458
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] laxe@lemmy.world 147 points 3 months ago

I want to follow updates from this project. They have a Twitter account but not Mastodon sigh

[-] infeeeee@lemm.ee 220 points 3 months ago

RSS is not even enabled on the Newz page on the website.

[-] Diabolo96@lemmy.dbzer0.com 78 points 3 months ago

I share the disappointment.

[-] infeeeee@lemm.ee 25 points 3 months ago

I found they have a newsletter, that sounds like an acceptable middle ground, not good, not terrible.

[-] mynamesnotrick@lemmy.zip 58 points 3 months ago

Im glad to see this. Discord is a nightmare. It's the same as a Facebook only group to me.

load more comments (1 replies)

The website makes it sound like all of the code being bespoke and "based on standards" is some kind of huge advantage but all I see is a Herculean undertaking with too few engineers and too many standards.

W3C lists 1138 separate standards currently, so if each of their three engineers implements one discrete standard every day, with no breaks/weekends/holidays, then having an alpha available that adheres to all 2024 web standards should be possible by 2026?

This is obviously also without testing but these guys are serious, senior engineers, so their code will be perfect on the first try, right?

Love the passion though, can't wait to see how this project plays out.

[-] weststadtgesicht@discuss.tchncs.de 44 points 3 months ago

W3C lists 1138 separate standards currently, so if each of their three engineers implements one discrete standard every day, with no breaks/weekends/holidays, then having an alpha available that adheres to all 2024 web standards should be possible by 2026?

Yes, that is exactly the plan: "We are targeting Summer 2026 for a first Alpha version"

[-] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 28 points 3 months ago

a Herculean undertaking with too few engineers and too many standards

Yeah, as a layperson this is my take. If mozilla is struggling to stay in the game then I just don't really see how an unfinanced indie team has a shot.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Tywele@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 3 months ago

You are assuming that they only started now from point 0. They have probably been working on it for a bit before announcing everything.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[-] Logh@lemmy.ml 55 points 3 months ago

Love the idea! Shopify as the highest tier sponsor? Not so much.

[-] antler@feddit.rocks 31 points 3 months ago

I mean if they're gonna give money without demanding anything I'm sure no complaints from the devs.

Shopify or an exec there might find some value in avoiding Google owning the web, could maybe bring goodwill for the company, or they could just be looking for a write off.

[-] Spedwell@lemmy.world 30 points 3 months ago

I'm curious what issue you see with that? It seems like the project is only accepting unrestricted donations, but is there something suspicious about shopify that makes it's involvement concerning (I don't know much about them)?

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] linearchaos@lemmy.world 51 points 3 months ago

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. I've had more than a handful of people bitching at me that it's impossible to make a new, open web browser in this day.

[-] schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business 87 points 3 months ago

I think it's less that it's "impossible" but rather that it's expensive.

Honestly we've in general shoved too much shit into the browser that's not strictly related to just browsing web sites.

And you "have to" support all the layers and layers and layers of added stuff, or you can't "compete".

But, at the same time, the goals of making a good-enough browser that mostly works and isn't completely enshittified and captured by corpo big tech interests is a very worthy project and 100% support what they're doing.

[-] sugartits@lemmy.world 31 points 3 months ago

JavaScript was a mistake.

And it went downhill from there.

[-] TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org 27 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

It was fine when it was contained to an actual web site instead of infecting desktop software too. To me, using JS for that purpose feels like using PHP to write a 3D video game.

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 20 points 3 months ago

using PHP to write a 3D video game.

Somewhere, someone just had a really bad idea.

[-] chiisana@lemmy.chiisana.net 14 points 3 months ago

It’s a general language (though primarily adopted by web as backend engine), so you can basically expect people already have had this idea.

[-] schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business 24 points 3 months ago

Eh, scriptable content was probably fine.

Techbros going 'holy shit, we should make EVERYTHING a website!' was the curse that doomed us.

[-] pentagrammar@programming.dev 23 points 3 months ago

Pushing for bloated web apps instead of having optimized and perfectly functional websites was what killed it for me.

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] Diabolo96@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Their rendering engine is already pretty solide (see penultimate video in their channel). Now that their "no third party code" restriction is lifted, they can actually focus on building a browser engine instead of recreating 30 years worth of technologies from scratch.

[-] asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world 40 points 3 months ago

C++

If they're starting a browser from scratch, why would they not have chosen Rust? Seems very short sighted to not have learned from Firefox.

[-] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 59 points 3 months ago

They used c++ initially since it was spawned from SerenityOS, which was designed to be a mashup of win2000 and unix.

now that Ladybird is its own project, it's not constrained to that goal, and they have said they will incorporate modern languages.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] venoft@lemmy.world 37 points 3 months ago

Funny how in the video the guy say that all other browsers are based on Google's code. But Firefox is also independent right?

[-] infeeeee@lemm.ee 95 points 3 months ago

He says "powered by or funded by Google". Firefox depends on Google financially, most of the income of Mozilla comes from Google paying for being the default search engine.

They try to diversify their income (Firefox VPN, email alias service, etc.), but anything they try gets a huge backlash from the community, and still small compared to the the money from google.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] viking@infosec.pub 23 points 3 months ago

Google is Mozilla's biggest source of income, and google developers have actively contributed code to the Firefox engine.

So you decide for yourself what level of independence you assign to it.

