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 :)
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 :)
Of course, it has a long way to go before it is going to be a good daily driver, but I truly believe this is the beginning of something great. I've been consistently surprised by what works, and the rate of improvement is staggering at times.
My question: Has anyone given any thoughts regarding the stance to take with DRM features, e.g. Widevine/Encrypted Media Extensions? It seems like since our previous stewards of the open web didn't care enough, now making a browser with substantial marketshare without this may be hard. Seems like a hard problem, I really do wonder where Ladybird will stand if it continues on its current lightning fast trajectory.
I don't think it should have to be in the browser. I would like the option to watch the content. I know the while process of DRM is stupid and will be side stepped somewhere.
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 anyone can participate in; Of course, DRM harms users too, but specifically DRM harms the web as a platform. You can't simply have a "full" web browser that can browse the entirety of the web (as ordinary users understand it) without licensing Widevine. To date, only large corporate web browsers have ever gotten this privilege[1]; community web browsers are shit out of luck, almost certainly forever. Not only that, but Widevine will only officially support a small subset of the operating systems that are out there, ensuring that you can't get a "full" web browsing experience on, for example, any BSD (at least not without manual work and violating several license agreements on the way.) Even if Ladybird bucks the trend and manages to get a Widevine license somehow, it will only be possible to make this work on Windows, Linux and macOS. Yes, I understand this covers the vast majority of users, but if you can't see how this is extraordinarily antithetical to the open web I don't really know what else to say. The web didn't even begin on any of those platforms!
Of course, I seriously can't blame Ladybird if they want to go this route. After all, in the position that Ladybird is in, pragmatism is a stance that is hard to beat. Ladybird currently doesn't have the muscle to flex to try to influence the future of the web platform in such a way, especially not against the will of the mega-corp overlords that currently control the web platform.
If I had to guess, I'd guess the lack of an answer to my question is because taking the pragmatic stance on this particular issue will prove controversial, though I hope if that is the case that people continue to direct their ire towards W3C and Mozilla who pretty much immediately folded when the issue came up in the first place. In the moment when Flash and Silverlight died, there was a small sliver of hope that DRM on the web would die with it, but instead we wove DRM directly into the fabric of the web, and Mozilla, no doubt afraid to watch their marketshare dwindle even further, (which it has continued to do anyways, mind you,) played a huge part in that.
Issues like this are why there is guaranteed to be vile toxicity when something like WEI comes up. We know that there is no entity out there holding the line to protect the web platform; once one of these technologies like WEI makes it into Chrome, the era of the open web will have essentially ended. If you believe that the open web is important, then any technology that's vaguely WEI shaped is enemy #1, and when there is no other option, people will choose violence, again and again. DRM on the web isn't really quite as dire of a situation, but it isn't particularly great either.
(One might wonder what the point of keeping DRM out of the browser is, forcing users to use separate software, making their overall experience worse... but that's kind of the thing: Why in the fuck should these vendors and this DRM'd content, that is antithetical to the open web, get to benefit from the web platform built and used mostly by people who stand to gain nothing from it? If you want the benefit of the web platform and all it offers, you should be forced to lose the DRM. Otherwise, have fun deploying your own native software.)
A web browser is a user agent. Why is the browser deciding anything one way or another? Let the user decide by providing options one way or another. If the user wants DRM access, let them; why is it the browser's business?
Again, the two important words: User agent.
The freedom to decide and choose is what helped Firefox take out IE6 and led to most subsequent browsers featuring some form or another of extensibility (which incidentally is now regressing because web browsers are increasingly developer and publisher agents).
Secondly, users don't really get a choice. Users are fucked because browsers implement features like DRM and websites hard-depend on them. So the user is no longer choosing whether or not to enable DRM, but whether or not they can watch Netflix on their laptop. User agents should not put users in predicaments like this where they are forced to make choices against their own interests. This is one of those situations where nuance is necessary.
No matter how much you opine the outcome is not going to change, the end users have spoken in what they want in their user agent.
> Secondly, users don't really get a choice. Users are fucked because browsers implement features like DRM and websites hard-depend on them. So the user is no longer choosing whether or not to enable DRM, but whether or not they can watch Netflix on their laptop. User agents should not put users in predicaments like this where they are forced to make choices against their own interests. This is one of those situations where nuance is necessary.
That's why it shouldn't be a part of the web platform in the first place. Because we shouldn't force users to make choices against their own interests.
Here are some other examples of where we shouldn't force users to make choices against their own interests:
- Users should not have to give up their rights to be able to access legally-mandated warranty services or replacement parts.
- Users should not be forced to accept being tracked.
- Users should not be forced to forfeit their right to be a part of a class action lawsuit to use a product or service.
Try as you might, you're never going to convince anyone that the free market will just magically make all of the incentives align and make "the right choice", these are things that ultimately have to be solved with policy. The closest thing to "policy" on the web is standards, and W3C put EME in the standards despite widespread outcry, and that's why we're at where we're at.
Now the thing is, we have DRM in browsers, but we still don't have Web Environment Integrity, a complete and utter bastardization of the open web that would've made it cryptographically impossible for an open source browser to really meaningfully exist (since compiling it yourself would likely make it impossible for you to e.g. do banking or watch Twitch streams, since it would then fail attestation.) The reason we don't have WEI is because it was widely rejected by the community. Not because users made a choice.
It's nice to think that you can just leave it to the users to pick and they'll always do the right thing, but at the end of the day most people don't have time to care about DRM or WEI. Most people are not technical and just simply don't have the capacity in their day to be concerned about things like that. That's why it's literally the job of people who do have that capacity to fight for the user's best interests and try to avoid users being put into positions where they are basically guaranteed to be fucked.
And frankly, we're not winning the fight.
(This is no different from anything else. The vast majority of people can't be expected to fight for e.g. free speech rights either; it's always going to be a minority of people who hold the line.)
>it's literally the job of people who do have that capacity to fight for the user's best interests
A user agent should not be concerned about "doing the right thing", that's none of its business. You are proposing a developer agent, not a user agent.
