Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Browsers

adactio.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 316 posts

Re: Browsers

#51

Post by ben-schaaf »

EGreg wrote: post #40

Can I question the orthodoxy on this one? Suppose WebKit or Blink are the one engine that everyone uses. Do you know how much uncertainty and effort that will save around the world that goes into browser compatibility and quirks? Look at the x86 architecture or POSIX as well. Here is my serious practical question: this is open source, so if you want to make some extension, you should be able to distribute it. And if…

x86 and POSIX are actually great comparisons to the current state of browsers. They all have well defined standards that everyone should follow in theory. In practice CPUs have bugs[0] that kernels and applications make a lot of effort to work around. There are also enough implementation/non-compliance quirks in POSIX[1][2] implementations to matter when porting. Just like all of the web standards, x86 and POSIX don't solve the compatibility problems that come from innovation.

[0] https://wiki.osdev.org/CPU_Bugs

[1] https://personal.opengroup.org/~ajosey/tr28-07-2003.txt

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Standard_Base

Re: Browsers

#52

Post by dak1 »

I'm not sure this changes as much as people keep saying. Microsoft isn't completely abandoning browser development, and it will still have (sometimes strong) opinions on the development of the web.

The conversation though will shift from conversations in external organizations between stakeholders, to conversations in a shared codebase between stakeholders.

In some cases this could be better, as it means we will have fewer occurrences where there's agreement on a feature, but implementation lags in 1 browser. Instead, adoption of many features should now be quicker, while debate about larger or more controversial features will still exist.

Re: Browsers

#53

Post by pcwalton »

eddieroger wrote: post #45

I feel like I’m missing something, because I keep seeing blog posts that tell me a browser monoculture is bad (and the irony of Microsoft saying this is nearly too much), but none of them tell me why. I understand that it was bad in the IE6 days, but IE6 was also closed source and could only be run on Windows (see also the irony of Microsoft discontinuing IE on Mac, not wanting to compete with Safari, a browser made…

> Sure, Google may be at the reigns of where the project goes, but then differentiate on features, or fork it and make it different.

And if the fork diverges, then what? This is not a theoretical concern: Blink and WebKit are now quite different, and it's best to regard them as two different rendering engines. Is that bad?

> Maybe the rendering engine should be more akin to the Linux kernel and less akin to Windows?

This presupposes that the Linux kernel is at an optimum point in the design space. It's pretty clear to me that it isn't. In fact, I think the monoculture around open source kernels has been bad for OSS. I look forward to Fuchsia providing some much-needed competition, much in the same way LLVM provided much-needed competition to GCC.

Re: Browsers

#54

Post by pcwalton »

koboll wrote: post #25

Meh. I don't buy it. First of all, individual boycotts will never, ever overcome a collective action problem, so a fundamentally futile solution is being proposed here. Plus, this is only bad if Google act destructively evil and no one steps in to change it. If the endgame is control of Chromium being passed from Google to a neutral foundation -- which I suspect it will be -- then everyone wins. It's always seemed in…

> If the endgame is control of Chromium being passed from Google to a neutral foundation -- which I suspect it will be -- then everyone wins.

There is zero chance of that happening. Like all public companies, Google acts in its own self-interest. Google controls Chromium, and there is absolutely no benefit to Google to hand control of Chromium over to an outside entity. 98% of all patches to Blink are reviewed by a Google employee.

If establishing a foundation were going to happen, then it would have happened when Apple and Google were still collaborating on WebKit.

Re: Browsers

#55

Post by austincheney »

eddieroger wrote: post #45

I feel like I’m missing something, because I keep seeing blog posts that tell me a browser monoculture is bad (and the irony of Microsoft saying this is nearly too much), but none of them tell me why. I understand that it was bad in the IE6 days, but IE6 was also closed source and could only be run on Windows (see also the irony of Microsoft discontinuing IE on Mac, not wanting to compete with Safari, a browser made…

IE, at its height, was available outside windows. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_for_Mac

At that time, 2001-2002, IE6 was highly praised. You don’t get to 96% marketshare by being something everybody hates. The hate came later when CSS demand ramped up and it became clear IE6 used a non-standard box model. Worse still MS essentially abandoned the browser, the result of total marketshare dominance, and tied it directly to the operating system.

