Photolemur 2.2 spectre blog how it works try buy

Mozilla could switch to Blink (and I think they should, and Apple too, they clearly don't have the manpower to maintain a whole engine and keep it modern and secure, see my other comment in this thread there are many more 0days with Safari and Firefox than Chrome) and it wouldn't harm the web in any way, because they can just swap out bad components with their own, and still reduce their dev time requirements by orders of magnitude compared to today.

> I can see that being an issue if the web is centralising around one proprietary engine, but why does that apply to Blink? If Google turns completely evil that won't take away from all the webcompat, optimisations, and security in Blink, and any bad feature (ManifestV3) can be patched out easily. I argued this before, and I still stand by it: They'd also have better webcompat, and take away one reason to switch to Chrome (i.e., sites that break in Firefox that render fine in Chrome and sites that rely on cutting edge draft standards that Firefox won't implement for a few months/years). But they'd also be able to much more easily benefit from Blink's security (already had site isolation for years, apparently a better sandbox, etc) and the contributions thousands of other companies make to Blink (Intel, Samsung, etc), companies that don't contribute to Gecko and Webkit as much if at all. That would be the 'trustworthy, community Blink'. If Mozilla switched to Blink, they'd be maintaining their own version, and it could diverge from Google's.

Photolemur 2.2 spectre blog how it works try buy