Totally agree re: the new website design. The old site (archive) was way more charming and less sterile. Though I do like the switch from .dev to .org.
Totally agree re: the new website design. The old site (archive) was way more charming and less sterile. Though I do like the switch from .dev to .org.
Why build a new browser in C++ when safer and more modern languages are available? ...We are actively evaluating a number of alternatives and will be adding a mature successor language to the...
Why build a new browser in C++ when safer and more modern languages are available?
...We are actively evaluating a number of alternatives and will be adding a mature successor language to the project in the near future. This process is already quite far along, and prototypes exist in multiple languages.
I find this above blurb particularly interesting. It almost sounds like they are teasing a potential switch to Rust or Go (or some other language). They mention elsewhere they have half a million lines of code, which would make that a massive undertaking. Either that, maybe it means new components will be written in another language. It would probably go a long way in driving interest, more developers seem to enjoy working in Rust than C++ these days.
I'm guessing it's because they forked from SerenityOS which is licensed under the same BSD-2 license. It is likely as simple as them having no compelling reason, or no in lawyer on staff yet, to...
I'm guessing it's because they forked from SerenityOS which is licensed under the same BSD-2 license. It is likely as simple as them having no compelling reason, or no in lawyer on staff yet, to make changing the license worthwhile.
I don't believe that it'd have any chance at making a dent in the Blink-Chromium hegemony otherwise. For its engine to be widely used and wrapping browser widely forked (both of which drive...
I don't believe that it'd have any chance at making a dent in the Blink-Chromium hegemony otherwise. For its engine to be widely used and wrapping browser widely forked (both of which drive contributions), it'd need to be at least as permissively licensed as Blink and Chromium.
Well, if their goal is to take on Google, sure, the license doesn't matter. But that won't happen, at least not because they make a better browser. And could you explain why you think a copyleft...
Well, if their goal is to take on Google, sure, the license doesn't matter. But that won't happen, at least not because they make a better browser.
And could you explain why you think a copyleft license would prevent forks? There are plenty of forked copyleft projects out there.
Even if the goal isn't to take on Google, the long term wellbeing and survival of the projects will ultimately come to hinge on how viable they are as a substitute/replacement for Blink and...
Even if the goal isn't to take on Google, the long term wellbeing and survival of the projects will ultimately come to hinge on how viable they are as a substitute/replacement for Blink and Chromium. Users won't be interested in a browser that doesn't "just work" with the overwhelming majority of modern websites and devs won't bother with engines that aren't largely comparable to Blink or at the barest of minimums WebKit in terms of capabilities (Gecko doesn't factor in because it's not embeddable). In short, it's competing with Google whether it wants to be or not.
A copyleft license (the stronger ones, at least) on the engine would turn it completely toxic as far as commercial use is concerned, which will steeply curb its usage and thus contributions of engineering power and cash. Even weaker copyleft licenses will likely have negative impact here because a lot of companies' legal teams won't let their engineering departments touch projects with anything but the most permissive of licenses with a ten-foot pole out of fear (unfounded or otherwise) of risk of legal complications.
While it's less of an issue for the browser, one of the reasons why Chromium has proliferated as much as it has is because it's friendly to closed-source forks, which comprise a significant share of internet traffic (MS Edge, Vivaldi, Opera, Arc, and Brave among others are all Chromium-based). It's not impossible for a copyleft browser to achieve significant marketshare, but it's going to have more of an uphill battle if forks are meaningfully restricted in any way (thus, reducing the number of forks and chances that one of them becomes popular).
I think it's worth mentioning that two of those browsers started off with their own bespoke rendering engines and switched to Chromium after it became clear that they could no longer realistically...
While it's less of an issue for the browser, one of the reasons why Chromium has proliferated as much as it has is because it's friendly to closed-source forks, which comprise a significant share of internet traffic (MS Edge, Vivaldi, Opera, Arc, and Brave among others are all Chromium-based).
I think it's worth mentioning that two of those browsers started off with their own bespoke rendering engines and switched to Chromium after it became clear that they could no longer realistically compete. But I think it's something of a moot point considering that the combined userbase of the four that are not Edge are practically a rounding error. Even if Chromium/Blink and Firefox/Gecko were functionally identical, I think developers would probably still make the same choice simply because it has a ton of mindshare among users, so it can be a selling point. Add on the fact that it's got the blessing of Google, the de-facto owner of the world wide web.
Certainly possible, but I think there's some level of user interest in non-Blink browsers that isn't being served well right now. Brave started off being Firefox-based (and might have even used...
Certainly possible, but I think there's some level of user interest in non-Blink browsers that isn't being served well right now. Brave started off being Firefox-based (and might have even used that heritage as a selling point, but I may be misremembering) but switched when that proved to be infeasible from a technical perspective. On macOS, Orion sells itself on its WebKit underpinnings, but who knows how long Kagi will be able to keep up development on it.
One might expect the users to be interested in non-Chrome browsers to be exclusively technically inclined but I'm not sure that's the case. There's a growing distrust of Google that can make a "least Google browser" interesting to some, while others might have more practical considerations (WebKit browsers tend to be easier on battery life for example).
If the goal is market share, then I agree with you. But I disagree that market share is viable or that it even should the goal. Google will always have the resources to copy every feature Ladybird...
If the goal is market share, then I agree with you. But I disagree that market share is viable or that it even should the goal.
