4 ms·

Funny how their posts show such a different approach to their browser than Braves. E.g. forking Firefox not Chromium, implementing functionality as extension in

by x4e 5y ago

Funny how their posts show such a different approach to their browser than Braves. E.g. forking Firefox not Chromium, implementing functionality as extension instead of in browser where possible...

scoopertrooper 5y ago
> If all browsers end up using Blink (Google), the Web will suffer as developers will only optimize and test for the Blink rendering engine. Am I the only one that thinks that this would be a good thing? Like the entire industry sharing the same core open source technology? Write a website once and it works perfectly across all platforms?
- Karunamon 5y ago
  Problem is, this means ceding what amounts to control of the browser, and so, the internet experience, to a privacy invasive megacorp. Were it a nonprofit trust, I'd be right there with you. But not a for-profit company, and sure as HELL not Google.
- toyg 5y ago
  Chromium is nominally open source - in practice it's controlled by Google employees in any way that matters. So you would literally be handing full control over the web-experience to Google.
  - aembleton 5y ago
    Nothing would stop it being forked. If for example, Microsoft wanted something added then they could fork it; add their code and use that in Edge.
    - hellotomyrars 5y ago
      Nothing stops them but considering they've gone the route of "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" after fighting for so long, I doubt they're likely to diverge significantly at this stage.
- rglullis 5y ago
  No monopoly or monoculture, even if open source, is good. It is not just about the features that you think makes your life better, you have also to consider the potential catastrophic bugs that could be exploited and leave everyone without an alternative. Evolution only happens when there is divergence and competition.
  - aloisdg 5y ago
    > Evolution only happens when there is divergence and competition. Not when we can a have a logic stable and well made standard. Like the metric system. I am pretty sure that I would have a problem with any alternative to the metric system. The more we are to use it the better it become. Evolution can and thrive through cooperation and mutual aid. I would be fine with having one standard implementation of a browser engine if it was not rule by a greedy corporate like Google, Apple or Microsoft.
    - Karunamon 5y ago
      The problem there is that metric basically equates to math at the end of the day, I don't think those are directly comparable. It would be very strange (and new) to have one and only one implementation of an entire class of software, instead of a technical standard with multiple different implementations.
  - scoopertrooper 5y ago
    Well we're already effectively at monoculture. The only other rendering engine that has any meaningful market share is Apple's fork of Webkit. I disagree that with the proposition that a single open source project with broad industry representation would hinder evolution. Companies like Google and Microsoft don't compete on their ability to support the various web specs, but on quality of the web applications they can deliver to customers. Competition in this space will continue to drive innovation even with a single agreed upon rendering engine. It would, however, limit the ability of a company like Apple to hobble their only-supported browser such that web apps can't compete with native ones.
    - 5y ago
- hawski 5y ago
  This site works best in IE6 at 800x600.
  - jonathansampson 5y ago
    Those were the days! I was just explaining to my children yesterday how computer games were played in 640x480 when I was their age. I remember designing websites for that resolution too; still impresses me what we were able to do with so few pixels, lol.
- x4e 5y ago
  > all platforms Chrome doesn’t even support all platforms. It probably wouldn’t run on my car’s display for example. If the web followed an open standard that wouldn’t be a problem: the car manufacturer could make their own browser. And not everyone wants to use chrome/blink because the development is in practice entirely run my google who do not have consumer interests in mind.
- maverick74 5y ago
  You surely are too young to remember the IE6 shithole monopoly we were all in when - MOZILLA - ALONE saved us. It's not that having a common rendering engine for everyone would be bad. What's bad is having 1 company (or a few) for-profit companies controlling that rendering engine. They don't give a shit about you!
- hellotomyrars 5y ago
  Depends mostly on the terms you choose to evaluate it. Certainly that is one upside, but the downsides are pretty clear as well. Chromium is an open-source base but it is still very much spearheaded and dragged by the whims of Google, and if there is no other game in town they have even less of a reason to avoid decision that might not be in the best interest of users. Additionally, you lose even more meaningful competition that drives improvement. Obviously you don't lose it all as your different chromium flavors do implement different bells and whistles but those are much narrower in scope. It continues to be ironic and concerning that Firefox exists at the whims of Google paying to be the default search, but in some ways that helps them with potential antitrust cases as well. I think we have a lot more to lose than gain if we fully collapse into a Blink/Chromium singularity.

by x4e 5y ago

Funny how their posts show such a different approach to their browser than Braves. E.g. forking Firefox not Chromium, implementing functionality as extension instead of in browser where possible...

scoopertrooper 5y ago

> If all browsers end up using Blink (Google), the Web will suffer as developers will only optimize and test for the Blink rendering engine. Am I the only one that thinks that this would be a good thing? Like the entire industry sharing the same core open source technology? Write a website once and it works perfectly across all platforms?

