Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Project Manager Says Mozilla Should Get Down From Its 'Philosophical Ivory Tower,' Cease Firefox Development (zdnet.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from ZDNet: A Microsoft program manager has caused a stir on Twitter over the weekend by suggesting that Firefox-maker Mozilla should give up on its own rendering engine and move on with Chromium. "Thought: It's time for @mozilla to get down from their philosophical ivory tower. The web is dominated by Chromium, if they really 'cared' about the web, they would be contributing instead of building a parallel universe that's used by less than five percent?" wrote Kenneth Auchenberg, who builds web developer tools for Microsoft's Visual Studio Code.

Auchenberg's post referred to Mozilla's response to Microsoft's announcement in December that it would scrap Edge's EdgeHTML rendering engine for Chromium's. The move will leave Firefox's Gecko engine as the only alternative to Chromium, which is used by Opera and dozens of other browsers. Few people agreed with Auchenberg, including engineers from both Mozilla and Chromium. Long-serving Mozillian Asa Dotzler was not impressed. "Just because your employer gave up on its own people and technology doesn't mean that others should follow," Dotzler replied to Auchenberg. Auchenberg clarified that he didn't want to see Mozilla vanish, but said it should reorganize into a research institution "instead of trying to to justify themselves with the 'protectors of the web' narrative."

76 of 444 comments (clear)

  1. the only alternative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "he move will leave Firefox's Gecko engine as the only alternative to Chromium, which is used by Opera and dozens of other browsers."

    What about Safari, which uses webkit? It's the default browser on both macOS and iOS, and does not use Chromium.

    1. Re:the only alternative? by Guspaz · · Score: 3, Informative

      It isn't cross-platform (isn't an option for 90% of computer users) and isn't necessarily all that different from Chromium (whose Blink engine is a fork of WebKit).

    2. Re: the only alternative? by reanjr · · Score: 2

      Because Blink (Chromium) is based on WebKit, WebKit doesn't exactly serve the same purpose as Gecko.

    3. Re:the only alternative? by cheesybagel · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well the BEAST was slayed and their tags shall BLINK until the end of days.
      Book of Mozilla

    4. Re: the only alternative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, WebKit was a fork of KHTML from the KDE Project, as used in the Konqueror web browser for Linux.

    5. Re:the only alternative? by Desler · · Score: 3, Informative

      Also Steam uses WebKit across all OSes andMidori is a WebKit-based browser that runs on Windows and Linux. Qt also used WebKit as its embedded browser widget for numerous years. There are also plenty of other cross-platform apps using it. That you got modded Informative for a completely false statement is laughable.

    6. Re:the only alternative? by Guspaz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nothing I said was false. I'm talking about Safari (as was the post I was replying to). You're talking about WebKit. Safari is a web browser. WebKit is a layout engine. They are not the same thing.

    7. Re:the only alternative? by jpaine619 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Holy crap. I actually used Midori today (long story), and legitimately wondered "How many people can possibly be using this butt-ugly browser?". I didn't think I'd actually ever hear of anyone else using it.

      It's ugly as sin but performs as a "different" browser when I need to ensure some weird result I'm getting isn't a glitch in Chromium. Firefox (which I'm glad is around) is much more memory intensive than Midori. I can launch Midori in a few seconds versus tens of seconds for Firefox.

    8. Re:the only alternative? by markdavis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >"What about Safari, which uses webkit? It's the default browser on both macOS and iOS, and does not use Chromium."

      Wake me up when it runs on even one of:

      Linux desktops
      BSD desktops
      Android phones
      Oh, and MS-Windows (since dropped 7 YEARS ago)

      Throwing out a closed-source, Apple-only product as an "alternative" is hardly the counter to the Chrome/Google monoculture.

      I believe that Firefox is the ONLY open-source, multi-platform, non-chrome based browser left. And as a bonus, this only true alternative is fast, robust, provides far more customization and user control, community-based, and backed by an organization that cares about standards, security, privacy, and internet freedom.

