Get 100$ credit for your own Linux and gaming server: https://www.linode.com/linuxexperiment Get your Linux desktop or laptop here: https://slimbook.es/en/ 👏 SUPPORT THE CHANNEL: Get access to an exclusive weekly podcast, vote on the next topics I cover, and get your name in the credits: YOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5UAwBUum7CPN5buc-_N1Fw/join Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thelinuxexperiment Or, you can donate whatever you want: https://paypal.me/thelinuxexp?locale.x=fr_FR You can also protect your privacy by using this extension from Startpage, each install helps the channel with a small commission: https://add.startpage.com/en/protection/?campaign=4&source=aff 🏆 FOLLOW ME ELSEWHERE: Linux news in Youtube Shorts format: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtZp0mK9IBrpS2-jNzMZmoA Join us on our Discord server: https://discord.gg/xK7ukavWmQ Twitter : http://twitter.com/thelinuxEXP My Gaming on Linux Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaw_Lz7oifDb-PZCAcZ07kw 📷 GEAR I USE: Sony Alpha A6600 Mirrorless Camera: https://amzn.to/30zKyn7 Sigma 56mm Fixed Prime Lens: https://amzn.to/3aRvK5l Logitech MX Master 3 Mouse: https://amzn.to/3BVI0Od Bluetooth Space Grey Mac Keyboard: https://amzn.to/3jcJETZ Logitech Brio 4K Webcam: https://amzn.to/3jgeTh9 LG Curved Ultrawide Monitor: https://amzn.to/3pcTVDH Logitech White Speakers: https://amzn.to/3n6wSb0 Xbox Controller: https://amzn.to/3BWmIA3 Amazon Links are affiliate codes and generate small commissions to support the channel 00:00 Intro 00:47 Sponsor: 100$ free credit off your Linux or Gaming server 01:37 The decline of Firefox 05:20 Why that's a problem 08:13 Why is Firefox important? 11:43 How can we solve this? 13:23 Sponsor: Get your Linux laptop or desktop with Slimbook 14:23 Support the channel There is no denying that Firefox has been progressively losing ground in the web browser race. It's highest peak was at the end of 2009, at almost 32% market share, when Internet Explorer has about 55%, and Chrome was barely edging out the 5% market share. Fast forward to 11 years later, and Chrome now has 62.7% of the market, where Firefox only has 4.2%. How did that happen? Why did the browser that basically started the work to take IE down, that introduced tabs to the masses, and that made sure web standards were respected, why did THAT browser fall so low? First, Mozilla completely missed the mobile market. There's also the fact that Google pushed CHROME very aggressively. Firefox also kinda rested on their laurels for a while, while Chrome worked tirelessly on their engine. Now you might think: that's a free market. People use what's best, and if Firefox gets better, people will flock back. And while that's a possibility, as it stands, it still creates an issue. The web relies on being open and on evolution. These evolutions, to be beneficial to everyone, need to be decided collectively, by independent organisms, supported by all browsers, and implemented freely. What I mean is that the browser engine shouldn't control how the web runs, looks, or what it can do. The browser engine is just there to ensure that websites and webapps just run like they should. The rise of Chrome and chromium based browsers, just like any other monopoly, turns that on its head. Developers, you see, can only implement features, if they know that their users will be able to make use of them. If everyone uses the same engine, and that engine decides to NOT implement a feature, then it's just not going to be used at all, because why make something that no user will ever be able to take advantage of? This is a problem. Not right now, but it might become one in the future. See, Chromium is open source, as is Blink, the rendering engine used in Chromium and every browser using it. It's open source, but decisions are made by Google. In 2019, 92% of commits to the code base were made by Google employees. So let's not kid ourselves: Google has total control over what goes in and what they don't want to see in Chromium. You might say, someone would fork chromium or Blink and start their own browser, and that would solve it. Except no one would move to that browser. What's important isn't Firefox specifically, it's having rendering engine diversity. Having 2 or 3 engines that have almost equal market share is crucial to avoid that situation, because in that case, the one that doesn't implement a new technology doesn't hold back the whole web. So how can we solve this? How can we make sure that Chromium doesn't start deciding how the web should run? Well, as users, apart from not using chromium based browsers, and supporting other engines financially, there isn't much we can do. The other option would be to try and take governance of Chromium away from Google, but I don't see that happening any time soon.
  • liwott@nerdica.net
    9·
    3 years ago

