There are many problems, but that's not evidence that Mozilla's programs are ineffective. People have many health problems and diseases, but that doesn't mean the healthcare system in ineffective. What it shows is that we need Mozilla and healthcare.
> We're back to a browser monoculture, Chrome, and Google controls browsers
Don't forget Apple's browsers, including all the iPhone users.
HN is a very poor medium for this type of conversation, so I'm just going to move on
HN is just not a very good platform for discussions that go more than 4-5 replies.
The UI is just poorly suited for protracted discussions, to the point that I'm not interested in continuing this comment chain.
> What it shows is that we need Mozilla and healthcare.
I agree, although I'd say that we need a mozilla-like effort that is effective.
> Don't forget Apple's browsers, including all the iPhone users.
Sure, but Apple's world is effectively a monoculture itself. If you don't buy into Apple and their ecosystem, the existence of those things is irrelevant.
> Sure, but Apple's world is effectively a monoculture itself. If you don't buy into Apple and their ecosystem, the existence of those things is irrelevant.
Not in this context: Someone claimed above that the web browser market was a monoculture of only Google Chrome. Apple browsers has a large market share, so it's not a monoculture.
>People have many health problems and diseases, but that doesn't mean the healthcare system in ineffective.
This is a deeply flawed analogy, and the two situations are superficially similar at best.