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

431–440 of 777 posts

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

#431

Post by talldayo »

eitland wrote: post #172
jampekka wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Safari has saved Firefox and other browsers by being the only option on iOS for a long time Amazing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_(advertisement)

Hehe. But more seriously: it is actually the truth. Kind of in in the same way that people are thankful for Churchill: not because he was a fantastic man in every way (he wasn't) but because he saved us from something even worse.

> But more seriously: it is actually the truth.

If you have to convince people that you are seriously telling the truth, you are probably making an unproven assertion that relies on many benefits of the doubt.

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

#432

Post by marcus0x62 »

yarq wrote: post #376
marcus0x62 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm sure that's definitely what the parent commenter was thinking of.

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

#433

Post by lukan »

coldpie wrote: post #283
account42 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A non-profit foundation taking donations is a "business" plan and IMO the only one that has a chance of building a true user agent in the long run. That doesn't mean that it is guaranteed to succeed but I don't think there is a better funding option thatwon't come with conflicting incentives.

No, "people give us money" is not a business plan. When you're starting a business (yes, non-profits are businesses) and employing people, you need to be thinking about marketing, user acquisition & conversion, pricing structures, corporate sponsorships, and so on. I know it's not as much fun as programming, but neither is eating out of your neighbor's trash because you can't pay your bills.

It is a non profit foundation. Not a buisness. And so far they managed quite well to get funds without all the buisness plan things you want them to add.

Mozilla went that route and many are not happy with that.

So I am really happy for Kling and the project, that they managed what many others only dreamed about. Focusing on developement - delivering - building trust - getting funds.

Why do you want to change the plan, when it is working?

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

#434

Post by dgreensp »

awesomekling wrote: post #5

Hello friends, Ladybird founder here! Here's a short video from Chris Wanstrath announcing our non-profit yesterday, and kicking things off with a $1M donation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9edTqPMX_k Happy to answer questions :)

Where on the roadmap is GPU compositing? In modern browser programming, I kind of take for granted that I can control the rendering “layers” and certain CSS properties, like “transform,” will be accelerated.

Edit: In Blink, the layer/compositing system extends to SVG elements inside SVG tags, as well, and in WebKit, it doesn’t yet, but there is an active years-long effort going back to 2019 that will eventually land: https://youtu.be/WxqJFxiprrU?si=dhQIgW1V4yS_Ca4s Compositing and using the GPU seems like a complex but important part of rendering in a browser, and a case where it could be good to implement the kind of system that other browsers have arrived at after years of iteration, when it comes time to do so.

Will the JS engine still be LibJS?

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

#435

Post by lukan »

account42 wrote: post #275
metalloid wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of rebuild 'everything' in Rust, we just can use AI to optimize C/C++. We don't need another programming language.

Wow you actually managed to make me hate the inane "why not rewrite it in rust" commenters a tiny bit less.

I thought it was funny.

(I hope it was a joke)

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

#436

Post by sleepycatgirl »

vaylian wrote: post #36
Toorkit wrote: post #17

I'm too used to my Firefox with tree-style tabs and Vim controls to go back to a regular layout. This also makes me a bit of a tab hoarder, though. I'd say "I'll be keeping an eye on this," but I'm sure there'll be plenty of posts about Ladybird before the alpha even drops, haha.

> I'm too used to my Firefox with tree-style tabs and Vim controls to go back to a regular layout. Tree-style tabs could be a core feature. Maybe this is something you can contribute to the project?

I certainly would consider trying to contribute, but.. After seeing the drama.. Nah. Not here. Not now. Still, happy to see a new browser engine, alongside servo.

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

#437

Post by talldayo »

rimunroe wrote: post #281
TheDong wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Safari is actually part of the solution ... > Google, like microsoft, If you're going to complain about 1-3 for google and ms, I don't think you can praise safari in the same breath. Apple's abused their position with the iPhone to make safari relevant, and unlike Chrome and IE, users can't just install another browser. Apple's behavior is the only reason I can't run my own addons I've written for firefox on iOS (t…

Maybe I missed something but your arguments seem be about how Apple’s locking down of iOS/iPadOS and Safari are harmful to user freedom. That’s a very different argument from the one the person you’re replying to was making. They were saying that the popularity of Apple’s mobile devices coupled with their only running Safari holds back a Chrome monopoly in the browser space. If people don’t support Safari they lose o…

> If people don’t support Safari they lose out on a large portion of users.

