• dangblingus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, and Brave employs software developers that do this sort of thing as a primary task of their job.

    • 4z01235@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      “Just” fork it. Right.

      It’s a massive undertaking to maintain a fork of something that large and continue pulling in patches of later developments.

      Not to say that Brave doesn’t have the resources to do so - I really don’t know their scale - but this notion of “just fork” gets thrown around a lot with these kinds of scenarios. It’s an idealistic view and the noble goal of open source software, but in practical and pragmatic terms it doesn’t always win, because it takes time and effort and resources that may not just be available.

      • fernandofig@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Did you read the tweet from Brendan Eich linked in the OP? According to him, Brave already is a fork, and he provides a link to a (surprisingly) extensive list of things that are removed / disabled from chromium on their browser.

        • fartsparkles@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is correct - any “Chromium-based” browser is literally a fork unless it’s completely unchanged from upstream (even rebranding and changing the logo and name would require maintaining a fork).