It's open source tho?
-
-
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 @scottjehl and
I'm all for overthrowing capitalism, but it seems a heavy ask for discussing the merits of browsers.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fardarter @scottjehl and
Chrome is a wonderful, very capable browser whose primary purpose is to spy on your browsing habits for profit, and whose rendering engine Google has primary control over. This should not be controversial, and it should be fairly obvious why a monoculture around it would be bad.
5 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ChrisFerdinandi @fardarter and
The inability to separate Chrome-the-browser and Chromium-the-project is deeply problematic in this coversation. Until/unless folks here learn to make a distinction, no light will come from this heat (whatever your view).
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @ChrisFerdinandi and
I appreciate that they're different but would love to know more. Is there a good reference on how chromium's direction is steered independently of Google's priorities?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
See our process for launching features in Blink: https://www.chromium.org/blink/launching-features …
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate @scottjehl and
You’re right, and I’m sorry for my role in that. For you, is the desired end state “every browser uses Chromium and/or Blink,” or something else?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ChrisFerdinandi @scottjehl and
I don't want engine homogeneity, but I put a higher value on the web not dying. So it's a question of first vs. second-order values. My ideal is healthy competition *with* timely feature availability. I think that's long-term possible.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 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.