Google will always have the resources to copy every feature Ladybird has or just kill Ladybird with their pocket money. And even if Google doesn't compete or mess with Ladybird, users won't switch as long as Chrome is good enough.
The goal should be to provide a free (libre) alternative. If the alternative is as free as Chromium, the only reason to switch is technical, and they won't be able to compete with Google on a technical level.
If companies are afraid of free software, that's their problem. Some hobby project trying to steal Google's users is just laughable, and no license will change that.
The AI-generated images they used for basic site elements look rough. Definitely doesn't inspire confidence in how much they care about the quality of their software to me
The AI-generated images they used for basic site elements look rough. Definitely doesn't inspire confidence in how much they care about the quality of their software to me
Totally agree re: the new website design. The old site (archive) was way more charming and less sterile. Though I do like the switch from .dev to .org.
Why build a new browser in C++ when safer and more modern languages are available?
...We are actively evaluating a number of alternatives and will be adding a mature successor language to the project in the near future. This process is already quite far along, and prototypes exist in multiple languages.
I find this above blurb particularly interesting. It almost sounds like they are teasing a potential switch to Rust or Go (or some other language). They mention elsewhere they have half a million lines of code, which would make that a massive undertaking. Either that, maybe it means new components will be written in another language. It would probably go a long way in driving interest, more developers seem to enjoy working in Rust than C++ these days.
Don’t most languages have C++ bindings, which would allow them to switch to another language whenever possible but still have the legacy code in C++?
I wonder why they chose a BSD license if that's their goal.
I'm guessing it's because they forked from SerenityOS which is licensed under the same BSD-2 license. It is likely as simple as them having no compelling reason, or no in lawyer on staff yet, to make changing the license worthwhile.
I don't believe that it'd have any chance at making a dent in the Blink-Chromium hegemony otherwise. For its engine to be widely used and wrapping browser widely forked (both of which drive contributions), it'd need to be at least as permissively licensed as Blink and Chromium.
Well, if their goal is to take on Google, sure, the license doesn't matter. But that won't happen, at least not because they make a better browser.
And could you explain why you think a copyleft license would prevent forks? There are plenty of forked copyleft projects out there.
Even if the goal isn't to take on Google, the long term wellbeing and survival of the projects will ultimately come to hinge on how viable they are as a substitute/replacement for Blink and Chromium. Users won't be interested in a browser that doesn't "just work" with the overwhelming majority of modern websites and devs won't bother with engines that aren't largely comparable to Blink or at the barest of minimums WebKit in terms of capabilities (Gecko doesn't factor in because it's not embeddable). In short, it's competing with Google whether it wants to be or not.
A copyleft license (the stronger ones, at least) on the engine would turn it completely toxic as far as commercial use is concerned, which will steeply curb its usage and thus contributions of engineering power and cash. Even weaker copyleft licenses will likely have negative impact here because a lot of companies' legal teams won't let their engineering departments touch projects with anything but the most permissive of licenses with a ten-foot pole out of fear (unfounded or otherwise) of risk of legal complications.
While it's less of an issue for the browser, one of the reasons why Chromium has proliferated as much as it has is because it's friendly to closed-source forks, which comprise a significant share of internet traffic (MS Edge, Vivaldi, Opera, Arc, and Brave among others are all Chromium-based). It's not impossible for a copyleft browser to achieve significant marketshare, but it's going to have more of an uphill battle if forks are meaningfully restricted in any way (thus, reducing the number of forks and chances that one of them becomes popular).
I think it's worth mentioning that two of those browsers started off with their own bespoke rendering engines and switched to Chromium after it became clear that they could no longer realistically compete. But I think it's something of a moot point considering that the combined userbase of the four that are not Edge are practically a rounding error. Even if Chromium/Blink and Firefox/Gecko were functionally identical, I think developers would probably still make the same choice simply because it has a ton of mindshare among users, so it can be a selling point. Add on the fact that it's got the blessing of Google, the de-facto owner of the world wide web.
Certainly possible, but I think there's some level of user interest in non-Blink browsers that isn't being served well right now. Brave started off being Firefox-based (and might have even used that heritage as a selling point, but I may be misremembering) but switched when that proved to be infeasible from a technical perspective. On macOS, Orion sells itself on its WebKit underpinnings, but who knows how long Kagi will be able to keep up development on it.
One might expect the users to be interested in non-Chrome browsers to be exclusively technically inclined but I'm not sure that's the case. There's a growing distrust of Google that can make a "least Google browser" interesting to some, while others might have more practical considerations (WebKit browsers tend to be easier on battery life for example).
If the goal is market share, then I agree with you. But I disagree that market share is viable or that it even should the goal.
Google will always have the resources to copy every feature Ladybird has or just kill Ladybird with their pocket money. And even if Google doesn't compete or mess with Ladybird, users won't switch as long as Chrome is good enough.
The goal should be to provide a free (libre) alternative. If the alternative is as free as Chromium, the only reason to switch is technical, and they won't be able to compete with Google on a technical level.
If companies are afraid of free software, that's their problem. Some hobby project trying to steal Google's users is just laughable, and no license will change that.
The AI-generated images they used for basic site elements look rough. Definitely doesn't inspire confidence in how much they care about the quality of their software to me
Been following this project for over a year. So excited for this browser and feel like it is the future of the web.