Regardless of actual use as an (embedded) browser, it is useful in the sense that it can be used to provide (another) source of validation about whether specs and WPT [1] tests are properly and clearly defined. That helps for long term browser compatibility.
Making a new browser engine hurts browser compatibility more than it helps it. It now becomes one more target that needs to be tested against, limitations need to be kept tracked of, etc. The best thing for long term browser compatibility is focusing resources into Blink. In regards to the standard we can use LLMs to cross reference the spec, with tests, and with the implementation to make sure all match.
Internet Explorer was not open source acting as engine everyone's browser could use and it got abandoned by Microsoft. It is not the same situation.
One could argue that effectively Blink is also not open source. At any rate users don't have power over it, as witnessed by the manifest v3 stuff jammed down our throats.
There are many active forks that are an existence proof that it's possible. It's also a ton of man power to maintain your own browser engine.
yeah in a perfect world google dictates how the standard will evolve, we kill all competition so we're sure that you have only one target to build your software against, I'm sure a monopoly will greatly improves innovation and not be used to stiffen competition. /s
It's easier maintaining a fork of Blink than an entirely different engine. Google being the primary maintainer doesn't mean that browsers can't make large forks.
>work on other browser engines is not duplicated or wasted.
How is having N engine developers implement some new addition to the EMCAScript or CSS standard for each of their engines not duplicated work?
> It's easier maintaining a fork of Blink than an entirely different engine. Google being the primary maintainer doesn't mean that browsers can't make large forks.
Maintaining a fork is not fun as taking patches from the origin repo becomes more complicated the longer the fork exists and the bigger the divergence becomes.
> How is having N engine developers implement some new addition to the EMCAScript or CSS standard for each of their engines not duplicated work?
It would be duplicated only if they all maintained, say, a Blink fork.
> The best thing for long term browser compatibility is focusing resources into Blink.
That’s what makes Google more dominant, and if you think that’s a good idea you should really put down your LLM and go read up on a bit of history. Do you want to live in a world where a single company controls your access to the web? Are you eager to navigate through ad pages with a little bit of web? To have even more of your data mined?
Browser diversity may be a bit annoying for developers, but it is good for users, and developers are users too. When there’s a lack of diversity, everyone but the dominant player is squeezed.
Google's dominance comes from market share not from owning upstream. If a different fork took 90% market share that fork would have the dominance and power.
And that market share is maintained by integration with Android and low-key sabotage of others browsers, especially Firefox. Similar to how Microsoft maintained its monopoly decades ago.
That can only happen if we don’t all focus resources on Blink, which is the point. By definition, we can only have other engines if diversity is a thing.
The problem isn’t specifically Google (though they are a problem), but any one individual company having all the power.
>That can only happen if we don’t all focus resources on Blink
Why? What's fundamentally stopping Edge market share from going to 90% that would go away if they switched back to their own browser engine?
>but any one individual company having all the power.
Open source means that anyone can make any change at any time. Google doesn't have all the power over what a fork does. A fork is still in full control.
p-e-w · · focus · HN ↗
It’s apparently still not ready to be used as a browser engine (and may never be), so what exactly is it for?
foresterre · · focus · HN ↗
[1] <a href="https://wpt.fyi/results/?label=experimental&label=master&product=servo&aligned" rel="nofollow">https://wpt.fyi/results/?label=experimental&label=master&pro...
charcircuit · · focus · HN ↗
Making a new browser engine hurts browser compatibility more than it helps it. It now becomes one more target that needs to be tested against, limitations need to be kept tracked of, etc. The best thing for long term browser compatibility is focusing resources into Blink. In regards to the standard we can use LLMs to cross reference the spec, with tests, and with the implementation to make sure all match.
teekert · · focus · HN ↗
charcircuit · · focus · HN ↗
teekert · · focus · HN ↗
pygy_ · · focus · HN ↗
charcircuit · · focus · HN ↗
le-mark · · focus · HN ↗
mohamedkoubaa · · focus · HN ↗
Oxodao · · focus · HN ↗
charcircuit · · focus · HN ↗
samus · · focus · HN ↗
charcircuit · · focus · HN ↗
>work on other browser engines is not duplicated or wasted.
How is having N engine developers implement some new addition to the EMCAScript or CSS standard for each of their engines not duplicated work?
samus · · focus · HN ↗
Maintaining a fork is not fun as taking patches from the origin repo becomes more complicated the longer the fork exists and the bigger the divergence becomes.
> How is having N engine developers implement some new addition to the EMCAScript or CSS standard for each of their engines not duplicated work?
It would be duplicated only if they all maintained, say, a Blink fork.
kryptiskt · · focus · HN ↗
charcircuit · · focus · HN ↗
armadyl · · focus · HN ↗
Yet somehow this argument seems to evaporate since people’s brains short circuit the moment they see the name Google.
The community can always fork and maintain a separate version of Chromium if necessary. Or does this concept only not apply to Chromium?
latexr · · focus · HN ↗
That’s what makes Google more dominant, and if you think that’s a good idea you should really put down your LLM and go read up on a bit of history. Do you want to live in a world where a single company controls your access to the web? Are you eager to navigate through ad pages with a little bit of web? To have even more of your data mined?
Browser diversity may be a bit annoying for developers, but it is good for users, and developers are users too. When there’s a lack of diversity, everyone but the dominant player is squeezed.
charcircuit · · focus · HN ↗
samus · · focus · HN ↗
charcircuit · · focus · HN ↗
samus · · focus · HN ↗
latexr · · focus · HN ↗
That can only happen if we don’t all focus resources on Blink, which is the point. By definition, we can only have other engines if diversity is a thing.
The problem isn’t specifically Google (though they are a problem), but any one individual company having all the power.
charcircuit · · focus · HN ↗
Why? What's fundamentally stopping Edge market share from going to 90% that would go away if they switched back to their own browser engine?
>but any one individual company having all the power.
Open source means that anyone can make any change at any time. Google doesn't have all the power over what a fork does. A fork is still in full control.
embedding-shape · · focus · HN ↗
Lol, for Blink perhaps, what about the rest of the ecosystem, the web and the users, like the ones who don't even use Blink?
Very idealistic point-of-view with no basis in reality, sadly, because wouldn't it be nice if we could care about just one engine?