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

Understanding Complexity Like an Engineer – The Case of the Ladybird Browser

t-shaped.nl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 59 posts

Re: Understanding Complexity Like an Engineer – The Case of the Ladybird Browser

#41

Post by TheRealPomax »

WesolyKubeczek wrote: post #34
TheRealPomax wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't fight for an open web just by making a browser. As dire as the Firefox market share is today, it'd be so much worse if the Foundation didn't spend its time and effort making sure the folks who don't give a shit, but should (e.g. politicians, law makers, lobbyists, news outlets, etc. etc.) learn why they should give a shit about the open web. It sucks that you can't donate to Firefox directly, but calling wh…

Yes, but sometimes, just sometimes, I. Want. To. Support. The. Freaking. Browser. I realize that there's some creative bookkeeping and bureaucratic barriers set up so that the only entity that can meaningfully support Firefox financially is Google in the end, but I hate the fact. I'll probably donate to Andreas instead.

I'd much rather have the option to sponsor specific bugzilla issues, to be honest, I don't want to give Mozilla any money if it means it just pads out the CEO salary a bit (here's hoping whoever the new CEO will be takes the job in the understanding that it's not a million dollar position, with a sensible salary instead).

Re: Understanding Complexity Like an Engineer – The Case of the Ladybird Browser

#42

Post by arcanemachiner »

intelVISA wrote: post #19
ofrzeta wrote: post #3

Related (chat with Andreas Kling about SerenityOS and Ladybird): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36620450 However I don't understand why many people are longing for Ladybird as another free browser. There are already some and Firefox is losing marketshare every day. So please do use it. Ok, I guess Mozilla Foundation's running the Firefox project is not to everyones liking, so that would be a valid reason. But n…

It's time to sunset Firefox and usher in The Next Age of libre browsers. Mozilla has betrayed FOSS for Google monies, at last the chickens come home...

Maybe we should wait for a viable alternative before sunsetting things and ushering in ages.

Re: Understanding Complexity Like an Engineer – The Case of the Ladybird Browser

#43

Post by _heimdall »

andrewstuart wrote: post #27
NoboruWataya wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's more excitement about the idea that it is possible to write a web browser from scratch, than about this specific browser. This is just one of the most promising implementations of that idea. I am very much team Firefox and think it is important to protect and promote it as much as possible. But I don't think the attention that people are giving to Ladybird would otherwise be dedicated to Firefox. Maybe w…

>> I think it's more excitement about the idea that it is possible to write a web browser from scratch Depends on your definition of “a web browser”. It’s not possible to clone Firefox or Chrome without huge huge resources and time and effort. It is probably possible to make something like a web browser from 20 years ago.

That might be true, but if that's where we've found ourselves it seems like the best course of action is to start over with a fresh web spec focused on staying as simple as possible.

Browsers have never had a sustainable revenue model. If we're at a point where building one is so complex that it requires a massive resource investment we're setup to eventually be left with only one or two highly centralized and controlled browsers. That defeats the whole purpose of the web.

Re: Understanding Complexity Like an Engineer – The Case of the Ladybird Browser

#44

Post by zamadatix »

andrewstuart wrote: post #27
NoboruWataya wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's more excitement about the idea that it is possible to write a web browser from scratch, than about this specific browser. This is just one of the most promising implementations of that idea. I am very much team Firefox and think it is important to protect and promote it as much as possible. But I don't think the attention that people are giving to Ladybird would otherwise be dedicated to Firefox. Maybe w…

>> I think it's more excitement about the idea that it is possible to write a web browser from scratch Depends on your definition of “a web browser”. It’s not possible to clone Firefox or Chrome without huge huge resources and time and effort. It is probably possible to make something like a web browser from 20 years ago.

I think Ladybird has already surpassed that mark. Maybe not in 100% of attributes, technically modern Chrome/Firefox don't even meet that mark, but it's also already gone well beyond in most of them. This including that they are doing everything in house from the image decoding to the font rendering (well, on Serenity - for other platforms like Linux/macOS they have QT bridge their implementation to existing stacks).

Still a long ways to go to be a Chrome/Firefox for sure but that it's already beyond what you suppose might be possible is just the point of why it's its own kind of excitement.

Re: Understanding Complexity Like an Engineer – The Case of the Ladybird Browser

#45

Post by samatman »

andrewstuart wrote: post #23

I put it to you that the web browser and the operating system are the two most sophisticated applications ever built. No doubt it’s possible to build a simple web browser that gets some 50% of the job done and could serviceabley display some websites. However there would a very very long tail of detail and nuance and edge cases that would be very very hard to catch up. This is why you should use Firefox and we should…

Ladybird is doing an excellent job of demonstrating that the putative unreproducible complexity of the modern web browser is just FUD.