    Your points are adressed in the video though

    If the standards are fully open, transparent and not concerning then it would make no difference if you use chrome and firefox because everyone would use same basis.

    The problem with Chromium-based browser making up such a big market share is that it is more important for the developers that their websites be compatible with Chrome than with the open standards.

    most volunteers are normal people, developers or security researchers that code on it in their free time.

    Yes but in the end, Google can decide what it keeps in or out of the main branch.

    • CHEF-KOCH@lemmy.ml
      17·
      3 years ago

      The problem with Chromium-based browser making up such a big market share is that it is more important for the developers that their websites be compatible with Chrome than with the open standards.

      No, the problem is that Mozilla provides no alternatives, or for that matter the government fails to provide any competition that are open. As the govt also uses the same dirt, Windows, Google etc. If there are no alternatives for developers they go with what the mainstream use. Can you point to Mozillas solution to Google analytics … oh snap … wait … There is in this case not even a proposal for a transparent solution, therefore people go with reliable and trusted systems that are proven to be effective. I like to add that some governments even make it worse as they advocate organisations instead of providing their own open alternatives which can corrupt. Better approach is to give people a basis and then they can adjust it if needed but we all should get a standard basis as common ground that defines the web and not the other way around that google, mozilla dictate what you should use - according to them. This is a huge difference.

      For ads only reliable solution is bitcoin, something that Mozilla used to gain donation with, until recent controversy but provided nothing to support developers, only Brave created a system, of course it is not perfect but they try at least to break the circle.

      Yes but in the end, Google can decide what it keeps in or out of the main branch.

      No, because the video refers to Chromium in my example, that is independent project, which specifically exclude some controversial things. Chromium is controlled and mainly used by free volunteers based on Chrome from mostly normal people. Besides it does not matter as you can fork and modify everything as you want which is not the case with chrome as parts are not even fully open, the best example was the RILID, which Mozilla now copied years later and call it dltoken, difference here only is that Chromes collection was closed source while Mozillas implementation is open source, still does not change the outcome.

      At the end they do the same BS google does. Makes it not better if closed or open. As the end user also do not get the last saying on such delicate topics and implementations.

      • liwott@nerdica.net
        8·
        3 years ago

        The problem with Chromium-based browser making up such a big market share is that it is more important for the developers that their websites be compatible with Chrome than with the open standards.

        What I meant, and that’s also in the video, is that if Chromium decides to not implement a feature, but other browsers do, website devs are just going to ignore it beause most users won’t be able to use that feature.

        Can you point to Mozillas solution to Google analytics

        What do you mean? Mozilla-owned alternative to Google analytics? What does it have to do with the visitor’s browser?

        Chromium is controlled and mainly used by free volunteers

        Volunteers can contribute, yet in 2019 more than 90% of commits were done by Google employees. More than 80% of contributors work for Google. So yes, it is controlled by Google

        • CHEF-KOCH@lemmy.ml
          17·
          3 years ago

          What I meant, and that’s also in the video, is that if Chromium decides to not implement a feature, but other browsers do, website devs are just going to ignore it because most users won’t be able to use that feature.

          Nope because for some removed things there are practical no alternatives available that you could use. Awareness and reliability is a huge factor.

          What do you mean? Mozilla-owned alternative to Google analytics? What does it have to do with the visitor’s browser?

          Removing everything without providing alternatives is a key point why people leaving because promises alone are worth nothing if you do not act up on it. People just do not care if there is a logo with google or mozilla, as long as they have something in their hand they can use for their websites. Instead you see paypal and others doing something which they overlook, deliberately or not, plays no role.

