• LeTak@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      106
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      Chrome was not always based on chromeium. Chrome was based on Apple WebKit until 2013 when they forked WebKit and made the Blink engine.

      • Dapado@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        44
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Chromium was still the base before the WebKit/Blink fork. Chrome and Chromium were released simultaneously in 2008.

      • fidodo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Chromium has always existed. Originally it was wrapping web kit and later they forked web kit into blink and diverged from Web kit. Chromium is a level above the engine.

      • ElPussyKangaroo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        11 months ago

        Wha- hold up… I’m not sure I understand…

        Chrome was based on WebKit?

        I’m not aware about the old stuff as much so if someone could fill me in…

        • Dapado@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          11 months ago

          WebKit is a rendering engine which is one of the major components of a web browser. Chrome/Chromium was released in 2008 using a modified version of WebKit as its rendering engine. Eventually in 2013 they created a fork of WebKit called Blink, which is the current rendering engine for Chrome/Chromium.

    • narc0tic_bird@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Pre-Chromium Edge wasn’t even that bad. Sure, the engine had its issues and there was probably a bit of Edge-specific JS on some websites, but I’m sure they would’ve eventually got there.

      But seeing that even Microsoft abandoned making their own browser engine, it goes to show how complex it is to make one nowadays and with new web APIs/features coming out every few weeks it feels like, it’s almost impossible to keep up.

      • TAG@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        But seeing that even Microsoft abandoned making their own browser engine, it goes to show how complex it is to make one nowadays and with new web APIs/features coming out every few weeks it feels like, it’s almost impossible to keep up.

        No, Microsoft is just historically bad at making browsers. It was not until Internet Explorer 7 that they finally implemented HTML 4 and CSS 2 without major glaring bugs.

        • Aux@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Microsoft was never bad at making browsers, their issue is that they tied browser release to Windows release cycle. IE6 was the best and the most compatible browser on the market in its release date. But it didn’t get a single update during its long life. 5 years old Chrome is completely useless today even if it was a pinnacle back then.

          • TAG@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Sure, but Windows Update was already part of the OS and web users were a customer segment that had an Internet connection. They could have pushed patches and bug fixes.

            • Aux@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              That’s not Microsoft philosophy. Microsoft has strong backwards compatibility. If they would change how border box is rendered on the screen, that would break a lot of apps which use IE engine as a web view. Thus they only push security updates, but ensure that rendering stays the same within one Windows version.

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      Opera was the shit back in the early days. It could pretend to be any other browser.

    • Espi@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      11 months ago

      I have an installer for Opera 12.18, the last one to use their Presto engine. Every once in a while I test it out to see how it has aged.

      It’s not pretty haha. It barely works.

      • persolb@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        48
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        I love it in theory… but it just broke so many websites I needed to use. And not always in obvious ways.

          • persolb@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            11 months ago

            UBlock is much more reliable than no script in my experience. It’s also usually obvious when it breaks; no script sometimes isn’t obvious until you hit submit and notice none of what you typed actually got sent.

        • z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Then just put those sites on your trust list?

          You can go through all the sites the initial HTTP request calls out to and decide which ones get a pass. This is how I ensure sites like gstatic, googletagmanager, etc. don’t collect data even though the rest of the site works.

          If that’s too much, just open the flood gates for that site and trust everything there. At least it isn’t just sending all your data out by DEFAULT.

          • Aux@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            That still breaks a lot of sites. For example, Wikipedia gets broken if you click any link and then navigate back. NoScript is just crap. If you want to actually block scripts for something without breaking everything else, use DevTools.

            • Daniel@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              11 months ago

              You can use Wikiless, an alternative frontend for Wikipedia which doesn’t have JavaScript, and LibRedirect.

            • z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              I call bs. I am not experiencing that on mobile or desktop this behavior you’re describing. NoScript does not break Wikipedia.

        • gammasfor@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Yeah these days literally every website uses JavaScript in some format as modern reactive design is easier to do if you can execute client side code. Blocking JavaScript is a sledgehammer solution to the problem.

        • OfficerBribe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          Same here. I used NoScript in the past and remembering whitelisting way too often so dumped it in the end. Now I just use uBlock with I think some built-in javascript block of known bad hosts.

      • vii@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        11 months ago

        You can use Ublock Origin in advanced mode, which allows you to block, blacklist/whitelist scripts.

      • exu@feditown.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        11 months ago

        uBlock Origin can act as adblocker plus NoScript combined if you enable advanced mode.

    • Mikina@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      11 months ago

      Add-ons are a pretty huge security risk, though. Someone was just posting an article about how tempting it is to sell out with your extension, and how many offers you actually get.

      And I’ve already been burned once, and it’s not pretty. Also nothing you can do against this.

