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

Ladybird Web Browser becomes a non-profit with $1M from GitHub Founder

lunduke.locals.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 777 posts

Re: Ladybird Web Browser becomes a non-profit with $1M from GitHub Founder

#261

Post by ledgerdev »

freedomben wrote: post #250
ledgerdev wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey please be sure to design and at least mock out a way to host/run a collection of local LLM models in a generic manner. You could give the models access to context/content/history and to bubble up functionality within the browser. I can see tons of potential for something trusted and local which I'm comfortable giving full access to browsing history and not owned by big tech. This could be key differentiator over…

I agree, though this does not seem like something that should be built until the browser is at least usable, which currently they're projecting an alpha release in 2026. By then things might be totally different, so don't architect yourself into a corner with it, but I also wouldn't invest much or any time into it right now. Focus on building good APIs/extension points though, and those will be immensely useful wheth…

Yeah, wasn't thinking about actually building it out, just mocking it out and taking into consideration to allow for it as you build out browser. So much easier to plan for rails, rather than foist into something later on.

edit: > Focus on building good APIs/extension points though, and those will be immensely useful whether for local LLMs.

I think we're saying the same thing, focus on good extension points for the local LLM use case.

Re: Ladybird Web Browser becomes a non-profit with $1M from GitHub Founder

#262

Post by bayindirh »

beretguy wrote: post #254
bayindirh wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting Microsoft to use a new engine and contribute back to the original repository is better for diversity, but forking and running away with it is certainly not.

> Getting Microsoft to use a new engine and contribute back to the original repository is better for diversity Oh no no no. We don't need microsoft contributing anything into this. They will mess up everything and push their agenda.

Ideally, yes. Microsoft should stay away from this, but I wanted to highlight that adopting a technology doesn't automatically make it better for diversity.

Google was almost killing Go overnight because they wanted more user data from people using the language.

Re: Ladybird Web Browser becomes a non-profit with $1M from GitHub Founder

#263

Post by beretguy »

cfiggers wrote: post #224
FireInsight wrote: post #114

I think people in this comment section are too harsh on the website. I think the design is pleasing and functional, and the project is communicated about clearly. The AI laptop is a bit of a shame, and the logo being bland instead of clever is a bummer, though. But plenty of products have a similar front page style, and it doesnt make me feel like it's a soulless startup.

I actually really like the logo. It's a simple, mathematically-defined curve that also resembles an abstract ladybird opening its wings. You don't find that clever?

I'd rather see an actual ladybird somewhere than some facebook's new meta-like logo.

Re: Ladybird Web Browser becomes a non-profit with $1M from GitHub Founder

#264

Post by greenyies »

BirAdam wrote: post #197
greenyies wrote: post #128

I'm just not trusting a small browser dev team. The risk of exploits is too high

But you’d trust a megacorporation closely tied to government that has an explicit interest in tracking you, keeping paths for intelligence agencies and law enforcement open, and generally being deceptive? You trust browsers that openly phone home about your activity?

Despite you painting it as extreme as you do, yes.

Random exploits on the Internet are still a higher risk for me.

Re: Ladybird Web Browser becomes a non-profit with $1M from GitHub Founder

#265

Post by ale »

I’m disappointed in the fact that the main ambition here is only to recreate a browser for the sake of independence. There is so much potential in creating a modern browser that could for instance focus on performance, privacy, access to lower level APIs, etc. rather than carrying the eternal burden of backwards compatibility.

Re: Ladybird Web Browser becomes a non-profit with $1M from GitHub Founder

#267

Post by ColinHayhurst »

awesomekling wrote: post #99
ColinHayhurst wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a welcome initiative speaking from a personal and professional perspective, and as CEO of an independent search engine; we are all too well aware of the power of money and defaults. This immediately comes to mind as akin to the Signal vis-a-vis WhatsApp etc. Here there is an obvious reason to use Signal and a well-understood proposition. What might it be for Ladybird? And how will you differentiate?

