8 ms·

The Endless Browser Wars

92 points by lazycrazyowl 6y ago

hkt 6y ago
It occurs to me that when the work is too much and people can't keep up, the solution is to pool resources. Many of the comments on that article talk about the reticence of package maintainers to continue with fiercely complex packages. That appears to be the real problem, aside from what sounds like constant gotchas imposed by Google. It feels like a solution is a cross distribution package with bundled dependencies, maybe through Flatpak or an AppImage.
1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago
I don't need Chrome/Safari/Edge/Brave/Opera to enjoy the web. I have image viewers, audio players and video players that do the same job. I have text-only browsers that are much faster for reading HTML. And I have numerous TCP clients that retrieve web pages and resources as fast and usually faster than "modern" browsers, and are always more reliable. Heck, the W3C's libwww project still compiles and works well behind haproxy/stunnel. The functionality I need is fast, reliable text and URL retrieval. I do need the big, graphcal browsers for online shopping, banking and so forth, but that is not what I am most of the time I am using the web. I do not need them to enjoy the web's content. I never expected I could survive without the graphics but it has been far easier than I thought, and it's getting easier.
kzrdude 6y ago
Tangent: Why do I so often get "connection interrupted" errors when trying to load lwn.net? (browser: firefox developer edition)
npteljes 6y ago
I don't get why these APIs are so essential that Chromium loses its value. Why would a browser need an API in the first place? I get conveniences like bookmark sync, and security features like avoiding malware domains, but one doesn't _need_ these to function, it's just somewhat more convenient or secure.
reportgunner 6y ago
Am I missing something ? Just export your bookmarks as HTML and e-mail them to yourself, why do you need google to do it for you ?
eecc 6y ago
Can’t they the API address, make it configurable or extract the implementation to support git repo format? It would be insanely useful if both chromium and Firefox supported the same backends.
- codeflo 6y ago
  That’s not a bad idea, but Google has no incentive to merge such an abstraction into Chromium mainline. You’d have to maintain it out of tree against a hostile upstream. I fear that’s impractical.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
ksec 6y ago
>Specifically, it's not worth it if no one uses it because they've switched to Chrome to get the functionality they want. Agreed with the overall comments in comment section. Seems like an overreaction or making a big deal out of nothing. Am I missing something?
- kylebenzle 6y ago
  Maybe. I think this single action cements Google as a bad actor and pulls the "open source" rug out from under Chrome. This ONE thing will be the defining factor in me dumping Google moving forward.
  - onethought 6y ago
    Really, couldn’t one that cared about this just add bookmark syncing to chromium? Using some other service?
    - corty 6y ago
      One could, but the Chromium sourcecode provided by Google is a quickly moving target. So your patch will need to be updated very often. Distro maintainers are already complaining about Chromium being a lot of work because of the rate of change and build breakage. A patch will make that worse. Also, I would bet Google would do a few "neccessary" changes in the bookmark parts over the next releases, just to make your patch not work.
    - takluyver 6y ago
      The specific problem of syncing bookmarks is probably solvable with an extension. But the move suggests that Google doesn't view Chromium as something that people will use directly, like they're not interested in people using open source Android without their proprietary components. If they gradually make more and more pieces Chrome-only, it will get harder to make a relevant browser by forking Chromium, because there will be more to reimplement before people consider using it. And, of course, that makes perfect sense for Google. Chrome is no longer the scrappy insurgent. It's the king of the hill now, so it can start putting the fences up against competitors.
kylebenzle 6y ago
Great article. Essentially Google is removing Chromium's ability to sync via Chrome's servers, greatly reducing the usefulness of the open source version. I personally had long argued for the use of Chromium and this was a massive oversight of mine. I thought Chromium was a viable alternative to Chrome but no I realize Google's plan all along was probably to get their foot in the door then pull the "open source" rug out from us as soon as they could. More than anything this single action cements Google as a bad actor, one that should be avoided as much as possible moving forward. The more people refusing to use Google products moving forward the better.
- corty 6y ago
  Well, one could argue Chromium is now more compliant with the spirit of Free Software because it doesn't use Google's proprietary, closed, spying bookmark sync service anymore
- cromwellian 6y ago
  Chrome sync isn't why people use Chromium. So if a browser doesn't have bookmark sync to a central proprietary service, all of a sudden there's no point in using it? I'm a Google employee and I don't even use Chrome Sync for my non-corporate accounts.
- npteljes 6y ago
  I think your comment shows a misunderstanding of open source. Open source doesn't mean that a service is provided free of charge. You can just get the code, and that's it, no usability is implied. They absolutely don't pull the open source rug, in fact they are shining a light on how NOT open-source your Chromium experience was. I agree with one thing though: services are not to be trusted. They, or at least you, should have ways to migrate, as painlessly as possible.
xkvhs 6y ago
Doesn't make sense to me. Why would anyone want to have their bookmarks managed by Google if privacy is their goal. I understand that this is about features you get when you login into browser with your Google account, which I doubt people who value privacy will do anyway. Importing bookmarks (or managing them some other way) seems almost trivial compared to other challenges of using linux, I don't understand why there's such emphasis on this. As for spellchecker - perhaps having your text sent to Google in full is not something necessarily desirable. Maybe I'm missing something.
- catchmeifyoucan 6y ago
  I think it’s a harder play at new browsers being built on Chromium, rather than bare bones Chromium users. Take a look at Edge, Brave, Sidekick, Mighty, Browser Company. All being built on Chromium! Each platform now has to own their own identity service, making it harder for users to migrate.