This is also now the third time in this reply chain where I will point out that I am objecting to the inclusion of DRM technology in web standards, where this pitiful semantic debate about what a user agent is for doesn't even apply in the first place. What is fit for the open web platform and respective standards has nothing to do with decisions made by user agent developers. I am not going to point this out again. Further replies that try to drag this semantic debate out are just going to go ignored by me.
No, a user agent's sole job is to represent its user. It's right there on the tin: User Agent. Forcing no DRM is just as bad as forcing DRM, it's not the user agent's business to decide for the user. The fact that most user agents today are actually developer/publisher agents is part of the problems we are having.
>I am objecting to the inclusion of DRM technology in web standards, where this pitiful semantic debate about what a user agent is for doesn't even apply in the first place. What is fit for the open web platform and respective standards has nothing to do with decisions made by user agent developers.
Commercial interests are not going to fly the free-as-in-beer pirate flag no matter how loudly you bang that drum, and if the internet is open then those commercial interests also certainly have a right to be part of it.
It's ultimately not a problem if internet standards allow room for DRM schemes, because in a properly functioning system the users will decide through their user agent if they want to engage in DRM schemes or not.
So long as you are fueled by self-righteous dogma with a seething hatred towards people just minding their own business, you're not going anywhere and I would even argue you're actually contributing to the very problems you want to see resolved.
It would be nice if we could go back(?) to a world where the user operates their computer, not the computer operating their user.
A user agent should chiefly do what the user tells it to do, but if you pay more attention, you'll see how bad web standards can actually still screw over the user. Because if you make particularly bad web standards, the user agent can still do what the user is telling it to do, but the website can then start behaving in a manner which goes against what the user is telling their computer to do.
If browsers had implemented WEI, a chief use case was to allow websites to control whether extensions and adblocking could be used while browsing their pages. And the clever part is, sure, your user agent could implement WEI "wrong" and let the user do whatever they want, but the attestation would allow the website to decide which user agents pass attestation, so you can't just make a user agent that does what the user wants.
DRM and WEI are pretty similar as they're both technologies that require computer programs to restrict what you can do on your own computer (and DRM does what WEI does with browser choice but in a litigation way instead of cryptographically-attested way), but I will repeat this again for hopefully the last time:
Not wanting DRM in web standards has nothing to do with the definition of a user agent.
One more time:
Not wanting DRM in web standards has nothing to do with the definition of a user agent.
Seriously, stop ignoring this. It's not like I didn't already aggressively state it previously.
Or maybe (hopefully) they download popcorn time instead
One person's user agent might be another person's "software I would never use".
As a text-only web user I am continually amazed, thirty years in, that web developers and now their CDN service providers are _still_ making incorrect assumptions about what user agent I am using. They are wrong every single time. There is almost zero focus on rate limits but hyperfocus on user agent string or other headers. For most sites I send no user-agent header and this works fine. But when sites want certain headers this tells me the purpose is not "protecting" servers from being overloaded, it is "protecting" servers from web users who will not involuntarily provide commercially useful data/information so that access to them as ad targets can be sold for profit.
Choice of user agent should make no difference. The JSON I'm getting is the same regardless of what device or software I am using. I decide what I want to do with the JSON after I retrieve it.
Imagining how things could be different, there could be "commercial" user agents that people use for accessing their bank acconts online and for other commercial transactions. There could also be "non-commercial" user agents that people use to read HN. Unfortunately, the way things are now people are using commercial browsers for non-commercial web use and exposing themselves 24/7 to unecessary tracking and advertising.
Personally, I only use a commercial user agent infrequently. I'm not doing many commercial tranasctions over the web. Most times, I am using non-commercial user agents. I see no ads and can focus on the text.
I don't think it comes down to that, I think it's more about the fact that your browser likely looks more like a bot than it does a human.
Also, rate limiting has a significant overhead and complexity at scale, where agent filtering is relatively cheap and easy to distribute. Though, this is largely a problem that has been resolved many, many times over and the additional overhead is not that bad. All said, I've met too many developers that don't conceptually understand public/private key encryption and would assume they'd mess up rate limiting.
All the content behind it is still available day 0 on trackers
In what way do they directly profit from piracy?
The networks can still track (to some extent) what shows are popular as torrents, and use that to inform their other advertising efforts. A break out (good) show may show indicators on torrents from word of mouth outside their network, and they can then feature that show in their banner areas.
These aren't likely "profit" directly, but they are and can be factors. Another point is loyalty from those who are able to pay, when they are able to pay. Assuming prohibitive costs are what is mainly keeping people from paying for the content.
There are more indirect ways, but that is certainly the direct way they financially profit.
I think you answered this yourself.
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.
But with the updates, it wild to see progress moving steady but impressively. And the last year - wow! With all the donations, there is now a path towards a real viable alternative rather than something that looses interest as contributors lives get in the way.
I love that you are no over promising and have provided a reasonable time line, it is the kind of restraint that typically gets things done rather than promising the world up front. I love it and look forward to where this goes from here and it could end up in some very odd places.
If in 2001 you where to say that KHTML would be the core base of the majority of web browsers in 15 years, you would have been a great joke. And look at what happened. The big thing is to keep a Richard Stallman like resolve to do what is right for the people, even if it means a little less personal success.
Be well.
First, thanks for this project and making your self accessible!
Will "plug-in" or "add-on" support be a first-party concept in Ladybird?
I ask that because in years past a few other browsers (Konqueror, Falkon, Dillo, etc) made it pretty far but lacking add-ons, useful capability such as 'NoScript' or 'uBlock' or even a tab manager made them non-starters.
Plus there are plugins for dillo... https://dillo-browser.github.io/#plugins
Also: how will you handle bookmarks? IMHO only Chrome does a good job with bookmarks — please copy them instead of reinventing the wheel.
If I had to use bookmarks on FF, I would simply not use them at all.
I use bookmarks heavily.
Here are bookmarks on FF-based Mullvad Browser
(I stopped using FF proper a long time ago)
Here are bookmarks on Chromium-based Iridium browser
Where does it look easier to manage bookmarks ?
