4 ms·

If there is only one implementation, then whichever body (private, public, for profit, not for profit, doesn't matter) controls this implementation will control

If there is only one implementation, then whichever body (private, public, for profit, not for profit, doesn't matter) controls this implementation will control the direction of the entire web. It's the definition of consolidation and monopoly control. There is no reasonable argument to make for a Chromium only web from anyone without vested interests.

charcircuit 4y ago
It's open source. Anyone can fork it.
- kevincox 4y ago
  But the websites aren't. If chrome is the only browser websites will target chrome. Do if you fork it and remove features that you find harmful you now have a useless lump of software.
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    Chrome already has a large market share and a browser changing their browser engine doesn't necessarily change Chrome's market share.
- soapdog 4y ago
  Forking is easy. Maintaining and developing a browser engine is really hard. Most forks that make substantial changes to the original source are either maintained by a multimillion company or die without maintenance.
- bobajeff 4y ago
  Sadly, even if you don't fork Chromium and simply embed It via Electron or Chromium Embedded Framework you still won't be able to login in to some Google sites.
  - i5Aj7PXGjUPy 4y ago
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    If Firefox turned into a Chromium fork Google would work with them to make it work.
- goodpoint 4y ago
  That's far, far from enough.
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31834651 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31834651
_2paq 4y ago
> There is no reasonable argument to make for a Chromium only web from anyone without vested interests. It could be just apathy towards choice. I've observed this behavior among GNOME advocates as well. Some of them would rather see GNOME as the only de facto choice for a desktop environment on Linux and considering how it's installed by default on most major distributions, those words and their effect aren't far fetched.
- Santosh83 4y ago
  In the case of GNOME it is not apathy towards choice but corporate backing. Companies that do business with Linux like Redhat, Canonical, will benefit greatly if the vast number of options that the Linux ecosystem has can be culled to a certain approved stack, at least on their supported platforms. Since they also employ or sponsor a large amount of development within the ecosystem, other players are left either to grudgingly adopt them or seethe in frustration. KDE would've gone the way of Xfce etc had it not already had considerable momentum from the earliest days. Despite being an even larger collection of s/w than GNOME and strongly supported by SuSE, they're still second place by quite a way. That shows the power of big corporate money's ability to take over even ostensibly "FOSS" software that's theoretically free but practically still dominated by a few companies, perhaps trending towards an absolute monopoly in the future, like Google on the Web.
  - _2paq 4y ago
    > In the case of GNOME it is not apathy towards choice but corporate backing. That's what it looks like to me as well but whenever this is asserted, GNOME folks are quick to point out that they are understaffed and GNOME is a community project. I suppose we'll never know the reality. > Despite being an even larger collection of s/w than GNOME and strongly supported by SuSE I remember reading on HN that SuSE has people for GNOME developement but no one for KDE development. IIRC, they also ship with GNOME as the default choice. > That shows the power of big corporate money's ability to take over even ostensibly "FOSS" software that's theoretically free but practically still dominated by a few companies I've mentioned GNOME being similar to Android and Chromium in its nature of "look but don't touch" open source (unless you are part of their "community") but this hasn't been received well.

charcircuit 4y ago

It's open source. Anyone can fork it.

kevincox 4y ago
But the websites aren't. If chrome is the only browser websites will target chrome. Do if you fork it and remove features that you find harmful you now have a useless lump of software.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  Chrome already has a large market share and a browser changing their browser engine doesn't necessarily change Chrome's market share.
soapdog 4y ago
Forking is easy. Maintaining and developing a browser engine is really hard. Most forks that make substantial changes to the original source are either maintained by a multimillion company or die without maintenance.
bobajeff 4y ago
Sadly, even if you don't fork Chromium and simply embed It via Electron or Chromium Embedded Framework you still won't be able to login in to some Google sites.
- i5Aj7PXGjUPy 4y ago
- charcircuit 4y ago
  If Firefox turned into a Chromium fork Google would work with them to make it work.
goodpoint 4y ago
That's far, far from enough.
dredmorbius 4y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31834651 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31834651

_2paq 4y ago

> There is no reasonable argument to make for a Chromium only web from anyone without vested interests. It could be just apathy towards choice. I've observed this behavior among GNOME advocates as well. Some of them would rather see GNOME as the only de facto choice for a desktop environment on Linux and considering how it's installed by default on most major distributions, those words and their effect aren't far fetched.

Santosh83 4y ago
In the case of GNOME it is not apathy towards choice but corporate backing. Companies that do business with Linux like Redhat, Canonical, will benefit greatly if the vast number of options that the Linux ecosystem has can be culled to a certain approved stack, at least on their supported platforms. Since they also employ or sponsor a large amount of development within the ecosystem, other players are left either to grudgingly adopt them or seethe in frustration. KDE would've gone the way of Xfce etc had it not already had considerable momentum from the earliest days. Despite being an even larger collection of s/w than GNOME and strongly supported by SuSE, they're still second place by quite a way. That shows the power of big corporate money's ability to take over even ostensibly "FOSS" software that's theoretically free but practically still dominated by a few companies, perhaps trending towards an absolute monopoly in the future, like Google on the Web.
- _2paq 4y ago
  > In the case of GNOME it is not apathy towards choice but corporate backing. That's what it looks like to me as well but whenever this is asserted, GNOME folks are quick to point out that they are understaffed and GNOME is a community project. I suppose we'll never know the reality. > Despite being an even larger collection of s/w than GNOME and strongly supported by SuSE I remember reading on HN that SuSE has people for GNOME developement but no one for KDE development. IIRC, they also ship with GNOME as the default choice. > That shows the power of big corporate money's ability to take over even ostensibly "FOSS" software that's theoretically free but practically still dominated by a few companies I've mentioned GNOME being similar to Android and Chromium in its nature of "look but don't touch" open source (unless you are part of their "community") but this hasn't been received well.