• CHEF-KOCH
    link
    -4
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    the web is being shaped after Chrome and cousins’ capabilities.

    Because there is no competition. I already explained, people use what they can use and you cannot expect that people code their own frameworks.

    If the commit are counted for employees, that means they committed with their professionnal adress, hence in the context of their work, hence directly representing the corpo.

    Commits do not reflect the entire work, as a committer can commit work based on someone else, which means they can include in their commit the zlib code to provide support into the Browser. You cannot give a random user commit rights.

    No, the statistics was based on a list of commits that includes one-time contributors.

    Again commits include also work from third-party projects. It says nothing about the influence also again no bug bountry work that only getting merged by official approved committer. Apparently you do not understand how Chrome development works.

    Irrelevant, external lib’s devs don’t decide anything, the coders still decide how their import and use the lib.

    It is relevant, if there are no alternatives you can include you code your own, which is what you accuse Google off with sabotaging the web. No alternatives, you are forced to provide your own. It is that simple. Was the case with QUIC.

    Who are the Chromium people? The Chromium projects is an entity that was created by Google, is their any sign that it is run by people who don’t work for Google?

    Not every employee represents the Corp. You can work for Google but you are not dictated by them, so your - every employee must kneel thing - never happen. Typically new standards are in depth in discussion with the community as well as the proposals are clearly visible. People as well as chromium users can decide and act up on the information. There is no secret meeting, of we want to destroy the web or what you accuse google off. They implement of course third-party projects from others if its reliable and usable. Most what I refer too are average people, ex employee, bug hunters, free volunteers, etc. Its also mentioned in the Chromium blog.

    Mozilla is so irrelevant that no one talks here about them, instead we talk about your misinterpretation on who gets commit rights, and who does the actual work.

    I am not even going into some details that a Browser is not the only application, yet this point is also not mentioned in the Video, Spotify etc they all are based on frameworks, there was at that time not much alternatives to those frameworks. Alternatives are often created only afterwords to address shortcomings.

    • @Liwott
      link
      32 years ago

      Because there is no competition. I already explained, people use what they can use and you cannot expect that people code their own frameworks.

      The question discussed in the video is not WHY firefox is dying, it is the consequence of that. Other engines exist, maybe Blink is better, the fact is anyway that it has a huge market share, so they have a lot of power on how the web evolves.

      Hence, Google has that power. Because Google is the main entity behind Chromium. You can play with word, saying the 80% of contributors is not 100%, that it doesn’t give explicit instructions to its employees, that maybe the commit count should be slightly different as to include bounty hunter, libs,… It remains that, as you admit yourself in other thread, Google has the biggest voice in Chromium development.

      • CHEF-KOCH
        link
        -3
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        The video is also not about engines and what engine someone should use, if you argue on this you do not understand the underlying problem. The engine is to render the content, based on APIs and other things. This has nothing to do with monopolies. As everyone could theoretically create their own standards but you need funding, money and that typically only comes from those who have the money. So this is the underlying point.

        Your math and numbers are just incorrect as you refuse to accept that the Browser is not one big project, it is more a multi media all-in-one project and there are others involved, this you do not understand, as you clearly displayed.

        I admit nothing I say how things are and if you pump 1 billion into it you should get the voice, this is just normal and Mozilla does the same, as they have also the last word on what pull request they integrate. This is normal and not something essential that has something to do with control, you cannot just give random people commit rights, there must always be a review process. If you want a sit on the table you need to pay you way into it, this is just how this works, and with only words, hopes and dreams you will simply get a lower voice. It is like saying oh I know better than elon musk, but he actually spend 3 billions to sit on the twitter table, so of course he calls more shots than you, this is why the government needs to fund projects and not advertise organisations.

        Your refusal to accept that there is no Mozilla fork while there is in mass successfully forks such as Brave, Vivaldi and so many others… is just cringe. Mozilla has only clown forks that make no impact on the web as they are mainly run by sentimental people and not actually people who develop standards, pump their money into it and this is when your logic miserably fails.

        • Can I see mozillas youtube competition
        • Can I see mozillas vpn, whops its mullvad and only after pressure after years of outcry from the community
        • Can I see their email service to compete against gmail
        • Can I see ads alternatives…
        • Can I see …

        There is nothing and people care only about what you can take… This is how web works … not with hopes, dreams and blah… funding, proposal, review, frameworks, alternatives and documentation… You simply INVEST into something and then you can spread it for the mass. Google did that with success, provided free services, advertised it and gained control. Things Mozilla missed, instead they run in Googles shadow, behind, too late, slow … incompetent. I blame the CEO actually he is as incompetent as Microsofts CEO but they are in a much better positions that allows more mistakes.

        • liwott
          link
          fedilink
          42 years ago

          I admit nothing I say how things are and if you pump 1 billion into it you should get the voice, this is just normal and Mozilla does the same, as they have also the last word on what pull request they integrate.

          And that’s not admitting that Google has the biggest voice in Chromium development?

          Of course it is normal that Google has the biggest voice in their own product, problem comes when that product and its soft forks nearly have the monopoly on web browsers. Because then it means that Google has the biggest voice in the future directions taken by the web.

          I don’t understand why yoiu still write two paragraphs about the services that Mozilla doesn’t offer, or the forks it doesn’t have, as I told countless time that it is irrelevant to the discussion.

          • CHEF-KOCH
            link
            -5
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            Biggest voice according tho whom, you or what. You do not even understand that Chrome is not entirely build by Google. Its a multi all-in-one-application just stitched together by Google, the rest is included or developed by Google because there are no alternatives that you can use or they invented it. No its not admitting. Its how things just work, do you give random stranger your car keys and trust him and then afterwards get accused to manipulate the market because that user wanted to use your car to buy another car. No. Reality is you sit with them on a table, get one hand on the wheel, earn trust and then you can ask and influence form the inside, proving you are worthy. Then you develop standards and people would actually listen. Ignoring them, saying oh they are the devil and mother G is root issue for all the evil in the world, boring …

            when that product and its soft forks nearly have the monopoly on web browsers. Because then it means that Google has the biggest voice in the future directions taken by the web.

            It is relevant since the web uses what exist and not what your hopes, dreams and promises stitch together. There is no competition, this is underlying problem, due to lack of funding, govt even advertise organisations because they make deals with them see Microsoft and the Pentagon etc. History here is long, the problem is you influence the web proving something and Mozilla provides nothing. Why use Mozilla, share your data and trust with them and then switch to other apps and providers because you depend on other programs and services anyway, when you can have the all in one package with Google, this is what people in the world care about. It is not practical to depend on 100 apps, and services when you anyway end up sharing data, then better use one provider and that is it. They are just reliable enough and they simply have the user base.

            The 1 Percent idealistic people sure as hell do not represent the web. Points you ignore. Web shit out Mozilla in an instant. And no clown fork will help.

            5-10 years from now Brave smoked Firefox and it does not surprise me one single bit. They just offer what people want, search, sync … you name it, vpn, god knows what is not already planned or possible with more support. So you trust one entity and do not rely on 100 others. Mozillas user base will shrink together of people with sentiments and people who invested time and money into project, sadly this will be the end, but not a surprise, ironically without money from mother G they would be already dead in the water … So you bash the hand that feeds you… cringe