The reason people are complaining about this is the lack of diversity. This has proven very bad in the past. It essentially makes the platform a proprietary space even if the dominant browser is open source. The key here is who directs the technology and direction of the platform.

Re: Browsers

#56

Post by pcwalton »

tolmasky wrote: post #23

The biggest danger to the web in terms of control right now is browser monopoly , not engine monopoly . And this move is probably the most effective way at combatting that. I think this is the right move at this time not just for Microsoft, but for the web. Borrowing from a previous comment I made, think of it this way: do you think it helps or hurts Google to have every version of Windows come pre-installed with wha…

> I can't wait to see what the same company that gave us VSCode is able to build on top of Blink, and eventually separate from Blink.

The situation here is very different from WebKit and Blink. Google was already the plurality contributor to WebKit at the time of the fork. By contrast, Microsoft has contributed virtually nothing to Blink, and they intend to be identical to upstream Chromium. Microsoft is not going to fork Blink.

Blink is completely controlled by Google. (98% of Blink patches are reviewed by a Google employee.) This means that Google has complete control over the direction of the Web platform. While Google may not be able to set the default search engine in Edge, it has and will exert more subtle influence on the Web as a platform in ways that benefit Google. (Just to name one example, Chromium has deployed whitelists of Google properties for NaCl support.)

Re: Browsers

#57

Post by newscracker »

This move by Microsoft may probably help Microsoft have Windows users using its browser, but I seriously doubt if it's good for the web.

There are people claiming that Microsoft could easily fork from Chromium, but honestly, do you see that happening in the next few years? Having read that Microsoft's Edge team was a very small one, I don't believe Microsoft will fork Chromium anytime in the next two or three years (no financial incentive, which could be a big motive, to do so)...and that's a long time to keep pushing the Chrome/Chromium way ("what Google wants for the web").

As an aside, I very much liked this article linked within, titled "The ecological impact of browser diversity" by Rachel Nabors. [1]

To all those who evangelize Firefox, please also see if you can donate money to Mozilla. It may seem like Mozilla has a lot of money (more than 90% coming from Google for being the default search engine added in the browser), but this is not enough, and could turn to be nothing if Firefox's market share becomes next to nothing and Google decides to pull the plug when the current contract expires. Partnerships with Bing (or other search engines that not many people use) may not bring in as much money to Mozilla.

Read about all the work that Mozilla does (aka "not just Firefox") in its "State of Mozilla 2017" annual report. [2] The audited financial report is here. [3]

[1]: https://css-tricks.com/the-ecological-impact-of-browser-dive...

[2]: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2017/

[3]: https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2017/mozilla-fdn-201...

Re: Browsers

#58

Post by the_clarence »

eddieroger wrote: post #45

I feel like I’m missing something, because I keep seeing blog posts that tell me a browser monoculture is bad (and the irony of Microsoft saying this is nearly too much), but none of them tell me why. I understand that it was bad in the IE6 days, but IE6 was also closed source and could only be run on Windows (see also the irony of Microsoft discontinuing IE on Mac, not wanting to compete with Safari, a browser made…

You are right. A monoculture IS a good thing for browsers engine.

Re: Browsers

#59

Post by oooglaaa »

newscracker wrote: post #57

This move by Microsoft may probably help Microsoft have Windows users using its browser, but I seriously doubt if it's good for the web. There are people claiming that Microsoft could easily fork from Chromium, but honestly, do you see that happening in the next few years? Having read that Microsoft's Edge team was a very small one, I don't believe Microsoft will fork Chromium anytime in the next two or three years (…

So the only competitor to Google’s monopoly on web browsers is... funded almost entirely by Google? Yikes

Re: Browsers

#60

Post by dewiz »

eddieroger wrote: post #45

I feel like I’m missing something, because I keep seeing blog posts that tell me a browser monoculture is bad (and the irony of Microsoft saying this is nearly too much), but none of them tell me why. I understand that it was bad in the IE6 days, but IE6 was also closed source and could only be run on Windows (see also the irony of Microsoft discontinuing IE on Mac, not wanting to compete with Safari, a browser made…

> the irony of Microsoft saying this is nearly too much

Where is Microsoft saying that?

Problems with monoculture: lack of innovation, a single agenda being pushed forward, anti-competitive behavior. Google doesn’t want technology X? X is dead. Google thinks Ad platform Y is bad? Y is dead. etc

Post reply on HN