LLMs might be part of why Ladybird is making this decision, but they aren’t the only possible one: SQLite, for example, has been developed this way pretty much forever. To each their own, I guess.
Changing how we develop Ladybird
21–30 of 602 posts
Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird
#22Cool - how about fewer perma-bans on github for participating in discussions? Also, as I have pointed out before, they seem to develop too slowly for a solid beta this year. You only have to look at the issue tracker and check for URLs not working or even crashing the browser. Ladybird may have gotten better in the last months, but imagine if 50.000 people are using it, you will see more bugs. How do they then handle…
Can we see some discussions that got people perma-banned?
Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird
#23Why don’t they take the Linux approach? A browser is like an OS. Linux continues to accept public contributions, through an esoteric process that discourages lazy contributors: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-pa...
The Linux approach is under pressure too. Maintainers are beginning to warn about too many contributions and too much churn to review it all.
I know is a naive question, but it's genuine!
Is this the direct result of a monolithic kernel? And would moving more drivers out-of-tree mitigate this?
Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird
#24Wasn't the entire goal of Ladybird to have an open and independent browser engine? Making it effectively closed to contributions makes it.. Not independent anymore. It's now dependent, on few people who work on it, just like any other closed-source or corporate-controlled browser.
Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird
#25I feel like the project just died.
> I feel like the project just died.
Why? This seems to be a strengthening move, not a weakening one.
Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird
#26Why don’t they take the Linux approach? A browser is like an OS. Linux continues to accept public contributions, through an esoteric process that discourages lazy contributors: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-pa...
The Linux approach is under pressure too. Maintainers are beginning to warn about too many contributions and too much churn to review it all.
I think we're past beginning to warn, we've now reached the point of accepting Linux needs to remove drivers and features, because the maintainers just can't keep up.
This is not helped by everyone using the same LLMs to find the same vulnerabilities and flooding maintainers with duplicate reports to be the first to get that CVE and branded vuln on their resume.
Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird
#27I think we are going to see a lot opensource project switching to Humans Need Not Apply Mode.
Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird
#28Zig is moving to this direction is well.
[flagged]
Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird
#29This is one way to rephrase "we don't want your AI slop, thanks.".
> Whether code was typed by hand is beside the point. What matters is who is responsible for it once it enters the browser. Ladybird is becoming a browser for real users. The people introducing changes to it must be the people who decide those changes belong in the project, and who will answer for the consequences.
It probably accelerated the decision, but I don't think that's all of it. I think they're moving in the WebKit/Safari direction: open for you to look at, but not really an open source project.
Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird
#30[dead]