      So if you want to fight our rapid plunge into to the next dark-age/IE-rerun, then I suggest you install and use Firefox on whatever platform you use and encourage others to do the same.

      It is absolutely SHOCKING to see some sites that are already becoming essentially Chrome-only as their rendering is partially broken in Firefox and their "solution" when you complain is to install Chrome. I never thought we would have to go through this s*** again. But here we are.

    9. Re:the only alternative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, what about Webkit, that Chromium forked from Safari, which Apple forked from KHTML?

      It's a bizarre irony in that the most popular used web browser was basically forked from a LGPL project known mostly to Linux nerds.

      Firefox was beating MSIE in every Metric and then google just did the obvious thing, stole Safari, rebranded it Chrome and now the highest quality Mac Web Browser became the best web browser overnight and Google didn't have to much at all.

      But the sad fact is that Google uses their monopoly power on Chromium and it results in Google dictating web standards (like HTTPS everywhere) to the detriment of the global web, even if the intentions might be good. See a few days ago about Chromium going to depreciate the dangerous extension api's and the collateral damage is that plugins won't be able to spy on network data, only after they're loaded into the browser, thus neutering the shittiest of the Ad blocker extensions.

      If there really was only four web browsers (eg Safari, Chrome, Firefox, Edge) and all four were available on ALL platforms, not just iOS, then an entirely different story would be playing out with Safari dictating the mobile web and Chrome only being able to leverage it's Android install base to fight back. The desktop would be a different animal as Chrome and Firefox are the only browsers available on all desktop platforms, so it makes sense to just develop against Chrome since it also covers mobile Chrome.

      That's why Google is where it is. If Firefox ruled the desktop and Chrome was only Android's shitty browser, Firefox would be making the decisions, not Google. Google simply ate Firefox's share of the non-MSIE world by osmosis.

    10. Re:the only alternative? by jonnyj · · Score: 2

      Throwing out a closed-source, Apple-only product as an "alternative" is hardly the counter to the Chrome/Google monoculture.

      Surely freedom includes the freedom of others to use proprietary software? In this case, the huge proportion of affluent consumers (and I don't mean me) who browse the web on their iPhones, iPads and Macs using Safari provide an important incentive for web developers to avoid creating sites that work solely on Chrome. That indirectly benefits users of other browsers like Firefox.

    11. Re: the only alternative? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Could you please point out the "completely false statement" you're referring to?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    12. Re:the only alternative? by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A few truths exist, one is that if Microsoft says you shouldn't do a thing, it must be critically important for you to double down on that thing.

    13. Re:the only alternative? by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 3, Informative

      Also Steam uses WebKit across all OSes

      No it doesn't -> https://imgur.com/bZa5nWY

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    14. Re:the only alternative? by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Informative

      Seriously try 8.1 and Win 7 will feel as low as Win98 running on a 386. Boot times on Win 7 with my current system (FX8320e with 16gb of RAM and 240gb SSD) was around 20 seconds until it was fully loaded, on Win 8.1? Its about 4 seconds! Its literally so fast I never see the Win 8.1 boot screen, it goes from POST to the desktop so the only time I ever see the boot screen is running in safe mode to run DDU when installing a new graphics driver.

      I ran in dual boot to compare the two and after 3 days I just tossed win 7, the difference in speed and responsiveness? Like night and day, 8.1 really blows the doors off Win 7.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    15. Re: the only alternative? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2

      Good to see you back. Problem is everyone and their brother have uefi and secure boot disabled and CSM 1981 bios emulation so they don't see any increase in boot times nor have a recovery partition. But secure boot is evil so that's fine if you ask anyone here

  2. Complete moron by brickhouse98 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What a jackass. Sure, everything was made better by decreasing competition and just being subservient to an open source engine that is mainly influenced by one big player. This idiot got a lot more attention than he probably thought he would- good.

