▲ 973 ▼ Google's New Web Environment Integrity Proposal Dismissed by Brave, Mozilla, and Vivaldi (news.itsfoss.com) submitted 3 years ago by nils@feddit.de to c/technology@beehaw.org 106 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] roon@lemmy.ml 10 points 3 years ago (1 child) Aren't Vivaldi and Brave downstream of chromium though 🤔 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] laxe@lemmy.ml 27 points 3 years ago (4 children) Vivaldi and Brave can modify Chromium to disable this feature. Chromium is open source after all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 8 points 3 years ago (1 child) are they forks? That's what I don't get, who controls the merge controls into Chromium's main branch? It's open source, but who actually says yay or nay on PRs getting in? I assume it's Google, and the others are all forks off, but if it makes it into the main branch or not will really decide if it gets adopted permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] erwan@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 years ago You can have your own set of patches (and/or config) and still stay up to date with upstream. You don't need to do a hard fork to modify it for your needs. permalink fedilink source parent [–] beyond@linkage.ds8.zone 6 points 3 years ago* They can, but their very existence increases the Chromium engine's market share and therefore Google's control of the web, allowing them to do stuff like this. Once this is implemented in Chrome then these browsers will just become "Chrome but it can't play netflix/access bank websites/etc" or whatever. permalink fedilink source parent [–] gnuplusmatt@aussie.zone 2 points 3 years ago Brave calls itself a fork, which I suppose if its truly a fork, they are cherrypicking patches they can use from the chromium base, rather than recompiling with their own patch set on top permalink fedilink source parent [–] takeda@beehaw.org 1 point 3 years ago Goggle standard approach to it, is to integrate it so much with other components that it will be a lot of work to disable it, eventually making it impractical. The right way would be for those clients to switch to gecko engine. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] laxe@lemmy.ml 27 points 3 years ago (4 children) Vivaldi and Brave can modify Chromium to disable this feature. Chromium is open source after all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 8 points 3 years ago (1 child) are they forks? That's what I don't get, who controls the merge controls into Chromium's main branch? It's open source, but who actually says yay or nay on PRs getting in? I assume it's Google, and the others are all forks off, but if it makes it into the main branch or not will really decide if it gets adopted permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] erwan@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 years ago You can have your own set of patches (and/or config) and still stay up to date with upstream. You don't need to do a hard fork to modify it for your needs. permalink fedilink source parent [–] beyond@linkage.ds8.zone 6 points 3 years ago* They can, but their very existence increases the Chromium engine's market share and therefore Google's control of the web, allowing them to do stuff like this. Once this is implemented in Chrome then these browsers will just become "Chrome but it can't play netflix/access bank websites/etc" or whatever. permalink fedilink source parent [–] gnuplusmatt@aussie.zone 2 points 3 years ago Brave calls itself a fork, which I suppose if its truly a fork, they are cherrypicking patches they can use from the chromium base, rather than recompiling with their own patch set on top permalink fedilink source parent [–] takeda@beehaw.org 1 point 3 years ago Goggle standard approach to it, is to integrate it so much with other components that it will be a lot of work to disable it, eventually making it impractical. The right way would be for those clients to switch to gecko engine. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 8 points 3 years ago (1 child) are they forks? That's what I don't get, who controls the merge controls into Chromium's main branch? It's open source, but who actually says yay or nay on PRs getting in? I assume it's Google, and the others are all forks off, but if it makes it into the main branch or not will really decide if it gets adopted permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] erwan@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 years ago You can have your own set of patches (and/or config) and still stay up to date with upstream. You don't need to do a hard fork to modify it for your needs. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] erwan@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 years ago You can have your own set of patches (and/or config) and still stay up to date with upstream. You don't need to do a hard fork to modify it for your needs. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] beyond@linkage.ds8.zone 6 points 3 years ago* They can, but their very existence increases the Chromium engine's market share and therefore Google's control of the web, allowing them to do stuff like this. Once this is implemented in Chrome then these browsers will just become "Chrome but it can't play netflix/access bank websites/etc" or whatever. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] gnuplusmatt@aussie.zone 2 points 3 years ago Brave calls itself a fork, which I suppose if its truly a fork, they are cherrypicking patches they can use from the chromium base, rather than recompiling with their own patch set on top permalink fedilink source parent
[–] takeda@beehaw.org 1 point 3 years ago Goggle standard approach to it, is to integrate it so much with other components that it will be a lot of work to disable it, eventually making it impractical. The right way would be for those clients to switch to gecko engine. permalink fedilink source parent