I thought I'm going to read about an initiative to join efforts between Ungoogled Chromium, Chromite, Srware Iron etc, but no. Yet another place for Google and Meta to work together.
After the whole debacle of manifest v3 they're really choosing Chromium of all browsers to develop on?
Mozilla has made some controversial decisions but surely Firefox would be the better decision for the Linux and FOSS ecosystem.
Even better why not Librewolf?
Seeing this news makes me sad as there are better options available and the Linux foundation chose the worst one out of all of them.
I'm very happy Servo exists but if they want, like, a working browser, it's no wonder they chose Chromium.
For comparison, from a recent Servo blogpost: "Servo can now run Discord well enough to log in and read messages, though you can’t send messages yet. [...] We now support enough of XPath to get htmx working.".
Unfortunately, as much as I hate to admit it as someone who has left Chromium behind personally, Chromium is kind of the only choice. I think people outside the browser implementation world underestimate the sheer scale and complexity of the modern browser stack and what goes into maintaining compatibility with web standards, much less advancing them.
We've reached the point where Chromium is essentially the de-facto web standard because Chromium engineers do the lions' share of feature testing and development, because Chromium receives the lions' share of funding.
Igalia, an OSS consultancy that does a lot of fairly-funded independent browser development, has lots of material about this. For example, the recent chat between Igalia members and someone from Open Web Advocacy about what to do if the anitrust ruling against Google jeopardize's Chromium's funding, and the options are pretty dire.
Edit: After reading the article, I think this is a really good sign. Bringing together the immediate stakeholders in Chromium's development and funding bodes well for the possibility of stewarding Chromium in a less Google-dependent, profit-motivated, ad-centric direction. There's unfortunately a lot of uncertainty about how this will all shake out, but it's possible that Chromium could become a truly independent project and move back in the direction of user value instead of user-hostile shareholder value.
We’ve reached the point where Chromium is essentially the de-facto web standard because Chromium engineers do the lions’ share of feature testing and development,
Most of the web standards driven by Chromium are not particularly beneficial to the web, but are beneficial to Google. This is not an accident. It is how Google has made itself gatekeeper of the web while maintaining the facade of an open and standards-compliant browser.
This is not a good thing. Community-focused projects investing time and money into supporting it is a bit like digging one's own grave.
Would you think that maybe the feature set implemented by modern web browsers has grown too large? Perhaps we need to start dropping some features to keep the web browser design lean.
Unfortunately, as much as I hate to admit it as someone who has left Chromium behind personally, Chromium is kind of the only choice.
With Mozilla's rudderless stewardship of Firefox, I reluctantly agree with this. Firefox, and Mozilla, used to stand for something more than just a browser, but that is sadly vanishing now. Chrome is really the future and while I'm clinging on to Firefox, I will succumb in the end.
It's very sad. I've been a Firefox user for so long I've lost count. But Mozilla has lost it's way and I don't see it making any noise about getting back on course.
I think having one browser engine is a very bad idea. But here we are.
With webassembly and webgl, why do browsers need to evolve? If you want some feature the browser doesn't provide, just make it yourself and draw it onto the canvas. x86 assembly gets occasional performance improving instructions but fundamally it's existed for 50 years and can continue to support all modern programs. X11 survived for 40 years before any talk of a replacement really appeared. Why can't Chrome be maintenance only for 40 years and let apps and websites innovate on top of its primitives?
Stephen Shankland's report from 2020 notes a number of people suggesting that Chromium as a whole could be moved out of Google entirely and into an independent foundation, such as the Linux Foundation. That's not what is happening now, but it's another step toward larger organization outside of the web's dominant browser and advertising provider (though Google is still one of the supporters).
One can only hope this is the first step toward a larger trend. LF stewardship of the Chromium project wouldn't be perfect, but it's still much better than the current situation of it being controlled by one company, be it Google or whoever they'll forced to sell Chrome to.
My read of the situation is that this was driven by Google rather than LF (as in I think Google approached LF about the idea first) in an effort to give then an argument that the court shouldn''t take Chrome away from them (the only way Google would ever give up control over Chrome).
I'm not sure. The courts intends for Google to sell Chrome, not Chromium. Even if they gave guarentees that Chromium will become independant, the coourt's likely to tell them to sell Chrome anyway (as they could still apply monopolistic practices like service bundling without control over Chromium, not to mention they could 'fork' LF's Chromium later to make their own).
The way I see it, this is more Google being scared shitless about Chrome's new owner being shitty, promote their own services instead of Google's, and disrespect web standards (or depecreates the 'standards' Google implemented in Chromium without the approval of other browers, or standard bodies). That could cause MASSIVE issues for them, and the loss of business that could cause would be tremendous, in a way that's far worse than giving up control on Chromium.
To me, his seems more like the nuclear option of Google saying that if they can't own Chromiulm, then nobody can as a way to cut their losses.
I use Firefox (and forks) myself but wouldn't donate to it. It's like Wikipedia - a great project with a shitty parent company which'll spend all of your donations on shit projects.
The article explains some of the background to chromium which I hadn't known.
Google's Chrome is a freeware release with deeper ties to Google's ecosystem, while Chromium, released at the same time as Chrome in 2008, is open source. Google has slowly loosened its de facto control of the project, particularly since 2020, allowing outside developers into its leadership, softening its stance on non-Google-derived features and opening up its "Goma" development scheme for Chromium, as detailed by CNET in 2020.
What I haven't seen in the discussions here so far is that Chromium is the web engine that most mobile apps are built on (you don't build your own special web client to access the server for your app, you just use an existing system for that). Also it's the engine used for most web apps for embedded/standalone/IoT devices. The Electron application framework has Chromium embedded in it for web access - every Electron app uses Chromium. If your climate control device has a little touchscreen and smart features it's probably using a web app that runs in an embedded instance of Chromium. Basically any device that has a GUI and links to cloud services is probably doing the same thing.
Bluntly, when it comes to client-side access to web services, Chromium matters more than Firefox, and anything that happens with it is far more impactful because it applies to a broader context than just people using Chrome for regular web browsing.