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

Google is already pushing WEI into Chromium

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

761–770 of 876 posts

Re: Google is already pushing WEI into Chromium

#761

Post by im3w1l »

thesuperbigfrog wrote: post #266
netdur wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

isn't this good? banks can raise security while we can still use any browser to check hackers news! or this 3 cows story?

>> isn't this good? banks can raise security while we can still use any browser to check hackers news! Are you okay with buying a new computer running the operating system and browser someone else wants to access your bank's web site? You can still use you current computer and bowser to access HN.

I already today have a phone dedicated to "important stuff" like accessing banks. I think it's actually a decent solution, and a low-end phone doesnt cost that much either.

Re: Google is already pushing WEI into Chromium

#762

Post by troupo »

joshuamorton wrote: post #737
troupo wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's pretty generally accepted that the correct way to do web standardization is for proponents of some new thing to implement that thing and deploy it and then once it has been shown to actually work bring a spec to the the standards folks for standardization. - Behind dev flags - And then wait for consensus - And then there have to be at least two independent implementations And only then does this become a stand…

This links to the chromium repo where it is behind a dev flag.

They do origin trials (behind flags) for all new features. They still release a bunch of them later without any consensus etc.

Re: Google is already pushing WEI into Chromium

#763

Post by db579 »

toyg wrote: post #650
izacus wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It didn't happen when Apple did it with Safari (and you all were quiet as a mouse as well, with HN actively defending Apple Safari monopoly with this feature enabled)... so why would NOW be any different?

Apple don't have enough web properties to force this sort of change. Google can turn around tomorrow and say that no browser without WEI can access GMail, GMaps, GSheets, Photos etc; people will have to comply, effectively killing any browser that does not support the feature. This is the problem with the Chromium monoculture. "We", as generic IT people and developers on HN, definitely have a responsibility for not d…

Google can also decide at any time to put those web properties behind forced logins, or paywalls or just shutter them altogether. If Google doesn't want them to be part of the open web they won't be, regardless of whether this particular set of things is implemented or not. If we're all dependent on them enough that that's a problem for us, then that dependency is the problem.

Re: Google is already pushing WEI into Chromium

#765

Post by oskarw85 »

solardev wrote: post #616
matkoniecz wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And Mozilla is long past dead. Mozilla is far from healthy but calling it dead is overstating things.

It's only alive in the same sense that a zombie is... constantly moaning and groaning while begging for brains, shambling aimlessly along waiting to be put out of its misery

[flagged]

Re: Google is already pushing WEI into Chromium

#766

Post by nobody9999 »

solardev wrote: post #652
matkoniecz wrote: post #640

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4% of global browser usage can be described in many ways (defeated, miserable, collapse compared to the past etc) but it definitely is not dead and is one of few developed browsers.

If we're arguing about whether 4% global usage constitutes dead, then yes, it's truly dead and Mozilla is completely irrelevant. Even Microsoft is more important these days (again).

>If we're arguing about whether 4% global usage constitutes dead, then yes, it's truly dead and Mozilla is completely irrelevant. Even Microsoft is more important these days (again).

According to these folks[0], Firefox has a 3.29% market share globally. They also claim there are 4.66 billion browser users globally.

If those numbers are correct, Firefox has a bit more than 150,000,000 users worldwide.

If my software had 150,000,000 users, I'd consider that wildly successful.

Other folks have different ideas/takes on that, I suppose. But it's food for thought nonetheless.

[0] https://backlinko.com/browser-market-share#worldwide-browser...

Edit: Fixed prose.

Re: Google is already pushing WEI into Chromium

#767

Post by slig »

redavni wrote: post #699
ascendantlogic wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mozilla is dead as a doornail. Google succeeded where Microsoft did not, they essentially control the entire web now.

San Francisco salaries and the removal of Brendan Eich is what happened to Mozilla not Google and Microsoft.

They get paid half a billion a year from Google, so thanks to Google things are like this. There's no incentive whatsoever to beat who pays them.

Re: Google is already pushing WEI into Chromium

#768

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

supazek wrote: post #675
__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #628

Is anyone else working on alternatives to this web? We're going to want something working before this one becomes a telescreen. I'm thinking: - content addressing, not server addressing (to better distribute the hosting load) - looser coupling between data itself and apps for viewing data (to prevent aesthetics from being used as a heuristic for trustworthiness) - a native permissionless annotation protocol (p2p trus…

I’ve put barely any thought into it but I think a “localnet” would be better. Your usage is entirely based on calculated geoposition and the userbase is segmented into regions based on user count. More than X0,000 users in any one region and it splits to keep things small. This would be a limitation for hosting content. If you want to send a message out to another person in a different region you’d have to make a del…

I've had similar thoughts. I've been sketching out a design where you can tag data with a location (a restaurant menu, say, which is only needed near the restaurant). Suppose the data is being gossiped between mobile devices. Some process which understands the user's past (and estimated future) movements can decide when the data can be forgotten.

Plus--as I imagine it--users would be able to trust each other in certain domains, so which fragments your device hangs on to is going to depend on who you trust and what you're interested in.

Hopefully, these combined would mean that whatever part of the web is relevant to your location is also the part of it that's already cached on your device or on a nearby one.

Re: Google is already pushing WEI into Chromium

#769

Post by tzs »

throw_m239339 wrote: post #736
tzs wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The web stopped being open when W3C accepted EME The web was more open when to play those videos you had to use a proprietary Flash or Silverlight plugin?

> The web was more open when to play those videos you had to use a proprietary Flash or Silverlight plugin? That's what you are claiming with your sarcasm hidden behind a rhetorical question, I've never said anything about Flash or Silverlight in the comment you've answered to. There is absolutely no difference from a conceptual perspective between EME implementation and proprietary plugins, EME is necessarily based…

You said the web stopped be open when EME was accepted.

But as you just noted there is no conceptual difference between EME and the proprietary plugins that it replaced (Flash based and Silverlight based video players).

So how does replacing something with something else that is conceptually not different change that status of the web from open to not open?

Re: Google is already pushing WEI into Chromium

#770

Post by derefr »

deelowe wrote: post #636
tzs wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Google can take unilateral action to fundamentally change the basic principles of the web, then the W3C is already useless. This will give Google a clear choice: if they want to maintain the idea that the W3C matters, they should withdraw this implementation. It's pretty generally accepted that the correct way to do web standardization is for proponents of some new thing to implement that thing and deploy it and…

Basically, the ask for forgiveness approach. It's common in large, dysfunctional organizations as well. Sometimes the easiest way to get attention is to break things. Then once enough pain is felt, everyone starts taking interest. Trying to follow a proper change control based process only works when everyone is invested in the process.

No, this is just "doing your own thing in a way that doesn't affect anyone else, and allows you to gather data to cite when designing the standard."
Post reply on HN