| ▲ | justusthane 4 days ago |
| 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. |
|
| ▲ | tasn 4 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | shayway 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | cosmic_cheese 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don't believe that Firefox can become stronger so long as Mozilla continues to be structured as it is. | |
| ▲ | odie5533 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | acdha 4 days ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
| |
| ▲ | cheema33 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > 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? | |
| ▲ | t-sauer 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Especially not if that browser currently ignores the biggest markets (Windows and mobile). | |
| ▲ | bonoboTP 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Firefox is also sustained by Google. So you have a choice between Google and Google. |
|
|
| ▲ | al_borland 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
|
| ▲ | timeon 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > It’s one of the very, very few independent browsers built from the ground up AFAIK they are using: https://skia.googlesource.com/skia |
| |
| ▲ | flykespice 4 days ago | parent [-] | | 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 | | |
| ▲ | timeon 4 days ago | parent [-] | | 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). |
|
|
|
| ▲ | pmdr 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > 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. |
|
| ▲ | flykespice 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| 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 |
| |
