@Rushyo I think labor needs to be compensated fairly. Open source volunteering is fine for some folks but not others, and if it isn't enough to build a competitive browser (which is very expensive), then management should share the wealth more.

@Rushyo Mozilla has a lot in the bank, and the non-profit won't stop raising grant funding, so it won't go away.

The problem is the non-recurring engineering costs of fielding a browser not tied to any OS such that the browserdoesn't lose share over time until its engine's web compatibility isn't tested by web developers. Gecko never had enough mobile share, so over the last few years has had to emulate -webkit- extensions that are still used prefixed on "the mobile web". Just 1 of N examples.

@BrendanEich @Rushyo I agree this matters today, but it's a bug, and one that collectively we can and must fix for the web to be truly open and thrive long term: chromium.org/blink/platform-pr. Otherwise starting or even forking a successful rendering engine is near impossible.

Follow

@RickByers @Rushyo How would you fix it? The degree and kind of compatibility required to compete is not determined by the browser vendors alone, but the set of sites users prefer to visit, and their owners paying for maintenance and upgrades. We are seeing more "break the web" now, e.g. WICG with Chrome (yourself on point ;-) leading, or ad/tracker blocking by default as in Brave. But it is hard for other than market leader and small share browsers to do this.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!