Above.
Just my opinion.
The endless security nightmare that was ActiveX and NPAPI should serve as more than enough reason why that shouldn't be a thing again.
"Installed manually not from app store" is even worse because then you're encouraging people to download random binaries from random websites and that's even worse
My point is not for other people to make extensions that you must use. Rather, my point is in case the user wants to write their own extensions do things that have more permissions, without needing to recompile everything. It is specifically if the user does not want the extra security (because they intend to program it to do things beyond that provided by the browser's security context), and only for that case.
(However, there might be another alternative: Provide a .a file (in case do not intend to compile it by yourself, which might take some time and require several dependencies) and allow the end user to link that file together with their own .o files, instead of using .so files. The constructor functions can be used to tell the main program of the presence of these extensions.)
(Another alternative would be to provide a separate version that may permit this, e.g. "advanced version", that might also offer additional options and other features which are intended to only be used by advanced users, therefore making the user interface more confusing for users who do not read the documentation.)
C (and other programming languages) that is compiled to WASM could be installable from the app store, since then it is safe. Native code extensions must be installed manually.
That said, Ladybird is obviously far from becoming the daily driver for the average webizen. What do you think is going to be the first milestone where Ladybird is going to be able to be a real alternative (even if limited to certain use cases) and in what timeframe do you think this can be accomplished?
Also, do you already have any plans or ideas for how to improve the web browsing experience beyond what existing browsers provide or is your focus entirely on the engine catching up for now?
At the moment, we are focusing primarily on our own use cases as developers, since those are the easiest to test and qualify. So websites like GitHub, web specifications, MDN, etc. are likely going to be very high fidelity before other parts of the web catch up ;)
> Also, do you already have any plans or ideas for how to improve the web browsing experience beyond what existing browsers provide or is your focus entirely on the engine catching up for now?
We are definitely focused on the engine catching up right now. There is an incredible amount of work to do, and we're doing the best we can :)
Well the impossibility isn't so much in making a browser but making a browser that manages to get a chunk of web audience.
That means presence on mobile, feature and performance parity with Chrome, surprasing Chrome on some level (e.g. Safari having better vendor lock-in).
I'm doing my part to break the cycle by supporting the underdog by using Safari as my daily driver & developing primarily for Safari & Firefox.
Or a viscous cycle of continued development. There are definitely things that Chrome does that nobody else should copy, but there's also a lot of stuff like WebGPU and WebRTC that should be standard. Firefox doesn't drag their feet in the same way Apple does, and they certainly don't resist standardization by trying to limit what a user can do on their device.
I have no real love for Google. ChromeOS sucks, Android is only tolerable when you de-Google it, and YouTube is perpetually regressing to a shittier state. But Chromium the browser is great, and it's the only browser I install on my Mac or Linux box when I get set up at work. I want to love Firefox like I used to, but Mozilla as a business is just about as functionally inept as Google or Apple at this point. I'm done trying to be a browser ideologue, I'm embracing post-browser realism here.
I genuinely enjoy Safari as a user more than Chrome. As a developer the dev tools suck. But as a user - the UI is far more minimal and nice. Every single action feels 2-3x faster, from opening and closing, tab opening or movement, etc. Battery lasts significantly longer. And I never really run into anything that doesn’t work, ever. Plus never worry about the latest hidden checkbox I have to find to not have my data soaked up. Hide my email is also dope.
The more responsive and thoughtful UI and battery/performance alone would have sold me. But the privacy and modern features it’s gotten over the last years make it better imo.
Just want to give a perspective as I feel people should update priors from 2021 “Safari is the new IE”
Sure they have recently implemented some features like IndexedDB but the data does indeed show that they dragged their feet!
Literally no? We must not be on the same page, both of the technologies I namedropped were Chrome and Firefox exclusive for a half-decade. And they're certainly not the only features Mozilla and Google agree upon; Apple deliberately gimps features that benefit PWAs so that browsers artificially cannot compete with their native apps.
> Just want to give a perspective as I feel people should update priors from 2021 “Safari is the new IE”
I'm sorry; people will keep calling Safari "the new IE" for as long as Apple carbon-copies Microsoft's Explorer strategy from the 90s. You can run from it, insist it's not true, but Apple will clutch to their ecosystem control whether it's rational or not. This is why we have to antitrust them, to stop the market from more of their irrational self-serving harms.
What is WebRTC good for? I've never understood. It probably has some use for in-browser video chats, but other than that?
I'm asking because at some point the Chrome you are praising prevented my Mac from sleeping for like half a year or more because 'webrtc has active peer connections'. I had no conferences open in the browser, just - i thought - regular web pages.
So what can you do with WebRTC behind the user's back then, and why is it moral to do it?
Be careful when listing those features. Many of those "encroaching" are Chrome-only non-standards
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...
Apple is the original author of a lot of tech they end up abandoning. Certainly a lot of Khronos IP, paging through their history.
> And your fantasy of Apple deliberately avoiding it is based on what exactly?
Based on a 4 year (!!!) porting time from MacOS Safari to iOS Safari. Basically textbook feet-dragging there.
Doubtful
> Certainly a lot of Khronos IP, paging through their history.
Everyone abandons Khronos IP, or doesn't really supports it, paging through history in general. Because Khronos IP ends up a designed-by-committee crapfest. Meanwhile WebGPU is not and has never been a Khronos IP. It's developed within a w3c working group: https://www.w3.org/2020/gpu/
> Based on a 4 year (!!!) porting time from MacOS Safari to iOS Safari.
Based on a 4-year porting of what from MacOS Safari top iOS Safari?
- WebGPU spec is literally in draft status, so things can still change. It's literally in stage 2 of 5 of spec development
- Neither Safari nor Firefox have enabled WebGPU yet. The fact that Chrome rushed and enabled it by default does not make the spec or the standard finished and ready to be enabled everywhere
- webgpu can be enabled with a toggle in advanced settings in Safari on iOS (as is the case with most new features for in all browsers)
According to Hacker News readers, the ladybird shouldn't be able to compete in the browser space. It's too difficult, the spec is too large, its competitors have large pockets. The ladybird tries anyway, because ladybirds don't care about what HN readers think.
