387
Ladybird Browser Gains Cloudflare Support to Challenge the Status Quo (linuxiac.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/opensource@lemmy.ml
166 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 178 points 1 year ago (19 children)

Cloudflare and "challenging the status quo" in the same phrase ?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] 70 points 1 year ago (18 children)

    Well, the browser status quo. I guess they want their own Chrome.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [–] 63 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    Its sponsorship only of an open source browser, with no telemetry, advertising, crypto, etc, etc built in.

    Sponsors get listed as sponsors, thats it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    For now

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    So when they do just fork it?

    I likely won't touch it anyway, but it is fully open source, so it can be forked easily. With the transition to Swift I suspect there would be plenty of devs who could take things forward if they wanted to.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    If you look at history, Google did the opposite with Chrome, they forked an open source browser and turned it into the world's most used.
    I guess we'll see.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Thats google though, with the added ability to put it direct into an extremely common OS (Android). With ladybird, you've got an apparent neocon and 3 years currently planned for a GA release (2028). Its future is already pretty uncertain regardless of sponsorship.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (12 children)

    So when they do just fork it?

    say the same for chrome, and think again if you mean it seriously.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    Iridium, cromite, edge, brave, thorium, vivaldi, pale moon....

    And this is a drastically simpler browser that would be in swift 6.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    and what can they do against the manifest v3 migration? they cannot afford to keep maintaining the code for mv2 addons. it is an important topic for efficient content blocking.

    its funny you bring up edge as an alternative. brave too has opt-out telemetry and other shenanigans.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    I was answering forking and how realistic it is. You're changing the conversation into specifics around chrome.

    As I mentioned, this would be (not is, because its not even at a GA state) drastically simpler to fork, and there are many forks of a substantially more complicated browser already.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I was answering forking and how realistic it is. You're changing the conversation into specifics around chrome.

    I'm not changing anything. they are powerless. if google decides to change chrome for the worse in a more significant way than UI design, they cannot avoid accepting that change.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

    Your example was Mv3. There are plenty of Chromium browsers that still support Mv3 Mv2. What's your point?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    all up to date chromium browsers support Mv3.

    if you meant Mv2, I doubt they will be able to keep up with the support for long. for now it's very easy, because all the code is still there in the engine (recently you could still reenable it even in google chrome), but once chromium starts to refactor code, to make it simpler or more modern, those changes will not be done with kerping Mv2 support in mind, and fork devs will have an increasingly harder time to patch back support for it (safely!) as time goes on.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    if you meant Mv2

    Yup! Edited the comment.

    Out of curiosity - have you tried any of the fully Mv3 compatible adblockers yet? I stopped using uBlock Origin a while ago, switched to AdGuard and Ghostery. Right now I'm running Ghostery exclusively (because they help with the cookies pop-up) and... it just works. Still blocks ads as well as uBlock ever did.

    I can't find them now, but I saw some articles saying that actually Mv3 offers some new tools that help achieve adblock goals easier than Mv2 allowed. I have no clue if that's true or if that's a paid shill trying to calm people down, but from my own perspective, Mv3 seems to be painted as a much bigger baddie than it is.

    Please correct me if I'm wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Out of curiosity - have you tried any of the fully Mv3 compatible adblockers yet?

    I'm not using any chrome browsers.

    and... it just works. Still blocks ads as well as uBlock ever did.

    so your benchmark is what you see? that's far too little in my opinion. I want to block tracking more than ads. but Mv3 blockers don't have the capabilities for that anymore. Mv3 is useless for that, google knows full well what they have done.

    I can't find them now, but I saw some articles saying that actually Mv3 offers some new tools that help achieve adblock goals easier than Mv2 allowed.

    I highly doubt there's any truth in that. Mv2 blockers can do whatever they want with any asset that gets loaded.
    ok, no, there's an exception. on chrome, Mv2 blockers could not filter traffic at browser startup (when previous tabs are automatically loaded), but that's a chrome defect and this was not an issue on Firefox for a very long time (if ever)

    some wiki article s from the developer:

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Well, there is a lot of panic about the change from Mv2 to Mv3, and also a lot of misinformation. It's correct that Mv3 adblocker are somewhat less effective (independent tests don't show much difference, but in change offer a way better security). Inbuild adblocker won't be affected and in other extensions not related to adblocking, it's irrelevant for the user if it is Mv2 or Mv3. Mv2 will disappear sooner or later, same as Mv1 in 2013. Some Chromium Browsers still support Mv2 extensions some time longer (Vivaldi, Opera, Brave), naturally all FF forks, probably until next year, but Mv2 is dying, yes or yes. Only problem exist for uBO, due to it's specific structure need to be practically remade from scratch to be compatible with Mv3, until now Gorhill only released uBO Lite Mv3, Meanwhile AdGuard and Adblock Plus already are in Mv3

    Differences

    Recent research and implementation data reveal several key advantages of Chrome's Manifest V3 (MV3) over Manifest V2 (MV2):

