And what does OSS and the (sometimes exercised) threat of forking do to the equation? And, more locally to this thread, how much does not being able to deploy a fork further undermine the things you might hope OSS and diversity will achieve for the ecosystem?
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate @hashseed and
That is, if you value engine diversity, isn't what Apple has done on iOS the worst possible long-term outcome, undermining all the vectors along which competition and diversity can improve things?
3 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @hashseed and
I'm struggling to reconcile it too. The Safari-only situation on iOS has never felt good, but I suspect an issue many of us have is that the 1 engine that stands to dominate is run by a company w/ powerful business interests. It'd be different if we had say, 1 w3c-managed engine
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @scottjehl @slightlylate and
It's open source tho?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fardarter @scottjehl and
For all intents and purposes, it's Google's browser. React is open source. It's still a FB thing.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ChrisFerdinandi @scottjehl and
I'm not sure I agree with this take. MS can contribute or fork if they dislike Google's direction (certainly they have resources). Other people can fork it. Look at what Preact does. Open source makes a relevant difference here, I think.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fardarter @scottjehl and
When 70% of the market uses a tool owned by a corporation who's interest in browser making is "track users for ad purposes," this argument falls apart. Google IS chromium, and controls its direction. Edge is more-or-less a Google Chrome fork with some shitty MS features on top.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ChrisFerdinandi @scottjehl and
"owned by a corporation" I don't buy this premise and that's why I don't agree. If I did, I might by the argument. I don't think open source can be considered owned in the relevant way. Think MS is going to be all-in on this.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fardarter @scottjehl and
When MS starts contributing back into the project with the same level of vigor as Google, AND when they're interest in doing so isn't tied to their own ad-revenue or business interests, come back and let's chat. Until then, these browsers are literally business lines for orgs.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ChrisFerdinandi @fardarter and
Same with Brave. It's a company who gets you to pay bitcoin for content authors without even telling them about it. Their motive is profit. Firefox needs some work on the JS front, but their motives are different as a nonprofit.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
MSFT is investing a *ton*. Many, many, many patches thus far, and ramping up fast -- as you'd expect in a large OSS codebase. Have volunteered analysis tools, presented at BlinkOn, are improving many layers of Windows integration, etc. etc.
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate @ChrisFerdinandi and
Do you know if any/how many MSFT employees have a commit bit? (I don't know the org structure for Chromium at all, I'll see if I can find a page which documents it)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JakeDChampion @ChrisFerdinandi and
Commit bit comes after *lots* of patches, and it's ramping up. Still early days.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
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.