- cheph 6y ago
  > Doesn't make sense to me. Why would anyone want to have their bookmarks managed by Google if privacy is their goal. I'm pretty sure you can encrypt your synced bookmarks: https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/165139?hl=en&visit_id=637472450015556894-3243664086&rd=1 https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/165139?hl=en&visit_... > With a passphrase, you can use Google's cloud to store and sync your Chrome data without letting Google read it. Your payment methods and addresses from Google Pay aren't encrypted by a passphrase. And why exactly does usage of Chromium imply more of privacy goal than usage of Chrome?
  - herewegoagain2 6y ago
    Because presumably Chrome sends data about your browsing habits to Google, and Chromium does not.
    - cheph 6y ago
      Why would you presume this?
croes 6y ago
Isn't it similar with Android? Google deprecates features in AOSP and moves them to closed source apps. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on...
- eloisant 6y ago
  Yes. Chromium and AOSP are remains of the time when Google cared about Open Source. Today's Google just wants to be done with it.
paxys 6y ago
I'm happy with this change, regardless of the fact that it is forced. Why on earth were some of the most popular open source Linux distros relying on Google's servers to provide core functionality in the first place?
- cheph 6y ago
  Where else should Chromium have synced to? To fedora's sync servers? Why would fedora run those? Your outrage seems a bit misplaced to me. Chromium synching to google's servers is entirely what I expected, and it was always clear that it was doing it to me. I am unsure why anyone is surprised by this.
  - paxys 6y ago
    There are probably hundreds of bookmark/profile/password syncing extensions out there, and most of them work cross-browser unlike Google's. Just let users pick whatever they want.
    - cheph 6y ago
      Who is not letting them pick what they want? You were not forced to use Chrome's sync features, but I am not aware of any extensions that will replace the Chromium sync functionality entirely or even mostly. And even if it did, it is not nearly as integrated of an experience.
      - paxys 6y ago
        People who want the convenience and don't care about syncing their Google account and sending their keystrokes to Google servers can always install Chrome. For Chromium, staying away from proprietary services by default is much more keeping with the spirit of open source.
        npteljes 6y ago
        I agree wholeheartedly. Similarly to Android, people took AOSP and worked it into a full system. Google providing the APIs is even detrimental to the open source cause. Because of the convenience, people are not as hard-pressed for an alternative.
yarcob 6y ago
Do the people who use Chromium really sign into their Google account? If that's the case, you can just as well use Chrome itself. My assumption was that Chromium users would want a browser without all of Google's cruft.
- tomc1985 6y ago
  Yeah, this sounds like a win to me, given how much data even Chromium sends back to Google
- cheph 6y ago
  > Do the people who use Chromium really sign into their Google account? If that's the case, you can just as well use Chrome itself. I really don't understand why this is so surprising, if not Google's server with a google account, where? And yes, you could just as well use chrome, but Chromium is entirely open source, while Chrome is not. It may not matter to everyone, but it matters to some people. So yes you could get the same functionality from Chrome, but it has different non-functional characteristics which matter to some people. > My assumption was that Chromium users would want a browser without all of Google's cruft. The "cruft" like bookmark syncing, password syncing, etc, has to come from somewhere. Google was is good a place as any to me.
  - ruph123 6y ago
    > The "cruft" like bookmark syncing, password syncing, etc, has to come from somewhere. Google was is good a place as any to me. More like: All that data is sent to the biggest advertisement company in the world. One has to wonder if they go through all the hassle of browser development for altruistic reasons or to make money off the gathered data? It is baffling to me that something being open-source is more important than not letting your data be harvested by advertisers, potentially law enforcement, etc.
  - 0xy 6y ago
    Chromium is "open source", but it's still thoroughly infested with Google backdoors including X-Client-Data to DoubleClick, address bar autosuggest and other phone home telemetry.
godot 6y ago
I've been a casual Linux user on a personal laptop for years, and the way I've used Chromium is always as a "test on Chrome" tool on web app projects. Firefox is the daily driver browser. In that sense, I don't lose out much by not having all the synchronization features etc. But I would lose out much by not having Chromium available at all. A side point, the post mentions having to retry broken web sites in Chrome being a ritual for Firefox users -- I can't think of many instances where that has been the case over the years. In fact, in the past decade it has been rare for any web site to fail in one browser and work in another. I remember two distinct cases: 1) H2O Wireless's account management (and bill paying) which didn't work in Chrome, and their tech support actually advised to use Firefox at the time (which worked), 2) Web Skype in recent years, for a time, dropped support for Firefox but only by user agent sniffing -- I was in fact able to get it to work completely fine on Firefox by using a plugin that changed my user agent string to say Chrome.
- ceceron 6y ago
  I'm mainly a Firefox user, but there are two cases when I fall back to another browser (Brave, in my case): - I have to maintain two MS Teams account for the professional reasons. I use one account in the electron app, one in the Brave. So Brave is just a Teams client... (if somebody knows a better solution to handle multiple Teams accounts on desktop, I would be grateful for any tips) - I have so many privacy/security enhancing extensions in Firefox, that some pages render/work incorrectly. I'm too lazy to disable the extensions, so in case I really need such a page, I switch to Brave. Otherwise Firefox is more than enough, I would say more - it's better IMHO than currently available chromium clones.
  - TrianguloY 6y ago
