Linked by David Adams on Tue 23rd Dec 2008 16:40 UTC, submitted by judgen
Internet & Networking Most Firefox users don't realize that Firefox's current existence is owed almost exclusively to its search partnership with Google wherein Mozilla Corp receives a portion of ad revenue from Google queries initiated from Firefox's search bar. This revenue amounts to tens of millions of dollars. Internet users the world over, who are currently reaping the benefit of a renewed browser war with exciting innovation instead of Microsoft-dominated stagnation, can thank Google for that state of affairs. But now that Google has itself entered the fray with Chrome, what does that mean for the Firefox/Google relationship?
Thread beginning with comment 341256
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Reinventing the wheel :(
by microFawad on Tue 23rd Dec 2008 18:27 UTC
microFawad
Member since:
2005-12-09

Google must not had developed there own browser because they are replicating the effort for the development of completely new browser.
FF is open source as everyone know so they must participate in the development of FF instead of developing there own browser. That way FF will become better open source browser to compete with IE, Safari and Opera

Reply Score: -2

RE: Reinventing the wheel :(
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 23rd Dec 2008 19:16 in reply to "Reinventing the wheel :("
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

FF is open source as everyone know so they must participate in the development of FF instead of developing there own browser. That way FF will become better open source browser to compete with IE, Safari and Opera


Except Firefox feels like a relic of the past compared to Chrome. I've been a full-time Chrome convert ever since its first release, and I wouldn't even DREAM of going back to old-fashioned singlethreaded browsing.

For OSNews, I constantly visit heavy ad pages like most other news sites (and I don't like those anti-ad extensions), and they are quite prone to hanging. With Firefox, they can take every window down - but in Chrome, this won't happen. I just kill the page in question, and I'm done. To me, any single threaded browser is a total waste of my time.

Even if Google invested its time into Firefox, it would be a futile effort. Firefox is too big a project now to allow for such radical changes like a complete move to user-controlled multithreaded browsing. Google can't just come marching into Mozilla and make Firefox do a 360.

In addition, I want a web browser, not a platform. A back button, a forward button, reload/stop, and an URL field. I don't need anything else.

Edited 2008-12-23 19:17 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0

microFawad Member since:
2005-12-09

I wouldn't even DREAM of going back to old-fashioned singlethreaded browsing.


First of all every browser today is multithreaded but the new thing that Google had done is to create a new process for each tab instead of creating a new thread for each tab.

Even if Google invested its time into Firefox, it would be a futile effort. Firefox is too big a project now to allow for such radical changes like a complete move to user-controlled multithreaded browsing. Google can't just come marching into Mozilla and make Firefox do a 360.


Do you know that IE8 is doing same thing that Chrome did. I mean creating a new process for each tab. So why not Mozilla and Google can do it in FF if Microsoft can do it in IE?

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Reinventing the wheel :(
by weildish on Tue 23rd Dec 2008 20:15 in reply to "RE: Reinventing the wheel :("
weildish Member since:
2008-12-06

98% of the time, Chrome does what I need and want, and it does it faster than Firefox does. Its interface is much simpler, and as Thom said,all you need are back, forward buttons, URL field, reload/stop... not to mention integrating the search bar into the URL field (I use this feature constantly). It's short, sweet, to the point, but if you need more from the browser, you've got all the options you need under the nifty wrench icon. The other 2% of the time, Chrome isn't handling a page well and I'll start an instance of Firefox for the time being.

I've introduced Chrome to maybe a dozen people who are your normal, everyday PC users who have a computer mainly for word processing and email, and possibly several hundred others of these via a small local newspaper. They have no idea what goes on under the hood of Chrome nor do they care. They simply like what they see and like how Chrome handles things, and some notice that Chrome seems to do it faster than their other browsers. Now they don't even think about using Firefox (or IE7, for heaven's sake). In the long run, what matters is the end result: the user experience. Sure, I'll be the first to admit that Chrome has some kinks to work out, but what Chrome does, you've got to admit, it does well. It would be nice for Mac and Linux users if Google released a version for them, though.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Reinventing the wheel :(
by Valhalla on Tue 23rd Dec 2008 20:32 in reply to "RE: Reinventing the wheel :("
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

Thom_Holwerda wrote:
-"For OSNews, I constantly visit heavy ad pages like most other news sites (and I don't like those anti-ad extensions), and they are quite prone to hanging. With Firefox, they can take every window down - but in Chrome, this won't happen. I just kill the page in question, and I'm done."

Or you can use one of those anti-ad extensions and voila, no need to kill the page at all due to misbehaving ads. You don't say why you don't like those anti-ad extensions, but given that OSNews relies on ads it's understandable that you hold that position. However I can whitelist any site I want to help by clicking on ads so it's not one way or the other.