    1. Re:Complete moron by gl4ss · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the real reason would be to ask why the f would you choose microsofts chromium browser over anything else?

      besides, wtf would mozilla "research" if they dropped their own rendering engine? would they research how to keep adblockers running on chromium?

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Complete moron by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Quitters quit. It's what they do, they don't see other options and it seems irrational when other people don't.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Complete moron by Z00L00K · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think that you have figured it out - the nail in the eye of many ad providers is the strength of Firefox/Gecko when it comes to allowing ad blocking tech.

      Without ad blocking the web would be useless and we could as well just look up the small waterholes that run no or very limited ads.

      By driving development to a single rendering engine you allow a very limited number of people in control of what we are served.

      As long as the rendering engines follows the standards declared by the World Wide Web Consortium then we don't have a problem. If they have "hidden features" as IE had for a long time, then we are as users in the hands of the major corporations.

      We are in a Max Headroom world. Hello Blank Reg!

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    4. Re:Complete moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think that you have figured it out - the nail in the eye of many ad providers is the strength of Firefox/Gecko when it comes to allowing ad blocking tech.

      In nature, differentiation of a species often means that what kills some, does not kill all. Software monoculture is just a bad idea, for much the same reason. Sure it makes things more compatible, but you also loose the edge that competition fosters, and in the event some serious problem is found with one, you have no alternative ready to go.

      For instance, it is not inconceivable that a zero day worm would get in the wild that would easily infect any variant of the standard engine, but have firefox be completely unaffected.

      Basically Firefox is important not just for being able to install things like u-block.

    5. Re:Complete moron by Dan+East · · Score: 2

      Without ad blocking the web would be useless

      For who? You? The vast majority of web browsing is now done on mobile devices, and the mobile browsers don't have ad blocking by default. Thus the vast majority of people using the internet are not using ad blockers, and I very much doubt the web is *useless* for them.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    6. Re:Complete moron by terrycarlino · · Score: 2

      I've no problem with News Guard per se, though I don't always agree totally with their ratings, but the very concept of letting a single arbiter be the 'protector' of all that is good is terrifying.

      People don't need to be protected from 'fake news'. They need enough information to determine that news is fake and who is promoting it. That includes arbiters such as News Guard and people to verify News Guard remains impartial.

      In no case does a monoculture promote anything. Or perhaps you were being sarcastic and forgot the sarcasm tag?

    7. Re:Complete moron by Z00L00K · · Score: 2

      Firefox+uBlock exists for Android too.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  3. Or maybe the opposite... by RyanFenton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You know, restore plug-in compatibility, same with status bar, allow user interface customization, remove pocket, and go fully open source.

    Basically take advantage of everything that made them better than Chrome, instead of throwing it away.

    Just an idea.

    Ryan Fenton

    1. Re:Or maybe the opposite... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Informative

      The old plug-ins and the UI customization were what were holding Firefox back. Go back and try one of the versions from before the change over, comparing performance with current Firefox and Chrome. It's night and day.

      And that's before you look at the security nightmare that results from Javascript being able to hook deep into the browser, alter the UI and get executed in critical paths.

      Look at the projects keeping the old system alive, like Waterfox and Pale Moon. All suffering from being unable to fix the performance issues and being very slow with security patches because their security model is so terrible. The developers have realized what Mozilla realized years ago - the fundamental design is flawed, and it can't be fixed.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Or maybe the opposite... by fafalone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The vast, vast majority of websites load in a couple seconds for me. I'm not interested in a page loading in 1 second instead of 3 in exchange for giving up better plugins and UI, or slightly better security that's better handled by just providing a toggle for people who know what they're doing. That's just not a worthwhile tradeoff. For people who think it is, there's Chrome.

    3. Re:Or maybe the opposite... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oh great, Javascript that can write to the filesystem. How could that possibly go wrong?

      Lots of ways. But it's also useful, and if you simply chroot then it's not a big deal.

      By the way, those web archives are actually just ZIP files and can be extracted with tools like 7zip. The HTML is inside.

