They also made an announcement video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9edTqPMX_k In the video Wanstrath also mentions he donated $1,000,000 to the project. Exciting news. I'm glad to see Ladybird...
In the video Wanstrath also mentions he donated $1,000,000 to the project.
Exciting news. I'm glad to see Ladybird picking up steam. It's hard to understate how important it is to the health and safety of the web that there are multiple independent web browser projects.
Having said all that, I'm not a fan of the redesign of their website: https://ladybird.org
The new logo looks way too similar to Meta's and the aesthetic of the page overall just gives off a generic tech vibe. It looks and feels like a webpage from apple.com.
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.
https://github.com/SerenityOS/jakt My understanding is that Jakt was eventually meant to replace C++ for SerenityOS, as part of that project's strict (and amazing) "no third party code" rule. Now...
My understanding is that Jakt was eventually meant to replace C++ for SerenityOS, as part of that project's strict (and amazing) "no third party code" rule.
Now that Ladybird has forked off from SerenityOS, it is no longer bound by that rule. So, I have no idea if developing and using Jakt is still on the table.
I cannot describe the effort of developing a brand-new web browser in a brand-new programming language as anything but "herculean", so my personal guess is Jakt will remain a hobby project and Rust is what they'll pick up as an additional language for Ladybird.
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
I honestly just saw that image and assumed it was a macbook... and now I wish it would have just been a macbook. They already had to edit in a screenshot of ladybird running on that laptop's...
I honestly just saw that image and assumed it was a macbook... and now I wish it would have just been a macbook.
They already had to edit in a screenshot of ladybird running on that laptop's display. Was generating a shitty AI image of a "laptop" and then editing the screenshot onto that really easier than finding an appropriately licensed photo of a laptop? You have to edit the screenshot in either way.
This doesn't diminish my confidence in Andreas or the project as a whole, but the new website definitely feels like it was put together in a rush. It's like they wanted to hurry up and make the announcement about the nonprofit, but then at the last minute, someone was like "oh fuck, ladybird's old website is too basic, we need something more modern and confidence inspiring" and this is the result of that rush job lmao
They also made an announcement video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9edTqPMX_k
In the video Wanstrath also mentions he donated $1,000,000 to the project.
Exciting news. I'm glad to see Ladybird picking up steam. It's hard to understate how important it is to the health and safety of the web that there are multiple independent web browser projects.
Having said all that, I'm not a fan of the redesign of their website: https://ladybird.org
The new logo looks way too similar to Meta's and the aesthetic of the page overall just gives off a generic tech vibe. It looks and feels like a webpage from apple.com.
(Posted this using Ladybird)
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.
https://github.com/SerenityOS/jakt
My understanding is that Jakt was eventually meant to replace C++ for SerenityOS, as part of that project's strict (and amazing) "no third party code" rule.
Now that Ladybird has forked off from SerenityOS, it is no longer bound by that rule. So, I have no idea if developing and using Jakt is still on the table.
I cannot describe the effort of developing a brand-new web browser in a brand-new programming language as anything but "herculean", so my personal guess is Jakt will remain a hobby project and Rust is what they'll pick up as an additional language for Ladybird.
I wouldn't mind being wrong about that though.
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
I honestly just saw that image and assumed it was a macbook... and now I wish it would have just been a macbook.
They already had to edit in a screenshot of ladybird running on that laptop's display. Was generating a shitty AI image of a "laptop" and then editing the screenshot onto that really easier than finding an appropriately licensed photo of a laptop? You have to edit the screenshot in either way.
This doesn't diminish my confidence in Andreas or the project as a whole, but the new website definitely feels like it was put together in a rush. It's like they wanted to hurry up and make the announcement about the nonprofit, but then at the last minute, someone was like "oh fuck, ladybird's old website is too basic, we need something more modern and confidence inspiring" and this is the result of that rush job lmao
Been following this project for over a year. So excited for this browser and feel like it is the future of the web.