled by a single entity
        pseudalopex 6y ago
        Chromium is.
        bawolff 6y ago
        There is a difference, and all the html rendering code being written by google is centralization not standardization. I don't think the linux comparison makes any sense for this situation. Linux has very little to do with the web experience, where the rendering engine is the core of it. Linus's ability to change world wide web standards on a whim is close to non existent. Google is literally replacing the WWW network stack (a good change mind you, but nonetheless demonstrates the level of power)
    - dbeley 6y ago
      Customers caring about IPFS support are also the ones caring about browser engine monoculture.
    - 8bitsrule 6y ago
      The evidence is in, and I'm sure you're right about the typical users. But the discriminating ones know better. The difference is how much it's using you.
    - Daho0n 6y ago
      Those that care enough about privacy to use TOR and IPFS likely care very much about using a browser made by Google. De-googling Chrome is like removing telemetry from Windows 10 over installing and running Linux: For some it's great while others wont touch it no matter how much work is put into making it "safe" (and IMHO Chrome variants are at most "safe").
- babypuncher 6y ago
  Mozilla makes an entire browser. Brave takes an existing browser (Chromium) and adds some extra features to the UI and networking stack. Modern web browsers are incredibly complex pieces of software. The overwhelming majority of code in Brave's repository is shared with Chromium. What Brave's developers do and what Mozilla's developers do are not comparable.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    You’re either saying: Mozilla can’t afford to hire another set of developers to add IPFS, Firefox is too poorly written for this to be reasonably done, or Mozilla doesn’t actually care about the decentralized web to even try. None of the reasons really sheds a good like on Mozilla.
    - waynesonfire 6y ago
      why would mozilla pay to add a fad technology or take on the tech debt?
      - realdense 6y ago
        Some of us believe that the client-server model has led us to the current situation, ruled by internet giants. A future where people are less reliant on giants is within our reach, the biggest hurdle is making it available to the masses. Hopefully uptake by non-mainstream browsers like Brave will increase the exposure, attract developers, increase the network and get us closer to having IPFS, Hypercore or some other protocol available to the mainstream, whether that be in Firefox or by some other means. Besides, you could argue that browsers have added plenty of fad technologies over the past few years, DRM comes to mind.
        jabedude 6y ago
        > IPFS, Hypercore or some other protocol available to the mainstream, whether that be in Firefox or by some other means TIL about hypercore! Looks like an interesting concept based on append-only logs. It reminds me of this work being done at VMware: https://github.com/vmware/node-replication https://github.com/vmware/node-replication
jjcon 6y ago
> It is easier for Brave to deliver new features when the biggest work is done by Chrome team. Do you think Mozilla will ever switch to chromium? It is the linux of the web - would be nice if they could finally focus and stop dressing up their dead horse.
- tarruda 6y ago
  > Do you think Mozilla will ever switch to chromium? I don't think so. If they did, there wouldn't be much incentive for using Firefox. > It is the linux of the web - would be nice if they could finally focus and stop dressing up their dead horse. And what would they be focusing on exactly?
  - jjcon 6y ago
    > And what would they be focusing on exactly? Ipfs for one
    - cycomanic 6y ago
      Except that as many have pointed out already it works in firefox by just using an extension.
- Daho0n 6y ago
  Would you like "the linux for the web" to join "the iOS for the web"? Such hyperbole.
zepto 6y ago
It was easy for Google to deliver Chrome when the biggest work was done by Safari team... It was easy for Apple to deliver Safari, when biggest work was done by Konqueror team...
- mike_d 6y ago
  In terms of active development, Google is working on Blink and Apple is still working on WebKit. Every other browser depends on Google and Apple to do the heavy lifting for them.
  - smichel17 6y ago
    You missed "Mozilla is still working on Gecko"
- SulfurHexaFluri 6y ago
  The fork from blink was so long ago its pretty much irrelevant now. Google likely spends more dev hours on it than apple does on webkit these days.
  - zepto 6y ago
    True, but not relevant to the point, which is that both Apple and Google built their browsers on top of someone else’s work just as Brave is doing. It took years of shipping Chrome before Google actually forked Blink.
- Guidii 6y ago
  Google had contributed significantly to WebKit before the fork. https://blog.bitergia.com/2013/02/06/report-on-the-activity-of-companies-in-the-webkit-project/ https://blog.bitergia.com/2013/02/06/report-on-the-activity-...
  - zepto 6y ago
    Are you suggesting that are things that Brave should be submitting pull requests for? If so, what?