    Security Improvements

    • Enhanced extension architecture that limits access to sensitive data[^4]
    • Disallows remote code execution, requiring all code to be contained within the extension[^5]
    • Stricter privacy protocols that minimize data collection[^4]

    Performance Benefits

    • Optimized resource management through updated background processes[^4]
    • More efficient performance through the new declarativeNetRequest API[^2]

    Anti-Tracking Capabilities

    • Recent studies show MV3 ad blockers blocked approximately 1.8 more trackers per website compared to MV2 versions[^6]
    • Specific improvements in individual tools:
    • Adblock Plus MV3 blocked 21.5% more trackers than its MV2 version
    • Stands MV3 showed a 45.9% improvement in tracker blocking[^6]

    Enhanced Combined Protection

    • Using multiple MV3 ad blockers together significantly improved anti-tracking effectiveness compared to single blockers[^6]
    • No reduction in ad-blocking capabilities compared to MV2, contrary to initial concerns[^6]

    Sources:

    [^2]: JShelter - What is Manifest v3 [^4]: Blocksi - Transition to Chrome Manifest Version 3 [^5]: Avanite - Manifest v3 and WebData Control [^6]: Privacy vs. Profit: The Impact of Google's Manifest Version 3

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    panic about the change from Mv2 to Mv3, and also a lot of misinformation. It's correct that Mv3 adblocker are somewhat less effective (independent tests don't show much difference, but in change offer a way better security).

    what do those test measure? only what is visible, that is percentage of ads hidden? or does it take into account all the tracking shit regular ublock origin can thwart? I don't buy that it's "somewhat" less effective, and neither that it is more secure.

    Mv2 will disappear sooner or later,

    that's not a problem with browsers like firefox, where the webrequest api was kept for Mv3.

    Only problem exist for uBO,

    there are plenty of other addons that make use of the webrequest API, they are just not so well known that half of the average desktop users know it. those are affected too.

    due to it's specific structure need to be practically remade from scratch to be compatible with Mv3,

    that's false. ublock simply cannot do lots of things with Mv3 that it can with Mv2. lite is lite for a reason, and not because in short time thats all he could put together.

    then your quote just brings up google propaganda. restrictions of useful features are dressed up as "security", just like google does it again but now with android with a different approach.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    As said, the differences in adblocking is irrelevant, way more important the improved tracking blocker of Mv3. You won't see any ads using uBO Lite, Adblock Plus or AdGuard Mv3. Apart with an inbuild ad/trackingblocker it's irrelevant, there don't exist the limit of filterlists like in the extension..

    Anyway it isn't even worth such panic about this, there are always enough tools out there to show the middlefinger if you are worried about it, I'm not.

    https://realityripple.com/Tools/AdBlock++/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 61 points 1 year ago (30 children)

    This is very encouraging:

    Ladybird uses a new browser engine called LibWeb that is being created from scratch by the development team.

    Browsers that rely on Chromium / Blink rely on Google. Firefox relies on Google for its funding, so any browser based on Gecko relies on Google. If they can make a browser engine that has rough feature parity with Chromium but doesn''t rely on Google that's very healthy for the web.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 30 child comments
    •
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    You do know the difference of "built by" and "partly funded by", right?

    What exactly is your problem by Mozilla/Firefox being partly funded by Google?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    The standard point is most around how big that 'partly' is, and how attached a project can become to that part. If a project has, for easy math, a $10M bankroll and $5M comes from, say, Goog or MS, the project can face a moment where the corporation comes and says, 'we don't like that you've implemented this feature that interferes with our control of users. We're pulling our funding unless you remove it.' (more realistically, 'we see you have allocated some dev time to this feature request we don't like. Cancel it before the public can demand it.') If that happens, you have to have a project lead with some real rectitude to say, 'okay,' and just cut their budget in half. The more diversely sourced a FOSS project's funding is, the harder it is to control, and vice versa.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    Wauw, that's crazy speculations. Google buys a service from Firefox, that doesn't give them the right to manage Firefox. Give me 1 example where Google did what you say? Otherwise, let's archive that fantasy rambling as paranoid speculation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)
    1. It's a standard discussion point, not my argument in particular. It's the same one as for why it's a problem to have so much corporate money behind news media, political campaigns, and just about anything else.
      But
    2. It's all speculation, both the idea of priority manipulation happening and your idea it does not. The general population doesn't know anyone at these projects, so everything has to be discussed in vague generalities. You can say 'I trust X never to take a bribe, because I know X.' but you can't say 'I trust all members of the profession X is in, because they are in that profession.'
      Saying you don't trust Google is just sensible. Saying you don't trust management at something like Mozilla because they are faceless management, (not that all the things said about choices made inside Mozilla are likely to encourage trust) though a bit generalizing, is also fairly understandable. As such, it's not at all unusual that people are going to hold some distrust for the combination of the two, especially when one of the big drivers of Firefox usage is specifically that it's supposed to be more respecting of privacy than chrome or edge. The user base is already primed to be distrustful of tech companies, and not through paranoia but experience.

