5 ms·

Because then any pull request introducing something into Chromium essentially becomes the web standard. For example, Google has a ton of influence on the projec

by mcgannon2007 8y ago

Because then any pull request introducing something into Chromium essentially becomes the web standard. For example, Google has a ton of influence on the project. If they want to, they can introduce something that benefits their services but eschews the web standard.

holtalanm 8y ago
but if Microsoft is moving to Blink, wouldn't they, as well, have (as you say) influence on the project? What, really, is a downside to having an open-source web engine that all browsers use? I'm failing to see one. The web would become less fragmented; the web standard would be (only slightly) irrelevant, and we would move forward without having to deal with browsers interpreting the spec/standard differently, which is what happens currently in a lot of cases.
- numbsafari 8y ago
  I generally agree with your sentiment on this. The only real downside I can think of is similar to the issues that motivated the renewed investment in OpenBGPD recently: that standards and ecosystems are made stronger when there is some level of competition and diversity. For example, a security bug in chromium becomes vastly more dangerous if everyone is working off that code. That said, hopefully there’ll be fewer of those because everyone is focused on the same codebase. The questions seem to be “how many browser engine implementations is truly necessary for a healthy ecosystem?” And “has the spec gotten so bad that it’s not feasible for the ecosystem to support a sufficient number of independent implementations?” Seems like <5, and maybe <3 is the answer to the first, and the answer to the second is we’ll see what happens to servo in 2019...
- bad_user 8y ago
  > but if Microsoft is moving to Blink, wouldn't they, as well, have (as you say) influence on the project? No. 1. Chrome will remain the dominant web browser 2. the Chromium repository itself is owned by Google The only leverage Microsoft is in forking Chromium, but that does nothing to Chrome's market. Google themselves forked WebKit when they couldn't get along with Apple. And that was back when Chrome wasn't as pervasive. So what makes you think Google would give a crap about Microsoft today?
  - holtalanm 8y ago
    well, if you look at it now, webkit is BY FAR not the dominant engine. So, by your own logic, if Microsoft ends up in a disagreement with Google about the direction of chromium, whats to stop them from just forking it and becoming the new dominant engine? Chrome will only remain the dominant web browser as long as its users view it as worth the hassle. If Edge is built upon chromium in the future, I'm not going to sit here and say that Chrome will remain the dominant browser following that. We can sit here and talk about 'what ifs' all day.
    - bunnycorn 8y ago
      WebKit is the dominant engine because it's what powers Webviews on Android.
      - Klover 8y ago
        Not since android.. 6? It defaults to the chrome browser. You can choose the other chrome browsers too (beta dev canary if installed, via the developer settings) and the web view might actually also be chrome. WebKit on android is from ages ago.
        bunnycorn 8y ago
        Im not talking about default web browsers.
        Klover 8y ago
        I wasn't either! https://developer.chrome.com/multidevice/webview/overview https://developer.chrome.com/multidevice/webview/overview Since 4.4 it is based on Chrome, not WebKit. Since I think version 6, on all the Google phones it defaults to using Chrome for WebView instead of the "WebView for Android" browser.
      - wubin 8y ago
        > Since Android 4.4 (KitKat), the WebView component is based on the Chromium open source project. (...) Webviews also share the same rendering engine as Chrome for Android. [0] KitKat was released in 2013[1] as well as Blink in the same year[2]. Apart from Blink being a WebKit fork, WebKit itself is not "the dominant engine" anymore at least since 2014. [0]: https://developer.chrome.com/multidevice/webview/overview https://developer.chrome.com/multidevice/webview/overview [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_version_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_version_history [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blink_(browser_engine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blink_(browser_engine)
- pcwalton 8y ago
  How do I convince Chromium to adopt parallel engine components written in Rust, in this world? They won't do it, because the entire team at Google is staffed by C++ folks. How is that a better outcome?
  - sureaboutthis 8y ago
    The same way you would convince any other browser vendor to do the same thing. Good luck with that. But let's not forget that Firefox, Opera, et al, are not going away and no one is forcing you to use Chrome or chromium and there probably won't be any real downside either.
    - holtalanm 8y ago
      Well, Opera uses Blink, and apparently according to some folks in this thread that is equivalent to using 'big bad Chrome'
  - pkasting 8y ago
    Our team is staffed by engineers. We respond well to discussions of tradeoffs. If you'd like to present a proposal for writing parts of Chromium in Rust and speak in depth to the exact costs and benefits, we'd absolutely consider it. I know this because we _have_ been doing some of this consideration; a number of people on the team have floated the idea of using Rust for some parts of Chromium. But a real plan to do this requires a great deal of thought and serious consideration about how you get from here to there, whether there are long-term engineering velocity costs, etc. You don't just say "Rust is more memory-safe" and let that phrase alone mean "so obviously you're a dinosaur if you don't switch to it". Even Mozilla is taking a lot of time and effort to introduce Rust-based components to Firefox. Making big changes to enormous projects used by huge numbers of people is not something you do lightly. Still, though, we'd happily consider it.
    - pcwalton 8y ago
      In late 2018, using Rust is a lot more serious of a proposal. But, in practice, I don't think the case for Rust in the browser would be nearly as compelling if we hadn't shown that it can be done. That's one strong reason for browser engine diversity: different engines can try different things. I think it's fair to say that a Rust proposal would have been dead-on-arrival a couple of years ago. It'd be seen as far too risky. It would have remained so in a world where Blink was the only browser engine. It's a classic innovator's dilemma: with fewer browser engines, the fewer risks the industry will take. More browser engines allow more seemingly-risky innovations (such as parallel styling/layout, or Rust) to break through.

