Hacker News Reader

Comment by bruce511 | Hacker News Reader

For more context see [1].

At first glance I felt that 100k wasn't really going to move the needle in creating a new browser engine but in fact (after reading the link below) it's not insignificant. There are a lot of contributers to this project, and funding the project lead is a big step in the right direction.

Realistically another browser engine really isn't needed. 2 is enough. Given the scale of the work involved it'll take a lot more than money to make this mainstream.

Bur that doesn't mean it's not important. These sorts of projects have value beyond main-stream use cases. While those uses are small, they can end up being significant.

[1] https://awesomekling.github.io/Ladybird-a-new-cross-platform...

View on HN

> another browser engine really isn't needed. 2 is enough.

I profoundly disagree with this statement. 2 is too few.

> Realistically another browser engine really isn't needed. 2 is enough.

Currently the internet is what Chrome is - if Google decides that they don't like something on the internet, they can just wipe it. Firefox is dying. (And Safari is... well... it does things). The internet has been rotting away for good part of the last decade. We definitely don't have enough browser engines, we are in dire need of more.

> Firefox is dying

Then I don’t understand how this new thing will not be stillborn. It is years before becoming usable and even then it will be worse than Firefox.

Google definitely did everything they could to marginalize Firefox, but Firefox's position isn't entirely the making of Google. Mozilla was also busy messing things up, and alienate not only their adhoc users, but many of their diehard fanatics also.

Firefox isn't dying because it's a bad browser or because it has no place on the market. It is dying because of mismanagement, mostly for not knowing what their users really want and need. They have no idea why their current users are using their browser, instead of Chrome. They just go with the stream, and seemingly are content that Google is keeping them on life support.

But it doesn't mean that new browsers will make the same mistakes, or that there is no need for new ones at all.

With that said, I would be lying if I would say that you are completely wrong. I just don't want you to be right, regardless how slim of a chance it is, because the state of internet is not getting any better that way.

Firefox dying is not because it's lacking in any form of quality. Firefox is dying because mozilla exists only as a tiny sheet of cloth over the dummy that google brings out whenever they need to dismiss antitrust/monopoly concerns.

Two competitors in anything is too few.

Look at the mess any two-party system is comparing to where there are at least three, each keeping the others in check.

Tell that to MS Phone. Tell that to Desktop Linux. Or OS/2. Or BeOS. Etc.

A browser is a consumer product. As such the public will gravitate between two choices. 3rd place is no-where land.

Sure 3rd place can exist, but its always a distant 3rd. Trident got canned for a reason. MS phone was a good OS, but sales offered iOS and Android.

We need a stronger second option, not another option. Mozilla at least starts at parity. A new engine now is do far behind, that without Google scales of cash (which is what it took for Chrome to even join the fray) this project cannot go anywhere material.

I'm not a fan of monopolies, but all markets have a leader a follower, and a bunch of minor placings.

As a counter-point, I remember people making the same argument when Google announced Chrome. Browsers would always be a battle between two contenders and it would be better for Google to focus on helping Firefox in its fight against Internet Explorer than creating a third browser that could never hope to scrape a meaningful market share from the existing behemoths.

It’s a long road for Ladybird to be a real competitor to Chromium. However, the road to overtaking Firefox is much shorter and I’m less hopeful that Mozilla has a road to overtake Chromium.

Chrome had two benefits over IE that Ladybird doesn't have today. The first was budget, and the second was that IE development had basically stopped.

By contrast Chrome today is perhaps Google's most active development team, and has more or less an unlimited budget.

MS saw IE as a nice-to-have, Google sees Chrome as existential.

Also, while IE was very closed source, Chromium (and Mozilla) are open. That means Ladybird is competing with Brave et al for mind share, and can't play the "we're better cause Open Source " card.

> As such the public will gravitate between two choices. 3rd place is no-where land.

I see this as an uniquely American approach to things. Doesn't extrapolate to the rest of the world.

> Trident got canned for a reason.

Trident got canned because Google used underhanded methods to throw it out.

Gecko remains only because there need to be at least two, independent implementations for a web standard to be pushed through.

As it stands there is no real competition here - Google is calling the shots.

What would 100k for Mozilla do? According to their 2021 Form 990 (the latest made public) a hundred thousand dollars would pay for 6.5 days of Mitchell Baker. Does that really seem like a good use of money to you? You're free to donate your own money if so..

Reply on news.ycombinator.com