In that configuration, it only takes 34% of engines adopting that policy to stall all progress. So we should be clear and specific about what we want engine diversity to achieve. Ability to diverge/go-own-way? Perf competition? Feature pace? Ecosystem resilience?
I'm asking the community to honestly interrogate its priors. *Why* was monoculture bad? I can think of many reasons, but until we dispassionately investigate, we get hung up on the politics and can't see the situation clearly enough to change it.
-
-
I was a web developer back in the Bad Old Days. I remember. What I recall most was that compat constrained competitors when MSFT disbanded IE team in '01/'02. Proprietary gunk, no shared tests, no OSS, underdeveloped specs, etc.
-
How (or is) the world different today? How does that affect calculus? Folks shouting about engine diversity have to be able to answer what it's *for*.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
And I'm saying in no uncertain terms that "Google has an undo influence on what features get prioritized in implemented" under a non-monoculture. That would be worse without Firefox as a balancing force.
-
You're calling it "leadership." I'm calling it "corporate control of a shared, common resource."
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
& Web Standards TL; Blink API OWNER
Named PWAs w/
DMs open. Tweets my own; press@google.com for official comms.