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

Technology

59402 readers
3756 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
[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 34 points 4 months ago (59 children)

I do not understand the urge to start from scratch instead of forking an existing, mature codebase. This is typically a rookie instinct, but they aren't rookie so there's perhaps an alternative motive of some sort.

[–] accideath@lemmy.world 98 points 4 months ago (38 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.

[–] 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.

[–] 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.

[–] 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.

[–] 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…

load more comments (35 replies)
load more comments (55 replies)