Hacker News Reader

Comment by flykespice | Hacker News Reader

I'm curious what makes LadyBird so special compared to other major browsers like Firefox and Chromium?

It’s one of the very, very few independent browsers built from the ground up and not on top of one the few existing engines (Gecko, Chromium, WebKit), which is extremely important to the health of the open web.

Imagine a world where Chromium is the only browser engine. Standards wouldn’t matter and Google could just do whatever they wanted — we’re pretty close to that as it is.

To combat a Chrome hegemony you need strong opposition, not a long-tail of weak opposition. Or in other words: Firefox needs to become more competitive. I (unfortunately) don't think having another 0.1% market cap browser is the solution, at least not for now.

Just to clarify: I'm in favor of Cloudflare donating to Ladybird, and I'm in favor of them building it! I just don't think that's the solution to combating Chrome dominance.

What is Firefox if not weak opposition? Even given a reliable firehose of income from Google they haven't cracked that 0.1% market cap, and I don't see how funneling more resources into a browser that's been floundering for over a decade now will change anything.

Ladybird is still a good few years away from being a serious competitor, but nonetheless it is the most viable candidate in the absence of a path for Firefox to become competitive.

I don't believe that Firefox can become stronger so long as Mozilla continues to be structured as it is.

It's possible combating it in terms of pushing for different standards could be sufficient. More little guys at the table means more sway to push things like JPEG XL through.

Only if they’re bringing real users in sufficient numbers to affect site owners’ decisions. Right now, “the web” is what Chrome and Safari want it to be. Mozilla largely ceded their seat at that table but is probably the closest to being relevant again if they can come up with a better pitch to users.

Especially not if that browser currently ignores the biggest markets (Windows and mobile).

> To combat a Chrome hegemony you need strong opposition, not a long-tail of weak opposition.

Do you have any ideas on how to accomplish this in a better way than what Ladybird is trying to do? In other words, what should Ladybird be doing differently?

Firefox is also sustained by Google. So you have a choice between Google and Google.

And WebKit was built on top of KHTML. And Chromium (Blink) was built on top of WebKit.

That makes Ladybird even more unique. It’s looking to do what even Apple and Google weren’t willing to do.

> It’s one of the very, very few independent browsers built from the ground up

AFAIK they are using: https://skia.googlesource.com/skia

I mean... that is just a 2d accelerated graphic library, tough it being developed by Google makes uneasy since they are very eager to deprecate support for platform past their lifecycle support

I would not be worried about lifecycle of Skia. 2d rendering is important part of browser. Skia is essential for Chrome (and Ladybird now as well).

> Imagine a world where Chromium is the only browser engine.

We pretty much live in that world right now. The only significant competition is Webkit.

I suppose one immediate consequence of writing your own engine is you can't publish it to Apple Store, not that I think they care

In EU one can. And currently there is still a huge market not bound to Apple App Store.

It's famously impossible to donate money to Firefox (at least for users).

By this you mean that donations can only go to Mozilla and cannot be earmarked for the Firefox browser specifically right?

Yes. You can donate to the foundation but not only do they prevent earmarking, they actively don't use it for browser development.

I even mailed them back in June to confirm. They replied:

...

> When you donate to the Mozilla Foundation, your contribution goes directly toward advancing our mission to ensure the internet remains open and accessible for all. Our work focuses on issues like online privacy, open-source technologies, worthy AI and a digital world that puts people first. These funds directly support advocacy campaigns (i.e. asking irresponsible tech companies to protect your privacy), Mozilla’s fellowship program, MozFest gatherings, Common Voice, Responsible Computing Challenge, and so much more.

> However, it’s important to note that donations to Mozilla Foundation do not support the development of Firefox or any other Mozilla products.

> While we are a public-benefit 501(c)(3) organization under US law and the parent organization for the corporate entities that own Firefox, donations do not fund the Firefox browser and revenue is completely generated from within the product itself.

...

Why even donate to a business that keeps paying their CEO more and more while laying off employees?

It's not financed by Google.

Google is evil and Mozilla is incompetent. Ladybird has the potential to be a third option with neither of these attributes.

it's another browser engine (LibWeb), that seems notable enough on its own doesn't it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com