[conspire] Browser 'Wars'

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Margaret Wendall (mwendall at gmail.com):

> I've been using a Netscape/Mozilla browser since the ancient v2.n,
> which I got on several floppies for windoze browsers through @the
> mall.com. I tried Chrome and I HATE it. Even IE is better, if more
> bloated. 

Comparisons of Web browsers on Microsoft Windows is (so I hear)
complicated by some technical measures included in MS-Windows itself
making it not a level playing field.  E.g., I vaguely recall that
many software components of MSIE are integral to the OS and thus tend to
get preloaded and cached, with the result that MSIE's seeming startup
time is made to seem artificially short (because parts of it were
preloaded into RAM during OS boot-up).

Anyway, as I was saying to my offlist correspondent, I honestly don't
(personally) care about MS-Windows issues.  So, if Google Chrome for
Windows sucks, that's too bad for the people who elect to run that
operating system but not my problem.  

So, when people start talking about Web browser 'wars' but then it
emerges that they mean _on Microsoft Windows_, I roll my eyes and lose
all interest, as the alleged contest is (1) rigged by OS-level
chicanery, and (2) not even interesting in the first place.


Google Chrome for Linux is a tiny bit more interesting, as at least it
runs on a suitable operating system, even if it is proprietary.  If
there weren't any credible open-source Web browsers, I'd be extremely
grateful for it, just as I was for Netscape Communicator for Linux back
before Mozilla 0.9.x.  

However, since there _are_ at least three extremely good, mature open
source Web browsers I'd be happy with on Linux (Firefox, Chromium, and
Konqueror) and also a bunch of semi-competitors worthy of mention
(Epiphany, Swiftweasel, Conkeror, SeaMonkey), the baggage Google Chrome
carries because of its proprietary licensing -- most notably the
inability to independently examine (audit) code from a company with a
vested interest in spying on users -- makes the inherent risk to privacy
and security totally unjustifiable.

As I was saying to my offlist correspondent, I know Microsoft Windows
users tend to find that chain of reasoning almost completely
incomprehensible, because they gave up on user control over privacy and
security so long ago that drawing a hard line and saying 'no' just would
never occur to them.

> How can we get through to Google that we really want to use our old
> browsers? 

I'm not sure I understand.  Why rely on Google's user software at all,
especially the proprietary stuff (which most of it is)?  Personally, I 
even retain a few minor qualms about the Google _Chromium_ browser, and
that _is_ auditable and open source.