• CHEF-KOCH@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 years ago

    Nonsense video, underlying problem is monopolies and private companies who develop the standards, not what browser you use.

    If the standards are fully open, transparent and not concerning then it would make no difference if you use chrome and firefox because everyone would use same basis.

    Also chromium team is not purchased or owned by Google, most volunteers are normal people, developers or security researchers that code on it in their free time. You can fork, modify the source as you please but that does not change the argumentation about web standards and how build or control them.

    • Ferk@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      Nonsense video, underlying problem is monopolies and private companies who develop the standards, not what browser you use.

      It’s the other way around. Which browser you use is what directly determines whether monopoly and private companies develop the standard you use.

      You could write a standard independently of those companies, but then if everyone chooses to use browser engines from companies that don’t follow it, what’s the point?

      If everyone uses a particular browser then whatever that browser implements becomes the standard. It’s all about what browser you use.

      If the standards are fully open, transparent and not concerning then it would make no difference if you use chrome and firefox because everyone would use same basis.

      If what you want is everyone using the same basis, then what you need is to get everyone to use the same browser engine (which is what is happening already).

      However, focusing on that is likely to not result in it being “fully open” as long as the popular browsers are not interested in openness (in particular with a MIT-licensed basis that is allowed to be privately altered, extended and corrupted in proprietary forks by those popular browsers who don’t have to be “transparent” on what exactly they changed).

      If what you want is for it to be “fully open”, then you’d want people to be more careful and choose a browser with a “fully open” basis, instead of using whatever is more popular. It’s still all about what browser you use.

      • CHEF-KOCH@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 years ago

        It’s the other way around. Which browser you use is what directly determines whether monopoly and private companies develop the standard you use.

        No it is not, this is a myth. As you also can use free software on closed OS, which happens to be the standard. Keyword Microsoft and Windows. You also can choose to not support this, it is you and not the monopoly. If there is no alternative that is usable, people continue to use what they got. It is the underlying problem, Firefox is so bad and so unusable by default, so people switch or use something else. Nothing to do with Monopoly. The standards itself are created and dictated by monopolies, so it plays no role what you use if it anyway ends up that you must support such standards.

        You could write a standard independently of those companies, but then if everyone chooses to use browser engines from companies that don’t follow it, what’s the point?

        The point is that user generated or govt establish frameworks can b used as basis.Its useless if you build a browser surrounded by standards created by Microsoft, IBM etc alone.

        If everyone uses a particular browser then whatever that browser implements becomes the standard. It’s all about what browser you use.

        This is already the case, you can choose not to use FLoC. Nothing changes here.

        If what you want is everyone using the same basis, then what you need is to get everyone to use the same browser engine (which is what is happening already).

        Please learn the difference between Browser engine and web standards, nonsense you talk here. Your Browser engine can adopt, implement or reject standards. Irrelevant in dyding discussion anyway since you provide absolute no solutions yourself in the discussion here, like everyone else people feeding off my ideas, practical in every thread. That you cannot continue is clear, web gives a shit about Mozilla, clearly the case. Some people hold together by hopes and delusions do not represent the web. Never did.

        The discussion here is not about Browser you use, as people use whatever works best for them, and not what implements xyz, this is clearly shown in practical every thread. So enforcing your ideas will not work for the mass, better way around is to create open frameworks, documents that are actually usable and directly easily reviewable because at the end of the day your Browser runs pretty much on Android and iOS and not a open system. There exist open alternatives but they are not well funded, future unclear and the web - the main user - does not use it, they trust big corpos, they rely on their eco-system. Like Mozilla relies on money from yahoo, google etc in the past. Corpos you shit-talk.

        • Ferk@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 years ago

          No it is not, this is a myth. As you also can use free software on closed OS, which happens to be the standard

          Why does it “happen to be the standard”?

          Because people use it. At the end of the day, usage is what determines what’s standard.

          Whether a particular person can opt to go for something non-standard (eg. Linux) doesn’t make what I said any less true.

          And the problem is that the non-standard person can’t expect the same level of support (eg. Linux drivers for obscure hardware)… because devs and companies won’t care so much for any deviations from what’s standard.

          The point is that user generated or govt establish frameworks can b used as basis

          That would be useless if people (both end users and web developers) don’t use it.

          The Mozilla Foundation created their own browser. Yet they are dying since they are getting abandoned by both web devs and end users. Creating your own does not solve the problem.

          If web devs design for Chrome and Chrome adds Chrome-specific deviations from the standard, it’s gonna be extremelly hard to keep up, which is what is happening with Firefox… they can’t keep up, they keep receiving reports of problems because websites are developed for Chrome.

          This is already the case, you can choose not to use FLoC. Nothing changes here.

          Yes, In there I was just describing how things work. As I see it.

          Please learn the difference between Browser engine and web standards, nonsense you talk here

          Web standards are just a set of rules that hipothetically Browser engines follow.

          In practice, however, no browser engine actually follows the standard 100%, since they all have their very own extensions or try different optimizations that result in differences of implementation… Google keeps adding their own spin on things at a pace that is hard to keep up for any other browser.

          If it were possible for web standards to be really, truly, and fully respected, then indeed it wouldn’t matter what browser you use. But that’s not what the reality is. There are websites that work and look different in Chrome than in Firefox.

          • abbenm@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 years ago

            Thank you for the time and effort you put into patiently explaining what is basically an embrace/extend/extinguish strategy by Google.

            These kinds of convos are frustrating, because a one-browser monopoly over the web should be so obviously bad that you don’t need to explain it. But, the golden rule of the internet is that you will always find someone who wants to die on the most ridiculous hill, for no coherent reason.