SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Mozilla's CEO is not enthusiastic about Microsoft's switch to Chromium:
When Microsoft announced that its Edge browser would be revamped using Chromium, the internet's response was generally quite positive. Edge is far from the worst browser on the planet, but it's certainly not what we'd call a fan favorite. As such, even the slightest indication that it could be changed significantly would have been welcome news for many.
However, it would seem that "many" doesn't include one individual in particular: Mozilla CEO Chris Beard. In a blog post published today, titled "Goodbye, EdgeHTML," Beard expressed his frustrations with Microsoft's decision.
"By adopting Chromium, Microsoft hands over control of even more of online life to Google," Beard writes in the post. "This may sound melodramatic, but it's not. The "browser engines" — Chromium from Google and Gecko Quantum from Mozilla — are "inside baseball" pieces of software that actually determine a great deal of what each of us can do online."
Microsoft's switch to Chromium could be a big boon for Google's own implementation.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by stormreaver on Sunday December 09 2018, @08:21PM (6 children)
You're overlooking one HUGE, HUMONGOUS, GIGANTIC, GINORMOUS difference between I.E. and Chromium: Chromium is Open Source. Anyone with the skills to make a browser can use Chromium's rendering engine, therefore preventing the horrors that were thrust upon us in the medieval dark ages of Internet Explorer. Standardizing on Chromium is the single best thing that has EVER happened to Web browsers. It can become an inclusive standard: one rendering engine to develop for and test against, but one that, by its very nature, precludes the formation of abusive monopolies.
Having multiple Web browsers that ALL RENDER IDENTICALLY is exactly what we need. Browsers can then differentiate themselves on non-rendering behavior, while having a single standard renderer. It's what we've all been wanting for over 25 years now.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 09 2018, @09:08PM
"Chromium is Open Source"
whoop-de fsckin' do
The development money comes from Google
A spy organization that is not operating in your best interest
(Score: 4, Insightful) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday December 09 2018, @11:47PM
Because there are far too many Open Source projects, and far too _few_ eyeballs.
For every browser to have the very same rendering engine will ultimately result in the Sicilian Mafia, the Russian Mob, the Chinese Tong, the Japanese Yakuza or the Occasional Nigerian Sole Proprietor 0wnz0r1ng every last box that Walks The Earth.
The only real defense against a world-wide malware attack is a diverse software ecosystem.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday December 10 2018, @12:20PM (1 child)
> Having multiple Web browsers that ALL RENDER IDENTICALLY is exactly what we need.
Let's say that amazon, netflix and google collude to require *in the browser* in order to watch their streams. If you want to support users who want to watch netflix or amazon, your browser must support . If there are many browser rendering engines out there, then this is not possible because M$ or whoever don't want to give a bunk up. If there is only one, controlled by , then this becomes inevitable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @11:31AM
They already did that year ago https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/07/amid-unprecedented-controversy-w3c-greenlights-drm-web [eff.org]
And Mozilla too said Yes.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mobydisk on Monday December 10 2018, @05:38PM (1 child)
Here's why that doesn't work: Not enough people will install your fork. Web designers will continue to develop for "real" Chrome and your voice will be lost to the wind under the weight of the simple fact that every machine out there will have "real" Chrome preinstalled on it.
The problem when IE was king was not that we didn't have open-source browsers that were better, the problem was that one company had such a large market share that it didn't matter if it was complete garbage.
(Score: 2) by stormreaver on Monday December 10 2018, @10:42PM
It seems that EVERYONE who responded to me is missing the forest for the trees, and missing the trees for the forest. You're all missing the big picture. This has nothing to do with Linus's Law. This has nothing to do with creating a better product through many eyes (although, humorously enough, Blink is the result of forking Webkit, which was the result of forking KHTML [KDE's Web renderer], which resulted in a phenomenal renderer).
This is about a common RENDERER, and has absolute nothing to do with a Web browser (except that a Web browser needs a renderer). This has nothing to do with amassing a user base large enough to overthrow Chrome (although you have to remember that the thought of Chrome overthrowing Internet Explorer was once considered laughable).
Everyone (Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Safari, and browsers that don't yet exist) starts with the same RENDERER (I'm using caps to emphasize the difference between a renderer and a Web browser), then differentiates their WEB BROWSER based upon everything that is not a RENDERER: user interface, plugins and extensions, etc. Firefox, for example, would get the necessary speed boost and additional stability that Quantum didn't achieve (and it's significant when playing Web games).