    If you need different profiles (like having different firefoxes installed, each with their own addons, themes, tabs, bookmarks, etc) you can use the built-in Profile manager [0]. I personally have a secondary profile for testing, with some test addons and different bookmarks. If you only need different sessions (different cookies) you can use the official Multi-Account add-on [1]. I personally use it to be logged in simultaneously in two different accounts on sites where this is not possible (like GitHub). [0] : https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-remove-switch-firefox-profiles https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-... [1] : https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account...
zubspace 6y ago
Is there really a reason to run Chrome or Chromium? I'm running Firefox since forever and I can't remember the last time I've seen a "Runs in Chrome only" banner? Why can't those Linux distributions just ship with Firefox? I don't get it.
- br0kko 6y ago
  Especially online video conferences have a tendency to require Chrome. Jitsi Meet works a lot better for everyone in the meeting due to (better?) Simulcast support. MS Teams and GoToMeeting outright refuse to work in Firefox.
- cheph 6y ago
  > Why can't those Linux distributions just ship with Firefox? I don't get it. Which distro does not?
  - zubspace 6y ago
    You're right if course. What I mean is, would it hurt to just package firefox? Or is it really that important for some developers to have access to Chromium or Chrome?
    - depressedpanda 6y ago
      While Firefox is my main browser, if you're a web dev, you need access to Chrome/Chromium so that you can test that your stuff works in the most popular browser, if nothing else. Additionally, in my case, Chrome is the only browser that works with the Web Serial API, though other Blink based browsers ostensibly should support it.
    - szatkus 6y ago
      For sure if you want to use features that are only supported by Chrome. Also devtools are more comfortable and less buggy (seems that almost every React project I met would break Firefox at some point).
    - cheph 6y ago
smsm42 6y ago
How hard would it be to make an open-source bookmarks server that supports the same API without needing keys from Google? Of course, somebody will have to run them but I imagine distributions or some orgs could? We're talking here about implementing bookmarks sync, with the API already known (since it's client is implemented in the open-source Chromium). I mean I'm sure it'd require some work, but no "writing a new OS from scratch" level of work, rather "implement a simple API" level of work. Am I missing anything here?
- paxys 6y ago
  There are probably dozens of open source cross-browser syncing extensions out there. Installing them is already trivial, and bundling one of them in by default would probably be as well.
- chaz6 6y ago
  There is a public implementation [1] of the Firefox sync server, so you can host your own today. [1] https://github.com/mozilla-services/syncserver https://github.com/mozilla-services/syncserver
- kalleboo 6y ago
  I imagine the main reason people want bookmark sync is to sync their bookmarks to their Android or Apple smartphone, so you'd need a compatible browser on that end as well.
  - smsm42 6y ago
    There are a number of non-Chrome browsers on Android - e.g. Brave. They'd probably be happy to use an open-source server. As for Apple, isn't it mandatory 100% Safari anyway?
pvg 6y ago
Dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25886218 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25886218
deanCommie 6y ago
Sorry, I don't understand reaction of the nix distro maintainers. Why is bookmark sync such a dealbreaker? Searching for "chrome extension bookmark sync" reveals already multiple 3rd party extensions that can offer this functionality, and building more seems like an elementary 2nd year university project. If the intent with distributing Chrome on nix is to help users handle "Site Only works on Chrome" use cases, then does it even matter if the browser is fully-featured or has bookmark sync? The whole thing feels like people have a bitter taste in their mouth, and want to react SOMEHOW to voice their displeasure...but it's a completely meaningless gesture that Google won't notice one iota. The only ones that will suffer are the users.
- kalleboo 6y ago
  Does Chrome on Android support extensions? Chrome on iOS? The only reason I use bookmark sync is to keep them synced to my phone.
jillesvangurp 6y ago
This post omits a few 'truths' to push an argument that is simply not there. 1) chromium is used by several other browsers: Edge, Brave, Opera, and probably a whole range of niche browsers I don't know about. Most of these, probably don't rely on Google provided services (I imagine that would create some funny legal issues). None of these browsers are mentioned in the article. 2) The APIs mentioned aren't exactly rocket science and perfectly good OSS implementations (e.g. provided by Mozilla) exist. Also, you could use extensions. For example, Bitwarden integrates nicely into chrome and largely removes the need for built in password managers. I think browser sync is perhaps the hardest of these. But even that should not be too hard to improvise. Cross browser sync would actually be a nice thing to have. 3) Firefox is there, it's being maintained, and you can use it. Many people do. Blanket stating that that is not an option is kind of weird. It's a fine browser. It doesn't have this problem. Chromium is also still a fine browser; and it supports extensions as mentioned before. 4) Forking/patching chromium is always an option. I think some linux distributions already do this in the same way that they also patch Firefox (Iceweasel).
- DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
  > It's a fine browser I wouldn't exactly argue that chrome is any better, but firefox isn't a good browser either. It's neither minimalistic, nor does it have many features and it most certainly isn't easily to customize. I've been an Opera user from version 12 (the last good opera) up to twenty-something, then switched to vivaldi a few years ago and never looked back. Even just in the current development version, vivaldi is getting support for calendars, mail and rss right in the browser, adding to the already present notes feature. What does firefox do in terms of UX innovation? Ant they certainly don't seem to be pumping that money into the under-the-hood components either, seeing how they still haven't managed to get @property working. Firefox is turning into the next internet explorer and it's not even googles fault. It's sad, but completely deserved.
  - inpdx 6y ago
