4 ms·

> All IPC happens using the Chromium IPC libraries Interesting that they chose to share code with Chrome. Since the two are competitors, I would have thought t

> All IPC happens using the Chromium IPC libraries Interesting that they chose to share code with Chrome. Since the two are competitors, I would have thought that they'd use completely separate implementations. It's interesting that open source makes this sharing possible.

timdiggerm 13y ago
If someone's already written a perfectly good solution that's readily available you either - pridefully write your own - use theirs
- arsenerei 13y ago
  I'm curious, why does pride come into the equation?
  - Mindless2112 13y ago
    If the existing implementation is perfectly good, writing your own is either pride, stupidity, or a learning exercise. I would take for granted that the Firefox developers aren't stupid, and that they have enough interesting work to do that they aren't going to spend time on it as a learning exercise.
    - arsenerei 13y ago
      Ah, okay. That feels a hyperbolic to be pride or stupidity, rather than just a poor analysis of the efficacy of an existing solution. Thank you for your response.
- baq 13y ago
  it took a bit of time for me to take serious pride in using other people's work. it's been so much easier to deliver anything since then.
- trustfundbaby 13y ago
  I don't think pride always enters into it, sometimes you just need diversity of thought around a problem. "We have to reinvent the wheel every once in a while, not because we need a lot of wheels; but because we need a lot of inventors." - Bruce Joyce
carnaval 13y ago
Yet (P)NaCl can go to hell. Brendan pls. (I am aware that a fully sandboxed JIT is more complex to integrate than an IPC library)
- tedmielczarek 13y ago
  The difference here is that we wanted to implement a multiprocess architecture. We don't want to implement (P)NaCl, since we don't think they're good for the web. We have no qualms with integrating code from other sources, we've done a lot of it. (Google Breakpad, WebRTC, numerous image and video decoding libraries, Freetype, libffi, ANGLE, the list goes on...)
  - mauricioc 13y ago
    As a further observation on this, Robert O'Callahan has a blog post [1] explaining Mozilla's stance on (not) implementing bad-for-the-web features; as an example to show this stance is long-lived, he mentions that engineers at Netscape/Mozilla implemented (in 1999) ActiveX support for Gecko, but kept it disabled by default on purpose despite a possible market share impact. [1] http://robert.ocallahan.org/2010/01/activex-all-over-again_25.html http://robert.ocallahan.org/2010/01/activex-all-over-again_2...
jonknee 13y ago
Mozilla is nearly entirely financed by Google, there isn't a sense of hate between the two organizations.
rbanffy 13y ago
> Interesting that they chose to share code with Chrome. Since the two are competitors, I would have thought that they'd use completely separate implementations. That's what open source is about: collaboration instead competition. Why compete when you can pool your resources together.
- wmf 13y ago
  Mozilla does have a habit of rejecting code like WebDB/SQLite and PNaCl, so people are always surprised to see them reusing code, especially from Google.
  - asadotzler 13y ago
    Those weren't rejections of code as much as they were rejections of specifications and features.
  - JohnBooty 13y ago
    I didn't know they had a history of rejecting SQLite - what are you referring to? They have used SQLite to store bookmarks since Firefox 3: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Places.sqlite http://kb.mozillazine.org/Places.sqlite But that doesn't mean they haven't rejected it elsewhere. Was just curious. Edit: I see now. The WebSQL de-facto standard, which Mozilla rejected, essentially said: "use SQLite." Here's a discussion: https://plus.google.com/+KevinDangoor/posts/PHqKjkcNbLU https://plus.google.com/+KevinDangoor/posts/PHqKjkcNbLU
evilpie 13y ago
I think we imported that code around 2010 and heavily modified it. We are also planning to use Chrome's sandboxing code for Windows.
dchest 13y ago
They also share NSS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Security_Services https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Security_Services (originally created by Netscape/Mozilla) and, I think, a few other things.

timdiggerm 13y ago

If someone's already written a perfectly good solution that's readily available you either - pridefully write your own - use theirs

arsenerei 13y ago
I'm curious, why does pride come into the equation?
- Mindless2112 13y ago
  If the existing implementation is perfectly good, writing your own is either pride, stupidity, or a learning exercise. I would take for granted that the Firefox developers aren't stupid, and that they have enough interesting work to do that they aren't going to spend time on it as a learning exercise.
  - arsenerei 13y ago
    Ah, okay. That feels a hyperbolic to be pride or stupidity, rather than just a poor analysis of the efficacy of an existing solution. Thank you for your response.
baq 13y ago
it took a bit of time for me to take serious pride in using other people's work. it's been so much easier to deliver anything since then.
trustfundbaby 13y ago
I don't think pride always enters into it, sometimes you just need diversity of thought around a problem. "We have to reinvent the wheel every once in a while, not because we need a lot of wheels; but because we need a lot of inventors." - Bruce Joyce

carnaval 13y ago

Yet (P)NaCl can go to hell. Brendan pls. (I am aware that a fully sandboxed JIT is more complex to integrate than an IPC library)

tedmielczarek 13y ago
The difference here is that we wanted to implement a multiprocess architecture. We don't want to implement (P)NaCl, since we don't think they're good for the web. We have no qualms with integrating code from other sources, we've done a lot of it. (Google Breakpad, WebRTC, numerous image and video decoding libraries, Freetype, libffi, ANGLE, the list goes on...)
- mauricioc 13y ago
  As a further observation on this, Robert O'Callahan has a blog post [1] explaining Mozilla's stance on (not) implementing bad-for-the-web features; as an example to show this stance is long-lived, he mentions that engineers at Netscape/Mozilla implemented (in 1999) ActiveX support for Gecko, but kept it disabled by default on purpose despite a possible market share impact. [1] http://robert.ocallahan.org/2010/01/activex-all-over-again_25.html http://robert.ocallahan.org/2010/01/activex-all-over-again_2...

jonknee 13y ago

Mozilla is nearly entirely financed by Google, there isn't a sense of hate between the two organizations.

rbanffy 13y ago

> Interesting that they chose to share code with Chrome. Since the two are competitors, I would have thought that they'd use completely separate implementations. That's what open source is about: collaboration instead competition. Why compete when you can pool your resources together.

wmf 13y ago
Mozilla does have a habit of rejecting code like WebDB/SQLite and PNaCl, so people are always surprised to see them reusing code, especially from Google.
- asadotzler 13y ago
  Those weren't rejections of code as much as they were rejections of specifications and features.
- JohnBooty 13y ago
  I didn't know they had a history of rejecting SQLite - what are you referring to? They have used SQLite to store bookmarks since Firefox 3: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Places.sqlite http://kb.mozillazine.org/Places.sqlite But that doesn't mean they haven't rejected it elsewhere. Was just curious. Edit: I see now. The WebSQL de-facto standard, which Mozilla rejected, essentially said: "use SQLite." Here's a discussion: https://plus.google.com/+KevinDangoor/posts/PHqKjkcNbLU https://plus.google.com/+KevinDangoor/posts/PHqKjkcNbLU

evilpie 13y ago

I think we imported that code around 2010 and heavily modified it. We are also planning to use Chrome's sandboxing code for Windows.

dchest 13y ago

They also share NSS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Security_Services https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Security_Services (originally created by Netscape/Mozilla) and, I think, a few other things.