"If one product like #Chromium has enough market share, then it becomes easier for web developers and businesses to decide not to worry if their services and sites work with anything other than Chromium. That’s what happened when #Microsoft had a monopoly on browsers in the early 2000s before #Firefox was released. And it could happen again.
If you care about what’s happening with online life today, take another look at Firefox." https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2018/12/06/goodbye-edge/ #edge
@bjoern I'm more and more unsure about that, to be honest. At one side, yes, Firefox has a different engine, whic is good, but at the end, there's "Google money" in Mozilla too, which makes me wonder. Plus: At some point, why not make sure we have *one* robust, solid, maintained #FLOSS browser engine to build upon? My take on that is here, especially looking at Chromium and Microsoft: https://dm.zimmer428.net/2018/12/edge-chromium-and-web-monoculture/
Because corporate forces will always strive to make the web more closed (more DRM, more obfuscation, more tracking, more monetization); if de facto standardization (through the implementation) has to happen in a space that is dominated by corporate players like Google and Microsoft, their interests will always prevail, even if the implementation is nominally open source.
Mozilla/Firefox is a deeply imperfect alternative - but the best one we have.
@Shamar Well, that's at least to some point my problem. What to use? Chrome is Google, which I don't want. Firefox is where I came from, but I am increasingly confused about Mozilla, Mozilla Foundation, Mozilla Corporation and its fundings. Brave, at its core, is Chromium and also a for-profit organization, even though they at least seem to try do some things different (https://changelog.com/news/the-road-to-brave-10-and-bat-LknA is interesting on that). What else is left, then?
In the future: #Memex 😉
@Shamar Though attacks are a problem, actually this is not my core issue right now. As far as I see things, a lot of the "mess" with the current web is being caused by the fact that we do have a very vivid ad economy, also to some point due to the fact that people expect virtually *everything* to be free(-as-in-free-beer). Ad and tracking blocking, here, just seems to fight the smoke. And Firefox depending upon Google money seems to feed rather than fight the fire. 😐
@Shamar By the way, just read about #Memex; the idea of building a "no-JS" web browser in the age of HTML5 seems a pretty ... questionable approach. That's exactly what I meant with: How many different (and partially or completely "broken", from a standards point of view) engines do we need? Why on earth can't we come up with a HTML5/JS/CSS reference implementation that is #FLOSS and solid enough to build a fully #FLOSS browser on top of that?
The #Web is broken at the architectural level.
This class of attacks is wide and totally undetectable under normal conditions (and even if detected, they cannot be proved in court).
We need to separate
A) access to contents (aka #HyperTexts)
B) software execution
@Shamar Of course. I agree with you, and I know / see this problem as well (and its severity). But this is something totally else than the problem I was trying to point out (which is rather a problem of content control, funding of content published to and funding of technology used to access the Web). It's a different problem. Not more or less relevant than the architectural and possible threat vectors caused by this. Just different. Plus: For basic content use cases, ...
@Shamar ... #Memex might eventually work. But a very load of "things" done in todays browsers actually isn't about content but about using the browser as something like a rich client platform / runtime for desktop applications. That's a different use case, with many ... interesting aspects to it. Including the points you outlined. 😐
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!