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

291–300 of 777 posts

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

#291

Post by awesomekling »

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #285

Hrrm. legacyPackages.x86_64-linux.ladybird (0-unstable-2024-06-04) Cool! Let's see if I can read HN. nix run nixpkgs#ladybird ... 502144.831 Ladybird(1297933): WebContent process crashed! 502144.831 Ladybird(1297933): WebContent has crashed 5 times in quick succession! Not restarting... ... I didn't expect it to work very well yet in a distro, so that's ok. It's cool enough that nix(os) has already started tracking i…

Please don't trust random distro packages of Ladybird, we have no idea what they're packaging, but it's unlikely to be current, and not something we can help you with.

I wish distros would not package pre-alpha software, since the only thing it accomplishes is giving people a bad first impression of something that isn't ready :(

If you want to mess with Ladybird, build it from the source at https://github.com/LadybirdBrowser/ladybird :)

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

#292

Post by zamadatix »

8organicbits wrote: post #246

Is there any caniuse data for Ladybird? It would be helpful to see which standards Ladybird implements so Ladybird users can use my site. Building websites that use the supported standards seems like a good way to support the project.

Better yet, build your site using the standards that make sense for you to use and then see what the browser needs changed to support it! Some things like webgpu are bigger lifts to make internal versions of but others like minor CSS properties tend to go quick.

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

#293

Post by kome »

bradley_taunt wrote: post #230

Love the project, but that website is pretty cold and soulless (as mentioned by others). I quickly put together a "cleaner" design for anyone interested, which also uses the original (and objectively better) logo: https://ladybird-dev.netlify.app/

This version is clearly superior, both in design and use. Great start!

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

#294

Post by zamadatix »

iandanforth wrote: post #181

Open source is great and new things are great and pursuing your passion is great. The rhetoric here however is lacking. Specifically the argument is "google money bad" but the authors don't provide specific examples where google money has caused a technical decision they disagree with.

> No "default search deals", crypto tokens, or other forms of user monetization, ever.

Is avoiding those sorts of things not supposed to be reason enough for them?

Also the page does a good job of specifically mentioning Google and making general statements about what any source of funding can impact. If Google wanted to give an unrestricted donation it's not clear from this page they would decline it.

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

#295

Post by account42 »

WhereIsTheTruth wrote: post #46

> 501(c)(3) non-profit How come a european project becomes an american foundation?

I too would have preferred to see an EU-based organization backing this but I can imagine that a US non-profit probably makes it easier to get funding from US corporations and donors.

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

#296

Post by account42 »

k8sToGo wrote: post #206
master-lincoln wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2 years is far away? You must be very young or very close to death I assume... It doesn't need to be remembered until then. If it matures and gets usable you will read about it again ;)

Are the two mutually exclusive? Can one be not young and close to death? Sorry sometimes I get a bit existential.

Colloquially, "or" can but doesn't have to be exclusive. As to your question, being young and close to death are both states that everyone gets to experience (even if not neccessarily knowingly for the latter) but thankfully most of us are spared from experiencing them simultaneously.

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

#298

Post by dataflow »

adwn wrote: post #284
dataflow wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are currently no plans to switch to a less permissive license. Hey, just a reality check: in the event that you actually do become wildly successful, this means that others (Google, Microsoft, etc.) will be able to fork the browser and then develop it faster than you - thus leaving you behind and taking away your users ! Would highly recommend leaving yourself some mechanism to prevent that, unless you're rea…

> Hey, just a reality check: It's rather condescending of you to assume that the developers of Ladybird aren't fully aware of the consequences that their choice of license entails.

That certainly wasn't the intention. Was there really a need to turn this into a personal swipe? This is a common outcome many smart and talented developers have historically come to regret. You can find their stories all over the web, including right here on HN. I didn't want to see the same thing happen here, is all.

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

#299

Post by account42 »

input_sh wrote: post #6

I really appreciate someone taking a stab at a project of this scale, but is it really worth discussing for like the 70th time when even the alpha is two years away? https://hn.algolia.com/?q=ladybird

I'd rather see duplicate post for interesting projects than yet another LLM grift.

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

#300

Post by 8474_s »

neocritter wrote: post #49
vaylian wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's too pessimistic. The code is there and it can be used to push the project forward. If some part of it is not good enough, then an alternative implementation can be created (potentially in a different language)

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…

Old code does acquire new bugs by sitting in your hard drive, since it interfaces with dozens of libraries and APIs that don't care about how well test the code is: every path of code is dependent on multiple components playing well and following standards/APIs/formats that old code has no knowledge of. Also, the mountain of patch-fixes and "workarounds" in the end force the programmers into a corner, where development is hobbled by constraints and quirks of "battle-tested" code, that will be thrown away as soon as it couldn't support fancy new feature X or cannot use fancy new library API without extra layers of indirection.
Post reply on HN