          Volunteers can contribute, yet in 2019 more than 90% of commits were done by Google employees. More than 80% of contributors work for Google. So yes, it is controlled by Google

          No, since employees from Google are not direct representatives for the Corpo. The main Browser is still based on Chrome. It does not change anything that free volunteers maintaining issue tickets, reviewing things etc. your statistic does not include bounty hunters and such people, because no one put them into statistics because they usually do not do this on a regular basis. The external libaries included are also very often not coming from Chrome, there are also libs included coded by others. Also not in any statistic. So no Google does not control the outcome. It is up to you what you implement, and up to Chromium people decide what they accept as trustworthy or not because they only release the open parts, and everyone can inspect them, this is not in Googles control. What they can control directly is only Chrome but what has this to do with Mozilla or Firefox or the overall web, right nothing. Sometimes Google also create their own stuff because they simply invent it or there is no practical alternative that they could implement. I just say this for the reference, QUIC for example.

          The web uses that what is reliable, usually open source and gets maintained. If there are no frameworks available no one can code alternatives tools, so that is the underlying problem. There is simply no competition as the govt also only depend on organisations instead of coming with their own stuff, because it is cheaper to let other people do the work than providing your own frameworks and solutions.

          • liwott@nerdica.net
            5·
            3 years ago

            I’m sorry but your first two points have nothing to do with what I said. I was talking about the fact that site devs work in function of their users’ browser. Since such a crushing majority uses Chrome and cousins, the web is being shaped after Chrome and cousins’ capabilities.

            No, since employees from Google are not direct representatives for the Corpo.

            If the commit are counted for employees, that means they committed with their professionnal adress, hence in the context of their work, hence directly representing the corpo.

            your statistic does not include bounty hunters and such people, because no one put them into statistics because they usually do not do this on a regular basis.

            No, the statistics was based on a list of commits that includes one-time contributors.

            The external libaries included are also very often not coming from Chrome, there are also libs included coded by others.

            Irrelevant, external lib’s devs don’t decide anything, the coders still decide how their import and use the lib.

            up to Chromium people decide what they accept as trustworthy or not

            Who are the Chromium people? The Chromium projects is an entity that was created by Google, is their any sign that it is run by people who don’t work for Google?

            • CHEF-KOCH@lemmy.ml
              15·
              3 years ago

              the web is being shaped after Chrome and cousins’ capabilities.

              Because there is no competition. I already explained, people use what they can use and you cannot expect that people code their own frameworks.

              If the commit are counted for employees, that means they committed with their professionnal adress, hence in the context of their work, hence directly representing the corpo.

              Commits do not reflect the entire work, as a committer can commit work based on someone else, which means they can include in their commit the zlib code to provide support into the Browser. You cannot give a random user commit rights.

              No, the statistics was based on a list of commits that includes one-time contributors.

              Again commits include also work from third-party projects. It says nothing about the influence also again no bug bountry work that only getting merged by official approved committer. Apparently you do not understand how Chrome development works.

              Irrelevant, external lib’s devs don’t decide anything, the coders still decide how their import and use the lib.

              It is relevant, if there are no alternatives you can include you code your own, which is what you accuse Google off with sabotaging the web. No alternatives, you are forced to provide your own. It is that simple. Was the case with QUIC.

              Who are the Chromium people? The Chromium projects is an entity that was created by Google, is their any sign that it is run by people who don’t work for Google?

              Not every employee represents the Corp. You can work for Google but you are not dictated by them, so your - every employee must kneel thing - never happen. Typically new standards are in depth in discussion with the community as well as the proposals are clearly visible. People as well as chromium users can decide and act up on the information. There is no secret meeting, of we want to destroy the web or what you accuse google off. They implement of course third-party projects from others if its reliable and usable. Most what I refer too are average people, ex employee, bug hunters, free volunteers, etc. Its also mentioned in the Chromium blog.

