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

551–560 of 777 posts

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

#551

Post by orsorna »

atlas_hugged wrote: post #546
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 :)

[flagged]

After reading your comment I went over to the Github but failed to find the PR you described. Perhaps you can locate it?

I did find this:

https://github.com/LadybirdBrowser/ladybird/pull/366/files

Do you think PRs like this carry an appropriate tone that demands they be addressed and merged?

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

#552

Post by erickhill »

Is this based in Texas? As in, was this named after Ladybird Johnson? Having lived in Texas almost half my life, and having thought of Mrs. Johnson every time the wildflowers bloom alongside the highways, I have to wonder...

What an intriguing name for a web browser.

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

#553

Post by troad »

haneefmubarak wrote: post #370
awesomekling wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's right. The Ladybird Browser Initiative will only accept unrestricted donations. We're missing out on a fair bit of money this way, but we believe it's the right path for us.

Would you accept "issue" sponsorship to prioritize work you were going to do anyways - for instance, improving performance for a specific usecase etc?

I think he's saying precisely that they won't, and I support this. What is issue sponsorship but a donation with strings attached? It would mean ceding control of the direction of the project's development to the highest bidder.

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

#555

Post by nicoburns »

networked wrote: post #102
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 :)

I have two questions, if you don't mind. 1. Legacy hardware support. Is it a goal for Ladybird to build for 32-bit and big-endian CPUs out of the repository? 2. Electron. Do you have any plans to work on an Electron alternative based on Ladybird further down the line? No free Electron alternative other than Sciter seems to use the same browser engine on all platforms. There may be value in one that implements the lat…

We're building one of these (out of a mix of servo, rust ui ecosystem and custom components). It's still pretty early (an initial alpha-quality 0.1 release is planned for the end of this month). We're planning to have a high standard of support for CSS and anything related to rendering, but we're not planning a JavaScript engine (although one could be added) with scripting being directly in Rust (with a Rust-based React alternative).

https://github.com/DioxusLabs/blitz

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

#556

Post by x-complexity »

mronetwo wrote: post #39

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.

> Nitpick (or is it?) but the website is soulless and just bad.

It is a nitpick, and the website works just fine for conveying what Ladybird is & what the project will be doing: The elevator pitch given was straightforward & at the top of the main page.

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

#557

Post by looneysquash »

I don't get what this has that Servo doesn't.

Or what Firefox is doing wrong.

Or what sets this apart from existing browsers, besides the funding model.

As a end user, what should I be excited about?

As a developer, what should I be excited about?

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

#558

Post by ArtixFox »

thro1 wrote: post #522
mirsadm wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh that is a huge stretch. Besides Firefox is still significantly less performant than Chromium.

Performance is overrated and irrevelant. It's simple force - not a skill. I can't do in more performat Firefox, neither it doesn't matter how performant Chromium, things that was possible in Firefox with old extensions. Not having such abilities, the only thing left to Google to talk about was.. performace - and crippling powers of Firefox. Rust is a new skill, not more of force.

Performance is overrated? What? I'm sorry but not all people are rich enough to own multiple threadrippers.

Performance is a skill, probably one of the most important skills.

Rust is a darn language, not a skill. You can have performant code in rust and in c++ and damnit even in brainfuck if you care enough.

But the reality is that there is more performance oriented code written in C++ than in rust, and that matters.

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

#559

Post by donkeybeer »

fuzztester wrote: post #537
elviejo79 wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rendering engine: Chromium had to be kept "libre", because khtml/Webkit was LGPL. The browser: Chrome. could be kept closed because the LGPL allow the integration of libre libraries in closed products as long as the library itself remains "libre". In this case the library is the renering engine: Chromium. As a counter example MacOS was built on top of decades of work on the BSD operating system and Apple is under…

Your logic seems faulty. Let me see if I have this right: >For some of us that is unacceptabme . 1. So, Apple, creator of macOS, "the most valuable company on the planet", followed the rules of the BSD licence,and that is unacceptable? But, Google, a company that is also highly valuable, and the creator of Chrome, also followed the rules of the LGPL licence, but that is acceptable?

Yes, forced to follow. Its a sign in retrospect that KDE should have used an even stronger license. I don't know if AGPL existed then, but if I start a browser today, I'd license it as AGPL. If you want to use the project, you have to release your changes to your users. If you don't want to do that, good luck, spend millions on developing an equivalent application in house. Thats the beauty of GPL like licenses.

With BSD companies are under no obligation to release their changes, and like any self interested party, most don't.

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

#560

Post by donkeybeer »

dataflow wrote: post #298
adwn wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hey, just a reality check: It's rather condescending of you to assume that the developers of Ladybird aren't fully aware of the consequences that their choice of license entails.

That certainly wasn't the intention. Was there really a need to turn this into a personal swipe? This is a common outcome many smart and talented developers have historically come to regret. You can find their stories all over the web, including right here on HN. I didn't want to see the same thing happen here, is all.

Its a religious thing unfortunately for some developers. They don't seem to understand the concept of all entities esp large companies acting in their self interest unless forced to. They are building the noose by which themselves will be hanged, and I think it'd be hilarious to see once we finally see the current crop of MIT/BSD being used to completely lock down hardware and software. And these developers unable to use their own hobby oses anymore. I don't know if they will still see what their error was, they probably won't, as I said its a religious matter. And religious dogmatism is a strong bulwark against logic and sense.
Post reply on HN