I'm not talking about an individual's security/privacy, it's more like a power/influence problem, which I consider more important when it comes to the big picture (and I believe the two are inherently tied together)
Conversation
as I said in another branch of the thread - a google derived/compatible codebase (in any way) results in proliferation of a non-free ecosystem where google has the final word - and this then results in things bad for the user - which is why I don't think it's ideal
1
In the same way that LLVM is not an Apple project anymore, AOSP and Chromium don't need to remain primarily Google projects. There are a bunch of companies and projects using both of those. Don't have to leave Google in charge of making all the upstream decisions for them.
1
1
chromium is very much google controlled and will remain that way (contributing any patches that aren't commercially interesting to them is a major pain and often are met with rejection)
I don't see AOSP being any different
llvm was never really an apple project per se
2
LLVM was as much of an Apple project as WebKit. Clang was entirely an Apple project from the start. Both of them transitioned to being controlled by a foundation not at all controlled by Apple. Various Google open source projects have gone through comparable transitions to that.
1
llvm wasn't even started at apple, and both llvm and webkit have been managed as actual open source projects with open contributions for as long as I can remember
with chromium and android this has *never* been the case
1
AOSP and Chromium are actual open source projects with actual open source contributions. Chromium is almost entirely developed in the open other than security fixes. AOSP is partly developed in the open and partly behind closed doors with code dumps (merges into AOSP) for those.
2
It doesn't matter where LLVM was started. Android wasn't started at Google. Google acquired it. Apple essentially acquired LLVM.
I'm really not sure how can you can claim that WebKit is a more collaborative project than Chromium. It's entirely not based on the actual reality.
1
because I contribute to webkit, and I'm well aware of how it is to contribute to chromium as well
1
result: those several KLOC of patches that I have to maintain downstream (rejected by google on the grounds "this is not important enough for us")
1
The same thing happens with the Linux kernel and most other open source projects. That's quite normal. Once you're an established contributor, you start having the influence to land things that the people responsible for the upstream project don't need themselves.
fwiw, in case of the ppc64le patches, not even a push from IBM helped; the patches have been lingering around for years now, with no issues with their quality
1
I've never seen any contribution in webkit where this would happen, you don't even need to go through a complicated CLA process and patches from individuals go in on regular basis (regardless of how much it matters to apple)
1
Show replies
You're also mixing talking about how things are with Chromium today with making very strong claims about how you can predict it to be in the future.
1
you're free to tell me "see, I told you" in the future
chromium and AOSP are too strategic projects for google right now for them to loosen any of their current influence on it