4 ms·

So because we don't have enough browser competition, we should have one browser monopoly? Your cure is worse than the disease.

by ootachi 15y ago

batista 15y ago
I never said we should have browser monopoly. I said, a 0-day covering 100% of browsers compared to one covering 40-50% of browsers ain't much of a difference. That said, a single browser engine used is not a browser monopoly. For one, because a browser is more than the browser engine used. So you can have browsers with the same engine (Chrome, Webkit, Konqueror, ...) competing on the GUI front. Second, you can even add new rendering features and options ON TOP of the same rendering engine. Webkit has stuff that Chrome does not, even in the browser engine department. It just means that you have the bases covered with ONE codebase, with more compatibility, and you don't have to reinvent any "wheels", ie. things you have to get working the same way anyway, as is the rendering of a DIV, for example. So this also takes care of the "competition" in HTML implementation issue. Third, a monopoly (when considered a bad thing) implies some way to abuse that power. The use of a single open source browser engine provides none, since no one in particular controls it. Besides, anyone can still write a better browser engine if you want, and even cherry pick parts of the single 99% popular engine.
- ootachi 15y ago
  You're implying that nobody in particular controls WebKit? That is patently false. And the distinction between a browser engine monopoly and a browser monopoly is irrelevant to this discussion. We're talking about browser engines here. Furthermore, suggesting that people can add "new rendering features and options" on top of WebKit solves nothing! Those would just have to be prefixed in the same way, or would be incompatible, and we're back to square one.
  - batista 15y ago
    You're implying that nobody in particular controls WebKit? That is patently false. "When you assume", well, you know the rest... I only say that neither Apple nor Google (or Amazon, Samsung, QT, KDE, etc) control Webkit now. If all of them control it, thats not a monopoly of control. Plus, it's open source. If you want to toil at it for free, or throw millions of money to take it to the direction you want, you are able to. And the distinction between a browser engine monopoly and a browser monopoly is irrelevant to this discussion. We're talking about browser engines here. We're talking about innovation re: browsers, in this particular THREAD (threads can diverge from the main post point, and such innovation can also happen at the browser level. Plus, I ALSO covered the engine monopoly with respect to browser rendering innovation. Furthermore, suggesting that people can add "new rendering features and options" on top of WebKit solves nothing! Those would just have to be prefixed in the same way, or would be incompatible, and we're back to square one. Only I didn't say this AS a solution to the prefixing issue --which I didn't address at all. What I addressed was that a "single browser engine" != "rendering innovation stops", because innovation can happen ON TOP of a single browser engine as well as on top of different engines.

So because we don't have enough browser competition, we should have one browser monopoly? Your cure is worse than the disease.

by ootachi 15y ago

So because we don't have enough browser competition, we should have one browser monopoly? Your cure is worse than the disease.

batista 15y ago

I never said we should have browser monopoly. I said, a 0-day covering 100% of browsers compared to one covering 40-50% of browsers ain't much of a difference. That said, a single browser engine used is not a browser monopoly. For one, because a browser is more than the browser engine used. So you can have browsers with the same engine (Chrome, Webkit, Konqueror, ...) competing on the GUI front. Second, you can even add new rendering features and options ON TOP of the same rendering engine. Webkit has stuff that Chrome does not, even in the browser engine department. It just means that you have the bases covered with ONE codebase, with more compatibility, and you don't have to reinvent any "wheels", ie. things you have to get working the same way anyway, as is the rendering of a DIV, for example. So this also takes care of the "competition" in HTML implementation issue. Third, a monopoly (when considered a bad thing) implies some way to abuse that power. The use of a single open source browser engine provides none, since no one in particular controls it. Besides, anyone can still write a better browser engine if you want, and even cherry pick parts of the single 99% popular engine.

ootachi 15y ago
You're implying that nobody in particular controls WebKit? That is patently false. And the distinction between a browser engine monopoly and a browser monopoly is irrelevant to this discussion. We're talking about browser engines here. Furthermore, suggesting that people can add "new rendering features and options" on top of WebKit solves nothing! Those would just have to be prefixed in the same way, or would be incompatible, and we're back to square one.
- batista 15y ago
  You're implying that nobody in particular controls WebKit? That is patently false. "When you assume", well, you know the rest... I only say that neither Apple nor Google (or Amazon, Samsung, QT, KDE, etc) control Webkit now. If all of them control it, thats not a monopoly of control. Plus, it's open source. If you want to toil at it for free, or throw millions of money to take it to the direction you want, you are able to. And the distinction between a browser engine monopoly and a browser monopoly is irrelevant to this discussion. We're talking about browser engines here. We're talking about innovation re: browsers, in this particular THREAD (threads can diverge from the main post point, and such innovation can also happen at the browser level. Plus, I ALSO covered the engine monopoly with respect to browser rendering innovation. Furthermore, suggesting that people can add "new rendering features and options" on top of WebKit solves nothing! Those would just have to be prefixed in the same way, or would be incompatible, and we're back to square one. Only I didn't say this AS a solution to the prefixing issue --which I didn't address at all. What I addressed was that a "single browser engine" != "rendering innovation stops", because innovation can happen ON TOP of a single browser engine as well as on top of different engines.