To be honest, we are so far behind everyone else today that we're 100% focused on catching up technically, and not thinking much about differentiation. :) That said, I do think we'll find ways to differentiate given our uncommon situation with no ties to the advertising industry. This gives us the ability to experiment with privacy measures more aggressive than others may be comfortable with for fear of losing fundin…

With no ties, direct AND indirect, that does make Ladybird uncommon, like Pale Moon.

Our own approach to privacy is as radical as it gets in search: "No Tracking, Just Search". As we often say: tracking, not ads, is the fundamental problem. Contextual ads do not need necessarily to have tracking. Though the duopoly of search ad networks makes that a hard road too.

Good luck. Excited to see how Ladybird progresses.

Re: Ladybird Web Browser becomes a non-profit with $1M from GitHub Founder

#268

Post by hipinspire »

parasti wrote: post #237
hipinspire wrote: post #85

It is a great honor to see a website I designed and coded at the top of the Hacker News front page! A big thank you to Chris Wanstrath for allowing me to work on it. I hope Ladybird becomes a mainstream browser, and I feel this is a moment similar to when Firefox rebranded from Phoenix. P.S. Check out my UI/UX portfolio at https://hipfolio.co

FYI, a couple of sections are cut off on mobile.

Thanks for sharing! Could you please email a screenshot with the phone model, OS version, and browser name to the email address in my HN profile?

Re: Ladybird Web Browser becomes a non-profit with $1M from GitHub Founder

#269

Post by mnmalst »

bayindirh wrote: post #16

I wonder what would happen if Ladybird matures well to compete with Firefox and Chrome (hope so), and it's just forked away by some company and completely closed down in a whim, because BSD-2 allows that.

Personally am asking myself what the benefits of the BSD clause compared to a more restrictive license are. The only reason I personally can see is that they want to have to option to close the browser themself in the future.

Re: Ladybird Web Browser becomes a non-profit with $1M from GitHub Founder

#270

Post by neocritter »

silotis wrote: post #253
neocritter wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A classic: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-... >> "The idea that new code is better than old is patently absurd. Old code has been used. It has been tested. Lots of bugs have been found, and they’ve been fixed. There’s nothing wrong with it. It doesn’t acquire bugs just by sitting around on your hard drive." >> "Each of these bugs took weeks of real-world usage before they were found. The…

It's a good point in general, but in this case it's not clear if the cost of re-writing the existing codebase is less than the cost of staying with a memory-unsafe language. We know from past experience that it takes an extreme amount of time and effort to harden a browser written in C++ against malicious web content. The Ladybird codebase is not particularly "old" in any sense of the word. Judging by Github's stats…

That is the sneaky thing about rewrites. The "Ship of Theseus" rewrite is reasonably safe based on the article and what I could find of people sharing their experiences with rewrites. Fix what needs fixing, but swap in the newer better language/framework/whatever a piece at a time. It works!

People get in trouble when they decide to rewrite the whole thing. You might be right in this case, but I'm sure every person who began a doomed rewrite project felt the the benefits outweighed the risks.

Viewed in the rear view mirror of history, the Netscape rewrite was a good thing in a technical sense. As far as I understand it gave us the foundation for Firefox and the Gecko engine. It was just bad business in context because it let other browsers run laps around it while the rewrite proceeded. It let IE get a foothold that didn't shake for many years until Netscape became Firefox.

Rewriting the new browser in Rust would probably be similar from a technical POV. But from a business standpoint, we seem to be at an inflection point where a new browser might be able to enter in the cracks of discontent over sketchy AI features in Edge and the slow-boiling attempts to break ad blocking in Chrome. If they divert resources now to a rewrite, they could miss this opportunity to do to Chrome what Firefox did to IE.

It sounds like the plan is a Ship of Theseus rewrite anyway, so they'll get there in time without the risk of distraction.

Post reply on HN