[-] shortwavesurfer@monero.town 12 points 3 months ago

Firefox gets tons of funding from Google, and their code is quite frankly humongous. From what I understand, it's extremely hard to get the gecko web view engine to work. In another browser, unless it's a fork of Firefox, unlike Chromium where you can just redesign an entire browser around it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] unlawfulbooger@lemmy.blahaj.zone 30 points 3 months ago

They’re making a new browser engine from scratch in an open way, absolutely amazing!

I do have several questions:

Why would they use BSD instead of GPL? If you care about open-source so much, why would you make it possible for a company to run away with your fancy new engine?

Why are they creating a new browser, when even firefox has to struggle to keep some semblance of market share? I get that not every project needs to aim to be “the biggest”, and that even a smaller project (in terms of users), can be fun. It’s just that writing a browser engine that can handle the modern web seems like an almost Sisyphean task; which makes me wonder what their motivation(?) is.

Why the FLOSS are they using closed-source proprietary discord as their main communication channel?

[-] Diabolo96@lemmy.dbzer0.com 36 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)
  1. (BSD vs GPL) Andreas stated on twitter that he wanted to give devs total freedom to use his work because when he worked at Apple he felt frustrated he couldn't incorporate some code/software into his work because of GPL.
  2. (Why?) The aim is not to create a chrome competitor, but to make a good enough, truly free browser that isn't either chrome or funded by chrome. A browser made for and by its user's.
  3. (Discord) Because of gen-z.
[-] ggppjj@lemmy.world 14 points 3 months ago

As someone who uses BSD licensed modified code at work and relies on it quite a lot, it's crucial to me choosing which projects I'm able to use in the first place.

Personally, I prefer a license that allows for commercial use in the way that companies need them to, and if my own work ever can provide a patch back upstream I'd be happy to do so, but most of what I do is just tweaking things that exist to suit my purposes which doesn't really help anyone but my business rivals which I personally am not interested in doing if I don't have to.

I prefer to have the freedom to do as I wish with the code, as compared to being bound to do as the author wishes and essentially just not using that code in the first place because I can't. I'm not in a position to change what I can and can't do because of the requirements of the business I work for, and I'm grateful to those that choose licenses that allow me to use their work.

They're creating a new browser because they want to. It started as an OS building project that the lead dev did to help stay sober.

They use discord because it's popular. Insert Ouroborus argument here, and at the end of the day it's still the most popular app.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] hamsterkill@lemmy.sdf.org 30 points 3 months ago

Best of luck, I guess, but seems like a doomed project to me. Forking WebKit, Gecko, or even Servo would seem much more reasonable, and even that is a huge undertaking.

[-] MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago

Contributing directly to Firefox and reducing the dependence on Google should be three best bet

[-] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 28 points 3 months ago

I do not understand the urge to start from scratch instead of forking an existing, mature codebase. This is typically a rookie instinct, but they aren't rookie so there's perhaps an alternative motive of some sort.

[-] accideath@lemmy.world 84 points 3 months ago

Because there are only like 3 browser engines: Chrome’s Blink, Firefox’s Gecko and Apple‘s WebKit. And while they are all open source, KHTML, the last independent browser engine got discontinued last year and hasn’t been actively developed since 2016.

There’s need in the space for an unaffiliated engine. Google’s share is far too high for a healthy market (roughly 75%), WebKit never got big outside of Safari (although there are a few like Gnome Web, there’s no up to date WebKit based browser on Windows) and Gecko has its own problems (like lack of HEVC support).

So, in my book, this is exciting news. Sure it‘ll take a while to mature and it is up against software giants but it‘s something because Mozilla doesn’t seem to have a working strategy to fight against Google‘s monopoly and Apple doesn’t have to.

[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 16 points 3 months ago

Also Gecko's development is led by people thinking that it being usable outside of Firefox\Thunderbird is a bad thing. There was a time when Gnome's browser was based on Gecko, not WebKit. And in general it's influenced by bad practices.

SerenityOS is an amazing project, of course. To do so much work for something completely disconnected from the wider FOSS ecosystem, and with such results.

So it's cool that they've decided to split off the browser as its own project.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (25 replies)
[-] vanderbilt@lemmy.world 49 points 3 months ago

Because software monocultures are bad. The vast majority of browsers are Chromium based. Since Google de-facto decides what gets in Chromium, sooner or later the downstream forks are forced to adopt their changes. Manifest V3 is a great example of this. You can only backport for so long, especially when upstream is being adversarial to your changes. We need an unaffiliated engine that corrects the mistakes we made with KHTML/Webkit.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 29 points 3 months ago

There is currently no implementation of web standards that is under a more permissive license than LGPL or MPL. I think that is a gap worth filling and if I recall that is what Ladybird is doing.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] rdri@lemmy.world 22 points 3 months ago

I can't understand how people can continue relying on chrome and derivatives like electron, CEF etc. and not see it as a problem.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Toes@ani.social 20 points 3 months ago

Kudos to them. Opera gave up on this dream being unable to accommodate all the nuances of web standards and accounting for out of conformance behaviours that many websites rely on the daily.

I reckon this browser will need to be at least on par with reasonably recent version of Firefox to see significant adoption.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] mynamesnotrick@lemmy.zip 18 points 3 months ago
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
458 points (95.8% liked)

Technology

58302 readers
3859 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS