Tech Giants Form Chromium Browser Coalition (betanews.com) 54
BrianFagioli writes: The Linux Foundation has announced the launch of 'Supporters of Chromium-Based Browsers,' an initiative aimed at funding and supporting open development within the Chromium ecosystem. The purpose of this effort is to provide resources and foster collaboration among developers, academia, and tech companies to drive the sustainability and innovation of Chromium projects. Major industry players, including Google, Meta, Microsoft, and Opera, have pledged their support.
So they are throwing Mozilla under the bus? (Score:2)
No, throwing the baby out with the bathwater (Score:5, Insightful)
Due primarily to mis-management, Mozilla is dying. It's not going to be coming back on top. We had some perfectly good bathwater, but baby has soiled it beyond recovery.
Re:No, throwing the baby out with the bathwater (Score:5, Insightful)
Due primarily to mis-management
Well that and the worlds largest advertiser running a very concerted campaign plus using their other properties to just break firefox every so often.
Re: (Score:2)
Platform sabotage on Google's part is certainly a factor, but I pretty much lost confidence in Mozilla after Project Lightspeed was announced. That revealed a LOT about Mozilla's priorities at the time. IMO, mis-management is the primary explanation for their downfall.
Netscape faced a similar problem. Geeks love to blame Microsoft for the death of Netscape, but hardly anyone remembers how Netscape 4 was a bloated crash-fest with tons of "value-added" bundling going on, and Netscape 6 was so slow and bugg
Re: (Score:2)
>"Due primarily to mis-management, Mozilla is dying."
I won't argue that Mozilla hasn't made some mistakes- that is true of Google and every other organization. But that isn't what happened.
Google used its *massive* power to push Chrom* on everyone in a way that would be impossible for any other entity, especially Mozilla, to compete with. Especially with an impossible conflict of interest thrown in there as well (Mozilla relies on funding from Google search placement).
Google's constant "recommendations
Re: (Score:1)
With the only meaningful alternative left on most platforms being Firefox, which is much better at user choice, configurability, and privacy, and just as good at overall security and performance.
That's funny, when I revoked the certificate authorities from russia and china on my computer, chrome never once to this day put them back as trusted.
My own personal CA is added to my computer and marked as trusted, and chrome never once attempted to remove it or flag it as untrusted.
Firefox does both of those things every week. It forces me to trust china and russia regardless of my choice not to, and it refuses to trust my own CA, because obviously I should not trust myself, only the mozilla overlords.
Se
Re: (Score:2)
...With the only meaningful alternative left on most platforms being Firefox, which is much better at user choice, configurability, and privacy, and just as good at overall security and performance. Firefox isn't "soiled", it is waiting for you to say "no" to being forced into the new Internet-Explorer-Only era that Google is creating, and to use it.
Speaking as a user of Firefox almost exclusively, dating back to the time when it was called Firebird, I'd say that Firefox IS soiled.
Mozilla patronizes their users rather than listening to them and engaging in meaningful dialogue. They make arbitrary and pointless UI decisions which render the browser harder and more inconvenient for many people to use, while simultaneously and often capriciously making it more difficult - or impossible - to customize.
They've turned around and pissed on what used to be the
Re: (Score:2)
That is the mistake to which I was referring to earlier. I dub it the "Chromification of Firefox." And yes, it pissed me off as well. However, none of that is a valid reason for using Chrom* instead. Firefox is still more customizable, still more privacy focused, and still more open than Chrom*. And while not as easy as it could be, one can undo most of the "Chromification" through userChrome (there is a certain irony in that naming).
So, I am going to stand right next to you and join you to yell at Moz
Re: (Score:2)
We have a perfectly good non Google-browser engine, but lets double down on Internet Explorer 2.0. They did nothing with the servo engine that got donated to them either.
Well, they wanted to call it the FUCK YOU, FIREFOX Coalition, but the name was copyrighted already.
Hard nope! (Score:5, Insightful)
Still refusing to use any variant of a browser created by a Privacy Rapist.
Re:Hard nope! (Score:4, Interesting)
Exactly. Firefox or Brave. Even Brave has issues because I'm not OK with my machine mining in payment for privacy. I want my privacy and I want my security and those are non-negotiable. I pay for my internet. If someone wants me not to block ads, then the following things that will never in a million years happen will have to happen. They will ask me in advance for approval to use my data allotment. They will not track me in any fashion. They will not even be able to tell if I viewed their ad in any way resolvable to me or my systems (they would just have to trust that it happens the same way someone buying a newspaper ad trusts that I read it) or they can literally fuck right off. My internet systems at home and the ones I manage at work are 100% whitelist based. It is pre-approved or it doesn't function and can't be communicated with. Every domain, every app, every port, every system. Period.
