[flagged]
Ladybird Web Browser becomes a non-profit with $1M from GitHub Founder
711–720 of 777 posts
Re: Ladybird Web Browser becomes a non-profit with $1M from GitHub Founder
#712Love the project, but that website is pretty cold and soulless (as mentioned by others). I quickly put together a "cleaner" design for anyone interested, which also uses the original (and objectively better) logo: https://ladybird-dev.netlify.app/
The original sure looks bland, but a HTML4-esque webpage gives absolutely the wrong message about the maturity level of a browser regardless of how much more usable it may be. Branding matters even if it's a tough pill to swallow.
Re: Ladybird Web Browser becomes a non-profit with $1M from GitHub Founder
#713Earlier quoted context omitted.
But you can implement the same algorithm in c++, you can even implement it in assembly, or brainfuck! I do not care about c++ or rust or any of the language wars stuff. All I wanted to do was point out that the initial statement about disregarding performance was ridiculous and also point out that majority of the performance critical libraries are written in C++.When it comes to numerics its a mix of C++, C, asm, and…
Use your brain not mine, read and repeat. You can't measure performace of something if it's not possible to do that at all first. Like.. of your understanding till you do - then you can work on it (to make it less noisy and that, not how fast, is what for others matter).
but..it is possible tho?
Re: Ladybird Web Browser becomes a non-profit with $1M from GitHub Founder
#714Earlier quoted context omitted.
Use your brain not mine, read and repeat. You can't measure performace of something if it's not possible to do that at all first. Like.. of your understanding till you do - then you can work on it (to make it less noisy and that, not how fast, is what for others matter).
but..it is possible tho?
I don't know - it's your brain..
.. and repeat. ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40867280 )
Re: Ladybird Web Browser becomes a non-profit with $1M from GitHub Founder
#715Earlier quoted context omitted.
but..it is possible tho?
I don't know - it's your brain.. .. and repeat. ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40867280 )
Maybe try repeating the whole thread? I have no idea why I am being bombarded about all this language crap lmao. Keep yalls evangelism to urself.
Re: Ladybird Web Browser becomes a non-profit with $1M from GitHub Founder
#716Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally, I think life would be better if browsers just didn't play the game at all. If the web was not controlled by corporations, DRM as part of the platform 100% would have simply never happened. From my point of view, putting DRM into web browsers is actively bad for a couple of reasons beyond the usual arguments against DRM. The greatest asset the web platform has is that it's a unified, open platform that any…
> You should be forced I think you answered this yourself.
Can everybody please stop latching onto specific words? Every retort to my post is about semantics of words. That's not very interesting, and it leads to long sprawling threads that go absolutely nowhere and just look kind of pathetic for both of us.
To be clear, the word "forced" here is not implying doing something against someone's will, it's "forced" in the sense that web properties are "forced" to live with the existing limitations of the web platform, e.g. properties are "forced" to live with the fact that user agents may have adblocking software installed. It is not the result of literally forcing someone to do something.
Re: Ladybird Web Browser becomes a non-profit with $1M from GitHub Founder
#717Earlier quoted context omitted.
> because the free market has spoken You mean the company dominating the internet heavily promoted and pushed users towards its own browser. > If their users preferred a more feature-filled browser Where by "feature-filled" you mean "all the Chrome-only non-standards because free market or something"
> You mean the company dominating the internet heavily promoted and pushed users towards its own browser. If the company dominating their hardware did any better, maybe the majority of them wouldn't leave Safari. If Apple doesn't want to build a competitive browser, then they need some (non-anticompetitive) strategy to retain their users. Otherwise we're doing the Microsoft Shuffle again. > Where by "feature-filled"…
> If the company dominating their hardware did any better
Apple doesn't dominate all of hardware. Google, however, dominates major access points to the internet, and used it to aggressively promote its browser.
> No, at this point I really do just mean "feature-filled".
I doubt it
> iOS has notoriously restrictive APIs and it makes full sense that those users would want a browser do do the things Apple prevents their iPhone from doing natively.
Ah. So you are talking about Google-only non-standards
> I wouldn't be surprised if next-gen iPhone apps were just PWAs that hook into WebGPU
Android has been the dominant OS for over a decade now. It has no real or perceived limitations of iOS. We've yet to see a single amazing PWA future we hear so much about.
Re: Ladybird Web Browser becomes a non-profit with $1M from GitHub Founder
#718Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Both companies did the bare minimum demanded by the respective license, its just that one license forces a bit more as bare minimum. Think. What does this mean? If you use a license that demands even more, you could have pressurized the companies to behave even nicer.
> you could have pressurized the companies to behave even nicer.
No you couldn't. What would happen is your project would be a complete non-starter for many companies; either in use of, or developing for.
Re: Ladybird Web Browser becomes a non-profit with $1M from GitHub Founder
#719Earlier quoted context omitted.
> so many of the features are missing, and one part is it encroaching on the iOS apps territory. Be careful when listing those features. Many of those "encroaching" are Chrome-only non-standards
And some of them, like WebGPU, are Khronos IP that Apple has no reason to object to except on an ideological and profit-maximizing basis. I wonder why Apple would deliberately avoid an API that might obsolete the requirement for games to use the App Store? Do you have any ideas?
> like WebGPU, are Khronos IP that Apple has no reason to object to except on
You do know that Apple is basically the original author of WebGPU, right (together with Mozilla)?
> I wonder why Apple would deliberately avoid an API that might obsolete the requirement for games to use the App Store
And your fantasy of Apple deliberately avoiding it is based on what exactly?
https://webkit.org/blog/9528/webgpu-and-wsl-in-safari/
https://webkit.org/blog/14879/webgpu-now-available-for-testi...
Re: Ladybird Web Browser becomes a non-profit with $1M from GitHub Founder
#720Earlier quoted context omitted.
We merged that thread hither since the submission was more about the significant new information.
Odd choice to move the discussion from a submission of the official website to one about a blog by an (afaict) unrelated pundit.
Yes, normally we'd do the opposite (especially when the article isn't particularly good), but in this case it was easier to trace the significant new information this way.