6 ms·

Because it selectively merges only patches which don't affect privacy, security, questionable standards, and adds new features. Honestly I don't know why you'r

Because it selectively merges only patches which don't affect privacy, security, questionable standards, and adds new features. Honestly I don't know why you're even asking this. It's literally the whole thread is about this: it's not a reskin, it's a fork. Is it "kind of weird" that it's at odds with Chrome's goals? No. Because if it wasn't at odds, it wouldn't exist, these people would be just Chrome/Chromium contributors. Chromium is open-source because they forked WebKit, and WebKit forked KHTML. Google were at odds with Apple when they forked WebKit to Blink, but the FOSS license allowed it. And lo and behold it has allowed it again. What's surprising here?

pkaye 3y ago
> Because it selectively merges only patches which don't affect privacy, security, questionable standards, and adds new features. If they used Gecko then these issues wouldn't exist and they would just have to add new features.
- 3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
  The point is to have Blink without the burden of Google's commercial interests. Firefox is already Gecko without the burden of Google's commercial interests (well, almost). Not sure why is everyone trying to sell Gecko here. Isn't Mozilla a good custodian to Gecko? Clearly if I take your opinion at face value, no. But why? Google is clearly not a good custodian for the most popular browser, their private interests are all over it. But the core engine is good.
  - K0nserv 3y ago
    Your's is an interesting angle that I hadn't thought of. I think the counter to it would be: Brave inadvertently helps Google, by improving Chromium, and it would be better if they inadvertently helped Mozilla, by improving Gecko. Building a browser engine is a big undertaking and I think most people would agree that more time and energy being invested in Gecko would be a good thing.
    - WorldMaker 3y ago
      Brave also inadvertently helps Google by contributing to the overall stats of Blink users and decreasing Firefox's visible marketshare. Firefox's shrinking marketshare marks it for "death" in a lot of little papercut ways. More users using Gecko would send more messages to web developers investing in which markets to pursue.
      - dividedbyzero 3y ago
        But what would be the point? For me Brave is essentially Firefox-level privacy with Chrome-level compatibility, performance and reliability. A Gecko-based Brave would be just Firefox with a few UI changes and maybe somewhat fewer compatibility issues until Google gets around to creating harder ones.
        Tijdreiziger 3y ago
        People keep talking about ‘compatibility issues’, but I’ve only encountered those a handful of times in over half a decade of using Firefox.
        3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
        Both engines are very good, but they've been diverging lately and web standards are introduced at a breakneck speed
- dahwolf 3y ago
  "Just" have to add new features? Do you have any idea how vast the web platform is these days?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jefftk 3y ago
> Because it selectively merges only patches which... This is probably pedantic, but I think the way they actually work is that they integrate all upstream changes, and then disable any behavior they don't want to support? Which means they can minimize their overall divergence, which is what you want for maintainability.
- Novosell 3y ago
  Which doesn't really describe a fork to me. At least not a hard fork, maybe the softest kind of fork there is.
  - lern_too_spel 3y ago
    It is clearly not a fork. They follow upstream Chromium and then apply patches, as explained here: https://github.com/brave/brave-browser#update-brave https://github.com/brave/brave-browser#update-brave. A fork diverges from a point and then doesn't rebase upstream after that. Eich is lying.

pkaye 3y ago

> Because it selectively merges only patches which don't affect privacy, security, questionable standards, and adds new features. If they used Gecko then these issues wouldn't exist and they would just have to add new features.

3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
The point is to have Blink without the burden of Google's commercial interests. Firefox is already Gecko without the burden of Google's commercial interests (well, almost). Not sure why is everyone trying to sell Gecko here. Isn't Mozilla a good custodian to Gecko? Clearly if I take your opinion at face value, no. But why? Google is clearly not a good custodian for the most popular browser, their private interests are all over it. But the core engine is good.
- K0nserv 3y ago
  Your's is an interesting angle that I hadn't thought of. I think the counter to it would be: Brave inadvertently helps Google, by improving Chromium, and it would be better if they inadvertently helped Mozilla, by improving Gecko. Building a browser engine is a big undertaking and I think most people would agree that more time and energy being invested in Gecko would be a good thing.
  - WorldMaker 3y ago
    Brave also inadvertently helps Google by contributing to the overall stats of Blink users and decreasing Firefox's visible marketshare. Firefox's shrinking marketshare marks it for "death" in a lot of little papercut ways. More users using Gecko would send more messages to web developers investing in which markets to pursue.
    - dividedbyzero 3y ago
      But what would be the point? For me Brave is essentially Firefox-level privacy with Chrome-level compatibility, performance and reliability. A Gecko-based Brave would be just Firefox with a few UI changes and maybe somewhat fewer compatibility issues until Google gets around to creating harder ones.
      - Tijdreiziger 3y ago
        People keep talking about ‘compatibility issues’, but I’ve only encountered those a handful of times in over half a decade of using Firefox.
        3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
        Both engines are very good, but they've been diverging lately and web standards are introduced at a breakneck speed
dahwolf 3y ago
"Just" have to add new features? Do you have any idea how vast the web platform is these days?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

jefftk 3y ago

> Because it selectively merges only patches which... This is probably pedantic, but I think the way they actually work is that they integrate all upstream changes, and then disable any behavior they don't want to support? Which means they can minimize their overall divergence, which is what you want for maintainability.

Novosell 3y ago
Which doesn't really describe a fork to me. At least not a hard fork, maybe the softest kind of fork there is.
- lern_too_spel 3y ago
  It is clearly not a fork. They follow upstream Chromium and then apply patches, as explained here: https://github.com/brave/brave-browser#update-brave https://github.com/brave/brave-browser#update-brave. A fork diverges from a point and then doesn't rebase upstream after that. Eich is lying.