6 ms·

IMO this is a great chance for Microsoft to take charge and try to get back in the browser game. They should fork Chromium and sign up all the others (Brave, V

IMO this is a great chance for Microsoft to take charge and try to get back in the browser game. They should fork Chromium and sign up all the others (Brave, Vivaldi, Opera) to help maintain the code base. Of course MS can afford to pitch in the maximum amount of resources, both human and financial. This way we will have a serious contender to Chrome in the industry and they can differentiate themselves meaningfully from Google's hegemony in the space. But they won't do it, it's hard to ignore those sweet potential ad monies.

rasz 4y ago
>Microsoft reported more than $10 billion in advertising revenue last year
zagrebian 4y ago
> They should fork Chromium Microsoft already did that. Edge uses Microsoft’s fork of Chromium.
- BidensBikeRide 4y ago
  Edge isn't a fork, it's just a Chromium browser. All of the horrible changes Google makes to Chromium affect Edge too
  - zagrebian 4y ago
    You’re wrong. Microsoft maintains a fork and continuously decides which changes to pull from Chromium’s source.
    - BidensBikeRide 4y ago
      It's not a fork. They have to go out of their way to exclude changes from chromium https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/c094uf/hi_reddit_were_the_team_behind_microsoft_edge_and/er31gr5/ https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/c094uf/hi_reddit_were...
      - zagrebian 4y ago
        > In general, the idea is that Edge developers check in their code to the internal Main branch. Code from Microsoft employees is joined by code pulled by the “pump” from the upstream Chromium project, with various sheriffs working around the clock to fix any merge conflicts between the upstream code pumped in and the code Microsoft engineers have added. Source: https://textslashplain.com/2022/08/04/understanding-browser-channels/ https://textslashplain.com/2022/08/04/understanding-browser-... Microsoft have their own branch, where they add Edge-specific changes, and they regularly pull changes from the Chromium source (probably not all changes) and merge them to their branch. If you don’t consider this a fork, then please explain why.
        BidensBikeRide 4y ago
        Forks diverge. Blink is a fork of Webkit, but Blink hardly resembles Webkit anymore. Blink doesn't pull any changes from Webkit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(software_development) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(software_development) >Eric S. Raymond, in his essay Homesteading the Noosphere,[12] stated that "The most important characteristic of a fork is that it spawns competing projects that cannot later exchange code, splitting the potential developer community" At this point I just want to add that I'm not a developer and I don't actually know much, I just read stuff online. But yeah, Edge isn't a fork
        zagrebian 4y ago
        Also from that Wikipedia article: > Distributed revision control (DVCS) tools have popularised a less emotive use of the term "fork", blurring the distinction with "branch".[14] With a DVCS such as Mercurial or Git, the normal way to contribute to a project, is to first create a personal branch of the repository, independent of the main repository, and later seek to have your changes integrated with it. Sites such as GitHub, Bitbucket and Launchpad provide free DVCS hosting expressly supporting independent branches, such that the technical, social and financial barriers to forking a source code repository are massively reduced, and GitHub uses "fork" as its term for this method of contribution to a project. On GitHub, if you fork somebody else’s repo, your version is called a fork. You don’t have to diverge. You don’t have to merge. You don’t have to do anything, but it’s still called a fork. Do you agree that this is how GitHub uses the term fork?
phpisthebest 4y ago
Microsoft should have based Edge on Mozilla's engine instead of blink, and should not have tried to get Mozilla to move to blink
AlphaSite 4y ago
It would have been good for the ecosystem to spin up around Firefox or WebKit, either would have been a less problematic entity than Blink.
Dalewyn 4y ago
The first problem with your (and a lot of peoples') proposal is the notion that a Chrome ripoff (aka a fork) is a valid competitor. If you're going to sell me a Chrome ripoff, I'll just use the real deal. It's the same reason why Firefox died: They tried/try to ripoff Chrome, and as a result everyone just moved/moves over to the real deal.
- Volundr 4y ago
  I'm confused by both your assertion Firefox is dead and that they tried to rip off Chrome. Can you clarify? I'm using Firefox specifically for a number of features chrome does not have.
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    >assertion Firefox is dead Firefox is (and has been) no longer a consideration in web development because of its tiny and thus inconsequential market share. Lest we forget, Firefox was once the market leader that usurped the position from IE6. >they tried to rip off Chrome The constant dumbing down and changing of the UI, removal of XUL in favor of WebAssembly (dropping Firefox extensions in favor of becoming compatible with Chrome extensions), moving to the Chrome Version Number system (we're on Firefox what again? 100? 150? 200?) to not look ancient comparatively, etc. I'm sincerely of the opinion Mozilla should just drop Gecko and move Firefox over to being another Chrome fork. It would be far more in line with Mozilla's goals of shipping a Chrome ripoff in vain attempts to steal Chrome users.
    - Volundr 4y ago
      > Firefox is (and has been) no longer a consideration in web development because of its tiny and thus inconsequential market share. Is 7.4% of desktop users [0] inconsequential? Maybe to your business, but I think most would be sad to lose 7% of desktop users. I'll also note if this indicates "death" Safari is dead too. I know XUL pissed off a lot of people, but I really don't think copying Chrome was the main motivation. XUL had a LOT of cruft and issues they wanted to escape and going to web extensions for some level of interoperability made sense, and looking at data from around that time [1] it doesn't appear to have cost them much of their user-base. It's also a perfect example of Firefox not copying Chrome, with Firefox supporting a ton of APIs Chrome doesn't or has removed [2]. As for the UI "copying" Chrome, I'm not sure how to respond to that. I just spun up vanilla profiles of Firefox and Chrome, and sure they both have tabs at the top, but they are pretty visually distinct. Yes Firefox has reduced the size of it's UI over the years, but if that's copying Chrome... I guess a lot of apps are. Firefox may be in decline, and that makes me sad, but I think that has a lot more to do with shitty developers using non-standard Chrome APIs and then telling users to use Chrome when it breaks, while GMail and other Google properties cripple Firefox performance, rather than Firefox blindly copying Chrome. Personally I hope this trend reverses. Firefox is the only thing stopping Chrome from becoming the next IE 6. [0] - https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worldwide/#monthly-202108-202208 https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worl... [1] - https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worldwide/#monthly-201709-201805 https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worl... [2] - https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/Browser_support_for_JavaScript_APIs https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...
lamontcg 4y ago
Or they (Brave, Vivaldi, Opera, etc) could use G̵e̵c̵k̵o̵ Quantum instead of Chromium.
- Mogzol 4y ago
  If that happens I suspect they would lose a large portion of their userbase to Firefox. The main selling point for a lot of people is that these browsers are basically Chrome without the Google stuff. If they change to Quantum, why would people not just use Firefox? Unlike Chrome, Firefox is already fairly privacy focused, there's not as much of an incentive for people to use alternative Firefox-based browsers. I currently use Brave, but if they switched to using Quantum I personally would just switch to Firefox proper.