Inspired by https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/823379-according-to-all-kno...
Also, any thoughts on having official communication channels on some open, freedom-respecting platforms, rather than Discord only?
Github I can understand to some extent, it's a convenient temporary staying place until they can afford, community-wise, to move to something truly open, but Discord? In this day and age?
What’s your recommended alternative?
So, IRC, Matrix (these can even be interconnected) for synchronous, mailing lists or forums for asynchronous.
And of course issue tracker, where some topical communication can happen as well, but that could completely be covered by mailing lists.
There's no reason to ever have anything non-open in your FOSS project's infrastructure.
Except, that it is easier to set up? What you describe sounds reasonable. But someone needs to set all that up and host it and needs to be trusted etc.
So I guess if many people get involved and do set this up, they would convince the rest of the team to join them. But right now it is just a demand for more work for them.
Because that is a project in itself and as much as I despise discord, I understand why they just went with it.
And as for me being there for years to come, who can say that for sure? I would absolutely try to. For that matter, will Discord still be here next year?
Probably way more likely, than a random volunteer. Kling said they used discord because it was easy. No energy spend there. Migrating the communication structure is work and energy. Friction.
But so far I also did not followed developement closely, because I did not set up discord yet and do not really want to. But I realize I am not in the majority here and I do not think I am in a position to demand anything here. Your words sound a bit like demanding something.
As for random volunteers disappearing, the protection against that is easy - increase the bus factor, by multiple people having necessary access, and by keeping your infrastructure documented. This should be table stakes for any project that becomes even marginally popular.
Then, if a random volunteer disappears, things might slow down due to lack of manpower, sure, but not come to a screeching halt.
You can't increase bus factor with Discord, since it's out of your control.
That is not easy. It works till the first drama and then some angry person deletes it all, or changes and takes the keys with them. So you have to really take care who to trust.
"If the project leadership does not see a value in using open infrastructure"
And I do not think he ever said that. He just said it was easier this way for the moment. Not that discord is meant to be the solution till eternity.
Simply put, this approach is proven to work. We can always "butwhatif?" ourselves into a corner and get paralyzed because of that, but it's senseless.
So I totally agree, that there are tons of examples where it worked and in the long term I also think they should switch to something better, but for the moment I see why they don't, as it is working for them as it is.
(However, GitHub is accessible by git in case you only want to download the repository, regardless of what else they do; however, having multiple mirrors on other services as well can be helpful)
Discord IS the platform of this day and age, what the hell are you talking about? You might not like Discord for whatever reasons, but trying to make it sound outdated or legacy is very weird sounding.
It is a non-starter.
Not public. Got to register an account and accept Discord ToS first.
There was a hype for discord about 5 years ago for EVERYTHING - discord servers were made for every little thing and there was little to no objection about it.
But in recent times, I have seen many people complain about the lack of searchability, discussion-thread management, and other stuff in Discord and moving away to forums, especially for software projects. There is definitely a lot more disgruntlement with Discord today, so their statement makes sense.
And we're perfectly happy using proprietary services like GitHub and Discord as long as they make our work easier and more enjoyable. We recently evaluated a number of alternatives, and found that they all introduced more friction than we were comfortable with.
Although the task of building a browser is itself challenging, we're a pragmatic project :)
Hey, just a reality check: in the event that you actually do become wildly successful, this means that others (Google, Microsoft, etc.) will be able to fork the browser and then develop it faster than you - thus leaving you behind and taking away your users! Would highly recommend leaving yourself some mechanism to prevent that, unless you're really okay with the project defeating itself through its own success.
Neither is Safari. Safari is actually part of the solution. Safari has saved Firefox and other browsers by being the only option on iOS for a long time and a better choice for many (because of battery usage) on Mac OS. Without Safari I am afraid we would all be locked into Chrome now.
The problem is that Google, like Microsoft before them,
1. used their dominant position in one market to force their way into dominating another market,
2. used various underhanded tactics to make users think Chrome were better while in reality it was just given better treatment by their backend servers and also the Googles frontend devs[1]
3. and that unlike Microsoft they still haven't got a multi billion fine for it and haven't been forced to advertise alternative browsers for months.
[1]: see various bugs[2] in everything from the core of the Angular framework to Google Calendar to YouTube
[2]: yes, I am generous enough to consider them bugs. I am fairly certain though that bugs that doesn't affect Chrome aren't exactly considered top priority.
Amazing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_(advertisement)
But more seriously: it is actually the truth.
Kind of in in the same way that people are thankful for Churchill: not because he was a fantastic man in every way (he wasn't) but because he saved us from something even worse.
If you have to convince people that you are seriously telling the truth, you are probably making an unproven assertion that relies on many benefits of the doubt.
I even thought it wasn't necessary to test them separately but I recently heard from someone with more and more recent experience that some differences exist, particularly around prefixed css attributes. Can't say for sure though, but that was why I wrote my comment above somewhat defensively.
> Google, like microsoft, <1-3>
If you're going to complain about 1-3 for google and ms, I don't think you can praise safari in the same breath.
Apple's abused their position with the iPhone to make safari relevant, and unlike Chrome and IE, users can't just install another browser.
Apple's behavior is the only reason I can't run my own addons I've written for firefox on iOS (they run _fine_ on android of course), why I can't run uBlock origin on iOS, and so on.
Apple's behavior on iOS is far more egregious than anything microsoft or google has ever done.
I never once had to run IE or Chrome unwillingly since I could always install netscape, or mosaic, or firefox.
I'm forced to run Safari, unable to decently block ads, unable to use the adons I've written, unable to fork and patch my browser to fix bugs, and I've generally had my software freedoms infringed... and if I don't run safari, then I can't talk to my family group chat (no androids allowed, sms breaks the imessage group features too much) or talk to my grandma who only knows how to use facetime.
I wish so much I could use a phone with firefox, but I can't justify having a spare iPhone just to talk to my family, so I'm kinda forced to suffer through safari, held hostage by apple's monopolistic iMessage behavior.