      What I want is for them to pop up in my browser to be annotated like what happens when I click on them in the Scrapbook sidebar. I don't want to be dicking with them. I have what I want now, and I don't want my browser to have LESS functionality.

      Also in Chrome when you save the page you can select between "complete" (the archive) and "HTML only".

      Irrelevant, that's not what I'm talking about. Does that preserve the page as currently displayed?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Or maybe the opposite... by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      Reading and Writing to the file system always seems like a good idea to the Web App Developer, because their Web App can do everything a normal App can... However this is the same problem that opened the door in the early 2000's with Microsoft Active X technology and automatic plugins. Active X was meant to compete against Java Applets. With two key benefits, they ran faster, because they were just an executable binary that ran in a browser (or other application) window, and it could write to the file system.

      Sun Microsystems wanted Java to be platform independent (so they can sell more Sun Workstations) without scaring off those windows users. So interpreting the byte code was slow (especially on the slower late 1990's and early 2000's PCs) and not writing to the file system, was a conscious decision because they didn't want Java Applets to be the gateway to security problems. (like how Active X became)

      Unfortunately Microsoft got some popularity with these Active X, mainly because most people (including Microsoft) thought about Personal Computers in the mindset, of the single process, single user (normally with Admin access), systems of old. Considered security problems to be a matter of a personal attack on your PC, to get into your PC. Not from general attacks and phishing and get what they can get. Your locked down C:\Windows folder was considered more important then you c:\Users\login folder. However after system got hooked up with networking the reverse became true. You home folder needs to be more secure then you system folders, because reinstalling you PC is easy, getting you work data back is hard.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:Or maybe the opposite... by higuita · · Score: 2

      No, firefox stop using XUL some years ago, at same time multi-process, rust and new add-on where added (talking about years, not one single version switch)
      The new design required to trash many old code and design decisions. One of the main reasons was that using the interface as a rendering product would block the split of user interface from the rendering in two different, independent processes

      --
      Higuita
  4. Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These days Microsoft makes more of their money off of abusing people's privacy then selling software, so of course they are opposed to the browser that still allows savvy users to block that shit.

    1. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're obviously unaware of Bing, Windows 10 telemetry, and the other crap Microsoft's into these days.
      I understand; I left Microsoft behind myself over a decade ago, but they're no longer primarily a seller of software.

    2. Re:Makes sense by Voyager529 · · Score: 2

      For the moment, it is. The concern isn't terribly high at the moment, primarily because Microsoft is still very bad at monetizing it. Right now, they're laying the groundwork for shifting from "selling Windows and Office" to making money in other ways. The apps that show up spontaneously on the Start Menu of Windows 10 aren't because Microsoft thinks you'll really like them. Microsoft defaulting the OOBE to using an MS Account and allowing all data collection isn't simply out of the goodness of their heart, any more than them trying to super encourage developers to develop UWP apps instead of Win32 programs.

      The reality is that MS wants to be Google more than they want to be a slightly-less-terrible Oracle. Sadly, I can't completely blame them. Windows Server has been basically feature complete since 2008R2; it's getting tougher and tougher to add useful features. There's only so much subscription revenue to go around before on-prem deployments start eyeballing OSS alternatives. Azure hosting and Office365 have been pretty successful, but it's not the hockey stick growth curve the MBAs want. They'll only be able to make Google Money in advertising if they have eyeballs. Since Bing hasn't been able to get more than a few percentage points in the search market, they need to leverage their saturated market. If they go all-in too quickly, it'll make iPads and Chromebooks seem like a better platform. Meanwhile, luring advertisers from Google and Facebook means having granular demographic data. Windows is how they're getting it.

      Just because they're in the collection phase *now* doesn't mean they'll stay there forever. Eventually, MS will monetize that data.

    3. Re:Makes sense by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      rape (n)
      ...

      3) an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: "the rape of the countryside."

      Bombastic, but not outside the traditional meaning of the word.

  5. Microsoft... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Microsoft should be broken up by DoJ again in an antitrust action. Maybe their functionaries will stop being so uppity and yipp-yapping about things that don't concern them.

    1. Re:Microsoft... by Pfhorrest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Microsoft should be broken up by DoJ again in an antitrust action

      That implies that they were broken up by the DoJ once before. They were found guilty of antitrust violations, yes, but before any action could be taken against them Bush took office and his DoJ declined to follow up on the matter.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    2. Re:Microsoft... by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That implies that they were broken up by the DoJ once before. They were found guilty of antitrust violations, yes, but before any action could be taken against them Bush took office and his DoJ declined to follow up on the matter.

      I'm glad you got modded up to 5, I only wish that the more than 5 comments I've posted over the years 'twixt then and now saying the exact same thing hadn't typically been downmodded by butthurt microsofties. Microsoft was found to have acted in basically every anticompetitive way possible, and Bill Gates was implicated personally. That's why I make sure to describe him as a career criminal in every discussion about how fucking wonderful his charity work supposedly is (even though it never actually is — he's just doing Big Pharma's work for them, spreading IP law while actually failing to eradicate anything.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re: Microsoft... by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2

      I prefer Google.

      It's 2019 not 1999. Damn I feel old.

      Who has a monopoly on node.js Google! Who has a monopoly on progressive web apps Google! Who has a monopoly on electron based hipster code editors which have a dependency on Google Google! Even visual studio code which I like and runs on Linux and based on electron runs on node.js and chromiom has Google all over it with the MS label. But geeks here bash it because it's from microspft.

      Folks wake up. IBM was so hated by the gray hairs back in the 1980s that MS was viewed as the good guys. We saw what happened 10 years later.

  6. Typical Microsoft Employee -- Arrogant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Edge failed so cut down anyone who continues to try and compete.

    Pathetic.

    1. Re:Typical Microsoft Employee -- Arrogant by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Some random dude at Microsoft is butthurt that Mozilla beat Edge.

      Clickbait for Nerds.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:Typical Microsoft Employee -- Arrogant by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

      firefox is pretty much doomed at this point as they will almost certainly never recover marketshare at this point and it only gets worse from here as no one tests sites for firefox anymore.

      Why don't you put a "Best viewed with IE" blinking-GIF on your homepage?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Typical Microsoft Employee -- Arrogant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      firefox is in its death throes. It is bad for all of us, but you can't blame companies, sites and developers for dropping testing for it. The user population just doesn't justify the investment in many cases. Really though mozilla has no one to blame for this but themselves, rather than innovating they tried to clone Chrome, rather than listening to their userbase they dictated to them, rather than helping the developer community they fucked them over.

    4. Re:Typical Microsoft Employee -- Arrogant by Ashe+Tyrael · · Score: 2

      and arguably, changing the Edge rendering engine was never all that necessary in the first place.

      Edge's problem was never really its engine. From playing with it a bit, it didn't seem to be noticeably worse. The problem was the UI and the design philosophy, and everything that came with them.

      The example I always use is that of the custom formatting that MS set up to turn phone numbers in web pages to clickable links, the idea being you could click and it would pass you through to a voip application (eg. Skype) or your phone's dialler if you were on a WinPhone. If you weren't on either of those it could get really annoying. They had an option to turn it off, but that option only worked in full IE, Edge was stuck with it.

      --
      "How fine you look when dressed in rage."
    5. Re:Typical Microsoft Employee -- Arrogant by rundgong · · Score: 3, Informative

      Clickbait for Nerds.

      You might be on to a new tag line for /. there

      Clickbait for nerds, stuff that doesn't matter!

    6. Re:Typical Microsoft Employee -- Arrogant by nukenerd · · Score: 2

      I hope the training course was not on website development.

    7. Re: Typical Microsoft Employee -- Arrogant by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2

      IE and Edge we're the only fall back from this nightmare! They like Firefox of old kept lazy project Managers in check from domination. While slashdot cheered Edges demise as Google is cool I shiddered. :-(

      Odd I find myself cheering IE and Edge but I am principled.

