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

471–480 of 777 posts

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

#471

Post by spencerchubb »

Steuard wrote: post #366
spencerchubb wrote: post #329

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

You want to know why a monopoly is bad, using only evidence from when it was not yet a monopoly (or not quite)? That feels to me a bit like missing the point. I think for a lot of us on the older end, we lived through the era of Microsoft Internet Explorer dominating the web and that experience informs our thinking. As long as there was competition between MSIE and Netscape, with each one trying to outdo the other, b…

Chrome has been #1 since 2013 and reached peak dominance around 2018. Is that not enough time for evidence of whether it's good or bad?

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

#472

Post by flumpcakes »

healsdata wrote: post #470
flumpcakes wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

This is absolutely ridiculous take. If true, I'm not sure how any work gets done in America.

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

#474

Post by sergiotapia »

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 simply cannot believe that you can sustain a browser development without millions of dollars. Web got so complicated.

You can build something good enough for vast majority of websites and people.

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

#475

Post by bayindirh »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #336
mnmalst wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally am asking myself what the benefits of the BSD clause compared to a more restrictive license are. The only reason I personally can see is that they want to have to option to close the browser themself in the future.

Believe it or not, plenty of people prefer permissive licenses because they grant more freedom. Not everyone agrees with the GPL.

If you want ultimate freedom, just put it to public domain at the beginning.

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

#476

Post by Ygg2 »

mananaysiempre wrote: post #194
awesomekling wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't speak for Servo, but my understanding is that they have very different goals than we do. Servo wants to build an embeddable engine for controlled sets of HTML/CSS/JS content, with a focus on modularity and parallelism. Ladybird wants to build a usable browser for the open web, warts and all, with a focus on compatibility and correctness. I'm a big fan of Servo and I hope they become a huge success! Competitio…

> Servo wants to build an embeddable engine That’s what they pivoted to after being expelled from Mozilla, but that wasn’t the original goal, was it? It’s the safer(?) one they turned to when the job security evaporated. (Not sure if that changes anything, just feel obligated to point out the retcon here.)

>that wasn’t the original goal

They always aimed for a better embeddable story than Gecko. That and more parallelism in layout and processing.

> It’s the safer(?) one they turned to when the job security evaporated.

Not safer, more like saner multithreading story. Safe rust isn't so much for security as it is safety in a parallel context.

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

#477

Post by zzo38computer »

mnmalst wrote: post #269
bayindirh wrote: post #16

I wonder what would happen if Ladybird matures well to compete with Firefox and Chrome (hope so), and it's just forked away by some company and completely closed down in a whim, because BSD-2 allows that.

Personally am asking myself what the benefits of the BSD clause compared to a more restrictive license are. The only reason I personally can see is that they want to have to option to close the browser themself in the future.

One advantage of BSD license being not as complicated as GPL.

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

#478

Post by Ygg2 »

the_duke wrote: post #394
trustno2 wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The talk about correctness gets me thinking. If there is a difference between how specs define something, and how browsers behave (and website expect them to behave), will you choose technical correctness or websites actually functioning? Technically this has been the big problem of HTML5 vs XHTML, and "technical correctness" lost to actual usability.

Nowadays the spec mostly is "whatever Chrome does". Firefox has often been forced to just conform to Chrome behaviour, despite differing specs, or because the spec was rejected/not agreed upon.

We're back to good ol' days of "Internet Explorer is the spec". It's just made by Google.

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

#479

Post by chx »

ramon156 wrote: post #45
richardwhiuk wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So half a million lines of tech debt?

Would another language have avoided this?

Nothing but Rust is safe from being attacked by the Rust zealots. It's been extremely annoying these last few years.

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

#480

Post by KennyBlanken »

autoexec wrote: post #466

I 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 mo…

A reminder that the vast majority of Mozilla funding comes from Google who are an advertising company.

A reminder that years ago they were paid by an advertising firm to secretly install a plugin for a TV show. When someone raised a bugzilla bug about it, the project manager for the plugin (who herself had come to Mozilla after a career in online advertising tech...) marked it employee-only. Another employee reversed that, and then someone at the highest levels of Mozilla leadership changed it to a level that made it unviewable even by employees.

Pocket? That shit requires manually editing a bunch of config strings to disable. We were never asked "would you like to enable Pocket?" because they knew 99% of their audience would click "no." There still isn't a checkbox to disable it.

This whole "privacy is our priority" thing has been a farce and always will be.

But hey, they won't enable WebSerial because ZOMG DANGEROUS USERS CAN'T BE TRUSTED PRIVACY CHAOS DANGER DANGER MUST PROTECT THEM!

...meanwhile in Chromium browsers, WebSerial has been supported for years, it asks the user to give permission per-site just like cameras and microphones. The world has not caught fire, nobody's pacemaker has killed them, etc.

Post reply on HN