3 ms·
“Chromium browsers” are not actual forks, they’re still the same Chrome. What they could do, as GP suggested, is actually fork an existing engine and start wit
by bunga-bunga 3y ago
“Chromium browsers” are not actual forks, they’re still the same Chrome.
What they could do, as GP suggested, is actually fork an existing engine and start with a working foundation that’s already compatible with the existing web.
Note: Google did it, they forked WebKit and now nobody calls Edge a “WebKit browser”
Today people complain that Safari and Firefox are “the new IE” because they don’t keep up with the slew of updates Chrome pushes out. Nobody wants to support a third, brand-new super-buggy-forever engine.
It’s an interesting bet, but incredibly high-risk or relegate to obscurity.
- Sakos 3y agoOh, right. Didn't see it from that angle, my bad. All the current "forks" of Chromium basically rely on continued development by Google, saving them from having to invest in all the engineers necessary to work on, maintain and develop a proper fork. So they can limit the size of their engineering teams to what's necessary for developing surface-level features like vertical tabs (Edge) or built-in adblocking and ... uh ... crypto (Brave). I'd say Microsoft throwing in the towel and building a flavour of Chromium instead shows that there's no corporation out there that's going to be willing to make a real fork. The only reason why Ladybird exists at all is because it's a part of SerenityOS, which was started because the founder wanted to make his own OS for daily use. Like, of course the guy's gonna write his own browser instead of just forking Chromium.