  7. Um, WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Chromium is the "parallel universe" here, not Firefox. The Firefox browser is far older and can trace it's origins back to Mosaic. Of course, the tweet was posted by someone from Microsoft, who is clearly biased on the matter. Firefox is the only significant competition left, and it's good that users still have a choice.

    1. Re: Re:Um, WTF? by bheerssen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mozilla has been committed to social issues since before there was a Firefox. What do you think the whole "Take back the web" thing was about? They are trying to keep the web free, as in freedom, for everyone. If that's not a social issue, nothing is.

      --
      (Score: -1, Stupid)
    2. Re:Um, WTF? by 4im · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Firefox browser is far older and can trace it's origins back to Mosaic.

      Not quite... Internet Explorer was Mosaic's bastard child. Netscape, Mozillas predecessor, was independently developed. Chromium is descended from webkit, in turn coming from the KDE project's khtml.

      Yes, I'm old enough to have used Mosaic myself, back in 1993.

  8. Very short sighted by chromaexcursion · · Score: 4, Informative

    Mozilla has a history of innovation. Regularly better than the others.
    A single engine is bad for the ecosystem. It's much harder to find an exploit that works everywhere.
    Webkit is chromium. Apple is using the chromium engine.

    I've used Mozilla since V 0.05. I file the original memory leak bugzilla report. I've forgotten the number, but it was under 100.
    I was getting updates on it for over 10 years, until it was finally solved.

  9. It takes some bravado by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    to commit career suicide by admitting you backed the wrong horse.

    Gecko, for all its warts, is now the only non-Safari option (sorry, Tim, I don't own any Apple hardware) to avoid a Google monoculture.

  10. Don't take advice from your enemy by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 5, Insightful
    When your enemy tells you you're stupid and you should be doing something else, never do that. She'll always say things like "you're wasting your time on useless efforts" - if your enemy really thought that, she'd rejoice that you were wasting your time.

    Your enemy is not worried that you will fail. She is worried that you will succeed.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:Don't take advice from your enemy by Tailhook · · Score: 2

      Or progressive and uses female pronouns by default?

      Either way it's a pretty good troll.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
  11. Fake News by demon+driver · · Score: 3, Funny

    I know Program Manager, and I know that it cannot "say" a thing.

  12. I proudly belong to the 5% by thesjaakspoiler · · Score: 2

    Microsoft's switch to Chromium just confirms what everyone already knows : Microsoft is a failing giant. I'd only wish that Firefox has supported Firebug instead of trying to replace it with something that isn't near as good.

  13. this piece of FUD brought to you...... by Indy1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    by the same pack of flaming assholes who have wasted 20+ years and billions of dollars designing shitty, bug ridden, non standards compliant web browsers, that have such massive security holes that any 13 year old script kiddie could drive a tank through them.

    Yeah M$, you're a real authority on web development *sarcasm*.

    --
    Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
  14. Re:What could go wrong with a monopoly? by Guspaz · · Score: 2

    A quick look at Chromium's github shows regular updates every few minutes. That doesn't sound much like a cathedral or a corporate tower to me. Even if Google is maintaining control of the project (and they seem to do so to a much lesser degree than Torvalds controls the Linux kernel), the development is clearly happening in the public, with every individual check-in available to merge.

  15. monocultures suck; long live the open web! by neonman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Three Issues:
    1.) Monocultures Suck: Experienced web developers know that no browser is without its deviations from W3C specifications. One of the ways that this becomes evident is when the developer observes inconsistent behavior from one browser to another. Bug reports get filed, and hopefully, just hopefully, if the browser vendor is not overrun with arrogant "WONTFIX" jerks, the behavior is corrected to conform with the standards document. In a monoculture, this doesn't happen as often, and gradually, the sole-surviving implementation displaces the documented standard, creating a significant barrier to the creation of alternative implementations in the event that people start to crave competition again. Instead of implementing the standard, an alternative browser now has to reverse engineer and mimic all of the bugs in the dominant rendering engine, so as to be compatible with the same web content.

