31–40 of 172 posts
Hello friends! I am very excited about this indeed :) If you’d like to know more about Ladybird, I did a presentation about it at the Web Engines Hackfest in Spain just two weeks ago: https://youtu.be/De8N1zrQwRs
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm looking mostly at what it could be. Ladybird has every potential of becoming the Linux of web browsers. And it took Linux what, over a decade to mostly displace the competition in the server space. These types of projects are long term, but public perception matters. Making waves matters. The audacious possibility that it might just succeed matters.
Linux is Linux thanks to large involvement of big tech. It remains to be seen if any Big Tech companies would be interested in seriously supporting development of an open source browser.
You're missing a "new" or "another" in that sentence.
Hello friends! I am very excited about this indeed :) If you’d like to know more about Ladybird, I did a presentation about it at the Web Engines Hackfest in Spain just two weeks ago: https://youtu.be/De8N1zrQwRs
Ladybird looks amazing. Just as I was losing faith that building a browser from scratch today was an almost impossible task that only a big company could pull off, they proved otherwise. I compiled it and added packages to install on openSUSE for this in the readme... which was easy because you don't need much to build this browser! And it builds in a few minutes. I wish Discord was not mandatory to interact with the…
Did you also make this post from it?
I wish Discord was not mandatory to interact with the community
Agreed. My preference is IRC or even mailing lists.
For more context see [1]. At first glance I felt that 100k wasn't really going to move the needle in creating a new browser engine but in fact (after reading the link below) it's not insignificant. There are a lot of contributers to this project, and funding the project lead is a big step in the right direction. Realistically another browser engine really isn't needed. 2 is enough. Given the scale of the work involve…
Currently the internet is what Chrome is - if Google decides that they don't like something on the internet, they can just wipe it. Firefox is dying. (And Safari is... well... it does things). The internet has been rotting away for good part of the last decade. We definitely don't have enough browser engines, we are in dire need of more.
Hello friends! I am very excited about this indeed :) If you’d like to know more about Ladybird, I did a presentation about it at the Web Engines Hackfest in Spain just two weeks ago: https://youtu.be/De8N1zrQwRs
I personally learnt a lot more from his videos than from any book.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ladybird is currently far from competetive. Andreas himself told that his loose goal for Ladybird is to be able to render YouTube page correctly and play video with sound - 5 years from now.
I'm looking mostly at what it could be. Ladybird has every potential of becoming the Linux of web browsers. And it took Linux what, over a decade to mostly displace the competition in the server space. These types of projects are long term, but public perception matters. Making waves matters. The audacious possibility that it might just succeed matters.
Congrats! Considering HTML but mostly CSS complexity is expanding all the time as we speak (discussed on the HN front page right now [1]), are there points to be addressed at the likes of W3C, Inc and github.com/whatwg to make your work easier or even possible? Such as versioned CSS specs/CSS profiles (subsets), test suites aligned with CSS or HTML versions, test suites usable without JS (eg web-platform-test for CSS…
That's the biggest problem facing new browser implementations, and IMHO it's deliberate. Probably 99% of sites out there do not need any of the new crap that gets constantly added to the "standard", but continued propaganda by those constantly in power will practically guarantee that they will, under some guise of "progress" or "modernity". WHATWG is basically controlled by Big Tech (and was created because they didn't like the W3C's approach to stability) and popularised the idiotic oxymoron "living standard". Constant churn is how they're trying to maintain their monopoly, because they have the sheer manpower to outrun competitors.
For more context see [1]. At first glance I felt that 100k wasn't really going to move the needle in creating a new browser engine but in fact (after reading the link below) it's not insignificant. There are a lot of contributers to this project, and funding the project lead is a big step in the right direction. Realistically another browser engine really isn't needed. 2 is enough. Given the scale of the work involve…
Look at the mess any two-party system is comparing to where there are at least three, each keeping the others in check.