holtalanm 8y ago

but if Microsoft is moving to Blink, wouldn't they, as well, have (as you say) influence on the project? What, really, is a downside to having an open-source web engine that all browsers use? I'm failing to see one. The web would become less fragmented; the web standard would be (only slightly) irrelevant, and we would move forward without having to deal with browsers interpreting the spec/standard differently, which is what happens currently in a lot of cases.

numbsafari 8y ago
I generally agree with your sentiment on this. The only real downside I can think of is similar to the issues that motivated the renewed investment in OpenBGPD recently: that standards and ecosystems are made stronger when there is some level of competition and diversity. For example, a security bug in chromium becomes vastly more dangerous if everyone is working off that code. That said, hopefully there’ll be fewer of those because everyone is focused on the same codebase. The questions seem to be “how many browser engine implementations is truly necessary for a healthy ecosystem?” And “has the spec gotten so bad that it’s not feasible for the ecosystem to support a sufficient number of independent implementations?” Seems like <5, and maybe <3 is the answer to the first, and the answer to the second is we’ll see what happens to servo in 2019...
bad_user 8y ago
> but if Microsoft is moving to Blink, wouldn't they, as well, have (as you say) influence on the project? No. 1. Chrome will remain the dominant web browser 2. the Chromium repository itself is owned by Google The only leverage Microsoft is in forking Chromium, but that does nothing to Chrome's market. Google themselves forked WebKit when they couldn't get along with Apple. And that was back when Chrome wasn't as pervasive. So what makes you think Google would give a crap about Microsoft today?
- holtalanm 8y ago
  well, if you look at it now, webkit is BY FAR not the dominant engine. So, by your own logic, if Microsoft ends up in a disagreement with Google about the direction of chromium, whats to stop them from just forking it and becoming the new dominant engine? Chrome will only remain the dominant web browser as long as its users view it as worth the hassle. If Edge is built upon chromium in the future, I'm not going to sit here and say that Chrome will remain the dominant browser following that. We can sit here and talk about 'what ifs' all day.
  - bunnycorn 8y ago
    WebKit is the dominant engine because it's what powers Webviews on Android.
    - Klover 8y ago
      Not since android.. 6? It defaults to the chrome browser. You can choose the other chrome browsers too (beta dev canary if installed, via the developer settings) and the web view might actually also be chrome. WebKit on android is from ages ago.
      - bunnycorn 8y ago
        Im not talking about default web browsers.
        Klover 8y ago
        I wasn't either! https://developer.chrome.com/multidevice/webview/overview https://developer.chrome.com/multidevice/webview/overview Since 4.4 it is based on Chrome, not WebKit. Since I think version 6, on all the Google phones it defaults to using Chrome for WebView instead of the "WebView for Android" browser.
    - wubin 8y ago
      > Since Android 4.4 (KitKat), the WebView component is based on the Chromium open source project. (...) Webviews also share the same rendering engine as Chrome for Android. [0] KitKat was released in 2013[1] as well as Blink in the same year[2]. Apart from Blink being a WebKit fork, WebKit itself is not "the dominant engine" anymore at least since 2014. [0]: https://developer.chrome.com/multidevice/webview/overview https://developer.chrome.com/multidevice/webview/overview [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_version_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_version_history [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blink_(browser_engine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blink_(browser_engine)
pcwalton 8y ago
How do I convince Chromium to adopt parallel engine components written in Rust, in this world? They won't do it, because the entire team at Google is staffed by C++ folks. How is that a better outcome?
- sureaboutthis 8y ago
  The same way you would convince any other browser vendor to do the same thing. Good luck with that. But let's not forget that Firefox, Opera, et al, are not going away and no one is forcing you to use Chrome or chromium and there probably won't be any real downside either.
  - holtalanm 8y ago
    Well, Opera uses Blink, and apparently according to some folks in this thread that is equivalent to using 'big bad Chrome'
- pkasting 8y ago
  Our team is staffed by engineers. We respond well to discussions of tradeoffs. If you'd like to present a proposal for writing parts of Chromium in Rust and speak in depth to the exact costs and benefits, we'd absolutely consider it. I know this because we _have_ been doing some of this consideration; a number of people on the team have floated the idea of using Rust for some parts of Chromium. But a real plan to do this requires a great deal of thought and serious consideration about how you get from here to there, whether there are long-term engineering velocity costs, etc. You don't just say "Rust is more memory-safe" and let that phrase alone mean "so obviously you're a dinosaur if you don't switch to it". Even Mozilla is taking a lot of time and effort to introduce Rust-based components to Firefox. Making big changes to enormous projects used by huge numbers of people is not something you do lightly. Still, though, we'd happily consider it.
  - pcwalton 8y ago
    In late 2018, using Rust is a lot more serious of a proposal. But, in practice, I don't think the case for Rust in the browser would be nearly as compelling if we hadn't shown that it can be done. That's one strong reason for browser engine diversity: different engines can try different things. I think it's fair to say that a Rust proposal would have been dead-on-arrival a couple of years ago. It'd be seen as far too risky. It would have remained so in a world where Blink was the only browser engine. It's a classic innovator's dilemma: with fewer browser engines, the fewer risks the industry will take. More browser engines allow more seemingly-risky innovations (such as parallel styling/layout, or Rust) to break through.