IPFS is 6 years old and major browsers still refusing to support it.
Imagine if the WWW was six years old (1997) and all the major browsers were like
> nah, just gonna continue supporting FTP and gopher, not this newfangled WWW thing
> but hey, we did, in collaboration with AOL, implement special support for their dialup site in our browser
@joeyh Browsers could have supported various p2p address systems over the last 15 years. But they didn't. My guess is that there isn't a lot of advertising revenue to be had on i2p or IPFS.
@cwebber @bob @joeyh afaik Mozilla development is all (or nearly all) ultimately funded by Google. Would Google be able to do the same indexing and targeted ads on IPFS, particularly where they don't have much of a handle on DNS lookups? It doesn't seem very likely. So I wouldn't expect Mozilla to adopt anything which potentially degrades Google's revenue.
@joeyh I’d say it’s because it’s not standardized, which in the 90s didn’t matter NEARLY as much, since the Internet was developing at the time and there were no players consolidated
and nowadays, you can add compatibility with just a bit of JS or a proxy
@joeyh Case in point: you can install IPFS Companion and it’s the same thing, whereas in the past such a move required modifying the browser itself or creating a new one. And browser vendors (in particular, Apple and Mozilla) definitely care about putting effort only on what is going to be agreed on by the whole industry.
Also, as it was pointed out while I wrote this: what makes IPFS better than others? Might as well stop making a web browser and do a net browser instead (idea which I did propose recently, btw)
@joeyh Brave supports it…
non-profit Mozilla missed a big opportunity here - instead Brave picked up the IPFS support before anyone else.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!