I don't quite follow, are you saying Mozilla's structure is poor so making modifications is harder? Or perhaps that Chrome's developers did the work on IPFS and adding Tor and that you feel Brave rubber stamped them? Mozilla has something like a $200M pa income (from Google alone). I wonder how that compares with Brave's income.

Legion 6y ago
I think the person's point is that Mozilla is making a complete browser, rendering engine and all, while Brave is basically a shell of stuff on top of Chromium/Blink.
- killingtime74 6y ago
  I don’t think the customer cares as long as you can use it
  - the_other 6y ago
    Some of us care.
  - bawolff 6y ago
    The type of people who are into decentralizing the internet are also usually against a single company (google) controlling the rendering engine of most users. If you're talking about typical user of the average web browser, they care about IPFS as much as they care about the rendering engine - i.e. not at all.
    - 00000000000h 6y ago
      I am that person. I moved away from Brave because its still chrome/chromium based. I am also not confident in their "blockchain" advertising model and don't trust they are actually any less private with my data than chrome/chromium. It would be cool to see IPFS integrated and enabled by default on all browsers. I doubt Google would ever take the leap, but maybe Mozilla would. I also have doubt that Microsoft would but they would be more willing than Google. Anyways, I hope this can happen before Mozilla's market share shrinks more.
      - jonathansampson 6y ago
        You don't have to participate in the advertising bits of Brave; those are optional. But, they're a privacy-centric way to generate rewards which can be passively contributed to your favorite sites, sustaining their content creation. I would love to hear more about your privacy concerns; we have excised quite a bit from Chromium. You can read about those changes [on GitHub](https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Deviations-from-Chromium-(features-we-disable-or-remove) https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Deviations-from-...). We also audit our network activity to make sure nothing ever slips out. You can read about our [desktop](https://brave.com/brave-tops-browser-first-run-network-traffic-results/ https://brave.com/brave-tops-browser-first-run-network-traff...) and [iOS](https://brave.com/ios-browser-first-run/ https://brave.com/ios-browser-first-run/) audits on our blog. Perhaps more of interest would be an independent, third-party review and comparison. Trinity College's School of Computer Science and Statistics did a comparative review of Chrome, Brave, Edge, Firefox, Yandex, and Safari. They found that Brave was the "most private" in terms of phoning home. You can [read their review online](https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf). Always happy to discuss any specific concerns you may have.
        jernejzen 6y ago
        Thanks for this clarification. I use Brave less because I am actually afraid to install extensions, because addition phoning to Google. Or how does Brave handle that?
    - jjcon 6y ago
      > against a single company (google) controlling the rendering engine of most users That isn’t really applicable here though. That’s kinda like claiming we should be against Linux because it runs all the web servers. There is a difference between centralization and standardization.
      - pseudalopex 6y ago
        Linux isn't controlled by an advertising company.
        jjcon 6y ago
        Neither can an open source project be controlled by a single entity
        pseudalopex 6y ago
        Chromium is.
      - bawolff 6y ago
        There is a difference, and all the html rendering code being written by google is centralization not standardization. I don't think the linux comparison makes any sense for this situation. Linux has very little to do with the web experience, where the rendering engine is the core of it. Linus's ability to change world wide web standards on a whim is close to non existent. Google is literally replacing the WWW network stack (a good change mind you, but nonetheless demonstrates the level of power)
  - dbeley 6y ago
    Customers caring about IPFS support are also the ones caring about browser engine monoculture.
  - 8bitsrule 6y ago
    The evidence is in, and I'm sure you're right about the typical users. But the discriminating ones know better. The difference is how much it's using you.
  - Daho0n 6y ago
    Those that care enough about privacy to use TOR and IPFS likely care very much about using a browser made by Google. De-googling Chrome is like removing telemetry from Windows 10 over installing and running Linux: For some it's great while others wont touch it no matter how much work is put into making it "safe" (and IMHO Chrome variants are at most "safe").
babypuncher 6y ago
Mozilla makes an entire browser. Brave takes an existing browser (Chromium) and adds some extra features to the UI and networking stack. Modern web browsers are incredibly complex pieces of software. The overwhelming majority of code in Brave's repository is shared with Chromium. What Brave's developers do and what Mozilla's developers do are not comparable.
- kortilla 6y ago
  You’re either saying: Mozilla can’t afford to hire another set of developers to add IPFS, Firefox is too poorly written for this to be reasonably done, or Mozilla doesn’t actually care about the decentralized web to even try. None of the reasons really sheds a good like on Mozilla.
  - waynesonfire 6y ago
    why would mozilla pay to add a fad technology or take on the tech debt?
    - realdense 6y ago
      Some of us believe that the client-server model has led us to the current situation, ruled by internet giants. A future where people are less reliant on giants is within our reach, the biggest hurdle is making it available to the masses. Hopefully uptake by non-mainstream browsers like Brave will increase the exposure, attract developers, increase the network and get us closer to having IPFS, Hypercore or some other protocol available to the mainstream, whether that be in Firefox or by some other means. Besides, you could argue that browsers have added plenty of fad technologies over the past few years, DRM comes to mind.
      - jabedude 6y ago
        > IPFS, Hypercore or some other protocol available to the mainstream, whether that be in Firefox or by some other means TIL about hypercore! Looks like an interesting concept based on append-only logs. It reminds me of this work being done at VMware: https://github.com/vmware/node-replication https://github.com/vmware/node-replication

