I always mix SerenityOS and TempleOS :(
The Ladybird browser project
141–150 of 293 posts
Re: The Ladybird browser project
#142I would love to use this as my daily driver, but a lot of popular sites don't even work with Firefox. I hate what a small group of lazy front-end people have done to our world...
Not my experience at all. Firefox works great for all the popular sites and 99+% of the unpopular ones. The trouble comes with websites that generally seem shoddy. I haven't had to install and delete Chrome for a long time!
Same. Actually I've had it the other way around a few times, when a site doesn't work in Chrome but works in Firefox. Perhaps though it was some caching issue because it worked OK in Chrome's Incognito mode. However, it was easier to just fire up Firefox than diagnose/debug Chrome.
Re: The Ladybird browser project
#143It's been so inspiring to see him and his crew of hackers build a new, independent browser from scratch. I must admit I didn't think it was possible on this small scale in terms of man hours and funding. However, the thought has also crossed my mind if we're finally seeing fruits of browsers being better standardized on "95%"+ of the popular features -- and if writing a browser today is in fact easier than both writi…
It is not any easier, because we still have a monopoly running the show, only it's not called Microsoft anymore. If anyone threatens Google position, they can literally throw money at the problem, invent some overcomplicated standard, implement it in Blink, and have the competition chase them. It doesn't need to go through W3C either, if it works in Chrome, all web developers will adopt it and any smaller engine will…
Google's control of the internet is exaggerated. Amazon is not dependent on any web browser to reach clients, they can just launch their own app and be done. And yes, they can do it all platforms.
How is Instagram dependent on whatever Google decides? How is Facebook, TikTok and Snapchat? How are streaming platforms dependent on Chrome? Big businesses with a ton of users easily launch their own apps to sidestep Chrome. And if Chrome makes fundamental breaks of HTML and CSS, then most of the internet is going to be broken in Chrome.
If your bank website stops working in Chrome, they're not going to change their website. They're going to ask you to install another browser.
Re: The Ladybird browser project
#144It's been so inspiring to see him and his crew of hackers build a new, independent browser from scratch. I must admit I didn't think it was possible on this small scale in terms of man hours and funding. However, the thought has also crossed my mind if we're finally seeing fruits of browsers being better standardized on "95%"+ of the popular features -- and if writing a browser today is in fact easier than both writi…
It is not any easier, because we still have a monopoly running the show, only it's not called Microsoft anymore. If anyone threatens Google position, they can literally throw money at the problem, invent some overcomplicated standard, implement it in Blink, and have the competition chase them. It doesn't need to go through W3C either, if it works in Chrome, all web developers will adopt it and any smaller engine will…
Counterpoint: A lot of these newer features are only used on a small fraction of websites; things like webgl are only used for games and tech demos, most websites work just fine without it.
Re: The Ladybird browser project
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, he was.
He was probably their top guy too. Sort of like how Lucifer was the top angel in Heaven before his drug problems brought about his fall from Apple and since then he's been a true light bringer working tirelessly to give us awesome software as he recovers from addition.
I mean Lucifer writing software tracks
Re: The Ladybird browser project
#146It's been so inspiring to see him and his crew of hackers build a new, independent browser from scratch. I must admit I didn't think it was possible on this small scale in terms of man hours and funding. However, the thought has also crossed my mind if we're finally seeing fruits of browsers being better standardized on "95%"+ of the popular features -- and if writing a browser today is in fact easier than both writi…
> if we're finally seeing fruits of browsers being better standardized on "95%"+ of the popular features -- and if writing a browser today is in fact easier than both writing AND maintaining a browser a decade back. A decade back, maybe... but decades ago the number of things you had to support was just so much smaller even if you only looked at HTML! Consider https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1866.txt vs https://html.spec…
> Consider https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1866.txt vs https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/
I thought, oh, that's not so bad. Then I realized what I was looking at was a 10 page index.
Re: The Ladybird browser project
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://imgur.com/dP2c3j6 Re-inventing the wheel is not the problem. It's copying the wheel that is the problem.
As years have gone by, I've realised that the whole "don't reinvent the wheel" is fundamentally an anti-innovation and anti-intellectualist idiom. Like yeah, the idea is that the wheel already works pretty well, so you wouldn't need a better one, but really now? First of all, how would we know that we've explored all the possible ways wheels can be? How do we know whether what we have is actually the most optimal way…
I agree, imagine a carpenter who is told "don't bother making tables, you can buy them from the shop". We tell software devs this all the time. The javascript ecosystem was the perfect example of this, it professed an ideology that most devs should only write glue code between libraries, and only the arrogant devs we can't stop and/or FAANG are writing the libraries.
Re: The Ladybird browser project
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, could you explain what this means "this one actually renders a lot of web content decently."?
When you open sites on other "new" browser engines you typically get a really butchered visual result, with layouts completely broken, elements missing, wrong colors, etc. For example, Servo didn't support floats until recently, and IIRC even simple sites like Hacker News look "wrong". Ladybird's approach has been to start with a somewhat naive implementation of features, then choose popular websites and apps and jus…
I can't relate / do not recognise these claims of incorrect rendering; is there a resource out there that shows images of how it's supposed to be vs what it looks like? I thought this was a problem of the past, IE compatibility with web standards kind of thing.
Re: The Ladybird browser project
#149This is a really cool project, but: "Where are the ISO images? There are no ISO images. This project does not cater to non-technical users." This comes off as really abrasive. Wanting an ISO image to quickly test this out is not an indicator of someones technical ability. I'm sorry I don't want to boot up a linux vm, install a lot of development packages and then build my own boot image just to try this out.
Counterpoint, it would be another release / packaging they would have to build and maintain, unless they find a volunteer that can do it without detracting from their core business, it's not worth the investment (to them).
Anyone can set up a pipeline to distribute ISO images though, it's open source.
Re: The Ladybird browser project
#150Is it just for fun or not? I think it's important to face this question, because users should not trust a just-for-fun browser with their security, and we should not look to Ladybird as a meaningful contribution towards competition in the browser space if it's just for fun. If it's just for fun, we need to temper our expectations accordingly.
They don't provide binaries, so I don't think there is a risk of having users.
Is it really important to answer this question? A lot of widely used software started as "just for fun", e.g. Linux or OpenSSL.
I think tempering our expectations should be the default for Open Source software.