      The best solution is actually not Firefox, but Mullvad. No need for extensions, based on Tor Browser and can be bundled with a VPN that’s full of other people using the same browser - so you have exactly the same fingerprint, and they can’t tell you apart. Not by extensions, not by IP.

      • exu@feditown.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        11 months ago

        Based on his history it seems unlikely that gorhill, the creator of uBlock Origin would sell out.
        And if something did change, there would be enough news about it to notify you. (Like the extension Avast bought a while ago)

      • JokeDeity@lemm.ee
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        IMO any of the forks are inherently weaker than the main and there’s nothing stopping you from making Firefox work exactly like whichever flavor of fork you prefer, but with security updates the day they come out.

        • stewie3128@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          I also just like to support Mozilla where I can. They’re not perfect, but they’re doing a lot more good for the internet than Google are.

    • JokeDeity@lemm.ee
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Been using FF for about 2 decades now and I have never seen a single good reason to switch.

      • EricKendrick@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Ditto. As much as people pretend Firefox is niche, it is the only browser with lineage back to the start of the web.

          • Dizzy Devil Ducky@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            If a dedicated team wanted to work on it, there is the Servo engine which is currently developed by The Linux Foundation but is apparently entirely volunteer driven.

            I’m not smart enough to do this kinda shit, but I’m sure there are plenty of others who would gladly work on it to make it bigger than it already is. You could then make your own browser based on that engine. Sure it would take years if not closer to over a decade, but the payoff for privacy and free web would be enough to make me spend all that time doing it.

  • AncientBlueberry@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    125
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    11 months ago

    Google accounts for some 80%+ of Mozilla’s revenue. Firefox struck a different kind of deal with the devil than chromium browsers, but Google is the one pulling the strings.

    • CrabAndBroom@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      60
      ·
      11 months ago

      Bit of a weird thought, but I wonder also if they see Mozilla as a sort of controlled opposition too? As in, keep Firefox around so they don’t get in trouble over antitrust or something like that?

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        68
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Mozilla.org is the corpse of Netscape that Google keeps animated so that it looks like they have competition when they really don’t.

        The existence of Firefox is something they can point to to say they’re not a monopoly. The fact that 80% of the revenue Firefox receives is from Google means that Google effectively controls them. Mozilla has to weigh every decision against the risk that it will cause Google to withdraw their funding. That severely restricts the choices they’re willing to consider.

        Firefox is only 5% of browsers, so it really doesn’t matter to Google if that 5% of users considers using a different search engine. Because of the Firefox user base, many of them will have already switched search engines, and because Google is such a dominant player, many others would switch back to Google if the browser used a different default. So, maybe 10% of that 5% would permanently switch search engines if Google stopped paying. Is that really worth billions per year? Probably not. But, pretending like you have competitors in the browser space and using that to push back on antitrust, that’s definitely worth billions per year.

        • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          11 months ago

          Google makes something like $100 Billion a year in search ad revenue. 5% of that is $5 Billion.

          It’s odd that people think Google is incredibly worried about having too large of a market share in the browser market (which they don’t make any money from) yet their 92% market share in searches is not concerning at all in terms of the potential for regulation.

          The truth is nobody does anti-trust anymore (though they definitely should) and the big corporations aren’t worried at all about it. Google makes Chrome, Android, and pays Mozilla because they want to maintain dominance in the search market. Which is the thing they make money form. What they pay Mozilla is a drop in the bucket compared to what they pay Apple to be the default search engine on their devices.

          • merc@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            Google doesn’t directly make money from their browser, but controlling their browser means they lock in the thing that drives their revenues. They can always test it out against all their ads and make sure it works, putting out a fix if it ever doesn’t. We’ve also seen recently how they’re trying to make it so people can’t run ad blockers, something they could only consider if they lock down the entire browser market.

            • DogMuffins
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              11 months ago

              I disagree.

              Google doesn’t “control” mozilla in that way.

              They can always test it out against all their ads and make sure it works, putting out a fix if it ever doesn’t.

              They could do this even if they weren’t funding mozilla. Ad’s aren’t exactly reliant on bleeding edge web standards anyway. You’re thinking about tracking tech, which they don’t have any input in for firefox.

              We’ve also seen recently how they’re trying to make it so people can’t run ad blockers

              Well yes, and mozilla was quite vocal in their opposition, demonstrating that Google doesn’t have much control over them.

        • can@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          85
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          I see that as an okay compromise. Anyone who cares will also know how to change it easily.

          • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            29
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            And I actually wouldn’t have a problem with using google for searches if it weren’t for the fact they constantly do the captcha thing when I’m connecting via VPN. Captchas for a simple google search.

            I’m not against google making money off of a good product, but they’ve enshittified it too much to be considered good now.

