If there is only one implementation, then whichever body (private, public, for profit, not for profit, doesn't matter) controls this implementation will control the direction of the entire web. It's the definition of consolidation and monopoly control. There is no reasonable argument to make for a Chromium only web from anyone without vested interests.
It's open source. Anyone can fork it.
But the websites aren't. If chrome is the only browser websites will target chrome. Do if you fork it and remove features that you find harmful you now have a useless lump of software.
We did this on ourselves. As everyone was laughing at Internet Explorer, another behemoth was overtaking IE and nothing was in their way. Mozilla (Firefox) was our chance for something different. They were ahead of IE once but they watched on and did nothing whilst they had their pockets lined up with Google's money and allowed them (Google) to overtake everyone and now everyone is complaining about it. It even goes…
What was Mozilla supposed to do? Google could advertise their browser to everyone who used Google Search, just like how Microsoft could with Windows. Mozilla did not have any products with that kind of reach.
It's not what Mozilla was supposed to do, it's what we here were supposed to do. Everyone here should have switched to Firefox already. That would make a difference in the long run by both direct and indirect effects. Just hunker down, do your part and eat your spinach already.
Probably we have to start again with something different in the same way as the web replaced all the other protocols (gopher, usenet etc). I’m not what that looks like but it should be cleaner, simpler, open and blockchain-free.
> I’m not what that looks like but it should be cleaner, simpler, open and blockchain-free. You’re asking for an open network and then putting restrictions on individuals right away by saying they can’t use blockchains on it. Some people want to use blockchains (or any other technology) and an open network shouldn’t put restrictions on how people participate.
> Firefox is responsible for such a low percentage it's sad (the stats I have for the sites I work on it's usually on the 1-2% range). I think it's mainly because of the horrible leadership at Mozilla. I want to use Firefox and promote it but every time I think they've changed Mozilla does something new that boils my blood. This is repeated ad nauseum on this site and needs to be called out. The Mozilla management ma…
Yes but before the tech community was all fire for Firefox. IT-guys installed it on work computers, school computers etc. We would recommend it to our families and install it for our less techy family when they would need our assistance. Firefox had the IT-sector with them. I think this does a lot for spreading the usage. Even just one IT-guy can probably give Firefox hundreds of users. Now, this is no longer the cas…
Given the direction Brendan Eich has pursued at Brave, I'm personally very glad he didn't remain as Mozilla's CEO, regardless of political views.
Edit: Also, I don't think it's particularly reasonable to single out an individual being funded by Mozilla without a very good explanation as to why. Is there something that Leil Zahra has done which makes you think they are inappropriate to be associated with Mozilla? Or are you just upset by their identity as a queer person?
If there is only one implementation, then whichever body (private, public, for profit, not for profit, doesn't matter) controls this implementation will control the direction of the entire web. It's the definition of consolidation and monopoly control. There is no reasonable argument to make for a Chromium only web from anyone without vested interests.
> There is no reasonable argument to make for a Chromium only web from anyone without vested interests. It could be just apathy towards choice. I've observed this behavior among GNOME advocates as well. Some of them would rather see GNOME as the only de facto choice for a desktop environment on Linux and considering how it's installed by default on most major distributions, those words and their effect aren't far fet…
In the case of GNOME it is not apathy towards choice but corporate backing. Companies that do business with Linux like Redhat, Canonical, will benefit greatly if the vast number of options that the Linux ecosystem has can be culled to a certain approved stack, at least on their supported platforms. Since they also employ or sponsor a large amount of development within the ecosystem, other players are left either to grudgingly adopt them or seethe in frustration. KDE would've gone the way of Xfce etc had it not already had considerable momentum from the earliest days. Despite being an even larger collection of s/w than GNOME and strongly supported by SuSE, they're still second place by quite a way. That shows the power of big corporate money's ability to take over even ostensibly "FOSS" software that's theoretically free but practically still dominated by a few companies, perhaps trending towards an absolute monopoly in the future, like Google on the Web.
If there is only one implementation, then whichever body (private, public, for profit, not for profit, doesn't matter) controls this implementation will control the direction of the entire web. It's the definition of consolidation and monopoly control. There is no reasonable argument to make for a Chromium only web from anyone without vested interests.
It's open source. Anyone can fork it.
Forking is easy. Maintaining and developing a browser engine is really hard. Most forks that make substantial changes to the original source are either maintained by a multimillion company or die without maintenance.