The only thing that comes close to Apple's behavior is Google's campaign to force Chromebooks upon children in classrooms, requiring them to use Chrome, but at least Google isn't holding their grandmother's hostage... and managed work/school devices already are kinda expected to have substantially less freedom than personal devices, so it feels much less egregious.
If people don't support Safari, it's because the free market has spoken and overwhelmingly chooses alternative options: https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worl...
The story would be different, if Apple wasn't miserly with their native APIs and App distribution. But this is indeed a harmful and competition-restricting decision, even in Mozilla's opinion: https://mozilla.github.io/platform-tilt/
So I think we can safely assume that Apple's policy harms browser diversity by forcing their users to support a single minority option. If their users preferred a more feature-filled browser, we would never know; they aren't sincerely presented an alternative choice. If Apple wants their users to defend Safari, maybe they should invest in it until their browser (or Operating System, for that matter) competes with Chrome. Until then, they're promoting a megalomaniac solution and being a sore loser about it at the same time.
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"
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" you mean "all the Chrome-only non-standards because free market or something"
No, at this point I really do just mean "feature-filled". 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. At the rate Apple's heading, I wouldn't be surprised if next-gen iPhone apps were just PWAs that hook into WebGPU. Big-business has no reason to keep living under Apple's thumb, and market regulators can't justify it in Europe, Japan or even the United States.
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.
Then maybe it's time you gave Android another try. Chrome runs on mobile just as well as it does on desktop, so any of the web apps you use on your computer work fine on phone too. It makes modern Safari look like a tofu browser substitute by comparison.
So?
> so any of the web apps you use on your computer work fine on phone too.
So where's the amazing PWA future we hear so much about. All the "amazing web apps" we hear about are shitty slow bad monstrosities that can barely display a few lines of text without jank.
The very few actual great apps which are made ad great engineering effort and expense (like Figma) don't run in full mode on mobile for obvious reasons.
So, my question remains and you haven't answered it.
Edit: There are some web apps here and there which are surprisingly good. E.g. I'm quite impressed by Foodora's app. And it runs well on iOS, too. However, 99.9999999% of the "great PWA future" is just garbage despite the "Chrome runs just as well on Android".
Although Orion also has built in a (simpler) implementation the most important Firefox for me and I assume many others, tree style tabs. Orions built in version doesn't have the full customizability from TST but it works and presents tabs nested by what tab the descend from which is the most important feature.
How is MIT any worse at preventing this, when GPL didn't?
B: "Ah I see that means we should just give up all measures, instead of you know advocating for stronger measures or anything else obvious and logical like that."
This only means we must start any projects today with stronger GPL or similar variants such as AGPL.
You had a security breach, despite using a better set of technologies and techniques.
During the postmortem, you suggest this means we should give up all security or just use the weaker solution, since its all the same, the server would have gotten breached in either case.
Instead of advocating for building a stronger security.
If someone forks our code and does a better job with it than we do, fair game. :)
But ultimately this is all developers' decisions and I respect that. If anything, if a major company decided to take off and invest, they could do it in any case, publishing their modified source code would not make that much of difference essentially. It is really refreshing to see at last a browser that does not absolutely depend on google's resources in any way.
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 no obligation to give the code back to the BSD project... and it doesn't.
So the most valuable company in the planet took from the community and it doesn't bother to give back.
For some of us that is unacceptabme.
Although... this still doesn't explain why the other parts of the browser besides the rendering engine are open source? i.e. if the license was the reason, then presumably Google would've made the rest of the browser closed source, but that wasn't the case for most parts.
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?
With BSD companies are under no obligation to release their changes, and like any self interested party, most don't.
ANd give very little back. Like Apple on top of BSD or AWS on top Riak.
For people like me that find that unacceptable exist the GPL licenses.
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.
"Ah that means we must remove all security protections, instead of you know further strengthening security."
If older GPL failed, this means we needed a stronger license...such as AGPL, or in future something even better, instead of giving up and saying we should have just given them shit on a platter.
But then Badcorp takes the code and builds their own varient with extensions. Badcorp is big and has lots of market share. Lots of people use Badcorps's browser, and because lots of people are using it, lots of web developers code for it, including coding for its extensions.
Soon, lots of websites -- including Badcorp's own websites, and they have lots of popular ones -- use the extensions in the Badcorp browser.
Then people still using Ladybird can't use it for most websites. They have lost something.
What have the original BSD users lost? Absolutely nothing. BSD still exists, it’s still maintained, and people can still use it. They can also use fruit BSD if they want.
With an OS core, interoperability isn't really important. Existing BSD users presumably weren't too interested in buying shiny new Macs to run their BSD OS on, so Apple using BSD as the core of their OS really didn't affect them. Moreover, existing BSD users didn't need to interoperate with the new MacOS users. An OS isn't some kind of network protocol. BSD users could work with MacOS users just like users of any other OS, using existing network protocols and other standards.
The poster child for the BSD/GPL argument on the GPL side is usually Microsoft's "embracing and extending" of Kerberos. It's a network authentication protocol, licensed with a BSD-like permissive license, and Microsoft infamously forked it, creating their own proprietary extensions. This resulted in only non-MS users not being able to fully interoperate with MS users.
We do already see cases now where web developers write websites targeting Chrome-only browser extensions instead of sticking with standards. In theory, if this happened with Ladybird, it should be possible for the original devs to simply add their own versions of these extensions, but how feasible that it I'm not sure. Currently, there's Chrome-only extensions which apparently haven't been implemented by Firefox for some reason, so maybe it's not as easy as it sounds.
1. All the BSDs have been out there for decades without anyone running with it.
2. Google and Microsoft - while being a shadow of their former selves technically - are probably still very capable of reimplementing whatever they want.
3. If Ladybird gets so wildly popular, lets celebrate wildly!
I am aware that it builds on BSD.
Yet BSD is very alive and nobody who wants BSD is lost to Mac.
At least I personally have never heard anyone deliberating over a free BSD vs Mac.