              Mozilla is so irrelevant that no one talks here about them, instead we talk about your misinterpretation on who gets commit rights, and who does the actual work.

              I am not even going into some details that a Browser is not the only application, yet this point is also not mentioned in the Video, Spotify etc they all are based on frameworks, there was at that time not much alternatives to those frameworks. Alternatives are often created only afterwords to address shortcomings.

              • Liwott@lemmy.ml
                3·
                3 years ago

                Because there is no competition. I already explained, people use what they can use and you cannot expect that people code their own frameworks.

                The question discussed in the video is not WHY firefox is dying, it is the consequence of that. Other engines exist, maybe Blink is better, the fact is anyway that it has a huge market share, so they have a lot of power on how the web evolves.

                Hence, Google has that power. Because Google is the main entity behind Chromium. You can play with word, saying the 80% of contributors is not 100%, that it doesn’t give explicit instructions to its employees, that maybe the commit count should be slightly different as to include bounty hunter, libs,… It remains that, as you admit yourself in other thread, Google has the biggest voice in Chromium development.

                • CHEF-KOCH@lemmy.ml
                  14·
                  3 years ago

                  The video is also not about engines and what engine someone should use, if you argue on this you do not understand the underlying problem. The engine is to render the content, based on APIs and other things. This has nothing to do with monopolies. As everyone could theoretically create their own standards but you need funding, money and that typically only comes from those who have the money. So this is the underlying point.

                  Your math and numbers are just incorrect as you refuse to accept that the Browser is not one big project, it is more a multi media all-in-one project and there are others involved, this you do not understand, as you clearly displayed.

                  I admit nothing I say how things are and if you pump 1 billion into it you should get the voice, this is just normal and Mozilla does the same, as they have also the last word on what pull request they integrate. This is normal and not something essential that has something to do with control, you cannot just give random people commit rights, there must always be a review process. If you want a sit on the table you need to pay you way into it, this is just how this works, and with only words, hopes and dreams you will simply get a lower voice. It is like saying oh I know better than elon musk, but he actually spend 3 billions to sit on the twitter table, so of course he calls more shots than you, this is why the government needs to fund projects and not advertise organisations.

                  Your refusal to accept that there is no Mozilla fork while there is in mass successfully forks such as Brave, Vivaldi and so many others… is just cringe. Mozilla has only clown forks that make no impact on the web as they are mainly run by sentimental people and not actually people who develop standards, pump their money into it and this is when your logic miserably fails.

                  • Can I see mozillas youtube competition
                  • Can I see mozillas vpn, whops its mullvad and only after pressure after years of outcry from the community
                  • Can I see their email service to compete against gmail
                  • Can I see ads alternatives…
                  • Can I see …

                  There is nothing and people care only about what you can take… This is how web works … not with hopes, dreams and blah… funding, proposal, review, frameworks, alternatives and documentation… You simply INVEST into something and then you can spread it for the mass. Google did that with success, provided free services, advertised it and gained control. Things Mozilla missed, instead they run in Googles shadow, behind, too late, slow … incompetent. I blame the CEO actually he is as incompetent as Microsofts CEO but they are in a much better positions that allows more mistakes.

                  • liwott@nerdica.net
                    4·
                    3 years ago

                    I admit nothing I say how things are and if you pump 1 billion into it you should get the voice, this is just normal and Mozilla does the same, as they have also the last word on what pull request they integrate.

                    And that’s not admitting that Google has the biggest voice in Chromium development?

                    Of course it is normal that Google has the biggest voice in their own product, problem comes when that product and its soft forks nearly have the monopoly on web browsers. Because then it means that Google has the biggest voice in the future directions taken by the web.

                    I don’t understand why yoiu still write two paragraphs about the services that Mozilla doesn’t offer, or the forks it doesn’t have, as I told countless time that it is irrelevant to the discussion.