    I have an old 4gb ram 11" macbook air that's more or less dedicated to streaming video and music these days. For video, we use firefox over chrome because chrome stutters more. Firefox is smooth. I have no idea why, but I'm guessing the GC is implemented differently.
paxys 6y ago
I have been using Firefox as my daily driver for years and have yet to come across a single one of these "only works on Chrome" web sites that the author mentions. This entire paragraph is complete bullshit: > The larger problem, though, is that it's not at all clear that Firefox will remain a viable alternative to Chrome. Its market share has been falling for years, and not everybody is pleased with the directions that the Mozilla Foundation has taken. The creators of web sites have responded by not caring about Firefox; having to retry broken web sites in Chrome is a ritual that many Firefox users have had to get used to. It's not surprising that users give up and just run Chrome from the outset. Firefox is a great browser, and is getting better with every new version. Differences in standards compliance, JS implementation and even rendering is negligible between modern Chrome and Firefox. Mozilla is probably the only major entity challenging Google's dominance over web standards today, with even Microsoft having folded. I don't know where the author is coming from, but to me there is zero reason to use Chrome or Chromium over Firefox.
- ForHackernews 6y ago
  Maybe not "only" works on Chrome, but https://spatial.chat https://spatial.chat is one I've come across recently that claims to work "best" on Chrome. Some features of https://www.rocketlanguages.com/ https://www.rocketlanguages.com/ only work in Chrome. I'm a pretty dedicated Firefox user, but it's not a myth that more and more web shops are only bothering to test in Chrome.
mtgx 6y ago
After getting excited about Firefox Quantum and starting to use it for a while as my primary browser, I was very disappointed when they started switching back to the "shared" memory model, even from the "hybrid" architecture they used before. https://hacks.mozilla.org/2020/07/safely-reviving-shared-memory/ https://hacks.mozilla.org/2020/07/safely-reviving-shared-mem... Without fail, that made Firefox perform exactly as it used to before the Quantum transition - memory leaks galore, tabs hanging, videos slowing down to a crawl for a few seconds, and other nice stuff like that. I wish they wouldn't have gone back to sharing memory between tabs/processes. Chrome has always had the right idea, both performance and security wise - keep all processes isolated! The fact that this uses more memory, although something many like to nitpick about Chrome, is only a secondary issue compared to performance and security.
cromwellian 6y ago
B: I want a de-googled browser! I don't want my browser phoning home to Google! G: Ok, here's Chromium, with proprietary bits removed. B: You've removed access to proprietary Google APIs that allow the browser to send and store stuff on Google. G: Yeah, isn't that what you asked for? It's not very hard for someone to spec out an open protocol for an end-to-end browser profile sync service. Those who want complete control of privacy can then run their own servers/containers and sync their browser to them. Those who want Google integration can user Chrome, and later, write an extension that allows Chrome to also utilize whatever open sync protocol exists. There's too much whining, and too little coding. I think for the amount of time used to write articles like this, people could have already spec'ed out and MVP'ed such a service. This reminds me of the cypherpunks mailing list in the 90s. Like 95% of all the messages were political whining that X didn't exist, or Y doesn't do what they want, or bitching about the government. Eventually the hackers forked the 'coderpunks' mailing list, to work on actual solutions. Chromium is a giant gift horse of a codebase that doesn't need Google integration, because implementing a browser from scratch is almost like implementing Unix from scratch, it's an enormous undertaking. It works amazingly well in my Oculus Quest 2 with WebXR integration (and :( Facebook integration). Chromium is being used in wearables, smart home devices, automative dashboards, the same way linux is endlessly reused, even if the forks aren't all useful as desktop replacements. Thousands and thousands of products are being released thanks to OSS forks of AOSP, Chromium, or Linux, which if they didn't exist, would make life very hard for hackers and startup entrepreneurs who would have to pay enormous license fees, or do enormous amounts of work to bring up simple devices. I guess what I'm saying is, developers these days face a cornucopia of riches in the ecosystem, but instead, HN is filled full of threads of people virtue signaling like they're an oppressed minority population. There's a lot of things which are non-ideal about every major platform developers face, but the successful entrepreneurs shut out the noise, and find opportunities in filling in the gaps.
- benjaminjosephw 6y ago
  There's definitely room to be proactive here and build rather than complain but I think there's an issue to address beyond that. This is really anti-competitive behavior on a par with Microsoft's Embrace Extend Extinguish model[0]. Chromium filled a gap in the OSS market but, because it has non-free services baked in and provided without charge, it was able to outperform real FOSS alternatives. Removing access to those propriety features/services after the market has matured is like this leaves a much bigger gap that's much harder to fill than it would have been back when the market wasn't as mature. I think we do need to roll-up our sleeves and focus on building/supporting better alternatives but it's also important to be able to call out where the playing-fields aren't level so we can better cheer on those Davids willing to take on Goliath. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...
Havoc 6y ago
Not afraid of endless browser wars. End of the war and google left standing on the other hand...(more specifically the chromium derived stuff)
hkt 6y ago
Firefox has been an antitrust fig leaf for Google for some time, via the $300m or so in funding it receives from Google annually. Hard for regulators to come and force the issue under such circumstances unless something is desperately amiss. It is with some regret that I conclude everything is fine outside the open source community, so there won't be a reckoning yet.
pjmlp 6y ago
Just use Firefox, or whatever else instead of increasing Chrome market share, regardless in whatever shape or form. It it like the iPhone, buying them and then complain they are restricted devices.

