← Back to context

Comment by nwellnhof

7 hours ago

The "severe security issue" in libxml2 they mention is actually a non-issue and the code in question isn't even used by Chrome. I'm all for switching to memory-safe languages but badmouthing OSS projects is poor style.

Google is too cheap to fund or maintain the library they've built their browser with after its hobbyist maintainers got burnt out, for more than a decade so they're ripping out the feature.

Their whole browser is made up of unsafe languages and their attempt to sort of make c++ safer has yet to produce a usable proof of concept compiler. This is a fat middle finger in the face of all the people's free work they grabbed to collect billions for their investors.

The issue in question is just one of the several long-unfixed vulnerabilities we know about, from a library that doesn't have that many hands or eyes on it to begin with.

Sounded like the maintainers of libxml2 have stepped-back, so there needs to be a supported replacement, because it is widely used. (Or if you are worried the reputation of "OSS", you can volunteer!)

Nobody is badmouthing open source. It's the core truth, open source libraries can become unmaintained for a variety of reasons, including the code base becoming a burden to maintain by anyone new.

And you know what? That's completely fine. Open source doesn't mean something lives forever

Where's the best collection or entry point to what you've written about Chrome's use of Gnome's XML libraries, the maintenance burden, and the dearth of offers by browser makers foot the bill?