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

The Ladybird browser project

ladybird.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 293 posts

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#171

Post by stephen_g »

norman784 wrote: post #90
aljgz wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Count me in as well. I only use Google Chrome for Google meet calls, as some feature are not working on Firefox (I'm sure this has nothing to do with the fact that Google makes both chrome and meet ;)

Meet also does not work properly in Safari, each time I have a meet call I need to use Chrome, so Google might using non web standards.

Does it work in Ungoogled Chromium? I use that just on principle when nothing else works (which, in agreement with the previous posts, is rarer for me than people seem to claim)

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#172

Post by jraph »

Thorrez wrote: post #158
jraph wrote: post #40

I have hopes it will become a daily usable browser. A new Web engine is great. I hope Servo succeeds at this too. I would consider contributing but development is coordinated on Discord and I avoid proprietary software… [1]. It's a shame. Can't blame them though, they are doing it for fun. [1] https://drewdevault.com/2022/03/29/free-software-free-infras...

I think HN is proprietary.

Indeed. I'm fine with HN though. I'm not the one running the non free code. One can browse it and participate to it without running any proprietary software. It works without JS, and the JS code is trivially small anyway. There are open source clients too. That's a pass for me. The day this changes, you won't see me here anymore.

That would correspond to the NonFreeNet antifeature in F-Droid [1].

They could update the code they released for good measure though [2].

Running Discord is on another level for me. I would consider accessing a Discord using a Matrix or IRC bridge.

[1] https://f-droid.org/docs/Anti-Features/#NonFreeNet

[2] https://github.com/wting/hackernews

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#173

Post by charcircuit »

10000truths wrote: post #134
AndyKelley wrote: post #100

Is 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.

"Just for fun" is precisely how Linux started: Hello everybody out there using minix - I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones.

Similarly people shouldn't have used Linux for serious use cases back then. We are talking about the present.

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#174

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

pygy_ wrote: post #101
sph wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is where Apple'grip on the iOS browser engine choice paradoxically comes in clutch. It is conceptually despicable, especially for devs, but it prevents Google from completely running the show. Now the European Union is coming after Apple without trying to rein in Google's influence... This seems short-sighted.

If only Mozilla hadn’t run Firefox into the ground (effectively) we wouldn’t need to reply on Apple.

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#175

Post by mouse_ »

jorvi wrote: post #102
LeFantome wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think their C++ library is one of the reasons they can create capable software so quickly actually. They have jetisoned just a tonne of C++ nonesense and added some really nice modern features such as how they handle memory and errors. Also, you would think that having to implement EVERYTHING themselves ( they are making their own image decoders as an example -- inclding SVG ) would slow them down. However, as it i…

> they are making their own image decoders as an example -- inclding SVG Considering the vast amount of exploits that continually comes out of media decoders everywhere, this basically guarantees I will never ever use this browser.

If something is bad, we should be trying to rewrite it. Will you not touch WireGuard because OpenVPN is full of holes?

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#176

Post by charcircuit »

alpaca128 wrote: post #131
adontz wrote: post #2

[flagged]

This mindset is why we now have countless new browsers that all run on Chromium. What's the motivation for those? Also calling the project a "waste of effort" seems a bit out of touch. Effort doesn't have to pay off in any way to be worthwhile. If the act of building is part of the motivation then taking shortcuts at building it defeats the purpose.

>What's the motivation for those?

To compete on the actual end user experience. Most users do not care at all about the code of the project. They don't care if your layout engine code is completely unique, they care that it does layout for the sites they use correctly. Having a good browser engine to work off of lets people start delivering value to users immediately instead of having to spend a ton of time recreating the parts of a browser that users do not care about.

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#177

Post by inversetelecine »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #174
pygy_ wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is where Apple'grip on the iOS browser engine choice paradoxically comes in clutch. It is conceptually despicable, especially for devs, but it prevents Google from completely running the show. Now the European Union is coming after Apple without trying to rein in Google's influence... This seems short-sighted.

If only Mozilla hadn’t run Firefox into the ground (effectively) we wouldn’t need to reply on Apple.

As I still use Firefox, I have to agree with this.

The performance improvements are nice, but trying to make a Firefox another Chromium skin irks me. Plus I still miss the official compact mode.

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#178

Post by inversetelecine »

razakel wrote: post #153
grey_earthling wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if it works in Chrome, all web developers will adopt it This is why we, tech nerds who understand the problem, must resist monopolies: object to using such APIs. Chrome wouldn't be in quite this position if, instead of embracing the monopolist, more techies had warned their non-techy friends and family away from it, like they did with IE.

We warned people that the government was snooping on everything you transmitted or received. They didn't listen or care.

Many took tech jobs to help further that cause. Perhaps unknowingly?

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#179

Post by _chu1 »

marginalia_nu wrote: post #92
codemusings wrote: post #80

Love Andreas Kling and the Serentiy OS project. Hate that he's only on Twitter. Mastodon seems like the perfect fit for his audience.

I dunno, he's pretty committed to his positive utlook on things. Mastodon seems to be the far angrier place in comparison to Twitter. Twitter used to be a lot more like that, but it seems like most of the angriest people on twitter moved ot mastodon when Elon took over. It's (IMO) very pronounced and hard to avoid on Mastodon.

Not only that but the frontpage of Mastodon is more angry political stuff than anything technology related.

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#180

Post by acuozzo »

dev213 wrote: post #154
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, if that's the reason, I completely understand. However that's not the reason they stated in their FAQ. It really comes off as gatekeeping

Gatekeeping is the right solution sometimes, no?

What if the goal is to keep the relevant communication channels populated exclusively with technical users?

I've seen F/OSS projects completely overrun with support requests from non-technical users. Is it wrong to want to avoid this from the start?

Post reply on HN