Re:Hard nope! (Score:5, Informative)
Brave is based on Chromium (as is Chrome and Edge and every reasonably popular browser that's not Firefox or Safari)
here's the current docs about what they change.
https://github.com/brave/brave... [github.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Brave was involved in some crypto scam so I don't care what they do now. There are other options, no reason to risk it.
Freeze development (Score:2)
Chromium is already good enough, there are no more features to be added .. focus the developers to other things such as robotics and AI agent development. Regarding Chromium, only focus on bug fixing.
Re:Freeze development (of UBlock Origin) (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Freeze development (Score:5, Informative)
Even chromium goes not strip out 100% of the spying and data collection put in the code by google. Yes they get rid of most, but not all, and until that happens it is just spyware light. And the base code is still primarily developed by Google and still making nefarious changes that they disguise as ease of use and security related. Stupid shit like making the address bar dual function as search (security nightmare). Hiding the actual protocol and hostname and only showing the domain when you visit a site (like only showing slashdot.org instead of https://www.slashdot.org./ [www.slashdot.org] Technically a browser should never send anything to the internet without the user taking action to make it happen. Streaming data from entry fields as typed again is a security nightmare especially when coupled with systems that allow cursor grab. Google has received billions of username and passwords due to cursor grab and streaming data fields that send the data as it is being typed after the focus is grabbed and you think you are in one field but the chrome grabbed the focus. Anyone who thinks this wasn't the intention is fooling themselves. This type of nefarious aggravation to get intended behavior is well documented even in the Snowden documents. Snowden docs show that much of the change to cloud services or heavily cloud tied apps like chrome were "guided" by government operatives embedded in many tech companies and steering them toward this because it is so insecure and gives them ready access to massively monitor the public.
Added, no but taken away? (Score:4, Informative)
Chromium is already good enough, there are no more features to be added
I think the more pertinent question is whether they plan to take features away like Google is planning to with Manifest v3. If you are an advertizing giant you don't want to allow users to have features that let them block your ads effectively.
Re: Freeze development (Score:2)
You need to fork chromium to not send all your data to Google, which is what all these companies do
Is there a non chromium based browser consortium (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there a non-chromium-based browser consortium?
Re:Is there a non chromium based browser consortiu (Score:5, Funny)
mozilla.org
mozilla.org (Score:2)
Well apart from Firefox and Seamonkey, there are other browsers based on FF
LibreWolf
Basilisk
Floorp
Theres also something I think called Pale Moon, but I have never used that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Konqueror?
Re: (Score:2)
There are Firefox based browsers. Mul seems to be dead now. Librewolf is okay, mostly just changes the default settings.
The problem with Firefox is that the code is a mess and it's a lot of work to maintain a fork.
How does this impact the manifest changes? (Score:2)
This doesn't make sense on so many levels (Score:1)
Why would the Linux foundation of all things form this coalition?
There's certainly something else behind this news piece, especially when there are flashy words such as "sustainability" and "innovation"
On a side note, I'm never running a browser or an engine developed by an advertising company.
Re: (Score:2)
What do these companies gain from supporting an open-source competitor when each of the companies is trying to capture marketshare?
Publicity.
These companies likely aren't going to alter one iota from how they currently operate, given all of their browsers are already derived from chromium.
Now, as to why the Linux Foundation is getting involved... that's a good question. Funding, maybe?
Re:This doesn't make sense on so many levels (Score:4, Informative)
What do these companies gain from supporting an open-source competitor when each of the companies is trying to capture marketshare?
Each of these competitors are already Chromium based. Basically the Chromium chunk of things are largely the "I don't care, no differentiation to be had" level. The stuff they really care about is who owns the integrated account your browser "signs into" for connected capability and enhanced tracking.
Why would the Linux foundation of all things form this coalition?
To those who actually pay attention to the goings on of the Linux foundation, nothing should really come as a surprise. A very small minority of their time and money is spent on the stuff people actually respect from them. That investment is essentially a marketing expense to provide credibility for all sorts of other initiatives that are more tight with various tech industry business interests. If something is associated with the 'Linux Foundation', people naturally assume it is obviously of critical importance to the Linux ecosystem, despite mostly being wishful thinking by one corporate interest or another looking to have their business plan elevated to the same level of success that Linux has enjoyed. So they will accept money from any company to let that company claim alignment with "the linux".
Really? Chromium? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anything Linux related, even if only through name, focusing on Chromium seems like a net negative. Do we *REALLY* want to promote a monoculture of the web? What happened to the idea of the web being about open standards? I know that companies have been trying to contort the standards to themselves for as long as the web has been commercialized, but does a supposedly open source foundation need to *HELP* that happen?
