3 ms·

Market share is relevant to your argument because it determines the standards that determine engine complexity. > turning web browsers into operating systems w

Market share is relevant to your argument because it determines the standards that determine engine complexity. > turning web browsers into operating systems won't break the current monopolies, because it's the same companies in either case False. Linux is a perfectly great mainstream desktop option thanks largely to web apps (+Electron). Basically everything's available. How incredible is that? Or swap Linux with any other alternative. The fact is you can make an indie engine right now. It won't support most of the web, but then again you don't want any of that to exist because of the additional barriers to entry for engines. So what's the problem? Make it. In your world, somehow every platform vendor stops making web browsers, and we might have a bunch of browsers with 0.1% marketshare. How? Ludicrous. And proprietary browser plugins, really? So you're not looking to reduce complexity after all, then? Again I don't think you've thought it through.

lapcat 1y ago
> Market share is relevant to your argument because it determines the standards that determine engine complexity. I talked about two different things, (1) what is and (2) what should be. (1) "The web standards bodies are a joke now because of the dominance of these few companies over web browsers". (2) "the web standards should be so simple that a little indie developer could write a full-fledged web browser." You appear to be criticizing (2) by assuming (1), but (1) is the opposite of (2). The latter is an ideal, not the sad reality. > Linux is a perfectly great mainstream desktop option Linux is not a mainstream desktop option, because consumers can't walk into a computer retailer and buy a desktop running Linux. That's why Linux has a practically nonexistent consumer market share. Of course techies can run Linux, though I wouldn't call Electron apps "great" by any measure. > In your world, somehow every platform vendor stops making web browsers, and we might have a bunch of browsers with 0.1% marketshare. How? Ludicrous. It was purely a hypothetical scenario. The point of the hypothetical scenario was to explain why market share shouldn't be relevant to standards (as I also explained at the beginning of this comment). > And proprietary browser plugins, really? They were in fact not all proprietary and are not necessarily proprietary. What's wrong with modularity? Some software vendors can specialize in HTML/CSS, some in video, etc. > Again I don't think you've thought it through. You can disagree with me, but these continuing, unnecessary, personal, condescending comments are in violation of the HN guidelines. Please stop.
- tomxor 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - tomhow 1y ago
    > This is absurd, you need to stop invoking HN guidelines inappropriately just because someone (far more respectfully than me) disagrees with you. Grow up. I don't know how a discussion about browser engines ended up here, but please don't comment like this, no matter who or what you're responding to. You're a longtime user whom we've not had to warn for several years, but we need everyone to avoid behaving like this on HN. Longtime users should be the ones to de-escalate heated discussions and raise the standards on HN, not drag them downward.
the_other 1y ago
> we might have a bunch of browsers with 0.1% marketshare. How? Ludicrous. And proprietary browser plugins, really? Such a market works for cars (kinda), vacuum cleaners, hifi, golf clubs, burgers, synthesisers, sofas, buildings, DIY tools, dresses, shoes. We also had more browsers back in the 00s, and into the early '10s. So, yes. Really.
tomxor 1y ago
> And proprietary browser plugins, really? So you're not looking to reduce complexity after all, then? Maybe they haven't lived through the world of pain that was Silverlight, Flash and Java Applets et al. I suppose from a more innocent position without any history it might seem like a good idea to break complexity out into little modules, but the reality was poor integration, more platform lockin, and a security nightmare.

lapcat 1y ago

> Market share is relevant to your argument because it determines the standards that determine engine complexity. I talked about two different things, (1) what is and (2) what should be. (1) "The web standards bodies are a joke now because of the dominance of these few companies over web browsers". (2) "the web standards should be so simple that a little indie developer could write a full-fledged web browser." You appear to be criticizing (2) by assuming (1), but (1) is the opposite of (2). The latter is an ideal, not the sad reality. > Linux is a perfectly great mainstream desktop option Linux is not a mainstream desktop option, because consumers can't walk into a computer retailer and buy a desktop running Linux. That's why Linux has a practically nonexistent consumer market share. Of course techies can run Linux, though I wouldn't call Electron apps "great" by any measure. > In your world, somehow every platform vendor stops making web browsers, and we might have a bunch of browsers with 0.1% marketshare. How? Ludicrous. It was purely a hypothetical scenario. The point of the hypothetical scenario was to explain why market share shouldn't be relevant to standards (as I also explained at the beginning of this comment). > And proprietary browser plugins, really? They were in fact not all proprietary and are not necessarily proprietary. What's wrong with modularity? Some software vendors can specialize in HTML/CSS, some in video, etc. > Again I don't think you've thought it through. You can disagree with me, but these continuing, unnecessary, personal, condescending comments are in violation of the HN guidelines. Please stop.

tomxor 1y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- tomhow 1y ago
  > This is absurd, you need to stop invoking HN guidelines inappropriately just because someone (far more respectfully than me) disagrees with you. Grow up. I don't know how a discussion about browser engines ended up here, but please don't comment like this, no matter who or what you're responding to. You're a longtime user whom we've not had to warn for several years, but we need everyone to avoid behaving like this on HN. Longtime users should be the ones to de-escalate heated discussions and raise the standards on HN, not drag them downward.

the_other 1y ago

> we might have a bunch of browsers with 0.1% marketshare. How? Ludicrous. And proprietary browser plugins, really? Such a market works for cars (kinda), vacuum cleaners, hifi, golf clubs, burgers, synthesisers, sofas, buildings, DIY tools, dresses, shoes. We also had more browsers back in the 00s, and into the early '10s. So, yes. Really.

tomxor 1y ago

> And proprietary browser plugins, really? So you're not looking to reduce complexity after all, then? Maybe they haven't lived through the world of pain that was Silverlight, Flash and Java Applets et al. I suppose from a more innocent position without any history it might seem like a good idea to break complexity out into little modules, but the reality was poor integration, more platform lockin, and a security nightmare.