It's much more convient for developers for there to be a dominant to open source browser engine. Open source reduced the need for these standards and multiple vendors. See what happened with how Linux largely replaced the slew of UNIXes. The ability for everyone to contribute to a single project paired with the ability to customize it where needed to suit the product you are building has shown to be a winning model.
Chromium may be open-source, even free software, but only in letter, not in spirit. Google has total control over it, and will force any changes it likes. Developer community can only abide.
>but only in letter, not in spirit. Google has total control over it
This applies to every open source project. The owners control what will be merged upstream and the direction the project will go in.
Ask BSD guys and girls how they feel about that.
Monocultures are great, as long they are the one we bet on.
Well due to it being open source their niche operating systems were able to run Linux software via a compatibility layer and Linux drivers making them better.
Microsoft was right all along after all, what a waste of money in lawsuits, monoculture for the win.
Likewise I guess there is no problem that game developers mainly care about Windows, Proton is open source, so no big deal, why bother.
>monoculture for the win
The browser is the actual product. An open source browser engine lowers the barrier of entry of creating new browsers.
>Likewise I guess there is no problem that game developers mainly care about Windows, Proton is open source, so no big deal
Which is why Valve recommends game developers to target Windows and use Proton for compatibility. Having one platform to target simplifies developers lives. Before developers were making bad ports to Linux because they did not have the resources to properly support another tech stacks. The value of developers being able to target a single platform can not be understated.
Though this is fundamentally a different situation as the leading implementation is closed source and is more capable.
There will be no browsers left, likewise the Year of Desktop Linux will never come, cursed forever to emulate/translate other platforms, ChromeOS and Windows, so that it can have any kind of applications, pretending to be "native".
What do you mean? Chrome, Edge, Opera, and Brave are all different browsers that share the same browser engine. The year of the Linux Desktop didn't come, but the year of the Linux phone did come with Android becoming the most popular operating system surpassing desktop operating systems.
>pretending to be "native".
The code is native. Just because something uses a library to call platform code it doesn't mean it isn't native. By that logic programs that use qt are not native because they use a cross platform api.
Effectively killing the Web freeddom, it is all about ChromeOS Computing platform.
The Linux kernel is an implementation detail on Android, there is nothing about Linux exposed as official userspace API.
Any use of Linuxisms on Android apps is done at user's own peril and possible kick out of PlayStore.
I don't see how it would kill web freedom. If anything the reduction of duplicate work means that the web can evolve faster to better compete against its competitors to stay relevant and attractive for developers to target and support.
>The Linux kernel is an implementation detail on Android
The kernel is such an important part of an operating system, you can't really ignore it as a developer even if technically it may be an implementation detail.
>Any use of Linuxisms on Android apps is done at user's own peril and possible kick out of PlayStore.
Sure, but Linux's ABI is stable and even in a world where things are moved to Zircom starnix was made to support that same ABI.