92 points by lazycrazyowl 6y ago

hkt 6y ago

It occurs to me that when the work is too much and people can't keep up, the solution is to pool resources. Many of the comments on that article talk about the reticence of package maintainers to continue with fiercely complex packages. That appears to be the real problem, aside from what sounds like constant gotchas imposed by Google. It feels like a solution is a cross distribution package with bundled dependencies, maybe through Flatpak or an AppImage.

1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago

I don't need Chrome/Safari/Edge/Brave/Opera to enjoy the web. I have image viewers, audio players and video players that do the same job. I have text-only browsers that are much faster for reading HTML. And I have numerous TCP clients that retrieve web pages and resources as fast and usually faster than "modern" browsers, and are always more reliable. Heck, the W3C's libwww project still compiles and works well behind haproxy/stunnel. The functionality I need is fast, reliable text and URL retrieval. I do need the big, graphcal browsers for online shopping, banking and so forth, but that is not what I am most of the time I am using the web. I do not need them to enjoy the web's content. I never expected I could survive without the graphics but it has been far easier than I thought, and it's getting easier.

kzrdude 6y ago

Tangent: Why do I so often get "connection interrupted" errors when trying to load lwn.net? (browser: firefox developer edition)

npteljes 6y ago

I don't get why these APIs are so essential that Chromium loses its value. Why would a browser need an API in the first place? I get conveniences like bookmark sync, and security features like avoiding malware domains, but one doesn't _need_ these to function, it's just somewhat more convenient or secure.

reportgunner 6y ago

Am I missing something ? Just export your bookmarks as HTML and e-mail them to yourself, why do you need google to do it for you ?

eecc 6y ago

Can’t they the API address, make it configurable or extract the implementation to support git repo format? It would be insanely useful if both chromium and Firefox supported the same backends.

codeflo 6y ago
That’s not a bad idea, but Google has no incentive to merge such an abstraction into Chromium mainline. You’d have to maintain it out of tree against a hostile upstream. I fear that’s impractical.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

ksec 6y ago

>Specifically, it's not worth it if no one uses it because they've switched to Chrome to get the functionality they want. Agreed with the overall comments in comment section. Seems like an overreaction or making a big deal out of nothing. Am I missing something?

kylebenzle 6y ago
Maybe. I think this single action cements Google as a bad actor and pulls the "open source" rug out from under Chrome. This ONE thing will be the defining factor in me dumping Google moving forward.
- onethought 6y ago
  Really, couldn’t one that cared about this just add bookmark syncing to chromium? Using some other service?
  - corty 6y ago
    One could, but the Chromium sourcecode provided by Google is a quickly moving target. So your patch will need to be updated very often. Distro maintainers are already complaining about Chromium being a lot of work because of the rate of change and build breakage. A patch will make that worse. Also, I would bet Google would do a few "neccessary" changes in the bookmark parts over the next releases, just to make your patch not work.
  - takluyver 6y ago
    The specific problem of syncing bookmarks is probably solvable with an extension. But the move suggests that Google doesn't view Chromium as something that people will use directly, like they're not interested in people using open source Android without their proprietary components. If they gradually make more and more pieces Chrome-only, it will get harder to make a relevant browser by forking Chromium, because there will be more to reimplement before people consider using it. And, of course, that makes perfect sense for Google. Chrome is no longer the scrappy insurgent. It's the king of the hill now, so it can start putting the fences up against competitors.

kylebenzle 6y ago

Great article. Essentially Google is removing Chromium's ability to sync via Chrome's servers, greatly reducing the usefulness of the open source version. I personally had long argued for the use of Chromium and this was a massive oversight of mine. I thought Chromium was a viable alternative to Chrome but no I realize Google's plan all along was probably to get their foot in the door then pull the "open source" rug out from us as soon as they could. More than anything this single action cements Google as a bad actor, one that should be avoided as much as possible moving forward. The more people refusing to use Google products moving forward the better.

corty 6y ago
Well, one could argue Chromium is now more compliant with the spirit of Free Software because it doesn't use Google's proprietary, closed, spying bookmark sync service anymore
cromwellian 6y ago
Chrome sync isn't why people use Chromium. So if a browser doesn't have bookmark sync to a central proprietary service, all of a sudden there's no point in using it? I'm a Google employee and I don't even use Chrome Sync for my non-corporate accounts.
npteljes 6y ago
I think your comment shows a misunderstanding of open source. Open source doesn't mean that a service is provided free of charge. You can just get the code, and that's it, no usability is implied. They absolutely don't pull the open source rug, in fact they are shining a light on how NOT open-source your Chromium experience was. I agree with one thing though: services are not to be trusted. They, or at least you, should have ways to migrate, as painlessly as possible.

xkvhs 6y ago

Doesn't make sense to me. Why would anyone want to have their bookmarks managed by Google if privacy is their goal. I understand that this is about features you get when you login into browser with your Google account, which I doubt people who value privacy will do anyway. Importing bookmarks (or managing them some other way) seems almost trivial compared to other challenges of using linux, I don't understand why there's such emphasis on this. As for spellchecker - perhaps having your text sent to Google in full is not something necessarily desirable. Maybe I'm missing something.

