They're not forking, but other than that and as to the Windows users part of that quote, clearly because they don't give a rat's ass about it being proprietary; would in fact conversely quite welcome a standard installed, widely web-compatible, supported and with Chrome-extensions compatible browser --- if they're above the level of simply using whatever Microsoft feeds them in the first place, of course.michael louwe wrote: ⤴Thu Dec 06, 2018 5:28 pm Why would they want to run a proprietary Chromium fork from M$ which will likely be integrated into Win 10.?
Firefox is next. I bet.
And the evidence that there will be "a proprietary Chromium fork from M$" is?michael louwe wrote: ⤴Thu Dec 06, 2018 5:28 pm Why would they want to run a proprietary Chromium fork from M$
The Chromium project isn't free software; it's using an open source license that permits sub-licensing. Almost all the Chromium derivatives do so and are closed source.
You didn't read the bits I shared. They will only be using Chromium's page rendering and javascript engines. That's "under the hood" stuff. The rest of the browser will be built by them. And it's coming to Windows 7 and 8.michael louwe wrote: ⤴Thu Dec 06, 2018 5:28 pmM$ will save a lot of browser development and maintenance costs by going for a new browser based on free open-source Chromium to replace Edge.
....... Windows and Linux users can already install and run the original Chromium browser. Same for the Chrome browser. Why would they want to run a proprietary Chromium fork from M$ which will likely be integrated into Win 10.?
You don't though. Only if you want e.g. password or bookmark synchronization, and that's no different from Firefox Accounts.
While I disagree it was a mistake to migrate Firefox to a new extension architecture (like, here we are with 16 core desktop processors becoming mainstream and you'd want to go back to a single threaded web browser? No thanks
) it raises and interesting question how, if at all, Edge extensions will be impacted by this change. As I understand it the Edge extensions architecture is already closer to what Google uses, but still.It's not so much that I disagree with migration as that I disagree with the method of migration, they simply underestimated how entrenched people (devs) were in the old system. Improvement is always good but shock therapy is only advisable if you are VERY sure of overwhelmingly positive results otherwise it's a total gamble.... and 16 cores mainstream? I'm still seeing 4 core machines with 8GB max as the norm wherever I look barring gamers, 16 core 32GB "mid-range" PC's are still WAY off into the future.xenopeek wrote: ⤴Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:40 amWhile I disagree it was a mistake to migrate Firefox to a new extension architecture (like, here we are with 16 core desktop processors becoming mainstream and you'd want to go back to a single threaded web browser? No thanks
By not having to spend money on "under the hood" stuffs for her New-Edge browser, M$ will save some costs and fire more people. M$ could have gone back to an "Old"-Edge browser based on Internet Explorer 11 but that would not have save costs and allow the CEO to fire more people.xenopeek wrote: ⤴Fri Dec 07, 2018 5:52 amYou didn't read the bits I shared. They will only be using Chromium's page rendering and javascript engines. That's "under the hood" stuff. The rest of the browser will be built by them. And it's coming to Windows 7 and 8.michael louwe wrote: ⤴Fri Dec 07, 2018 5:28 am
M$ will save a lot of browser development and maintenance costs by going for a new browser based on free open-source Chromium to replace Edge.
....... Windows and Linux users can already install and run the original Chromium browser. Same for the Chrome browser. Why would they want to run a proprietary Chromium fork from M$ which will likely be integrated into Win 10.?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_(web_browser)Chromium is an open-source Web browser project started by Google, to provide the source code for the proprietary Google Chrome browser. The two browsers share the majority of code and features, though there are some minor differences in features and logos, and they have different licensing.
All about why we (Mozilla) is better.xenopeek wrote: ⤴Fri Dec 07, 2018 6:04 am Mozilla's response to the announcement: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2018/12/06/goodbye-edge/
Why we should?
...was reading this article earlier today, it appears to make the round in social networking platforms...
The underlined / bold emphasis is strictly mine...The longer term faith of the open web, it hangs in the balance.
I don’t believe implementers can break the dominance anytime soon via an actual browser or browser engine,
which is why I’ll reiterate what I already said:
there must be equal representation in the process where web standards get created,
as well as in the decision making process where priorities for implementation get set.
We’d then have less engines, basically only one, yet what gets build for it in which order would be shared.
An open decision making process, followed by implementation in a single engine. It would be a kind-of open web.
No, not even that is ideal, I know. I’m keeping it real.
A kind-of open web is superior to the situation of having a single engine with a single private organization calling the shots.
The idealistic scenario of a multi-engine open web is dead or dying, as discussed above.
