Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ladybird browser spreads its wings

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 319 posts

Re: Ladybird browser spreads its wings

#171

Post by einpoklum »

voidwtf wrote: post #35

I don't want to discourage the developers working on this project, but I'm curious why we're still writing applications that will almost certainly execute or process hostile content in languages that don't maintain strict memory safe contract? Have we not learned our lesson yet, or am I misunderstanding the situation? I believe it was a Microsoft study that linked unsafe memory access to ~70% of exploit chains.

> writing applications that will almost certainly execute or process hostile content in languages that don't maintain strict memory safe contract?

That point is 50% FUD. A language which "maintains strict memory safe contracts" but has an `unsafe` keyword; or has a "native code interface", or uses libraries implemented in a different language, doesn't really strictly maintain its guarantees. And on the other hand, a language in which you can, in principle, load and execute arbitrary code from a string you got from the user, can be hardened very well by statically-checkable constraints.

So, it's a matter of degrees rather than absolutes. If you then add considerations such as programming paradigm flexibility and performance, C++ is very much a valid choice even for the use case of a browser.

Re: Ladybird browser spreads its wings

#172

Post by viraptor »

JimDabell wrote: post #88
nutrie wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand what is wrong with Firefox. It is open-source, highly configurable and reasonably secure (if you have the time to configure). Yes, it has shortcomings, but what doesn't.

Even Mozilla doesn’t seem to care about Firefox; why should anybody else? The primary value in Firefox existing right now is that the web standards process becomes dysfunctional when there are only two major browser rendering engines, but that is fading away with Firefox’s market share. Hopefully Ladybird can gain enough momentum to matter there because it doesn’t seem like Gecko can maintain its relevance.

We're in the current situation because Google could spend enough money on promoting Chrome. That's it. A different, or even better browser won't change that. Google can put a chrome ad everywhere again for a few months.

Re: Ladybird browser spreads its wings

#173

Post by starbugs »

jsheard wrote: post #132
getcrunk wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a new project I wonder how much simpler (or secure) a browser could be made if you only allowed a subset of js and browser apis. I’d wildly guesstimate for 70% of use cases you wouldn’t even need 50% of stuff with some slight modifications. The web is just so bloated. Edit: might as well prune down the css a little too and maybe dump wasm, webgl and canvas

The problem with targeting a subset is there's a ratchet effect with web APIs, once support reaches critical mass in the major browsers sites will start unconditionally relying on those features and there's no going back from there, any new browser has to also support those features or be considered broken. I suppose anything that's gated behind a permission prompt in Chrome/Firefox/Safari could be culled without too…

> The problem with targeting a subset is there's a ratchet effect with web APIs

What about starting a new web then only for the supported subset?

Based on my current browsing experience, this may be a plus in the long run.

Re: Ladybird browser spreads its wings

#175

Post by dralley »

safety1st wrote: post #161
nutrie wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand what is wrong with Firefox. It is open-source, highly configurable and reasonably secure (if you have the time to configure). Yes, it has shortcomings, but what doesn't.

Well to put it bluntly, Firefox is Google's bitch. If we want the web to be a multi-vendor platform based on open, multi-vendor standards, as it has been for parts of its history, how much does Firefox really buy us? Do we really think that Firefox will take a hard stand against Google if their survival depends on not doing so? I use Firefox, but I think it's no longer true to its original mission in a lot of ways, S…

What are you talking about? Mozilla repeatedly stands up to Google on big ticket items. Flock being probably the biggest in recent history, but you can throw Manifest v2 on the pile as well and about half a dozen others.

Re: Ladybird browser spreads its wings

#176

Post by squarefoot »

nutrie wrote: post #29
manuelmoreale wrote: post #10

I’m irrationally excited for this project. The idea of a community built browser is incredibly appealing considering the current landscape where all browsers are either Chrome, Chrome in a trench coat, or Firefox

I don't understand what is wrong with Firefox. It is open-source, highly configurable and reasonably secure (if you have the time to configure). Yes, it has shortcomings, but what doesn't.

Technically nothing; the problem lies entirely in the Mozilla Foundation which takes about $500B each year from Google. Officially the motivation is to keep Google as preferred search engine, but seriously the Firefox user base is so small that I don't even think Google would be interested for much less if there weren't strings attached that very likely create a huge conflict of interest if Mozilla become dependent on that money for their own survival.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-05-05/why-go...

Re: Ladybird browser spreads its wings

#177

Post by peoplefromibiza »

oriolid wrote: post #120
peoplefromibiza wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - French itself does not add much value to diplomacy. Funny, given that the word diplomacy is a French word, together with embassy, treaty, alliance, passport and protocol :) > Rust is going out of its way to prevent writing memory unsafe code But if someone is not proficient in Rust it will only slow them down and they'll end up fighting the language and the compiler instead of using the language. It's a common co…

> Funny, given that the word diplomacy is a French word This is true. But it only tells about the cultural dominance that France had at the time the convention started. If history had happened differently, Chinese, Hindi or something else could be in similar position. > But if someone is not proficient in Rust it will only slow them down and they'll end up fighting the language and the compiler instead of using the l…

> This is true. But it only tells about the cultural dominance that France

French is still very much relevant, but it took centuries to make it less relevant than before to the point where we are now.

Rust in comparison is minutes old and there's no evidence it will dominate the field of system programming in the future. See: Ruby on Rails for web development.

> This is indeed the choice. Make it difficult to write code but more likely that the result is correct

I don't buy it.

Making it hard to write code it's nobody's choice, it's accidental complexity, that any sane language designer would avoid if possible, because it severely hinders the language adoption.

The opposite is also true: code easy to write will also be more easily correct.

Elixir is easy to write and will almost automatically be correct in complex scenarios such as distributed systems.

> pure functional lazy evaluation model rules out too many useful data structures

Rust is Haskell with a different syntax though and makes it very hard to write simple linked lists.

> most of its once unique ideas have been copied to current mainstream languages

same happened to FP, ROR and it's happening with Rust

Even Java is more functional than ever, because it's a good paradigm, not because it's a fad.

Again: this seems to me more promoting Rust than a discussion about memory safety and I am really not interested in that. So I'll see myself out.

Re: Ladybird browser spreads its wings

#178

Post by peremptor »

starbugs wrote: post #173
jsheard wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with targeting a subset is there's a ratchet effect with web APIs, once support reaches critical mass in the major browsers sites will start unconditionally relying on those features and there's no going back from there, any new browser has to also support those features or be considered broken. I suppose anything that's gated behind a permission prompt in Chrome/Firefox/Safari could be culled without too…

> The problem with targeting a subset is there's a ratchet effect with web APIs What about starting a new web then only for the supported subset? Based on my current browsing experience, this may be a plus in the long run.

There are now 3 competing standards.

Re: Ladybird browser spreads its wings

#179

Post by [deleted] »

voytec wrote: post #164
nutrie wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand what is wrong with Firefox. It is open-source, highly configurable and reasonably secure (if you have the time to configure). Yes, it has shortcomings, but what doesn't.

> I don't understand what is wrong with Firefox. It's developed by Mozilla, Google's controlled opposition. I submitted a link[0] on ads coming to Firefox but HN shadowed it almost immediately (present on /newest when logged in, nowhere to be found when logged out). [0] https://www.jwz.org/blog/2024/06/mozilla-is-an-advertising-c...

[deleted]
Post reply on HN