They are now a major user of chromium, and may contribute, but they do not have any say in what goes into chromium. That is still controlled by google employees. If said google employees do not like microsoft patches, they will reject the proposed changes, and microsoft can then at best push them into their own fork.
Google rejecting Microsoft changes has not yet been observed, it could happen.
Most people think that Google agenda could conflict with Microsoft agendas.
I have read a LOT of chromium issues.
I can tell you that the higher management at Google does not dictate chromium changes as they are too technical for them.
The truth is, except for maybe a few exceptions, chromium evolve through the decisions of engineers that want to create the best possible product.
They are not different to Firefox or edge engineers.
Thus they should collaborate pretty well and a Google and Microsoft team should not have more "conflicts" than between two Google internal teams.
As you said for the exceptions, Microsoft can maintain a fork, it's still order of magnitude more economic and smart than to constantly duplicate work in a redundant browser (firefox)
>I can tell you that the higher management at Google does not dictate chromium changes as they are too technical for them.
Tell that to the webRequest API that ablockers use.
>As you said for the exceptions, Microsoft can maintain a fork, it's still order of magnitude more economic and smart than to constantly duplicate work in a redundant browser (firefox)
Chrome is the redundant browser. Firefox was here first.
webRequest API
Well maybe it's an exception, but they have technical reasons mostly.
Webrequest v3 is not stable so wait and see.
Chrome is the redundant browser. Firefox was here first.
Well Chrome is based on khtml which is not that new but yeah Netscape navigator precede it.
Indeed it would have been better if chrome was based on gecko (FF) at the time.
But now Firefox can be thought of the redundant browser because of both marketshare and being technically an inferior product on most metrics.
If mozilla worked on improving chromium, think of the massive progress it would bring to the World!
Website would have no limits on what is possible to create. Everything would be fast, etc.
> webRequest API Well maybe it's an exception, but they have technical reasons mostly. Webrequest v3 is not stable so wait and see.
Bullshit. They decided they wanted this to fuck with adblockers, then found some "technical reasons" they could use as talking points, afterwards. Also, the reasons are apparently so "technical" and "necessary" that google said it would not apply the proposed crippling of webRequest to corporate deployments of Chrome. Corporate users apparently do not need privacy or performance. Go figure.
"B-but user privacy! Extensions can see request" - This is grand coming from google in the first place. Nonetheless, an easy way to solve this is to have special "webrequest" scripts which can apply rules etc, but cannot communicate out, so cannot exfiltrate data.
"B-but performance" - Wasn't a problem so far. If you're really concerned about those 10ms per request an adblocker might add, then either don't run one (and see how your "perf" behaves when all those nice ads load instead), or run one that uses the declarative stuff, which google can still implement additionally.
>If mozilla worked on improving chromium, think of the massive progress it would bring to the World! Website would have no limits on what is possible to create. Everything would be fast, etc.
By "massive progress" you mean outright monopoly on the internet technology for Google? That's not progress. I'm still mad at MS. Instead of taking google's sabotage (you cannot call it anything else really), they shouldn't just obeyed the new goverloads, but sued the living shit out of google. I bet they now a few good antitrust lawyers.