Edit: and of course upvote. Apple ran with it. But they didn't run away with it. We still have it. Actually we have some patches thanks to them. As I mentioned in my other reply: Open source is not a zero sum game.
In a relative sense, I would argue that Apple has pilfered an order of magnitude higher value from the community than they have given back. The only example of Apple's net-positive contributions seem to be CUPS and LLVM, both of which were cross-platform before Apple took control. Compared with how much networking and userland code they've taken it feels like a trillion-dollar pittance. Even Microsoft chips in more.
They do? With what? (Besides Linux kernel drivers that are only useful for running Linux on their own VM solution.) I guess VScode, for people that use it?
CUPS is fantastic, though you're right, it was cross-platform before Apple took control.
I take objection to the use of "pilfering" to describe usage of software according to the terms specified by its authors.
Or would you somehow argue that some features disappeared from BSD thanks to Apple copying their code as they were expressly allowed to in the license?
Furthermore, even if it wasn't free software but rather MS Windows or a "pirated" movie many people here would argue it wasn't theft but just unauthorized use.
As their primary workstation?
(Yes, PS3 ran Linux in the beginning.)
Have you caught anyone deciding to go with Cisco instead of BSDs on their servers or their laptop?
I'm serious here: Open source isn't a zero sum game.
Partially thanks to the permissive license of BSD we now have both Mac OS and JunOS (edited: it said Cisco first), which is a good thing, not a bad thing.
The problem with Chrome isn't that it exist but that it has been forced upon us and the fact that we know they have used questionable methods to establish it as the dominant browser.
Cisco IOS is absolutely not based on BSD - it is a proprietary kernel, and such that it even has a “userland”, a proprietary userland.
IOS XE is based on Linux.
Most of the voice stuff is Linux.
Perhaps you are thinking of Juniper’s JunOS, which is based on FreeBSD?
It is used in Cisco's email and web security appliance, which is also their hosted offering. This appliance was previously known as IronPort, before being acquired by Cisco.
Slow computing it's sometimes called [0]
I sometimes experience some friction (really acceptable though) on Firefox, it has never lured me to Edge of Chrome. Some people have standards you know ;)
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.
Also, I don’t think intellectual property is real and so I don’t think I can make demands on the users of my code: it seems to me that there’s an implicit contradiction in the GPL between the FSF’s anti-IP stances and their attempt to control how their software is used using IP constructs.
Secondly, my game theoretic argument. Lets say a powerful corpo takes your code and makes something that turns out very useful and popular. If it was BSD, they have no obligation to share anything back and your original project is left to dry and rot. If it was (A)GPL they are obliged to return the changes, and then you can absorb their changes and beat them to the punch. Its more competitive and creates a stronger capitalist environment. BSD's end state is feudalistic, GPL is capitalistic.
Also, I trust you'd be happy to have your code MINIXed, to have your code end up in closed source bootloaders locking down your new ARM laptop, and so on. At least with GPLs you get some code dumps. At least with Androids we end up with a begrudgingly shat out Linux source dump, that helps a little at least. With iPhone you got, absolutely fucking nothing, nil, nada. I am just suggesting please do not complain if BSD works ever end up creating such a world.
Yes, this is implied by my view that IP is a fiction
Whereas if the company had forked a BSD project, there is no such legal recourse for me if the company chooses not to share the sources, at best you can hope to talk to them/pressurize them but of course that is most cases futile. As a user its much more inconvenient for me, I need to use advanced debuggers, disassemblers, etc to debug or modify. Sometimes even that does not work.
As a user, GPL/AGPL provides me far more convenience by default than "permissive" licenses do. It gives me an assurance I can just as easily see and modify the sources of any forks of the project, and if in any case such fails, its only because it wasn't strong enough, for example using GPL software in SaaS, due to which stronger licenses like AGPL were invented.
So, that fetish for infinite growth... can we get rid of it?
Firefox keeps trying to grow in various directions and look where it's taking them.
License "permissiveness" is a relative concept. From the point of view of the users of your software, the GPL is more permissive than MIT, since they have permission to see the source code. If you release software under MIT or BSD licenses, you allow middlemen to strip this right to users of your software.
I know that’s not what you meant, but it is what you said.
Permissive licenses doesn't grants you less freedom than GPL, infact it grants you more because the user also has the freedom to modify source code without being enforced to make it public.
Companies copying the codebase to their propietary ones won't automatically strip right of users, licenses don't work like that, the original codebase will still be fine. Whether said companies will contribute back is irrelevant.
I license all my stuff with permissive licenses because (in my opinion) they are more free than the GPL and such licenses. I don't have any massive for-profit company pushing me to do so. Mr. Kling is also not a massive for-profit company, he's just a guy making the software he wants to make. Your argument is in very bad faith.
That's not true.
Somebody can take the source code and build something closed on top of it, but the original code will be already free, and you will always have the right to see it.
For example, PlayStation OS is based on FreeBSD (AFAIK). They took it, adapted it and added a lot of stuff. Did you lose the right to see the source code of FreeBSD ? No. Can you see the source code of PlayStation OS ? No, but you never had that right, so you have not been stripped of anything.
Of course it doesn't change the original project. But when people take the codebase and build a new product on it, what GP says is absolutely the case. The devs can withhold all code and rights to it from the next user. This is most commonly an issue when it comes to libraries rather than end products, but not always.
It doesn't also have to mean that the original project dies or disappears, it can just rob from their growth potential. Examples are quite easy to find. There's been a big hullaballoo over cloud providers taking open source projects and competing with them by offering managed versions of the service that are well-integrated into their ecosystems. Economically this is also a problem because the cloud provider can then undercut the price of the managed service compared to the official one since they aren't bearing the burden of building/maintaining the codebase.
I'm by no means against "permissive" licensing (MIT, etc), I think they have their time and place just like GPL, etc, but I am against dismissing valid concerns with shallow replies.
The first freedom that GPL-lovers have is whether or not to use the project.
At least not now or the foreseeable future. I also don't think community support would work towards that.
I'd favor the more permission mit/isc as long as reasonable myself.
