12 ms·
At the risk of being downvoted and called out for my potential biases, I don't really buy the 'last bastion of hope' argument re: FF. I spend most my day trying
by parhamn 5y ago
At the risk of being downvoted and called out for my potential biases, I don't really buy the 'last bastion of hope' argument re: FF. I spend most my day trying to create a competitive alternative to chrome.
Heres my main reasoning: I trust open source and the governance and operations around it. Chromium the engine is open-source licensed permissively, way more hackable than Firefox, and has a ton of organizations work on it actively (even more if you include derivative projects like CEF and Electron)
The web standards are still driven via committee, theres now just a much more reliable and stable reference implementation. The economic incentives are still largely there to be a relatively good open source custodian (forking is easy and probably a better place to start anyway). If anything it feels more Linux-like in that sense too (common compatible core with lots of room for forking/creating distros).
The anti-competitive practices are IMO things like Widevine and Google properties blocking non-whitelisted browsers, which we should be talking about. The chromium convergence doesn't quite feel the same to me.
- Korici 5y agoI like the custodian approach with the open-source software.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- darkwater 5y ago> Heres my main reasoning: I trust open source and the governance and operations around it. Chromium the engine is open-source licensed permissively, way more hackable than Firefox, and has a ton of organizations work on it actively (even more if you include derivative projects like CEF and Electron) And what if they stop? Or what if they bring the development into something you don't like anymore? Hard forking a giant codebase like Chrome's is basically impossible for anyone nowadays, so you are stuck with Google's decisions for Blink and Chromium. We still need Firefox.