fmaury/seirdy.one
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://git.sr.ht/~seirdy/seirdy.one synced 2024-09-19 20:02:10 +00:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Clarify why web components made Pale Moon migrate

Browse source 
Clarify that WC aren't (strictly speaking) problematic; they're just too
complex for them to implement.
This commit is contained in:
Rohan Kumar 2021-03-02 23:19:42 -08:00
parent 2a87923bcc
commit 0915928e21
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG key ID: 1E892DB2A5F84479
2 changed files with 2 additions and 2 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

2
content/posts/whatsapp-and-the-domestication-of-users.gmi
View file

@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ Since acquiring Pocket (to diversify its sources of income), Mozilla hasn't yet
=> https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/27/mozilla-pockets-pocket-in-first-acquisition/ TechCrunch article in which a Mozilla spokesperson stated an intention to open-source Pocket
Substantial forks such as Pale Moon are unable to keep up with the growing complexity of modern Web standards such as Web Components. In fact, Pale Moon recently had to migrate its code off of GitHub since GitHub began using Web Components.
Substantial forks such as Pale Moon are unable to keep up with the growing complexity of modern Web standards such as Web Components. In fact, Pale Moon recently had to migrate its code off of GitHub since GitHub began using Web Components, a feature too complex for Pale Moon to support.
=> https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=25473 Migrating repositories off of GitHub (Pale Moon forum)

2
content/posts/whatsapp-and-the-domestication-of-users.md
View file

@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ Mozilla was a ray of hope in the browser wars, a space dominated by adtech, surv
Mozilla ended up having to make major compromises to stay afloat. It cut search deals with blatantly user-hostile companies, and bundled the browser with [ads](https://blog.mozilla.org/advancingcontent/2014/02/11/publisher-transformation-with-users-at-the-center/) and bloatware such as a partially ad-funded proprietary bookmarking SaaS called [Pocket](https://dustri.org/b/firefox-youre-supposed-to-be-in-my-pocket-not-the-other-way-around.html). Since acquiring Pocket (to diversify its sources of income), Mozilla hasn't yet delivered on its [earlier statements](https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/27/mozilla-pockets-pocket-in-first-acquisition/) saying it would open-source its code: while the clients have been open-sourced, the server code remains proprietary. Open-sourcing this and re-writing portions if necessary would understandably be a large task due in part to Pocket's complexity.
Substantial forks such as Pale Moon are unable to keep up with the growing complexity of modern Web standards such as Web Components. In fact, Pale Moon recently had to [migrate its code off of GitHub](https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=25473) since GitHub began using Web Components. It's nigh-impossible to start a new browser from scratch and catch up with behemoths that have been running on ridiculous annual sums for decades. Users can pick between a browser engine developed by Mozilla, an adtech company (Blink by Google), or a walled-garden vendor (WebKit by Apple). WebKit doesn't seem too bad, but users will be helpless if Apple ever decides to backtrack.
Substantial forks such as Pale Moon are unable to keep up with the growing complexity of modern Web standards such as Web Components. In fact, Pale Moon recently had to [migrate its code off of GitHub](https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=25473) since GitHub began using Web Components, a feature too complex for Pale Moon to support. It's nigh-impossible to start a new browser from scratch and catch up with behemoths that have been running on ridiculous annual sums for decades. Users can pick between a browser engine developed by Mozilla, an adtech company (Blink by Google), or a walled-garden vendor (WebKit by Apple). WebKit doesn't seem too bad, but users will be helpless if Apple ever decides to backtrack.
To summarize: the complexity of the Web platform forced Mozilla, the only browser engine developer claiming to serve "people, not profit", to implement user-hostile features in its browser. The Web's complexity has left users with limited choice between three big players with conflicts of interest whose positions grow more entrenched with time.