Live data from Hacker News

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

lunduke.locals.com

371–380 of 777 posts

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

#371

Can anyone explain like I'm an idiot concrete reasons how Google Chrome's dominance is bad for the web? Preferably things that have actually happened, not what might happen

Since you wanted to restrict it to things that happened:

- Chrome began to "log in" users into the browser by default, if they so much as logged in to Gmail or Youtube, or anything that uses Gmail ID oAuth. That means that all the searches and web visits made on the browser are explicitly tied to your Gmail ID.

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

#373

As much as I would love to see this succeeded, I simply cannot believe that you can sustain a browser development without millions of dollars. Web got so complicated. And it's perfect for all these huge ads companies owning browser engines. Nobody can catch up with this. There's only one way we can make sure we can get really independent browsers: SIMPLIFY THE WEB - Limit the platform to absolute minimum - give way t…

Any browser could do that tomorrow, and then their users will promptly abandon it when it doesn't work for websites they have to access. This will just never be a viable strategy because users want a web browser that works on the sites they want to visit, and site owners aren't going to rewrite their sites unless the browser has a big enough market share. But market share is going to be small for a browser that doesn…

Yes, we have done it to ourselves in the 90' when every browser had some custom extensions and small differences. And everyone was playing catch-up game. Then we got a bit of normality in 2000' when we standardised things. And now Google is playing like Microsoft - expanding web standards like crazy and nobody can catch up. I hope we stop this madness soon.

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

#374

Can anyone explain like I'm an idiot concrete reasons how Google Chrome's dominance is bad for the web? Preferably things that have actually happened, not what might happen

It's a web browser built and controlled by an advertising giant in order to serve you monetized pages more quickly. For examples of why this is bad for the user, search FLoC and manifest V3, both of which they try to say are better for the user despite being objectively worse (the latter hobbles web ad blocker extensions and the former is a solution to "reasonable" web ads and user tracking).

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

#376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cisco's OS is a fork of BSD.

Which one? They have dozens of “OSes” across their various products. Cisco IOS is absolutely not based on BSD - it is a proprietary kernel, and such that it even has a “userland”, a proprietary userland. IOS XE is based on Linux. Most of the voice stuff is Linux. Perhaps you are thinking of Juniper’s JunOS, which is based on FreeBSD?

ASyncOS is a fork of FreeBSD.

It is used in Cisco's email and web security appliance, which is also their hosted offering. This appliance was previously known as IronPort, before being acquired by Cisco.

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

#377

Can anyone explain like I'm an idiot concrete reasons how Google Chrome's dominance is bad for the web? Preferably things that have actually happened, not what might happen

Google Accelerated Mobile Pages were one example of a dangerous pattern that Google pushed, for probably altruistic and selfish reasons.

Less specific, but I think just as reasonable, is looking at the philosophical alignment and financial incentives of the organization behind the browser.

Google's interests are often in direct misalignment to my own, and by virtue of that, I would strongly prefer them to not have such a position of power over the market.

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

#378

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/

Hard disagree. If you're a fan of the strictly functional "what's CSS?" look, you might as well stick to viewing README.md on GitHub and call it a day.

This design makes it look like something that is looking for developer contributions. The original looks like something where a sales chatbot is likely to pop up in the corner.

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

#379

Nitpick (or is it?) but the website is soulless and just bad. The website design communicates that this is just another immature project, desperately looking for a VC funding, just following modern design trends where "design == aesthetics". Yuck. I am happy to see the project thrive.

Have to agree, though I think as the saying goes, "don't hate the playa, hate the game". Capitalism sucks. Sorry for my non-HN-like comment, but it's the truth.

> "don't hate the playa, hate the game"

That might play if this was another Chromium fork, instead of something built from scratch.

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

#380

As much as I would love to see this succeeded, I simply cannot believe that you can sustain a browser development without millions of dollars. Web got so complicated. And it's perfect for all these huge ads companies owning browser engines. Nobody can catch up with this. There's only one way we can make sure we can get really independent browsers: SIMPLIFY THE WEB - Limit the platform to absolute minimum - give way t…

We had this with plugins and it was a security, performance, and compatibility nightmare. It wasn’t that long ago you needed QuickTime and RealPlayer for videos. Then Flash, Director, Silverlight, and Java for multimedia.

We needed them because platform was too high level, not because we had not enough web APIs. If we could have a canvas and means to render efficiently, there would be no plugins necessary. And they were nightmare because you had to install them yourself on your client, not because they were not JS and DOM.
Post reply on HN