6 ms·

That complexity is mostly due to Gecko, right? What's stopping Mozilla from switching to Blink? Does using Google's engine conflict with their mission? Edit: G

by dangwu 6y ago

That complexity is mostly due to Gecko, right? What's stopping Mozilla from switching to Blink? Does using Google's engine conflict with their mission? Edit: Getting downvotes for this honest question. I didn't realize that browser rendering engines held that much control. Apologies for the silly thought.

stefs 6y ago
that would be a monoculture disaster. monocultures are not resilient.
- Spivak 6y ago
  Not resilient to disease maybe but I'm sure webdevs will be overjoyed at having a much easier time porting sites. The power dynamic that matters is political not technical. Google doesn't really get to exert control over the web with their rendering engine or V8 it's the actual high-level browser policy that matters and Firefox doesn't actually have to follow any of it. Firefox gutted all of their internals with project Servo. If they had instead integrated Blink would it have been any different? I always think it's interesting what things people want to have diverse ecosystems with competing implementations (browsers) and what things people consider that an unnecessary duplication of effort (Wayland compositors).
  - ylyn 6y ago
    So you've seen the same person say both of that?
    - Spivak 6y ago
      We're on the internet. There's only one other human and the rest are bots. If you go into threads about Wayland the overwhelming public opinion is that having lots of compositors is silly. And then you go into threads about browsers the overwhelming public opinion is that having multiple browser implementations is sacred.
  - minikites 6y ago
    >Google doesn't really get to exert control over the web with their rendering engine or V8 Just because they're failing at it doesn't mean they're not trying (AMP, needless degradation of Google services in non-Chrome browsers, etc). They only have to succeed once.
    - Spivak 6y ago
      We're not disagreeing. Google is absolutely trying to exert control over the web but Blink and V8 aren't tools that can realistically help them with that. Especially in the hands of other teams that are free to carry patches. If Firefox became a Chrome skin then sure, v bad for the web. But if Firefox internally used Bink and V8 it's not really all that doom and gloom.
  - duhi88 6y ago
    Google routinely implements, fails to implement, and fails to deprecate features that align with their company goals (i.e. namely collecting lots of data). AMP, Browser Extension Manifest v3, cookie privacy features, ad-blocking features, file formats, and many more that most people have never heard of. Happens all the time. Without Webkit and Gecko, the web would simply be "whatever Google wants to do". Having multiple browser implementations helps balance out whatever Google's agenda is at any given time.
    - Spivak 6y ago
      Yes which is why Chrome dominance is a problem. This isn’t true for V8 and Blink any more than openssl is a tool for controlling the direction of browsers. The reason you have multiple implementations of JS and rendering/layout engines is because they provide a specific technical benefit, not a political one. The browser built on top doesn’t have to be anything like Chrome.
- wayneftw 6y ago
  Plenty of monocultures exist in the real world and we almost already have a Chrome/WebKit based monoculture. Where's the actual, non-theoretical disaster? Safari is the only browser that has any significant uptake (~20%) and Chromium was forked from WebKit, so all Chromium browsers already share a good chunk of their foundation with WebKit. You could say that we really almost have a WebKit monoculture since Firefox, the only non-Chromium/WebKit browser only has 3.65% of the market. [0] Heck, the vast majority of Internet servers and most of the clients are running on the Linux kernel but nobody is complaining about that. [0] https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share
minikites 6y ago
If every browser uses the same engine, then what's the point of web standards? We can replace HTML with binary blobs and make the web so fast!
jasonpeacock 6y ago
Why stop there? Why doesn't Mozilla switch to using Chrome? :)
- dangwu 6y ago
  Car manufacturers use parts (like engines) from other competitors all the time. I thought this could be similar with Mozilla, but I guess it was a silly thought.
  - slig 6y ago
    It'd be really hard to justify half billion dollars a year to just re-skin Chromium.
    - dangwu 6y ago
      Right. They wouldn't need that much money. That's my point.
  - jasonpeacock 6y ago
    To follow that analogy, it'd be like BMW using an engine from Ford. Their whole selling point is the engines, and how they are different from other manufacturers. I'm sure there are many backend libraries, parsers, etc. that are used by both Chrome and Firefox, but they're unlikely to replace significant components like that.
    - jasonpeacock 6y ago
      And to keep going...car manufacturers do use engines from other brands, but that's when they are owned by the same company. For example, you'll find Ford engines in Mazdas because Ford owned Mazda (or at least a chunk of it): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda#Partnership_with_Ford_Motor_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda#Partnership_with_Ford_Mo...
    - calvinmorrison 6y ago
      I own a Saab with a Ford engine! It's actually a V-4, two on each side, and it was most widely used to power skidsteers and industrial water pumps and the like. Saab didn't have the engineering capacity to design and launch a engine fast enough to keep up with environmental regulations (having used a two stroke engines up until the 60's!)
TheRealSteel 6y ago
The whole point of Firefox existing is too be an alternative to Blink. This is like asking why Pepsi doesn't just copy Coke's recipe.
- Spivak 6y ago
  This doesn't make any sense. Firefox is an alternative to Chrome, Edge, and Safari. Gecko is an alternative to Blink, Tident, and WebKit. It's cool to have multiple implementations but this analogy doesn't work since browser rendering engines are trying to produce identical results. You wouldn't say that PyPy exists as an alternative to Python, would you?
  - adkadskhj 6y ago
    > You wouldn't say that PyPy exists as an alternative to Python, would you? I think you would if Python (proper) was controlled by an anti-competitive information stealing superpower which is becoming increasingly disliked. Alternative backends to Python would be very important. Ensuring that the language is still usable in the event that the primary contributor goes full-tilt evil. With that said, i don't think it matters (personally) if Mozilla has their own engine _or_ browser, in the most strict sense. What matters is that both of those things have invested parties capable of forking and/or maintaining free and open source versions of those things in the event that Chrome (ala Google) goes full evil. It does seem that maintaining your own browser and rendering engine seem effective ways to ensuring you're capable of carrying the torch should Chrome disappear tomorrow. Hypothetically they could just maintain/develop directly into Blink and Chromium.
  - madeofpalk 6y ago
    This sounds very much like a distinction without a difference. The purpose of Firefox doesn't exist without Gecko, they both are to serve as an "independent" alternative force in the browser space.

