4 ms·

When Google wants a feature implemented in Chromium, it gets implemented, pretty much regardless of how buggy it is. When I want a feature implemented and Googl

When Google wants a feature implemented in Chromium, it gets implemented, pretty much regardless of how buggy it is. When I want a feature implemented and Google wants it not implemented… tough luck.

moonchrome 5y ago
Is that different with Firefox? I haven't been paying attention in a while now but I constantly read complaints about UI changes - and Firefox has it's share of experimental features that ended up being exploited or abuse (asm.js comes to mind).
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  It's not much different with Firefox, no. I was making a point that browser monopolies are bad; the fact we only have three real browser engines (two of which are based on Konqueror) is a problem. But at least Mozilla do a basic back-of-the-envelope “is this feature a huge security vulnerability” check before shipping. (Looking at you, <portal>.)
- blihp 5y ago
  Only in the sense that when Google wants a new web standard the Firefox devs need to be convinced before it happens there. That has stopped a few, but not all, user hostile things from becoming defacto standards over the years.
eternityforest 5y ago
When Google invents a feature I want, Mozilla writes a position statement on how it's evil and never implements it. It's hard to get behind engine diversity when Mozilla is trying to take the web in a direction I don't really want. Meanwhile Brave does the same thing, but with Cryptocurrency. I wish we had an open source clone of Vivaldi.
- bkberry352 5y ago
  What features are you referring to?
  - extra88 5y ago
    FLoC may be one that could be characterized as “evil.” I mainly think about APIs that extend beyond the browser, like USB or Bluetooth, that Firefox won’t do for security reasons.
    - eternityforest 5y ago
      Those are the features I was thinking of. FLoC seems to be pretty irrelevant to anyone not directly working on ad infrastructure, so I'm fine with Mozilla ditching that.
weaksauce 5y ago
Just look at the most recent changes to webextensions that chrome is trying to do... basically solely to make ad blocking nigh impossible. That's why browser diversity matters.

moonchrome 5y ago

Is that different with Firefox? I haven't been paying attention in a while now but I constantly read complaints about UI changes - and Firefox has it's share of experimental features that ended up being exploited or abuse (asm.js comes to mind).

wizzwizz4 5y ago
It's not much different with Firefox, no. I was making a point that browser monopolies are bad; the fact we only have three real browser engines (two of which are based on Konqueror) is a problem. But at least Mozilla do a basic back-of-the-envelope “is this feature a huge security vulnerability” check before shipping. (Looking at you, <portal>.)
blihp 5y ago
Only in the sense that when Google wants a new web standard the Firefox devs need to be convinced before it happens there. That has stopped a few, but not all, user hostile things from becoming defacto standards over the years.

eternityforest 5y ago

When Google invents a feature I want, Mozilla writes a position statement on how it's evil and never implements it. It's hard to get behind engine diversity when Mozilla is trying to take the web in a direction I don't really want. Meanwhile Brave does the same thing, but with Cryptocurrency. I wish we had an open source clone of Vivaldi.

bkberry352 5y ago
What features are you referring to?
- extra88 5y ago
  FLoC may be one that could be characterized as “evil.” I mainly think about APIs that extend beyond the browser, like USB or Bluetooth, that Firefox won’t do for security reasons.
  - eternityforest 5y ago
    Those are the features I was thinking of. FLoC seems to be pretty irrelevant to anyone not directly working on ad infrastructure, so I'm fine with Mozilla ditching that.

weaksauce 5y ago

Just look at the most recent changes to webextensions that chrome is trying to do... basically solely to make ad blocking nigh impossible. That's why browser diversity matters.