5 ms·

> "Don't use X! Use Y instead!" > I believe multiple parties and players help us build a more open and standards based web. How is choosing Firefox over Chrom

> "Don't use X! Use Y instead!" > I believe multiple parties and players help us build a more open and standards based web. How is choosing Firefox over Chromium going to help in that regard? And why do you think Chromium is a monolithic browser stack by Google? How is it monolithic? I see plenty of "Chromium parts" forked and used in different environments on their own all the time. Blink, V8 or mixed combinations like CEF ... Also what makes you think it's "controlled by Google"? You say you want more open standards, but funnily enough Mozilla is one of those ignoring most new widely adopted and open standards because of ... well, some developer simply doesn't want Firefox to support it. See the "Web Serial API" for example.

Sebb767 5y ago
> How is choosing Firefox over Chromium going to help in that regard? Chromium is absolutely dominant in that space, since basically all major browsers except Safari and FF are based on it. Creating your own stack is hardly an option and Safari isn't forkable, so if you don't want to support the near-monopoly of the Chrome browser stack Firefox is the only option. Now, I do agree that FF made some very questionable decisions recently, but so did Chrome (see Manifest v3) and the way it's going right now, we'll have yet another Internet Exporer-like scenario on our hands soon.
- ekianjo 5y ago
  Internet explorer was proprietary. Bad analogy.
  - Sebb767 5y ago
    It's still mostly controlled by a single company. The fact that it's open source makes the situation a tad better, but it's still a lot of power and network effect centered on a single entity.
- mattkevan 5y ago
  Didn’t Google fork WebKit to make Chrome? If I remember correctly, the first few versions of Chrome were actually fully WebKit.
  - marcellus23 5y ago
    Yes, I guess by "Safari isn't forkable" he means the GUI application, but WebKit itself is definitely open-source and has been forked before (and is itself a fork of KHTML).
    - Sebb767 5y ago
      Indeed, that's what I meant. You can fork WebKit, but you don't start out with a working browser, like you would when forking Firefox or Chromium.

Sebb767 5y ago

> How is choosing Firefox over Chromium going to help in that regard? Chromium is absolutely dominant in that space, since basically all major browsers except Safari and FF are based on it. Creating your own stack is hardly an option and Safari isn't forkable, so if you don't want to support the near-monopoly of the Chrome browser stack Firefox is the only option. Now, I do agree that FF made some very questionable decisions recently, but so did Chrome (see Manifest v3) and the way it's going right now, we'll have yet another Internet Exporer-like scenario on our hands soon.

ekianjo 5y ago
Internet explorer was proprietary. Bad analogy.
- Sebb767 5y ago
  It's still mostly controlled by a single company. The fact that it's open source makes the situation a tad better, but it's still a lot of power and network effect centered on a single entity.
mattkevan 5y ago
Didn’t Google fork WebKit to make Chrome? If I remember correctly, the first few versions of Chrome were actually fully WebKit.
- marcellus23 5y ago
  Yes, I guess by "Safari isn't forkable" he means the GUI application, but WebKit itself is definitely open-source and has been forked before (and is itself a fork of KHTML).
  - Sebb767 5y ago
    Indeed, that's what I meant. You can fork WebKit, but you don't start out with a working browser, like you would when forking Firefox or Chromium.