If people don't support Safari, it's because the free market has spoken and overwhelmingly chooses alternative options: https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worl...

The story would be different, if Apple wasn't miserly with their native APIs and App distribution. But this is indeed a harmful and competition-restricting decision, even in Mozilla's opinion: https://mozilla.github.io/platform-tilt/

So I think we can safely assume that Apple's policy harms browser diversity by forcing their users to support a single minority option. If their users preferred a more feature-filled browser, we would never know; they aren't sincerely presented an alternative choice. If Apple wants their users to defend Safari, maybe they should invest in it until their browser (or Operating System, for that matter) competes with Chrome. Until then, they're promoting a megalomaniac solution and being a sore loser about it at the same time.

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

#438

Post by pferde »

thiht wrote: post #309
pferde wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. This is something I could see myself contributing to (or attempting to, anyway), but as soon as I saw Discord+Github, I lost all interest. Github I can understand to some extent, it's a convenient temporary staying place until they can afford, community-wise, to move to something truly open, but Discord? In this day and age?

> but Discord? In this day and age? Discord IS the platform of this day and age, what the hell are you talking about? You might not like Discord for whatever reasons, but trying to make it sound outdated or legacy is very weird sounding.

It is the platform of this day and age much like Instagram or Xitter is. Doesn't make it very smart for FOSS projects to be using it for their primary coordination and communication.

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

#439

Post by zzo38computer »

szastamasta wrote: post #361

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…

I agree with some of this (WWW is too complicated and messy, and has other problems with its design), but I do not agree with everything, and anyways in many cases it cannot be corrected this easily.

However, I should also think that documents should not need to execute JS or WebAssembly code; although there are uses for such things, it should perhaps be separately.

Also, some of the semantic HTML commands can be helpful, such as , , etc. (However, the user agent should decide how to display them, according to the options selected by the user; this should not be decided by the author of the document.)

A completely new protocol and file format (or more than one) is another way. A few people have tried some things relating to this, including myself. One thing I had done is that, documents cannot contain scripts to be executed nor can they link to scripts to be executed as a part of the document; executable code can only be linked to from the conversion file (which does other things too, and is not only for executing programs; e.g. to specify how to transform a URL to download a file in a different format), and the user must explicitly tell it to execute; furthermore, it uses uxn and not JavaScript nor WebAssembly (since uxn is much simpler to implement); and, if the conversion file is implemented at all (for simplicity, it is not required), it is mandatory that the end user must be allowed to override it and specify their own conversion file instead (therefore, the end user decides what the client software does). Furthermore, I had also decided to use binary formats, to make them less complicated to parse special cases (to avoid needing so many escaping and stuff like that, which is necessary with HTML). And then, TLS is allowed but is optional; it does not have mandatory TLS (although it is recommended that servers and clients will accept both TLS and non-TLS connections; but a client or server that does not support TLS will still work even if the other does support TLS, if both TLS and non-TLS are implemented). There are many other things can be done too, to make improvement.

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

#440

Post by binary132 »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #331
hfgjbcgjbvg wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can copy GPL code, modify it and use it personally and nobody is going to care unless you’re making tons of money. The entities pushing for MIT style licensing are massive and for profit.

> The entities pushing for MIT style licensing are massive and for profit. I license all my stuff with permissive licenses because (in my opinion) they are more free than the GPL and such licenses. I don't have any massive for-profit company pushing me to do so. Mr. Kling is also not a massive for-profit company, he's just a guy making the software he wants to make. Your argument is in very bad faith.

“Open source” was literally conceived and organized in its inception as a corporate-sponsored competitor to the threat of Free Software.
Post reply on HN