this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
532 points (93.8% liked)

Technology

59135 readers
6622 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] accideath@lemmy.world 97 points 4 months ago (7 children)

Because there are only like 3 browser engines: Chrome’s Blink, Firefox’s Gecko and Apple‘s WebKit. And while they are all open source, KHTML, the last independent browser engine got discontinued last year and hasn’t been actively developed since 2016.

There’s need in the space for an unaffiliated engine. Google’s share is far too high for a healthy market (roughly 75%), WebKit never got big outside of Safari (although there are a few like Gnome Web, there’s no up to date WebKit based browser on Windows) and Gecko has its own problems (like lack of HEVC support).

So, in my book, this is exciting news. Sure it‘ll take a while to mature and it is up against software giants but it‘s something because Mozilla doesn’t seem to have a working strategy to fight against Google‘s monopoly and Apple doesn’t have to.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 20 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Also Gecko's development is led by people thinking that it being usable outside of Firefox\Thunderbird is a bad thing. There was a time when Gnome's browser was based on Gecko, not WebKit. And in general it's influenced by bad practices.

SerenityOS is an amazing project, of course. To do so much work for something completely disconnected from the wider FOSS ecosystem, and with such results.

So it's cool that they've decided to split off the browser as its own project.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 4 points 4 months ago (3 children)

That's always struck me as odd, but I'm also very much an outsider looking in. A "gecko electron" does sound intriguing though.

[–] kilgore_trout@feddit.it 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Servo is going to fill that void

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 4 months ago

Never heard of it, I'll check it out

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I meant alternative browsers, like vimb or surf, but on Gecko and not WebKit.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 4 months ago

Sorry, should've explained I was just responding to the first sentence in particular.

[–] Scrollone@feddit.it 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I wonder why Microsoft decided to switch from their own engine to Blink, they could've switched to Gecko and keep the web a little bit more free

[–] lastweakness@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Why would Microsoft care?

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 4 months ago

Because of the momentum behind Blink/Chromium.

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago

Mozilla doesn’t seem to have a working strategy

Guess they couldn't replicate the "own everything that people use to get stuff on the internet and make secret breaking changes to constantly mess up other browsers" strategy.

[–] el_abuelo@lemmy.ml 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Could they not add HEVC support? Or is there some technical limitation that meant starting from zero was a good idea?

[–] GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk 6 points 4 months ago

HEVC is almost entirely down the the licensing. This section of the wikipedia page details it pretty well.

The tl;dr is that the LA group wanted to hike the fees significantly, and that combined with a fear of locking in led to the mozilla group not to support HEVC.

And it's annoying at times. Some of my security cameras are HEVC only at full resolution, which means I cannot view them in Firefox.

[–] accideath@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (3 children)

They could, probably. My guess is, that it’s either a limitation of resources, the issue of licensing fees or Google‘s significant financial influence on Mozilla forcing them to make a worse browser than they potentially could. Similar to how Firefox does not support HDR (although, to my knowledge, there’s no licensing involved there).

The biggest problem most people have with Mozilla is said influence by Google, making them not truly independent.

[–] bitwaba@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Google probably is putting pressure on Mozilla, but if the options are licensed HECV or open royalty-free AV1, the choice is pretty clear for a FOSS project.

[–] accideath@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Yes but: HEVC is the standard for UHD content for now, until AV1 gets much broader adoption. And judging from how long HEVC took to be as broadly available as h.264, it’ll still take a while for AV1 to be viable for most applications.

[–] AProfessional@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The good news is no streaming service even supports UHD in browers (except Netflix on Edge?) because of DRM. So I don’t see the value.

[–] accideath@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

My Jellyfin server does and on Firefox it needs to transcode to h.264

[–] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] accideath@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

I do, generally. But there have been situations where I couldn’t. And most of my friends that are using my server don’t. Dunno why.

[–] Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Mozilla had the same problem with h.264 until Cisco allowed them to use openh264 and ate any associated licensing costs. Just from a cursory glance, HEVC licensing seems much more of a clusterfuck.

[–] el_abuelo@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yeah I'm curious as to whether there's not merit in taking the imperfect codebase and improving it.

[–] accideath@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

I suppose Mozilla is already doing that as best as they can.

[–] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If 50% of firefox users donated 2 dollars per year mozilla could work for people instead of Google or at least people AND google

[–] accideath@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

The problem is, most user don’t want to pay. And every time mozilla tries to monetise differently they get community backlash…

[–] Mubelotix@jlai.lu 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Webkit and blink have the same base

[–] accideath@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago

Yea, but Webkit was forked from KHTML 23 years ago and Blink was forked from WebKit 11 years ago. In the mean time they all definitely evolved to become their own thing, even though in the beginning they were the same.

[–] pewgar_seemsimandroid@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

webkit and blink are based of KHTML

[–] accideath@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

Technically blink is based WebKit but yes. However, they were forked 23 and 11 years ago respectively, so it’s safe to assume they evolved into their own thing. But they probably do still share code, yes.

[–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

WDYM "independent" ?

Isn't mozilla / gecko more or less independent?

[–] mnmalst@lemmy.zip 17 points 4 months ago (1 children)

They get most of their money from google for the "default search engine deal" make of that what you want. For me personally it doesn't sound fully independent.

[–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Seems a little idealistic.

If ladybird actually achieves any sort of userbase they would take the same deal in an instant.

[–] FractalsInfinite@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Based on the community being quite succsessful so far despite being made by volunteers, I don't think they will.

[–] PseudorandomNoise@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

Making a web browser that’s fully compatible with modern standards is not easy nor cheap (and worse it’s a moving target because the standards keep evolving). I’m rooting for these folks but eventually money will be an issue.

Oh my sweet summer child.

[–] thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

No webkit browser on Android either. If there was gnome web for Android id switch in a heartbeat

[–] accideath@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Does anyone know why there are barely any WebKit based browsers? WebKit is open source and at least Safari works really well. Is it hard to work with? Do people just hate Apple that much? Is there some limitation?

[–] Scrollone@feddit.it 2 points 4 months ago

Also, WebKit was based on KHTML, which was open source and platform independent itself.