4 ms·

It seems strange to compare an open source engine to the IE era. IE sucked because it stagnated technically, the engine isn't the issue with Chrome, it's the bu

It seems strange to compare an open source engine to the IE era. IE sucked because it stagnated technically, the engine isn't the issue with Chrome, it's the business incentives of Google that are at odds with some of the things users want in the browser as a product or service.

t-writescode 4y ago
If the majority of the chromium engineers are Google employees, this seems like a distinction without a difference.
- Barrin92 4y ago
  the difference is that with open source software there is always the implicit threat to just fork the thing or discard what you don't want as say, Brave does. The Linux kernel is largely developed and sponsored by big tech and that has never offended anyone precisely for that reason. The optionality afforded by the fact that anyone can walk away limits what a bad actor can do, that's one of the biggest selling points of open source software.
Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
Why wouldn't chrome stagnate technically when there is no competition? Developing it isn't exactly cheap, and manager with looming quarterly reportsb is very likely to make a sensible decision and defund the project, leaving a few developers to fix some critical bugs. No?
- zamadatix 4y ago
  There are a lot of companies and a lot of managers interested in keeping Chromium/Blink+V8 developed (Google, Microsoft, any big name using Node/Electron, other Chromium based browsers like Vivaldi, Brave, and Opera) so it's pretty hard for the Chromium project to just get defunded and stagnate outright like happened with closed source single developer IE. Google is by far the most active of the group but they are also the ones paying Safari, a browser with <20% usage share, ~$15,000,000,000/year for just the Google search deal so they understand the value of keeping their browser good enough to stay the most popular of the group instead of just dropping it. I'm sure the extra browsing analytics don't hurt either. While I agree it'd be better if we lived in a world there were 5 separate major browser engines all neck and neck using 5 separate huge sources of funding I also agree the Chromium based browser monoculture doesn't feel or function like the IE monopoly did. If anything I've almost wondered if e.g. Mozilla's resources would be better spent being another Chromium based build that insures development of functionality Google refuses to maintain (like proper blocking APIs) instead of trying to compete 1:1 on every line of code.

t-writescode 4y ago

If the majority of the chromium engineers are Google employees, this seems like a distinction without a difference.

Barrin92 4y ago
the difference is that with open source software there is always the implicit threat to just fork the thing or discard what you don't want as say, Brave does. The Linux kernel is largely developed and sponsored by big tech and that has never offended anyone precisely for that reason. The optionality afforded by the fact that anyone can walk away limits what a bad actor can do, that's one of the biggest selling points of open source software.

Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago

Why wouldn't chrome stagnate technically when there is no competition? Developing it isn't exactly cheap, and manager with looming quarterly reportsb is very likely to make a sensible decision and defund the project, leaving a few developers to fix some critical bugs. No?

zamadatix 4y ago
There are a lot of companies and a lot of managers interested in keeping Chromium/Blink+V8 developed (Google, Microsoft, any big name using Node/Electron, other Chromium based browsers like Vivaldi, Brave, and Opera) so it's pretty hard for the Chromium project to just get defunded and stagnate outright like happened with closed source single developer IE. Google is by far the most active of the group but they are also the ones paying Safari, a browser with <20% usage share, ~$15,000,000,000/year for just the Google search deal so they understand the value of keeping their browser good enough to stay the most popular of the group instead of just dropping it. I'm sure the extra browsing analytics don't hurt either. While I agree it'd be better if we lived in a world there were 5 separate major browser engines all neck and neck using 5 separate huge sources of funding I also agree the Chromium based browser monoculture doesn't feel or function like the IE monopoly did. If anything I've almost wondered if e.g. Mozilla's resources would be better spent being another Chromium based build that insures development of functionality Google refuses to maintain (like proper blocking APIs) instead of trying to compete 1:1 on every line of code.