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

191–200 of 293 posts

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#191

Post by lern_too_spel »

naraic0o wrote: post #112
Hrun0 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current dispute between the EU and Apple has nothing to do with Safari though and is about the Apple store, not sure how that's relevant?

no, they're also forcing Apple to allow other browser engines on iOS, which was previously banned. other, third party iOS browsers still used the safari webkit engine. > In addition, apps that use alternative browser engines — other than Apple’s WebKit — may negatively affect the user experience, including impacts to system performance and battery life. https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2024/01/apple-announces-chang...

Every app may negatively impact system performance and battery life. A better webview could positively impact system performance and battery life. This statement from Apple was made in bad faith, and it didn't fool the regulators. It definitely shouldn't fool technologists.

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#192

Post by jraph »

badpun wrote: post #186
jraph wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

So you'd be against running a modern commercial video game on your machine, but you'd play it if it was running in a Google datacenter, and transmited the rendered pixels to you via Google Stadia?

No. I would call this process "open source laundering".

Actually, that's kinda an issue I see with those bridges and why I'm not totally comfortable with them. Now, if the bridge is run by the people who set up the closed communication tool in the first place, that's a grey area. That makes them run an open protocol / standard with proprietary software, which is better than nothing. I'm okay with having to reach a proprietary network with some free software. Should I join an XMPP network run with a proprietary implementation that I wouldn't probably even know about it, but at least it has usable open source implementations. That's my take. I would be happier if we could just skip the Discord and use the real thing though.

But you know, I would be fine with you considering I'm not completely coherent. I'm not indeed. I have thresholds higher than those of RMS which makes me less coherent than him on this topic.

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#193

Post by mminer237 »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #148
TheCoreh wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For example, here's the BBC homepage in Firefox, Servo, Ladybird, and NetSurf: https://i.imgur.com/kCReCPd.png

Here's Wikipedia: https://i.imgur.com/IshNWU2.png

Ladybird implements far more web technologies than more well-funded, longer-running alternative browser projects.

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#194

Post by scblock »

grey_earthling wrote: post #117
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…

> 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.

"Tech nerds" built web sites that only worked in IE back then and "tech nerds" are building websites now that only work in Chrome. Didn't have a clue back then, and don't have a clue now. Forget warning "non-techy" people and clean your own house first.

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#195

Post by [deleted] »

jraph wrote: post #172
Thorrez wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

[deleted]

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#196

Post by MatthiasPortzel »

lemper wrote: post #48
kramerger wrote: post #15

I 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...

what sites, bro? i see this kind of statement many times yet they never give me any answer.

https://GitHub.com/webcompat/web-bugs/issues

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#197

Post by winterplace »

gsich wrote: post #83

From the FAQ: " Q: Why bother? You can’t make a new browser engine without billions of dollars and hundreds of staff. Sure you can. Don’t listen to armchair defeatists who never worked on a browser. " Nice take.

Source: https://awesomekling.github.io/Ladybird-a-new-cross-platform...

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#198

Post by MatthiasPortzel »

la_oveja wrote: post #20
kramerger wrote: post #15

I 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...

small group of lazy front-end people? i think you actually mean a small group of chrome developers single-handedly deciding how web should work, while having the vast majority of the market share to push those decisions.

As a web developer, the things that bother me the most are the small differences in edge cases between the rendering engines.

What happens when you put a percentage height on a row in a table. What happens when an element has a margin that doesn’t fit in its parent. How does adding display: flex effect how text is laid out inside an element.

These are things that Gecko and WebKit/Blink handle differently. Some of them are defined in the spec and have tracking bugs, but some of them just aren’t addressed. I don’t think it’s maliciousness or laziness on anyone’s part, but the web is too complicated for there to be multiple perfectly compatible rendering engines.

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#199

Post by DiggyJohnson »

jraph wrote: post #113
vmfunction wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget WebKit. It leads to project such as https://surf.suckless.org

WebKit is established and controlled by the richest company of the world. Most websites make sure they work on it because hardware (exclusively) running it are widespread. Why should someone interested in new players care? Anyone knowing about Servo and Ladybird has most likely heard of it anyway. (agreed, it is a credible alternative to Blink's dominance)

Because it can be used to do cool things, has an interesting development history, and most importantly:

> it is a credible alternative to Blink's dominance

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#200

Post by jonjacky »

LeFantome wrote: post #89
jll29 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is a world expert on Web rendering, and an extremely capable C++ developer. One of their success recipes is to code up the various specifications directly, which is - today - the best way to go about this. They are also heavily test-driven. He did not even use the C++ standard library, when he says "from scratch" it includes his own string class, for better or worse, which is fine since it's "just for fun", "to le…

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…

This project reminds me of the approach at Xerox PARC in the 1970s. Alan Kay wrote [1]:

(At PARC we avoided) putting any externally controlled system, in- house or out, on one's critical path. ... Thus, virtually all the PARC hardware ... and software ... were completely built inhouse by these few dozen researchers.

This sounds disastrous, (because) in programming there is a widespread first order theory that one shouldn't build one's own tools, languages, and especially operating systems. This is true --- an incredible amount of time and energy has gone down these ratholes. On the second hand, if you can build your own tools, languages, and operating systems you absolutely should because the leverage that can be obtained (and often the time not wasted in trying to fix other people's not quite right tools) can be incredible.

1. http://www.vpri.org/pdf/m2004001_power.pdf

Post reply on HN