by dangwu 6y ago

stefs 6y ago

that would be a monoculture disaster. monocultures are not resilient.

Spivak 6y ago
Not resilient to disease maybe but I'm sure webdevs will be overjoyed at having a much easier time porting sites. The power dynamic that matters is political not technical. Google doesn't really get to exert control over the web with their rendering engine or V8 it's the actual high-level browser policy that matters and Firefox doesn't actually have to follow any of it. Firefox gutted all of their internals with project Servo. If they had instead integrated Blink would it have been any different? I always think it's interesting what things people want to have diverse ecosystems with competing implementations (browsers) and what things people consider that an unnecessary duplication of effort (Wayland compositors).
- ylyn 6y ago
  So you've seen the same person say both of that?
  - Spivak 6y ago
    We're on the internet. There's only one other human and the rest are bots. If you go into threads about Wayland the overwhelming public opinion is that having lots of compositors is silly. And then you go into threads about browsers the overwhelming public opinion is that having multiple browser implementations is sacred.
- minikites 6y ago
  >Google doesn't really get to exert control over the web with their rendering engine or V8 Just because they're failing at it doesn't mean they're not trying (AMP, needless degradation of Google services in non-Chrome browsers, etc). They only have to succeed once.
  - Spivak 6y ago
    We're not disagreeing. Google is absolutely trying to exert control over the web but Blink and V8 aren't tools that can realistically help them with that. Especially in the hands of other teams that are free to carry patches. If Firefox became a Chrome skin then sure, v bad for the web. But if Firefox internally used Bink and V8 it's not really all that doom and gloom.
- duhi88 6y ago
  Google routinely implements, fails to implement, and fails to deprecate features that align with their company goals (i.e. namely collecting lots of data). AMP, Browser Extension Manifest v3, cookie privacy features, ad-blocking features, file formats, and many more that most people have never heard of. Happens all the time. Without Webkit and Gecko, the web would simply be "whatever Google wants to do". Having multiple browser implementations helps balance out whatever Google's agenda is at any given time.
  - Spivak 6y ago
    Yes which is why Chrome dominance is a problem. This isn’t true for V8 and Blink any more than openssl is a tool for controlling the direction of browsers. The reason you have multiple implementations of JS and rendering/layout engines is because they provide a specific technical benefit, not a political one. The browser built on top doesn’t have to be anything like Chrome.
wayneftw 6y ago
Plenty of monocultures exist in the real world and we almost already have a Chrome/WebKit based monoculture. Where's the actual, non-theoretical disaster? Safari is the only browser that has any significant uptake (~20%) and Chromium was forked from WebKit, so all Chromium browsers already share a good chunk of their foundation with WebKit. You could say that we really almost have a WebKit monoculture since Firefox, the only non-Chromium/WebKit browser only has 3.65% of the market. [0] Heck, the vast majority of Internet servers and most of the clients are running on the Linux kernel but nobody is complaining about that. [0] https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share