jjcon 6y ago

> It is easier for Brave to deliver new features when the biggest work is done by Chrome team. Do you think Mozilla will ever switch to chromium? It is the linux of the web - would be nice if they could finally focus and stop dressing up their dead horse.

tarruda 6y ago
> Do you think Mozilla will ever switch to chromium? I don't think so. If they did, there wouldn't be much incentive for using Firefox. > It is the linux of the web - would be nice if they could finally focus and stop dressing up their dead horse. And what would they be focusing on exactly?
- jjcon 6y ago
  > And what would they be focusing on exactly? Ipfs for one
  - cycomanic 6y ago
    Except that as many have pointed out already it works in firefox by just using an extension.
Daho0n 6y ago
Would you like "the linux for the web" to join "the iOS for the web"? Such hyperbole.

zepto 6y ago

It was easy for Google to deliver Chrome when the biggest work was done by Safari team... It was easy for Apple to deliver Safari, when biggest work was done by Konqueror team...

mike_d 6y ago
In terms of active development, Google is working on Blink and Apple is still working on WebKit. Every other browser depends on Google and Apple to do the heavy lifting for them.
- smichel17 6y ago
  You missed "Mozilla is still working on Gecko"
SulfurHexaFluri 6y ago
The fork from blink was so long ago its pretty much irrelevant now. Google likely spends more dev hours on it than apple does on webkit these days.
- zepto 6y ago
  True, but not relevant to the point, which is that both Apple and Google built their browsers on top of someone else’s work just as Brave is doing. It took years of shipping Chrome before Google actually forked Blink.
Guidii 6y ago
Google had contributed significantly to WebKit before the fork. https://blog.bitergia.com/2013/02/06/report-on-the-activity-of-companies-in-the-webkit-project/ https://blog.bitergia.com/2013/02/06/report-on-the-activity-...
- zepto 6y ago
  Are you suggesting that are things that Brave should be submitting pull requests for? If so, what?