    2.) Mozilla happens to be a "Protector of the Web", and the "Narrative" is Appropriate: One of the great virtues of Mozilla is that, in addition to being a non-proffit organization, they aren't an operator of any major web properties. As such, they aren't subject to the conflicts of interest that you often see with companies like Google and Microsoft, who are often tempted to tailor their browsers to their commercial interests: interests that may be at odds those of the user.

    3.) As of early 2019, Firefox Significantly Outperforms Chromium: Has Auchenberg even tried Firefox in the past year? Ever since the release of Firefox Quantum, Firefox has been blowing the pants off Chrome. Better yet, its Servo rendering engine is written in Rust, a modern language with safety guarantees that aren't achievable in C++. Mozila's leadership with Rust points to the possibility that we will one day be able to have some confidence in the security of our computing environments. Sticking with C++ is not the path forward if we hope to ever fully trust complex software like browsers.

    1. Re:monocultures suck; long live the open web! by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Interesting

      3.) As of early 2019, Firefox Significantly Outperforms Chromium: Has Auchenberg even tried Firefox in the past year? Ever since the release of Firefox Quantum, Firefox has been blowing the pants off Chrome.

      It follows the standards better in my experience, too. Still waiting for Chrome to catch up.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  16. Fork Chromium by mentil · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Forking Chromium and customizing it to follow Mozilla's philosophy would free up lots of resources currently dedicated to copying Chrome UX/functionality, and keeping up with the latest W3C standards. It'd also make moot the hand-wringing over issues like AMP, media DRM, and H.264 support.

    The main argument against doing so would be leading to a monoculture. However, Chrome has beaten out Firefox in security the last 2 pwn2own competitions, so there's questionable value in that. Maybe the move to Rust will be a silver bullet, but if it's not, maybe that should be the end of the road.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:Fork Chromium by roca · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If Chromium becomes the only browser engine then you won't have to worry about "W3C standards", because whatever Chromium does (bugs and all) will *be* the standard and the W3C might as well cease to exist. That is one of the problems with monocultures.

  17. Keeping Corporate Control At Bay by Gnostic+Teflon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The presence of Firefox on the scene moves the overall state of web browsers just by being there, occasionally introducing new features which others might adopt, and giving the web user more options rather than just the Lucrative Interests. Not at all a bad thing.

  18. Re:Auchenberg misunderstands the threat by Tyger-ZA · · Score: 2

    That Microsoft manager seems to be totally incompetent at observation and analysis.

    Being incompetent seems to be a prerequisite for being a manager at MS.

  19. It's time for @microsoft to get down... by Paul+Doom · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...from their philosophical ivory tower. The web is dominated by Linux, if they really 'cared' about the web, they would be contributing instead of building a parallel universe that's used by less than ? percent?

    Cool argument, bro!

    --
    "Life is life." --Laibach
  20. Dear Mozilla, by godrik · · Score: 2

    please ignore that idiot!

    We love you. And we love the diversity you bring to the web market and your commitment to internet freedom.

    A faithful user.

  21. Webrender by darkain · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Or how about we don't give two fucks about "popular" and instead focus on technological superiority!? I'm a life long Opera user (which is now Blink/Chromium based) but seriously considering converting to Firefox *JUST* because of Webrender. I have it in testing on one of my development machines, and it literally is a solid 10x faster. When they say "the web at 60fps" they truly mean it. The web has become a very complex graphical thing, it only makes sense to have high performance dedicated graphics processors handling all of this instead of general purpose processors. THIS is what Mozilla has accomplished that none of Microsoft, Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon or other tech giants have been able to muster up yet. Offloading all that work to the GPU also means the CPU is free to do other more important tasks, or in the case of laptops, this means extended battery life.

  22. Funny by yusing · · Score: 4, Interesting

    IF I *had* to use Chrome, I'd quit the Web. And if that'd be too painful, I follow after Stallman and have the pages mailed to me.