rasz 4y ago

>Microsoft reported more than $10 billion in advertising revenue last year

zagrebian 4y ago

> They should fork Chromium Microsoft already did that. Edge uses Microsoft’s fork of Chromium.

BidensBikeRide 4y ago
Edge isn't a fork, it's just a Chromium browser. All of the horrible changes Google makes to Chromium affect Edge too
- zagrebian 4y ago
  You’re wrong. Microsoft maintains a fork and continuously decides which changes to pull from Chromium’s source.
  - BidensBikeRide 4y ago
    It's not a fork. They have to go out of their way to exclude changes from chromium https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/c094uf/hi_reddit_were_the_team_behind_microsoft_edge_and/er31gr5/ https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/c094uf/hi_reddit_were...
    - zagrebian 4y ago
      > In general, the idea is that Edge developers check in their code to the internal Main branch. Code from Microsoft employees is joined by code pulled by the “pump” from the upstream Chromium project, with various sheriffs working around the clock to fix any merge conflicts between the upstream code pumped in and the code Microsoft engineers have added. Source: https://textslashplain.com/2022/08/04/understanding-browser-channels/ https://textslashplain.com/2022/08/04/understanding-browser-... Microsoft have their own branch, where they add Edge-specific changes, and they regularly pull changes from the Chromium source (probably not all changes) and merge them to their branch. If you don’t consider this a fork, then please explain why.
      - BidensBikeRide 4y ago
        Forks diverge. Blink is a fork of Webkit, but Blink hardly resembles Webkit anymore. Blink doesn't pull any changes from Webkit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(software_development) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(software_development) >Eric S. Raymond, in his essay Homesteading the Noosphere,[12] stated that "The most important characteristic of a fork is that it spawns competing projects that cannot later exchange code, splitting the potential developer community" At this point I just want to add that I'm not a developer and I don't actually know much, I just read stuff online. But yeah, Edge isn't a fork
        zagrebian 4y ago
        Also from that Wikipedia article: > Distributed revision control (DVCS) tools have popularised a less emotive use of the term "fork", blurring the distinction with "branch".[14] With a DVCS such as Mercurial or Git, the normal way to contribute to a project, is to first create a personal branch of the repository, independent of the main repository, and later seek to have your changes integrated with it. Sites such as GitHub, Bitbucket and Launchpad provide free DVCS hosting expressly supporting independent branches, such that the technical, social and financial barriers to forking a source code repository are massively reduced, and GitHub uses "fork" as its term for this method of contribution to a project. On GitHub, if you fork somebody else’s repo, your version is called a fork. You don’t have to diverge. You don’t have to merge. You don’t have to do anything, but it’s still called a fork. Do you agree that this is how GitHub uses the term fork?

