What's stopping this from going the way of Edge?
Why not fork Firefox or Chromium?
Can you point to an example where Mozilla's funding model led it to make a bad decision?
Ladybird Web Browser becomes a non-profit with $1M from GitHub Founder
461–470 of 777 posts
Re: Ladybird Web Browser becomes a non-profit with $1M from GitHub Founder
#462Hello 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 :)
[flagged]
Re: Ladybird Web Browser becomes a non-profit with $1M from GitHub Founder
#463Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This of course comes at the cost of not being able to support non-free parts of the web standard such as DRM. That would be a benefit, not a cost.
Absolutism like this hurts adoption of otherwise-useful tools. Given the choice between a tool which simply cannot play DRM-protected content, and a tool which can, _ceteris paribus_ most consumers will prefer the former. If you believe there are other properties of a proposed tool that mean it is a public good for it to be adopted, it behooves you to make it attractive to adopt.
I don't care if it's for most people. There needs to be at least one good option.
Re: Ladybird Web Browser becomes a non-profit with $1M from GitHub Founder
#464Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I'm guessing you're being downvoted for comparing software to slavery. Generally speaking, the modern society seems to have forgotten that the world isn't binary - you can make comparisons and have similarities that are far apart on the spectrum so aren't equalities, but can still find informative meaning. But to your point, this exact argument was used by top southern politicians to justify slavery! It was the freed…
The point is understood, but it is a problem with copyright laws, and not only with the license.
This is why I had suggested before, that if you cannot just abolish copyright laws, then to make the license which will allow freedom except that it cannot further restrict anyone by further copyright. No attribution is required, no notices of changes are required, etc; the only requirement is that any further restrictions you claim on your version will be invalid. This is therefore effectively similar than as though you did abolish copyright laws, but only this program. (However, for practical purposes, I had allowed to (optionally) relicense by GNU GPL3 and GNU AGPL3, although only if you are able to follow the terms of those licenses (e.g. having the source codes available, knowing who wrote the original code, etc).)
Re: Ladybird Web Browser becomes a non-profit with $1M from GitHub Founder
#465Hello 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 :)
[flagged]
I think you're grossly putting your own political viewpoint on this non-issue and frankly accusing someone of sexism based pro-nouns used in documentation.
This is ridiculous. I can read documentation with "he" I can read it with "her". I am adult enough to know it's talking about a hypothetical reader.
Fighting a culture war at every corner is just furthering the toxic environment we all live in.
Re: Ladybird Web Browser becomes a non-profit with $1M from GitHub Founder
#466I love the idea of this project! I'm looking forward to giving it a try. I'm not your typical user (I'm more interested in what features a browser lets me disable than what it supports) and while right now Firefox comes out way ahead of everyone else in terms of empowering users to customize things to fit their needs it feels like with every update they introduce more features I need to disable and they're growing more aggressive about data collection.
I hope that as Ladybird grows you'll keep privacy, security, and customization in mind because our options in that space are very limited.
Re: Ladybird Web Browser becomes a non-profit with $1M from GitHub Founder
#467Earlier quoted context omitted.
Safari is better than Chrome in many ways, arguably most.
Sure, it does have some benefits. Like lower energy consumption, I hear good things about JavaScriptCore (Safari's JS engine), that said, so many of the features are missing, and one part is it encroaching on the iOS apps territory.
The features missing thing was true years ago, but Apple significantly increased their investment in Safari about 3 years ago and it really gained ground. If you subtract all the Chrome-invented features, they aren't too far off.
Re: Ladybird Web Browser becomes a non-profit with $1M from GitHub Founder
#468Can 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
What's wrong with looking at what might happen?
That is also a fine question to ask. I was just curious about what has already happened because chrome has been the #1 browser since 2013.
Re: Ladybird Web Browser becomes a non-profit with $1M from GitHub Founder
#469Hrrm. 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/Ladybir…
I think the only reason why Nixpkgs has a derivation for Ladybird is because it is not really possible to build Ladybird (or really almost any software) the "obvious" way in NixOS. What Nixpkgs provides is more like build recipes that work within Nix's sandboxed environment with optionally cached binaries, rather than actual packages. Because of that, it's kind of awkward: no specific decision is ever made to publish packages for some unfinished software, it's just that the act of writing a derivation kind of implicitly does do that.
Clearly, some upstreams do not appreciate that NixOS provides non-standard or sometimes-unfinished versions of their software, but it's either that or the software is essentially unusable and uncompilable on NixOS.
I do wonder if there is a potential for productive compromise, though. Maybe it would be desirable to have a QMessageBox warning to the user at startup that the distribution is unsupported and bugs should not be reported upstream. I think that the folks maintaining the Ladybird derivation would be happy to take feedback into account.
Re: Ladybird Web Browser becomes a non-profit with $1M from GitHub Founder
#470Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I think you're grossly putting your own political viewpoint on this non-issue and frankly accusing someone of sexism based pro-nouns used in documentation. This is ridiculous. I can read documentation with "he" I can read it with "her". I am adult enough to know it's talking about a hypothetical reader. Fighting a culture war at every corner is just furthering the toxic environment we all live in.
[flagged]