          • archchan@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            11 months ago

            A lot of people don’t bother with changing defaults and corpos like Google, Microsoft, and the likes are well aware of this which is why Google pays Mozilla hundreds of millions of dollars per year to be the default search engine.

            I understand the compromise at the surface level but the implications just result in Google gaining more power and data, making it harder for “alternatives” to replace it over time which puts us all in an a bad situation when they decide to pull shit like WEI.

            • can@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              11 months ago

              That’s a good point, though I still think the average person is already entrenched in Google. Being the default on an alternative browser isn’t really going to make the difference to the average, uncaring individual.

              In a perfect world it wouldn’t be necessary but on the bright side Google search is already doing enough itself to make the average person want to try something else.

    • DogMuffins
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      Do you have any examples of how google is pulling the strings at Mozilla ?

      • kylostillreigns@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        For an example, Mozilla being forced to use Google Location Services as default even though Mozilla has its own. I am also a Firefox user but it always makes me wonder what other TnCs forced on Mozilla as part of the search deal.

    • CrypticCoffee@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      For default search.

      I’m sure you’re aware Firefox isn’t in the search market. They are in the browser market and need to fund browser development. They’ve used Yahoo in the past and will go with whatever deal gives the best value. They could go with Bing if they wanted.

      Funding from them does not mean control, and your insinuation is misleading and false.

      • HappyFrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        What narrative? Firefox is the only browser google doesn’t fully control. It’s the only choice if you don’t support the google monopoly.

        • drathvedro@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Well, there’s Safari but that’s for apple only, and technically they don’t really control chromium-based browsers - they’d have to do yet another cycle of EEE to actually kill of competition. And firefox can survive without google for a while by downsizing massively and focusing on chinese market as they still have that baidu deal AFAIK.

          But overall, yes, Google has in fact cemented themselves as the middlemen for all things internet, on both mobile and desktop.

  • Amy :3@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    112
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    Brave, Vivaldi, Edge and other chromium browsers are forks of the main chromium project. They can decide whether to include or exclude features from mainstream chromium.

    As far as I know, Brave and Vivaldi will keep Manifest V2 extension support and said that they will not ship WEI (Web Environment Integrity).

    Discord uses a modified version of electron, and it’s also probably an outdated fork as well, although I am not sure about that.

    Steam, in the other hand, uses CEF, which they use as a way to render it’s interface and as a replacement of VGUI (a good example of this is the steam game overlay), I don’t know if they will ship WEI if it ever releases in chromium as there isn’t a statement from Valve yet.


    Sources:

    If I missed something, please tell me!

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Brave has an entire contingent of the FOSS community up in arms. They claim that it is doing more data harvesting than Alphabet, and the EULA prevents anyone from finding out what they are doing with all that data scraping.

      I don’t have a dog in the fight, other than as a windows user I would like to see FOSS adopted as quickly as possible since they have predicted all this shit for the last 30 years at least.

      ETA: I know basically nothing about Vivaldi, though having used it, it seems to function as lightweight as chromium did back in the day. I have no comments on Edge.

      • Da_Boom@iusearchlinux.fyi
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        11 months ago

        I mean, brave is an Ad company, I think they’re just using an ad blocker to stop other ad services other than their own from competing

      • people_are_cute@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Vivaldi is filled with bloat and feature creep to the brim now. They abandoned that “lightweight” philosophy ages ago.

        • ZarK@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Only if you want it (yes you still need to download a larger package).

          Vivaldi is created by the former creator of Opera, with sort of the same goals it used to have: care for the power user. They are up for adding any customization and power user tool if people want it. It has never tried to be as lightweight as possible. Instead, it should be one of the most customizable and feature rich browsers out there.

          It’s great, as I can add and remove features so it’s tailored to me.

      • Eochaid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        Just to add the missing comment about Edge - MS is turning into the Microsoft version of Chrome. They removed Google’s ad bs and replaced it with their own ad and monetization bs.

    • Scraft161@iusearchlinux.fyi
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      11 months ago

      Discord’s electron still hasn’t received the patch for spectre/meltdown mitigation in the browser, I doubt they will ever have to deal with manifest V3 or WEI.

    • DogMuffins
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      they will not ship WEI

      I don’t really understand how this could work.

      The whole outcry around WEI is that most of the web wouldn’t work if you didn’t have a browser that supported it.

      Not shipping WEI would seem tantamount to just discontinuing.

      • Catweazle@social.vivaldi.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        11 months ago

        @DogMuffins @amycatgirl, it is not so simple, there are a huge number of third-party pages that also depend on certain Google services, directly or indirectly. This is what happens when you depend on sponsors, because with this you lose your freedom of decision, especially if you make a pact with the devil, sorry, Google.
        Mozilla has already suffered this in its own flesh, becoming a Google mascot from an independent platform, even with Google devs working on Firefox.