I'm glad they didn't listen to all the people repeating the conventional wisdom that writing a modern web engine from scratch is impossible. Success is the best proof.

Re: Understanding Complexity Like an Engineer – The Case of the Ladybird Browser

#46

Post by notso411 »

andrewstuart wrote: post #23

I put it to you that the web browser and the operating system are the two most sophisticated applications ever built. No doubt it’s possible to build a simple web browser that gets some 50% of the job done and could serviceabley display some websites. However there would a very very long tail of detail and nuance and edge cases that would be very very hard to catch up. This is why you should use Firefox and we should…

[dead]

Re: Understanding Complexity Like an Engineer – The Case of the Ladybird Browser

#47

Post by rgbrenner »

NoboruWataya wrote: post #37
TheRealPomax wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not. Having worked at the foundation for a decade: to the vast majority of folks, the difference that matters is that "one makes Firefox, the other does campaigning/advocacy/outreach". The history behind why there are two different entities is fascinating, but also doesn't change the fact that they are two completely different companies with completely different org charts and completely different focuses, u…

But the Corporation is wholly owned by the Foundation, isn't it? In that context, I don't see how it makes sense to see them as completely separate. The Corporation is answerable to the Foundation, the Corporation's profits go to the Foundation and I imagine it is similarly possible for the Foundation to fund the Corporation (unless its charter prohibits it or something).

Yes, claiming they're separate is like saying Walmart and Walmart.com are separate. Except in that case, Walmart only owns 88% of the .com... so thats actually more independent than the Mozilla Corp.

Re: Understanding Complexity Like an Engineer – The Case of the Ladybird Browser

#48

Post by asadotzler »

_heimdall wrote: post #43
andrewstuart wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I think it's more excitement about the idea that it is possible to write a web browser from scratch Depends on your definition of “a web browser”. It’s not possible to clone Firefox or Chrome without huge huge resources and time and effort. It is probably possible to make something like a web browser from 20 years ago.

That might be true, but if that's where we've found ourselves it seems like the best course of action is to start over with a fresh web spec focused on staying as simple as possible. Browsers have never had a sustainable revenue model. If we're at a point where building one is so complex that it requires a massive resource investment we're setup to eventually be left with only one or two highly centralized and contro…

maybe, but it absolutely won't happen, so why bother suggesting it?

Re: Understanding Complexity Like an Engineer – The Case of the Ladybird Browser

#49

Post by asadotzler »

TheRealPomax wrote: post #17
DiggyJohnson wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's disingenuous to not explain the connection between these organizations. You're making it sound like they both happen to be named "Mozilla", when the reality is much more nuanced and interdependent, but in terms of their current funding and leadership, as well as their history.

No, it's not. Having worked at the foundation for a decade: to the vast majority of folks, the difference that matters is that "one makes Firefox, the other does campaigning/advocacy/outreach". The history behind why there are two different entities is fascinating, but also doesn't change the fact that they are two completely different companies with completely different org charts and completely different focuses, u…

Now you're misrepresenting things. The Foundation fully and wholly owns the Corporation and if the Corporation ever strayed from the Foundation's intentions, the Foundation could literally shut it down or sell it off. Leaving off that critical detail -- and I was an original MoFo and original MoCo employee that predates anyone else here, suggests you've got some agenda here other than informing folks about the corporate structures.

Re: Understanding Complexity Like an Engineer – The Case of the Ladybird Browser

#50

Post by asadotzler »

NoboruWataya wrote: post #37
TheRealPomax wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not. Having worked at the foundation for a decade: to the vast majority of folks, the difference that matters is that "one makes Firefox, the other does campaigning/advocacy/outreach". The history behind why there are two different entities is fascinating, but also doesn't change the fact that they are two completely different companies with completely different org charts and completely different focuses, u…

But the Corporation is wholly owned by the Foundation, isn't it? In that context, I don't see how it makes sense to see them as completely separate. The Corporation is answerable to the Foundation, the Corporation's profits go to the Foundation and I imagine it is similarly possible for the Foundation to fund the Corporation (unless its charter prohibits it or something).

Corporation profits don't go to the Foundation. That's not allowed. The Foundation owns the Corporation and you are correct that MoCo ultimately answers to MoFo which is their full owner, but tax law doesn't let a non-profit create a for profit to generate funnel commercial activity cash back to the non-profit as that defeats the purpose of having non-profits and giving them tax exemptions, so the Mozilla Foundation gets its money from fundraising while the Mozilla Corporation gets its money from commercial agreements. Those pools of money are almost entirely separate. Your overall point stands. MoCo ultimately answers to MoFo in the big picture.
Post reply on HN