No you don't. You're being extremely disingenuous with this phrasing. No matter how many other parties take the source code and make a closed source product out of it, the users of your software will always have the same rights you granted them to begin with. No freedom has been lost.
And before you say "but your users won't have the same rights to the derivative works", that isn't a loss of freedom. They never had those rights to begin with, therefore they cannot lose them. Not gaining something is not the same as losing it.
https://gavinhoward.com/2023/12/is-source-available-really-t...
So he knows that corporations can take open source browsers and make it proprietary.
This immediately comes to mind as akin to the Signal vis-a-vis WhatsApp etc. Here there is an obvious reason to use Signal and a well-understood proposition. What might it be for Ladybird? And how will you differentiate?
That said, I do think we'll find ways to differentiate given our uncommon situation with no ties to the advertising industry. This gives us the ability to experiment with privacy measures more aggressive than others may be comfortable with for fear of losing funding, for example.
Our own approach to privacy is as radical as it gets in search: "No Tracking, Just Search". As we often say: tracking, not ads, is the fundamental problem. Contextual ads do not need necessarily to have tracking. Though the duopoly of search ad networks makes that a hard road too.
Good luck. Excited to see how Ladybird progresses.
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! Competition and new ideas in browser engines will benefit all of us! :)
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.)
It is just extremely rough. It is in a far less-usable state than Ladybird even is and very prone to crashing.
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 “safe”, I meant that targeting the embedding usecase is safer in a social and project-planning way, as in smaller probability of other people calling them nuts and greater probability of getting something usable in a finite amount of time. Which is fair enough.
You seem to be under some impression that Servo before Mozilla layoff and after Mozilla layoffs are the same? They aren't. I mean, the code is a continuation of effort, but the people who worked on it before and after the Mozilla exodus aren't the same.
Servo originally did have the same goal of better embeddability, but after it's resurrection it's only the same by mostly coincidence. Sponsors (Tizen IIRC) wants a fast embeddable browser. That's about it.
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.
Firefox has often been forced to just conform to Chrome behaviour, despite differing specs, or because the spec was rejected/not agreed upon.
and the code (at least a large part of it in the form of Chromium) is Open Source. I don't think it's as bleak as people make it out to be.
Are you planning on charging your users?
Though I don't fully understand why pulling funding for new browser technology was part of their strategy going forward. Servo was one of the projects that made me excited about using Firefox. I bet that big announcements about moving Firefox to Rust would have consistently bumped usage numbers. As much as people voice their opinions about the RiiR movement in the comments here, it's clear people love those kinds of projects just for the technical novelty. I know I do.
Between the lack of a business plan and your responses about licensing, I'm afraid I feel you're coming at this from a naive point of view. This is a seriously important line of software you're entering, please do take some time to take it seriously.
Will watch your progress and again, I genuinely love to see your project. Good luck.
Mozilla went that route and many are not happy with that.
So I am really happy for Kling and the project, that they managed what many others only dreamed about. Focusing on developement - delivering - building trust - getting funds.
Why do you want to change the plan, when it is working?
1. We keep the team small enough that there's always at least 1.5 years of runway in the bank.
2. We continue fundraising actively.
I don't know if people will donate for their browser like they donate for Wikipedia, but if it's able to bring joy to people, it could be pretty sustainable. Even Mozilla takes in $10M/year in contributions.
If they didn't give their CEO $7M per year, spent money acquiring businesses like Pocket, gave up their braindead attempts at monetizing user data while simultaneously running bizarre tone-deaf "free internet" studies, and just focused on the browser and improving the development experience (is there a worse open source project than Moz??), they might fare better.
Plus, while Firefox is their main product, it's been decades since Mozilla has been solely a browser company. It's like saying Microsoft should stop making Office because it detracts from their OS business. Companies can make more than one product. Some of those products are going to have shorter lifespans or smaller userbases than others and that's OK.
But I'm actually ok with a lot of the non-firefox projects that they have like the VPN.
What I do have an issue with is the foundation, throwing money away at various projects that have very little to do with making firefox better. From "trusworthy AI" research grants to giving 387k to the Mckensie Mack group or 375k to the New Venture Fund (I get Mozilla are lefties but what does this have to do with Firefox?) plus some other organizations that I can't even tell if they aren't just money laundering fronts as they don't appear to actually do anything.
That and the C-Suite being complete parasites. The CEO of Mozilla corp makes almost as much in a year as the Mozilla foundation makes from donations.
Remove the parasites and the senseless spending of the foundation and you could develop Firefox with the ~20% of revenue that doesn't come from Google.
Well, okay
We don't need another programming language.
(I hope it was a joke)
Indeed, I doubt very much that Ladybird will get there.
We'll see what happens as the lawsuit unfolds, but I'd be pretty surprised if there is proof that the discrimination was health-based and not due to the fact that he was the CPO who worked with Baker during whatever it was that made them decide to fire her.
[0] From the complaint:
> The board decision to removle Ms Baker was so abrupt that they did not conduct a search for a successor, resulting in the naming of one of their own board members, Ms Chambers, as interim CEO.
What languages have prototypes and where can I learn more?
But, ladybird is one of the coolest things I saw in 2024!!!
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 latest web standards.
2. No concrete plans, but it's not outside the realm of possibilities.
Sounds good. If it also makes it into Serenty OS eventually, it would suddenly make Serenety OS a lot more accessible and useful for way more people. But I think you are aware of this and also of the challenges.
Building a working browser is hard enough on its own.
Thanks again for your hard work!
This is definitely more than a hobby at this point. I already manage 3 employees, with 3 more joining in the next month!
No kidding... how about get it roughly working on hacker news, and make it the hackers way to start each day, and pull in as much help and community as possible from here?
Here’s hoping one day I can move to LadyBird and leave the others behind.
Bravo again.
Not trying to pry into your personal lives, just wondering because there's a lot of meaningful information behind the answers to those questions.