Karunamon 5y ago
Problem is, this means ceding what amounts to control of the browser, and so, the internet experience, to a privacy invasive megacorp. Were it a nonprofit trust, I'd be right there with you. But not a for-profit company, and sure as HELL not Google.
toyg 5y ago
Chromium is nominally open source - in practice it's controlled by Google employees in any way that matters. So you would literally be handing full control over the web-experience to Google.
- aembleton 5y ago
  Nothing would stop it being forked. If for example, Microsoft wanted something added then they could fork it; add their code and use that in Edge.
  - hellotomyrars 5y ago
    Nothing stops them but considering they've gone the route of "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" after fighting for so long, I doubt they're likely to diverge significantly at this stage.
rglullis 5y ago
No monopoly or monoculture, even if open source, is good. It is not just about the features that you think makes your life better, you have also to consider the potential catastrophic bugs that could be exploited and leave everyone without an alternative. Evolution only happens when there is divergence and competition.
- aloisdg 5y ago
  > Evolution only happens when there is divergence and competition. Not when we can a have a logic stable and well made standard. Like the metric system. I am pretty sure that I would have a problem with any alternative to the metric system. The more we are to use it the better it become. Evolution can and thrive through cooperation and mutual aid. I would be fine with having one standard implementation of a browser engine if it was not rule by a greedy corporate like Google, Apple or Microsoft.
  - Karunamon 5y ago
    The problem there is that metric basically equates to math at the end of the day, I don't think those are directly comparable. It would be very strange (and new) to have one and only one implementation of an entire class of software, instead of a technical standard with multiple different implementations.
- scoopertrooper 5y ago
  Well we're already effectively at monoculture. The only other rendering engine that has any meaningful market share is Apple's fork of Webkit. I disagree that with the proposition that a single open source project with broad industry representation would hinder evolution. Companies like Google and Microsoft don't compete on their ability to support the various web specs, but on quality of the web applications they can deliver to customers. Competition in this space will continue to drive innovation even with a single agreed upon rendering engine. It would, however, limit the ability of a company like Apple to hobble their only-supported browser such that web apps can't compete with native ones.
  - 5y ago
hawski 5y ago
This site works best in IE6 at 800x600.
- jonathansampson 5y ago
  Those were the days! I was just explaining to my children yesterday how computer games were played in 640x480 when I was their age. I remember designing websites for that resolution too; still impresses me what we were able to do with so few pixels, lol.
x4e 5y ago
> all platforms Chrome doesn’t even support all platforms. It probably wouldn’t run on my car’s display for example. If the web followed an open standard that wouldn’t be a problem: the car manufacturer could make their own browser. And not everyone wants to use chrome/blink because the development is in practice entirely run my google who do not have consumer interests in mind.
maverick74 5y ago
You surely are too young to remember the IE6 shithole monopoly we were all in when - MOZILLA - ALONE saved us. It's not that having a common rendering engine for everyone would be bad. What's bad is having 1 company (or a few) for-profit companies controlling that rendering engine. They don't give a shit about you!
hellotomyrars 5y ago
Depends mostly on the terms you choose to evaluate it. Certainly that is one upside, but the downsides are pretty clear as well. Chromium is an open-source base but it is still very much spearheaded and dragged by the whims of Google, and if there is no other game in town they have even less of a reason to avoid decision that might not be in the best interest of users. Additionally, you lose even more meaningful competition that drives improvement. Obviously you don't lose it all as your different chromium flavors do implement different bells and whistles but those are much narrower in scope. It continues to be ironic and concerning that Firefox exists at the whims of Google paying to be the default search, but in some ways that helps them with potential antitrust cases as well. I think we have a lot more to lose than gain if we fully collapse into a Blink/Chromium singularity.