For me webbrowsing mainly comes down to a comfortable experience. Comfortable experience means different things for different people of course, but for me it mainly boils down to adblock, noscript, flashblock (although there are alot of other nice plugins that I like though I could live without them). If I could use a faster browser like chrome with these features then I'd likely use it, but without their equivalent I find surfing the web much too uncomfortable for me to switch.

I also have to ask about the crashes people talk about, even before I used adblock/flashblock/noscript I can't recall suffering from pages crashing the browser, although sometimes severly slowing things down. Do you have any examples of such pages?

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Reinventing the wheel :(
by ari-free on Tue 23rd Dec 2008 20:57 in reply to "RE: Reinventing the wheel :("
ari-free Member since:
2007-01-22

"Except Firefox feels like a relic of the past compared to Chrome."

that's funny because to me, chrome feels like IE 2

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[2]: Reinventing the wheel :(
by grfgguvf on Tue 23rd Dec 2008 23:34 in reply to "RE: Reinventing the wheel :("
grfgguvf Member since:
2006-09-25

Even if Google invested its time into Firefox, it would be a futile effort. Firefox is too big a project now to allow for such radical changes like a complete move to user-controlled multithreaded browsing.


Netscape/Mozilla/Firefox has probably gone through more radical changes than most other software projects. They completely rewrote the rendering engine, invented a new scripting language and then completely rewrote its implementation, putting every tab into a new process would not be a big change compared to these. I think it would have been very possible, and cost much less for Google, and instantly benefit more users.

The reason for writing their own browser is entirely different, it's more of a market strategy issue than a software engineering one.

In addition, I want a web browser, not a platform. A back button, a forward button, reload/stop, and an URL field. I don't need anything else.


This is a sane argument and I often feel Firefox is still too bloated, but I do depend on some extensions and the "platform" is needed so extensions can be written on top of it. You don't like ad blockers, well many of us don't like ads, but Google gets their livelihood from ads, and would never put an ad blocker into Chrome, so I still see a future for Firefox.

Apart from that, I have some software engineering type problems with Chrome. Excuse the tech lingo. Full-method JIT is bad enough, but full-file JIT is a complete waste of memory and CPU time, especially on netbooks and mobile phones. (V8 uses full-file JIT while Firefox does tracing JIT). A "stop-the-world" generational GC uses roughly twice as much virtual address space than a reference counting GC. The speedier allocation is moot for most JavaScript uses or on ARM and AMD64. Again mobiles have limited address spaces. (V8 does stopping generational GC while Firefox does refcounting).

Google basically cloned the Sun JVM's design for V8, and we all know how poorly that thing performs on desktops. Mozilla had a very conservative implementation and is slowly replacing parts with innovative technology while paying attention to retaining the ability to lower resource usage in the future. Firefox is just better engineered. Which means nothing of course for most users, and with enough investment Google can bring Chrome up to Mozilla standards, but so far I don't like their choices.

Reply Parent Score: 5

diskinetic Member since:
2005-12-09

Google can't just come marching into Mozilla and make Firefox do a 360.


Especially since a 360 would have it facing back in the original direction, as opposed to a 180. Maybe Google should pull a Tony Hawk and do a 900 with an Ollie into a McTwist!

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: Reinventing the wheel :(
by dragossh on Tue 23rd Dec 2008 20:20 in reply to "Reinventing the wheel :("
dragossh Member since:
2008-12-16

FF is open source as everyone know so they must participate in the development of FF instead of developing there own browser.

They must? Um, no.

I hear everyone bitching about Google creating their own browser instead of contributing to FF. Well, Firefox is not the end-all-be-all of web browsers. It's going to be replaced by something better, sooner or later.

I, for one, am welcoming Chrome and I am waiting for a Mac-based version. Once that is available, I'll never look back to Safari/Firefox. Chrome is the BeOS of browsers, IMHO.

Don't be afraid of change, people.

Reply Parent Score: 2

microFawad Member since:
2005-12-09

Don't be afraid of change, people.


lols...who's afraid of change my friend.
I was just thinking that why not improve a current project instead of creating from scratch.

This is one of the biggest problem in open source community that many people start new projects instead of focusing and improving the current one.
So the end result of this is that the effort and ideas become distributed. Suppose a project contains 3 great features and another project stared developing the same sort of app and it may contain 2 good features. So why not combine all those good features in a single app

The truth is that many people do so because of biases or sometimes to get fame or sometimes because of ego that why not this project is running under my name or under my management ;)

Edited 2008-12-23 20:36 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: Reinventing the wheel :(
by Delgarde on Tue 23rd Dec 2008 22:43 in reply to "RE: Reinventing the wheel :("
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

Chrome is the BeOS of browsers, IMHO.


What, doomed to have a small devoted following but no real market penetration?

Yeah, probably true... outside of the geek friends who'd always be enthusiastic about something like this, I don't know anyone who's even heard of Chrome, much less tried using it. It's a good browser, no question, but Google will have to do a lot more to promote it if they expect it to catch on.

Reply Parent Score: 1