phpisthebest 4y ago

Microsoft should have based Edge on Mozilla's engine instead of blink, and should not have tried to get Mozilla to move to blink

AlphaSite 4y ago

It would have been good for the ecosystem to spin up around Firefox or WebKit, either would have been a less problematic entity than Blink.

Dalewyn 4y ago

The first problem with your (and a lot of peoples') proposal is the notion that a Chrome ripoff (aka a fork) is a valid competitor. If you're going to sell me a Chrome ripoff, I'll just use the real deal. It's the same reason why Firefox died: They tried/try to ripoff Chrome, and as a result everyone just moved/moves over to the real deal.

Volundr 4y ago
I'm confused by both your assertion Firefox is dead and that they tried to rip off Chrome. Can you clarify? I'm using Firefox specifically for a number of features chrome does not have.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  >assertion Firefox is dead Firefox is (and has been) no longer a consideration in web development because of its tiny and thus inconsequential market share. Lest we forget, Firefox was once the market leader that usurped the position from IE6. >they tried to rip off Chrome The constant dumbing down and changing of the UI, removal of XUL in favor of WebAssembly (dropping Firefox extensions in favor of becoming compatible with Chrome extensions), moving to the Chrome Version Number system (we're on Firefox what again? 100? 150? 200?) to not look ancient comparatively, etc. I'm sincerely of the opinion Mozilla should just drop Gecko and move Firefox over to being another Chrome fork. It would be far more in line with Mozilla's goals of shipping a Chrome ripoff in vain attempts to steal Chrome users.
  - Volundr 4y ago
    > Firefox is (and has been) no longer a consideration in web development because of its tiny and thus inconsequential market share. Is 7.4% of desktop users [0] inconsequential? Maybe to your business, but I think most would be sad to lose 7% of desktop users. I'll also note if this indicates "death" Safari is dead too. I know XUL pissed off a lot of people, but I really don't think copying Chrome was the main motivation. XUL had a LOT of cruft and issues they wanted to escape and going to web extensions for some level of interoperability made sense, and looking at data from around that time [1] it doesn't appear to have cost them much of their user-base. It's also a perfect example of Firefox not copying Chrome, with Firefox supporting a ton of APIs Chrome doesn't or has removed [2]. As for the UI "copying" Chrome, I'm not sure how to respond to that. I just spun up vanilla profiles of Firefox and Chrome, and sure they both have tabs at the top, but they are pretty visually distinct. Yes Firefox has reduced the size of it's UI over the years, but if that's copying Chrome... I guess a lot of apps are. Firefox may be in decline, and that makes me sad, but I think that has a lot more to do with shitty developers using non-standard Chrome APIs and then telling users to use Chrome when it breaks, while GMail and other Google properties cripple Firefox performance, rather than Firefox blindly copying Chrome. Personally I hope this trend reverses. Firefox is the only thing stopping Chrome from becoming the next IE 6. [0] - https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worldwide/#monthly-202108-202208 https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worl... [1] - https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worldwide/#monthly-201709-201805 https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worl... [2] - https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/Browser_support_for_JavaScript_APIs https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...

lamontcg 4y ago

Or they (Brave, Vivaldi, Opera, etc) could use G̵e̵c̵k̵o̵ Quantum instead of Chromium.

Mogzol 4y ago
If that happens I suspect they would lose a large portion of their userbase to Firefox. The main selling point for a lot of people is that these browsers are basically Chrome without the Google stuff. If they change to Quantum, why would people not just use Firefox? Unlike Chrome, Firefox is already fairly privacy focused, there's not as much of an incentive for people to use alternative Firefox-based browsers. I currently use Brave, but if they switched to using Quantum I personally would just switch to Firefox proper.