Given the limitations of our funding model, we won't be building a huge team, but rather a small team that allows us to maintain a runway of at least 1.5 years. :)
Edit: In Blink, the layer/compositing system extends to SVG elements inside SVG tags, as well, and in WebKit, it doesn’t yet, but there is an active years-long effort going back to 2019 that will eventually land: https://youtu.be/WxqJFxiprrU?si=dhQIgW1V4yS_Ca4s Compositing and using the GPU seems like a complex but important part of rendering in a browser, and a case where it could be good to implement the kind of system that other browsers have arrived at after years of iteration, when it comes time to do so.
Will the JS engine still be LibJS?
AFAIK there's some support for it already, but it has to be enabled explicitly with --enable-gpu-painting. I can confirm that with that switch Ladybird can do 3D CSS transforms (which don't work without it).
The JavaScript engine is our own LibJS, currently sitting at 94.3% pass rate on https://test262.fyi/ (although the number might be a little outdated, it's supposed to be higher! Need to investigate this..)
https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/
For example: the reddit AMA on firefox unofficial subreddit[1],the mozilla connect post on things they are working on[2]etc.
[1]:https://new.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/1de7bu1/were_the_f... [2]:https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/discussions/here-s-what-we-re...
That's never gonna happen without substantial funding because a modern, remotely feature parity web browser is a gargantuan project even if every developer is a genius. Chromium and Firefox sit at 30 million/20 million lines of code respectively, modern web browsers are basically operating systems.
Mozilla doesn't rely on Google revenue because they love Google so much, they do so because they have hundreds of engineers to pay. A million dollars sounds like a lot but that pays for a handful of engineers for a year. That's not going to get you to 5% of Chromium or Firefox.
It seems to me that a large volume of code in Blink deals with obscure features with relatively niche use cases (such as WebRTC, WebUSB,WebGL, WebAudio and so on and so forth), which would mean a large amount of programmer effort for very little user-facing gain.
Additionally, in these areas, web standards tend to say 'whatever Chrome does', with FF often lifting large parts of Chrome code to support these features. Even if the above wasn't true, in practicality it is, since all clients are tested against Chrome, you'd need to follow all its quirks to have your browser be compatible.
Are you planning to do a clean room implementation of these features as well?
WebUSB is a lot more common than one might think, but I mostly see it used in music gear. Companies like Novation use WebUSB to facilitate firmware upgrades, backups, patch management, etc with their synthesizers and workstations.
Its pretty much a necessity for me at this point so that I can remain OS agnostic and still manage my gear.
I also have a personalized build step on our pre-production web app that launches the site in Ladybird for my host. It’s been awesome to see the browser lock in functionality along with our own progress.
Does Ladybird still follow that ideal?
Going forward, we want to support the open web as it exists, so you can actually use Ladybird to interact with all your websites. We may not agree that every web platform API is awesome and perfect, but we will honor the open standards to the best of our ability.
But please do consider putting up some screenshots of the browser - including how it renders the popular sites.
Over time, I expect them to diverge enough that this becomes impractical, as Ladybird now allows 3rd party code while SerenityOS does not. It’s up to the SerenityOS community how to handle this.
We benefit greatly from this of course, and we will do what we can to contribute when we’re mature enough!
That said, there will always be websites relying on bugs, and for that we will need a way to selectively emulate alternate behaviors in some cases. We are looking at a few different solutions for this but it’s not a huge priority right now as there are far lower hanging fruit in front of us.
Can't wait for the day I can drop Firefox and use Ladybird full time.
(or will you just use Chrome as a reference spec and implement anything it implements?)
Q2: what is your “guiding principle/mission”? Is it to be the fastest browser? The most privacy centric browser? The only 100% standards compliant browser? etc…
—-
Super excited for you. Wishing you the best in this and hope you change the world for the better.
Any browser that doesn’t display normal websites normally will never achieve mainstream usage. Who willingly handicaps their software?
(An older not as relevant one is http://acid3.acidtests.org/ )
Will you use Vulkan when it comes to gpu accel or OpenGL?
Will you make better adblocking capabilities by embedding faster checks and rule engines/lookups in c++ than what we have now?
How much can people who do not contribute code affect development? In terms of requests suggestions? E.g. if I would suggest to skip OpenGL and use Vulkan (so basically defining a limit on how old should the hw be), would this be even considered?
This could be key differentiator over other browsers.
edit: > Focus on building good APIs/extension points though, and those will be immensely useful whether for local LLMs.
I think we're saying the same thing, focus on good extension points for the local LLM use case.
Personally, I much prefer developing for the web than native so if there were APIs exclusive to Ladybird it might create a nice virtuous cycle of developers targeting Ladybird to do new things and users using Ladybird to try those new experiences.
There's probably a huge influx of people trying to get involved now, which probably really complicates and muddies the waters right now as well.
Either way, congrats!
The best for a beginner is usually to start with some simple page you made yourself, since you know how it’s supposed to work, and can debug more easily.
And come join us on Discord, there are new people getting into the codebase all the time :)
Best of luck!
By building a new engine, we can increase ecosystem diversity and put all these open standards to the test. We regularly find, report, and sometimes even fix bugs in the various web standards - stuff we find just by being the first to try and implement everything from scratch in a long time!
We also believe it’s good for the world to have more engines that aren’t directly or indirectly funded primarily by the advertising industry.
No? There are tons of valuable contributions, pure and applied, that "people" (markets) do not pay for at all, or pay pittance relative to their usefulness.
Here's a tweet with a couple of diagrams that illustrate how much control Google has over all browsers (including Firefox and Safari): https://x.com/awesomekling/status/1793937129250214344
Once we get the desktop version into decent shape, we will direct more attention to mobile platforms. At the moment there's just too much important low-hanging fruit that's easier to develop (and debug!) on desktop :)
* We're already making a top 5% income for our area and have more than enough for our needs and even an early retirement.
* We get non-monetary benefits from our job like WFH and/or flexible scheduling.
* We're working on projects that excite us and make us happy to go to work and that matters more than total comp.
Money aside, I'd rather see Ladybird hire 6 developers who are seriously passionate and live all across the world than see them hire 6 Bay Area developers who think they're better because they ask for more comp. That the passionate and global developers are cheaper is just a nice bonus.