    *That's* how much use I have for Google and the evil crap it's gotten us all sucked into. Every effing site on the web is pulling crap in from all over, loading on the trackers, even orgs that *ought* to know better. A nasty race to the bottom.

    MS is in no position to make comments. Everything they've made lately has failed or is an insanely-rigged pile of used-to-be.

    --

    "You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson

  23. The "new" Microsoft at it again by peppepz · · Score: 2

    "Netscape" being alive is still a pet peeve of them.

  24. Aging monopolist argues for monoculture by Tough+Love · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Aging monopolist argues for monoculture, who woulda thunkit? I on the other hand think that Mozilla should just continue incrementally reimplementing Gecko in Rust as they have been doing rather successfully. I wonder if this guy even knows what Rust is, or why it matters?

    Let's keep this in perspective. Firefox is still double the share of Edge and equal to IE, that is still hundreds of millions. My counter proposal: Microsoft should stop shipping IE, make it a download. Kill it faster. It's just one more platform to support, arguably the most problematic one, it just dumbs down the whole internet.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  25. Microsoft is scared... by msevior · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Mozilla is clearly doing something right.

    Firstly they have Microsoft telling them they're wrong.
    Secondly the latest stats I've found show Firefox market share increased by 10% in the most recent monthly statistics plot the top google search shows (from 9.1% to 10.05%)

    See:

    https://www.statista.com/stati...

    Keep up the good work Firefox devs!

  26. More collaboration would be better by kreedin · · Score: 2

    Despite the silliness of his argument. More collaboration on most opensource software would actually be better, but not when there is no alternative. I believe you need at least two open source alternatives, with development teams that can try different approaches, but from this there should be one collaborative project that combines the best of both. The latter should be the de-facto standard. This would be a good thing for the opensource community as it would unite instead of divide a small pool of resources. Further to the point, it would not diminish options as the truly technical savvy can install either variant, or still make their unique version of either. Creativity would still be able to thrive without needing countless options that are essential the same with a small layer of veneer.

  27. MS has a problem. by Qbertino · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They should've joined Mozilla and not Google. They'll notice in two years and then it will be too late.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  28. Google is demonstrably untrustable by tezbobobo · · Score: 2

    This is in the same newscycle as Google (the web's biggest advertiser) updating their API in a way that breaks most adblockers. Regardless of the reason they did it, Google won't make changes that don't favour Google. This lead inexorably to a Google-centric web and monopolization of power.

  29. Only dumped back all at once at the end too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It took the KDE devs years to port over webkit code that made sense in khtml, and Apple hadn't been a good community member and discussed/disclosed what they were doing until release time, resulting in code that was unacceptable to the kde project without reworking, as I remember it. If you look back it is not altogether unlike what happened with GCC when NeXT/Apple's Objective-C patches finally got released, although I think FSF had to threaten/sue over that one?

    Having said that, we need Gecko/Servo/Whatever to keep from a single exploit in a browser engine allowing infection vectors on the majority of systems in the world. Homogenization is bad at both the hardware and software level for a large number of reasons. Having said that, perhaps Mozilla is not the stewarding foundation to further develop the engine into something secure, privacy minded, and fiscally responsible.

  30. Let me translate that... by higuita · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Let me translate that:

    We want to track you and deploy closed source solutions/codecs/whatever and that tiny firefox is always blocking it, pushing open source solutions and allowing people to block ads and tracking ... bastards!

    MS kept a broken IE for years, and it still being used (where they disabled many other things, IE they do not disabled), keeping broken sites working still today instead of finally forcing then to upgrade to something that works in all browsers. Those shitty old sites are still blocking many people from using better browsers. MS should not really be talking about other people browsers!
    First disable the IE in all windows installs and then you can comment other people browsers!

    --
    Higuita
  31. Re:Microsoft should cease to exist. by PPH · · Score: 2

    At least, someone should tell them to "learn to code."

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.