catchmeifyoucan 6y ago
I think it’s a harder play at new browsers being built on Chromium, rather than bare bones Chromium users. Take a look at Edge, Brave, Sidekick, Mighty, Browser Company. All being built on Chromium! Each platform now has to own their own identity service, making it harder for users to migrate.
cheph 6y ago
> Doesn't make sense to me. Why would anyone want to have their bookmarks managed by Google if privacy is their goal. I'm pretty sure you can encrypt your synced bookmarks: https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/165139?hl=en&visit_id=637472450015556894-3243664086&rd=1 https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/165139?hl=en&visit_... > With a passphrase, you can use Google's cloud to store and sync your Chrome data without letting Google read it. Your payment methods and addresses from Google Pay aren't encrypted by a passphrase. And why exactly does usage of Chromium imply more of privacy goal than usage of Chrome?
- herewegoagain2 6y ago
  Because presumably Chrome sends data about your browsing habits to Google, and Chromium does not.
  - cheph 6y ago
    Why would you presume this?

croes 6y ago

Isn't it similar with Android? Google deprecates features in AOSP and moves them to closed source apps. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on...

eloisant 6y ago
Yes. Chromium and AOSP are remains of the time when Google cared about Open Source. Today's Google just wants to be done with it.

paxys 6y ago

I'm happy with this change, regardless of the fact that it is forced. Why on earth were some of the most popular open source Linux distros relying on Google's servers to provide core functionality in the first place?

cheph 6y ago
Where else should Chromium have synced to? To fedora's sync servers? Why would fedora run those? Your outrage seems a bit misplaced to me. Chromium synching to google's servers is entirely what I expected, and it was always clear that it was doing it to me. I am unsure why anyone is surprised by this.
- paxys 6y ago
  There are probably hundreds of bookmark/profile/password syncing extensions out there, and most of them work cross-browser unlike Google's. Just let users pick whatever they want.
  - cheph 6y ago
    Who is not letting them pick what they want? You were not forced to use Chrome's sync features, but I am not aware of any extensions that will replace the Chromium sync functionality entirely or even mostly. And even if it did, it is not nearly as integrated of an experience.
    - paxys 6y ago
      People who want the convenience and don't care about syncing their Google account and sending their keystrokes to Google servers can always install Chrome. For Chromium, staying away from proprietary services by default is much more keeping with the spirit of open source.
      - npteljes 6y ago
        I agree wholeheartedly. Similarly to Android, people took AOSP and worked it into a full system. Google providing the APIs is even detrimental to the open source cause. Because of the convenience, people are not as hard-pressed for an alternative.

yarcob 6y ago

Do the people who use Chromium really sign into their Google account? If that's the case, you can just as well use Chrome itself. My assumption was that Chromium users would want a browser without all of Google's cruft.

tomc1985 6y ago
Yeah, this sounds like a win to me, given how much data even Chromium sends back to Google
cheph 6y ago
> Do the people who use Chromium really sign into their Google account? If that's the case, you can just as well use Chrome itself. I really don't understand why this is so surprising, if not Google's server with a google account, where? And yes, you could just as well use chrome, but Chromium is entirely open source, while Chrome is not. It may not matter to everyone, but it matters to some people. So yes you could get the same functionality from Chrome, but it has different non-functional characteristics which matter to some people. > My assumption was that Chromium users would want a browser without all of Google's cruft. The "cruft" like bookmark syncing, password syncing, etc, has to come from somewhere. Google was is good a place as any to me.
- ruph123 6y ago
  > The "cruft" like bookmark syncing, password syncing, etc, has to come from somewhere. Google was is good a place as any to me. More like: All that data is sent to the biggest advertisement company in the world. One has to wonder if they go through all the hassle of browser development for altruistic reasons or to make money off the gathered data? It is baffling to me that something being open-source is more important than not letting your data be harvested by advertisers, potentially law enforcement, etc.
- 0xy 6y ago
  Chromium is "open source", but it's still thoroughly infested with Google backdoors including X-Client-Data to DoubleClick, address bar autosuggest and other phone home telemetry.

godot 6y ago

I've been a casual Linux user on a personal laptop for years, and the way I've used Chromium is always as a "test on Chrome" tool on web app projects. Firefox is the daily driver browser. In that sense, I don't lose out much by not having all the synchronization features etc. But I would lose out much by not having Chromium available at all. A side point, the post mentions having to retry broken web sites in Chrome being a ritual for Firefox users -- I can't think of many instances where that has been the case over the years. In fact, in the past decade it has been rare for any web site to fail in one browser and work in another. I remember two distinct cases: 1) H2O Wireless's account management (and bill paying) which didn't work in Chrome, and their tech support actually advised to use Firefox at the time (which worked), 2) Web Skype in recent years, for a time, dropped support for Firefox but only by user agent sniffing -- I was in fact able to get it to work completely fine on Firefox by using a plugin that changed my user agent string to say Chrome.

ceceron 6y ago
I'm mainly a Firefox user, but there are two cases when I fall back to another browser (Brave, in my case): - I have to maintain two MS Teams account for the professional reasons. I use one account in the electron app, one in the Brave. So Brave is just a Teams client... (if somebody knows a better solution to handle multiple Teams accounts on desktop, I would be grateful for any tips) - I have so many privacy/security enhancing extensions in Firefox, that some pages render/work incorrectly. I'm too lazy to disable the extensions, so in case I really need such a page, I switch to Brave. Otherwise Firefox is more than enough, I would say more - it's better IMHO than currently available chromium clones.
- TrianguloY 6y ago
  If you need different profiles (like having different firefoxes installed, each with their own addons, themes, tabs, bookmarks, etc) you can use the built-in Profile manager [0]. I personally have a secondary profile for testing, with some test addons and different bookmarks. If you only need different sessions (different cookies) you can use the official Multi-Account add-on [1]. I personally use it to be logged in simultaneously in two different accounts on sites where this is not possible (like GitHub). [0] : https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-remove-switch-firefox-profiles https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-... [1] : https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account...