minikites 6y ago

If every browser uses the same engine, then what's the point of web standards? We can replace HTML with binary blobs and make the web so fast!

jasonpeacock 6y ago

Why stop there? Why doesn't Mozilla switch to using Chrome? :)

dangwu 6y ago
Car manufacturers use parts (like engines) from other competitors all the time. I thought this could be similar with Mozilla, but I guess it was a silly thought.
- slig 6y ago
  It'd be really hard to justify half billion dollars a year to just re-skin Chromium.
  - dangwu 6y ago
    Right. They wouldn't need that much money. That's my point.
- jasonpeacock 6y ago
  To follow that analogy, it'd be like BMW using an engine from Ford. Their whole selling point is the engines, and how they are different from other manufacturers. I'm sure there are many backend libraries, parsers, etc. that are used by both Chrome and Firefox, but they're unlikely to replace significant components like that.
  - jasonpeacock 6y ago
    And to keep going...car manufacturers do use engines from other brands, but that's when they are owned by the same company. For example, you'll find Ford engines in Mazdas because Ford owned Mazda (or at least a chunk of it): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda#Partnership_with_Ford_Motor_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda#Partnership_with_Ford_Mo...
  - calvinmorrison 6y ago
    I own a Saab with a Ford engine! It's actually a V-4, two on each side, and it was most widely used to power skidsteers and industrial water pumps and the like. Saab didn't have the engineering capacity to design and launch a engine fast enough to keep up with environmental regulations (having used a two stroke engines up until the 60's!)

TheRealSteel 6y ago

The whole point of Firefox existing is too be an alternative to Blink. This is like asking why Pepsi doesn't just copy Coke's recipe.

Spivak 6y ago
This doesn't make any sense. Firefox is an alternative to Chrome, Edge, and Safari. Gecko is an alternative to Blink, Tident, and WebKit. It's cool to have multiple implementations but this analogy doesn't work since browser rendering engines are trying to produce identical results. You wouldn't say that PyPy exists as an alternative to Python, would you?
- adkadskhj 6y ago
  > You wouldn't say that PyPy exists as an alternative to Python, would you? I think you would if Python (proper) was controlled by an anti-competitive information stealing superpower which is becoming increasingly disliked. Alternative backends to Python would be very important. Ensuring that the language is still usable in the event that the primary contributor goes full-tilt evil. With that said, i don't think it matters (personally) if Mozilla has their own engine _or_ browser, in the most strict sense. What matters is that both of those things have invested parties capable of forking and/or maintaining free and open source versions of those things in the event that Chrome (ala Google) goes full evil. It does seem that maintaining your own browser and rendering engine seem effective ways to ensuring you're capable of carrying the torch should Chrome disappear tomorrow. Hypothetically they could just maintain/develop directly into Blink and Chromium.
- madeofpalk 6y ago
  This sounds very much like a distinction without a difference. The purpose of Firefox doesn't exist without Gecko, they both are to serve as an "independent" alternative force in the browser space.