4 ms·

Much good can come from this project even if it never hits a 1.0 release. The work to generate implemented standard API's, among other discoveries and innovati

Much good can come from this project even if it never hits a 1.0 release. The work to generate implemented standard API's, among other discoveries and innovations, can be incredibly useful to the web in general. While I am hopeful and rooting for ChromeOS, I also will be rooting for and supporting B2G. While they have different platform targets, moving common functionality to the browser is something they can compete and innovate with. Having more than one is always a benefit. Even if the particular route B2G takes is not one we care for, we can fork and improve at any time.

BrendanEich 15y ago
I like ChromeOS too -- it is "webbier" and more truly open source than Android. But why must there be only one? Monoculture is a problem. Mozilla's mission obligates us to fight it. Friends such as Dave Hyatt at Apple have told me that they want Gecko to keep evolving and competing with WebKit, to keep standards better interop-tested by two (or more) independent open source implementations. WebKit monoculture (on mobile, modulo numerous version and vendor bugs that make developers pull their hair out) is already becoming a problem. We've seen startups support WebKit-only browsers simply due to the startup's HTML and CSS requiring WebKit-only quirks. Shades of sites that worked only in IE in the early 2000s.