zubspace 6y ago

Is there really a reason to run Chrome or Chromium? I'm running Firefox since forever and I can't remember the last time I've seen a "Runs in Chrome only" banner? Why can't those Linux distributions just ship with Firefox? I don't get it.

br0kko 6y ago
Especially online video conferences have a tendency to require Chrome. Jitsi Meet works a lot better for everyone in the meeting due to (better?) Simulcast support. MS Teams and GoToMeeting outright refuse to work in Firefox.
cheph 6y ago
> Why can't those Linux distributions just ship with Firefox? I don't get it. Which distro does not?
- zubspace 6y ago
  You're right if course. What I mean is, would it hurt to just package firefox? Or is it really that important for some developers to have access to Chromium or Chrome?
  - depressedpanda 6y ago
    While Firefox is my main browser, if you're a web dev, you need access to Chrome/Chromium so that you can test that your stuff works in the most popular browser, if nothing else. Additionally, in my case, Chrome is the only browser that works with the Web Serial API, though other Blink based browsers ostensibly should support it.
  - szatkus 6y ago
    For sure if you want to use features that are only supported by Chrome. Also devtools are more comfortable and less buggy (seems that almost every React project I met would break Firefox at some point).
  - cheph 6y ago

smsm42 6y ago

How hard would it be to make an open-source bookmarks server that supports the same API without needing keys from Google? Of course, somebody will have to run them but I imagine distributions or some orgs could? We're talking here about implementing bookmarks sync, with the API already known (since it's client is implemented in the open-source Chromium). I mean I'm sure it'd require some work, but no "writing a new OS from scratch" level of work, rather "implement a simple API" level of work. Am I missing anything here?

paxys 6y ago
There are probably dozens of open source cross-browser syncing extensions out there. Installing them is already trivial, and bundling one of them in by default would probably be as well.
chaz6 6y ago
There is a public implementation [1] of the Firefox sync server, so you can host your own today. [1] https://github.com/mozilla-services/syncserver https://github.com/mozilla-services/syncserver
kalleboo 6y ago
I imagine the main reason people want bookmark sync is to sync their bookmarks to their Android or Apple smartphone, so you'd need a compatible browser on that end as well.
- smsm42 6y ago
  There are a number of non-Chrome browsers on Android - e.g. Brave. They'd probably be happy to use an open-source server. As for Apple, isn't it mandatory 100% Safari anyway?

pvg 6y ago

Dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25886218 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25886218

deanCommie 6y ago

Sorry, I don't understand reaction of the nix distro maintainers. Why is bookmark sync such a dealbreaker? Searching for "chrome extension bookmark sync" reveals already multiple 3rd party extensions that can offer this functionality, and building more seems like an elementary 2nd year university project. If the intent with distributing Chrome on nix is to help users handle "Site Only works on Chrome" use cases, then does it even matter if the browser is fully-featured or has bookmark sync? The whole thing feels like people have a bitter taste in their mouth, and want to react SOMEHOW to voice their displeasure...but it's a completely meaningless gesture that Google won't notice one iota. The only ones that will suffer are the users.

kalleboo 6y ago
Does Chrome on Android support extensions? Chrome on iOS? The only reason I use bookmark sync is to keep them synced to my phone.

jillesvangurp 6y ago

This post omits a few 'truths' to push an argument that is simply not there. 1) chromium is used by several other browsers: Edge, Brave, Opera, and probably a whole range of niche browsers I don't know about. Most of these, probably don't rely on Google provided services (I imagine that would create some funny legal issues). None of these browsers are mentioned in the article. 2) The APIs mentioned aren't exactly rocket science and perfectly good OSS implementations (e.g. provided by Mozilla) exist. Also, you could use extensions. For example, Bitwarden integrates nicely into chrome and largely removes the need for built in password managers. I think browser sync is perhaps the hardest of these. But even that should not be too hard to improvise. Cross browser sync would actually be a nice thing to have. 3) Firefox is there, it's being maintained, and you can use it. Many people do. Blanket stating that that is not an option is kind of weird. It's a fine browser. It doesn't have this problem. Chromium is also still a fine browser; and it supports extensions as mentioned before. 4) Forking/patching chromium is always an option. I think some linux distributions already do this in the same way that they also patch Firefox (Iceweasel).

DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
> It's a fine browser I wouldn't exactly argue that chrome is any better, but firefox isn't a good browser either. It's neither minimalistic, nor does it have many features and it most certainly isn't easily to customize. I've been an Opera user from version 12 (the last good opera) up to twenty-something, then switched to vivaldi a few years ago and never looked back. Even just in the current development version, vivaldi is getting support for calendars, mail and rss right in the browser, adding to the already present notes feature. What does firefox do in terms of UX innovation? Ant they certainly don't seem to be pumping that money into the under-the-hood components either, seeing how they still haven't managed to get @property working. Firefox is turning into the next internet explorer and it's not even googles fault. It's sad, but completely deserved.
- inpdx 6y ago
  I have an old 4gb ram 11" macbook air that's more or less dedicated to streaming video and music these days. For video, we use firefox over chrome because chrome stutters more. Firefox is smooth. I have no idea why, but I'm guessing the GC is implemented differently.

paxys 6y ago

I have been using Firefox as my daily driver for years and have yet to come across a single one of these "only works on Chrome" web sites that the author mentions. This entire paragraph is complete bullshit: > The larger problem, though, is that it's not at all clear that Firefox will remain a viable alternative to Chrome. Its market share has been falling for years, and not everybody is pleased with the directions that the Mozilla Foundation has taken. The creators of web sites have responded by not caring about Firefox; having to retry broken web sites in Chrome is a ritual that many Firefox users have had to get used to. It's not surprising that users give up and just run Chrome from the outset. Firefox is a great browser, and is getting better with every new version. Differences in standards compliance, JS implementation and even rendering is negligible between modern Chrome and Firefox. Mozilla is probably the only major entity challenging Google's dominance over web standards today, with even Microsoft having folded. I don't know where the author is coming from, but to me there is zero reason to use Chrome or Chromium over Firefox.

ForHackernews 6y ago
Maybe not "only" works on Chrome, but https://spatial.chat https://spatial.chat is one I've come across recently that claims to work "best" on Chrome. Some features of https://www.rocketlanguages.com/ https://www.rocketlanguages.com/ only work in Chrome. I'm a pretty dedicated Firefox user, but it's not a myth that more and more web shops are only bothering to test in Chrome.

mtgx 6y ago

After getting excited about Firefox Quantum and starting to use it for a while as my primary browser, I was very disappointed when they started switching back to the "shared" memory model, even from the "hybrid" architecture they used before. https://hacks.mozilla.org/2020/07/safely-reviving-shared-memory/ https://hacks.mozilla.org/2020/07/safely-reviving-shared-mem... Without fail, that made Firefox perform exactly as it used to before the Quantum transition - memory leaks galore, tabs hanging, videos slowing down to a crawl for a few seconds, and other nice stuff like that. I wish they wouldn't have gone back to sharing memory between tabs/processes. Chrome has always had the right idea, both performance and security wise - keep all processes isolated! The fact that this uses more memory, although something many like to nitpick about Chrome, is only a secondary issue compared to performance and security.

cromwellian 6y ago

B: I want a de-googled browser! I don't want my browser phoning home to Google! G: Ok, here's Chromium, with proprietary bits removed. B: You've removed access to proprietary Google APIs that allow the browser to send and store stuff on Google. G: Yeah, isn't that what you asked for? It's not very hard for someone to spec out an open protocol for an end-to-end browser profile sync service. Those who want complete control of privacy can then run their own servers/containers and sync their browser to them. Those who want Google integration can user Chrome, and later, write an extension that allows Chrome to also utilize whatever open sync protocol exists. There's too much whining, and too little coding. I think for the amount of time used to write articles like this, people could have already spec'ed out and MVP'ed such a service. This reminds me of the cypherpunks mailing list in the 90s. Like 95% of all the messages were political whining that X didn't exist, or Y doesn't do what they want, or bitching about the government. Eventually the hackers forked the 'coderpunks' mailing list, to work on actual solutions. Chromium is a giant gift horse of a codebase that doesn't need Google integration, because implementing a browser from scratch is almost like implementing Unix from scratch, it's an enormous undertaking. It works amazingly well in my Oculus Quest 2 with WebXR integration (and :( Facebook integration). Chromium is being used in wearables, smart home devices, automative dashboards, the same way linux is endlessly reused, even if the forks aren't all useful as desktop replacements. Thousands and thousands of products are being released thanks to OSS forks of AOSP, Chromium, or Linux, which if they didn't exist, would make life very hard for hackers and startup entrepreneurs who would have to pay enormous license fees, or do enormous amounts of work to bring up simple devices. I guess what I'm saying is, developers these days face a cornucopia of riches in the ecosystem, but instead, HN is filled full of threads of people virtue signaling like they're an oppressed minority population. There's a lot of things which are non-ideal about every major platform developers face, but the successful entrepreneurs shut out the noise, and find opportunities in filling in the gaps.

benjaminjosephw 6y ago
There's definitely room to be proactive here and build rather than complain but I think there's an issue to address beyond that. This is really anti-competitive behavior on a par with Microsoft's Embrace Extend Extinguish model[0]. Chromium filled a gap in the OSS market but, because it has non-free services baked in and provided without charge, it was able to outperform real FOSS alternatives. Removing access to those propriety features/services after the market has matured is like this leaves a much bigger gap that's much harder to fill than it would have been back when the market wasn't as mature. I think we do need to roll-up our sleeves and focus on building/supporting better alternatives but it's also important to be able to call out where the playing-fields aren't level so we can better cheer on those Davids willing to take on Goliath. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...

Havoc 6y ago

Not afraid of endless browser wars. End of the war and google left standing on the other hand...(more specifically the chromium derived stuff)

hkt 6y ago

Firefox has been an antitrust fig leaf for Google for some time, via the $300m or so in funding it receives from Google annually. Hard for regulators to come and force the issue under such circumstances unless something is desperately amiss. It is with some regret that I conclude everything is fine outside the open source community, so there won't be a reckoning yet.

pjmlp 6y ago

Just use Firefox, or whatever else instead of increasing Chrome market share, regardless in whatever shape or form. It it like the iPhone, buying them and then complain they are restricted devices.