I'd have much rather seen them create their own browser engine, or work with Mozilla/Firefox to improve theirs. Chrome and Chromium slowly becoming the only game in town is not a good thing. Monoculture never works out in any capacity. It just creates roadblocks to future interoperability, and will eventually turn into a full-blown wall.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Really? Chromium? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Really? Chromium? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's probably a positive that they are funding open development projects based on Chromium, Because they are open projects.
The important thing is that the DOJ needs to move forward with the courts and get Google ordered to divest Chrome.
Google already lost the case, and it's already been motioned [jurist.org]. Just waiting on the courts to hand down orders forcing Google to sell off the property.
Once Chrome's development is free of big tech monopoly control it should hopefully be fine. I just wish they would also have sought a finding Manifest V3 itself to be an Antitrust violation, so part of the orders would be to restore Manifest V2.
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably a positive that they are funding open development projects based on Chromium, Because they are open projects.
The important thing is that the DOJ needs to move forward with the courts and get Google ordered to divest Chrome.
Google already lost the case, and it's already been motioned [jurist.org]. Just waiting on the courts to hand down orders forcing Google to sell off the property.
Once Chrome's development is free of big tech monopoly control it should hopefully be fine. I just wish they would also have sought a finding Manifest V3 itself to be an Antitrust violation, so part of the orders would be to restore Manifest V2.
Yeah, that'll take years to actually happen, if it happens at all. Even if it does go through, I still don't like the monoculture approach to the web. Heck, I like Linux but still use the BSDs from time to time just so I don't get stuck only knowing one system. Monoculture in anything strikes me as a bad idea, but especially in tech oriented areas.
Re: (Score:2)
>"It's probably a positive that they are funding open development projects based on Chromium, Because they are open projects."
But Chromium, itself, is not an open project. It is open-source, but far from "open" as far as the project goes. Google and ONLY Google controls exactly what goes into it.
If anything, they should support open development projects based on Firefox. And while it is controlled by Mozillia, it has a much wider code contribution and open support base. Plus the major bonus of a lack
Re:Really? Chromium? (Score:5, Informative)
IMHO, the more browser engines, the better. One reason is that if a security issue threatens the Chromium engine proper, then pretty much everything but FireFox and Safari will fall prey to it. We already have had a time of history where pretty much everyone used one browser (IE), and at those times, one pretty much had to browse the web in a VM or use a tool like the Proxomitron or GreaseMonkey/TamperMonkey.
Then, Firefox was forked off from Mozilla and became a lean, mean, fast, and secure browser, Chrome was added, and we managed to climb out of that Dark Age. We really don't want to have one group, no matter how well meaning, control browser stuff. Mainly because from what I see, tools like adblock extensions would just not be possible, or we may wind up with DRM where things like opening a developer window to check what is going on may be locked away, similar to how sites used to go with all Flash for "security".
We really need different browsers with different browser engines, not just reskins, but different browsers.
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO, the more browser engines, the better. One reason is that if a security issue threatens the Chromium engine proper, then pretty much everything but FireFox and Safari will fall prey to it. We already have had a time of history where pretty much everyone used one browser (IE), and at those times, one pretty much had to browse the web in a VM or use a tool like the Proxomitron or GreaseMonkey/TamperMonkey.
Then, Firefox was forked off from Mozilla and became a lean, mean, fast, and secure browser, Chrome was added, and we managed to climb out of that Dark Age. We really don't want to have one group, no matter how well meaning, control browser stuff. Mainly because from what I see, tools like adblock extensions would just not be possible, or we may wind up with DRM where things like opening a developer window to check what is going on may be locked away, similar to how sites used to go with all Flash for "security".
We really need different browsers with different browser engines, not just reskins, but different browsers.
Yup. That's my vibe as well. I know there *ARE* other browser engines, but they're becoming about as rare as hen's teeth. And that's not good for anybody in the long run.
Re: (Score:2)
The web is for serving ads. At least the biggest portion of it. Most of the money that installs new routers and faster links is paid for directly and indirectly by ad revenue.
If we quite buying every shiny thing we saw, the whole system would come crashing down.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Anything Linux related, even if only through name, focusing on Chromium seems like a net negative."
I couldn't possibly agree more. I find this "coalition" completely DISGUSTING. As if *more* resources need to be thrown behind something that Google completely controls.
If they want to throw support behind something, it should first be Firefox, and the second some THIRD option that really doesn't exist.
LOL run away from whatever they agree on (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:LOL run away from whatever they agree on (Score:5, Insightful)
Meta supporting anything is an all but guarantee you should avoid it.
Why no browser foundation? (Score:2)
It's almost like... (Score:2)
The people on Wall Street doing the valuations have no freaking idea of just what it takes to actually run a business. Why people listen to those monkey's I have not a clue.
Re: (Score:1)
What about W3C? (Score:2)
Chromium = Google won against adblockers (Score:1)
Dudes, it's all about the AntiTrust Case (Score:1)