    I'm not saying manipulation of Mozilla by Google is guaranteed to happen but it's honestly less speculative to expect creepy activity from google, a company for which the business model is 'do sneaky shit on the internet,' than to assume absolutely everything going on is totally trustworthy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    So not a single example, but paranoid speculation, based on your general distrust. That's fine - you're allowed to feel that way.

    It's a silly and stupid fallacy, to say that it's speculation that they are not being manipulated. But no, it's not speculation, it's the general principle to say that something needs proof. But I guess you are always in a state of flux. "Be weary of gods, because we can't prove they are there, but I believe they are - because someone else can't prove that they are not there..." That's so incredible silly.

    But thanks for the talk. Now, please go find some other paranoid person to share your speculations with.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    That's not how the null hypothesis works. You are presupposing the negative and then ignoring the possible, and even the probable, to maintain it. Treating corporate malfeasance as unlikely as the existence of gods is skepticism ad absurdum. Corporations acting in ways that are harmful to their employees, customers, and neighbors isn't the nebulous 'must have been the spirits' activity of religion. It's the history of corporations.

    Google management is perfectly willing to engage in suspicious practices. It's basically their business model. Since you need examples because apparently you haven't been paying attention in your day to day life: Google tracks as much as they can of what their users and adjacent people do. This occurs even after they 'opt out' of the tracking. This is well known but here is an AP article talking about it if you've somehow made it to 2025 not knowing about it. Google makes deals to obtain data on people from other sources as well, including personal medical data (e.g. Project Nightingale), again without consent. The idea that the people at google, or any large corporation, would ignore the incentives of their business and not apply any pressure to align Mozilla with their interests when they spend millions of dollars per financial quarter on lobbying, and many times that on PR, is absurd. Expecting them not to seek profit is akin to expecting a living organism not to seek food. Trying to hold the null hypothesis of 'We must first assume nothing wants food' and then ignoring common experience until a peer reviewed double blind study can show you the patently obvious is just not feasible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Bla bla bla...

    You have no proof of any wrongdoing by Mozilla, you are just paranoid. Feel free to waste your time arguing, just to justify your paranoia. You might find a paranoid audience, but it's not me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Ah yes, you've never been murdered before, therefore there's no reason to assume someone might kill you if it suited their goals, and certainly no reason to assume someone who has killed other people would think of you as a target. The null hypothesis is that no one wants to kill anyone, so I guess murder just never happens at all.

    Idiot or troll, I gave you a chance but I'm done with you. I hope you learn some epistemic humility before someone teaches you in a way you don't like.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Bla bla bla

    Stupid people really don't get it, and they can't be taught online. I feel for you... you might want to entertain the notion that you could be wrong about quite a lot of things. And about me too - but I can see, that is also not something that you are capable of.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    "Partly funded by"?

    Google contributed roughly 83% of Mozilla's income from 2020-2023, and 89% of overall income since 2005.

    https://windscribe.com/blog/windscribe-expose-mozilla/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    That's what you call "partly". You know, unlike "solely"...? So what is your question here?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Ironically, we already had that - Microsoft's first version of Edge was using their own engine. On release, it had the highest W3C compatibility score.

    Google started shitting on it (including things like serving clear HTML version of Gmail because "the browser is outdated" if it detected the Edge user agent) and massive self-delusion campaigns of "Edge is just Internet Explorer" eventually killed the thing and forced MS to switch to Chromium.

    I have Ladybird installed and I check it out every now and then, but I honestly doubt that a bunch of random developers will succeed where Microsoft failed. Unless Cloudflare somehow chips in and forces Google's hand into compatibility, but I don't know if even they are big enough to do that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    Personally, I think if the engine was closed source, then we didn't in fact "had that". Maybe Microsoft had it, not us.

    What makes things like chromium, firefox and webkit actual ecosystems is that they at least have an open source basis. Edge isn't an ecosystem, it's a black box. We don't even know whether it's true or not that it was its own thing or just they sneakily used bits and pieces of chromium from the start anyway.

    User Agent checks is the easiest thing to overcome. Had edge's engine been open source we would have had spins of it resolving the issue within hours. There are many examples of "random developers" succeeding where big companies tied by business strategies (I bet they had business reasons to keep a distinctive user agent) didn't, to the point that the web runs on servers using FOSS software.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Personally, I think if the engine was closed source, then we didn’t in fact “had that”. Maybe Microsoft had it, not us.

    Well, yeah, in that aspect, you're correct. I meant that as a "we had a non Google-reliant engine".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    Yes, I understand that. But in my view, Microsoft is the one that might have had "a non Google-reliant engine" (if it's true that they didn't rely on Google code).

    They just let us use it under their conditions, for the limited time they decided to make it available to us.. but it was never "ours". We were just contractually allowed to use it, but we didn't really "have" it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Semantics. I agree with you in principle, but the matter of fact is that we ended up with effectively zero choice over the browser engine.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Yes, the matter of fact is that the reason why that choice was taken away is because everyone except MS was forbidden from "having" that engine. It might have still been alive today in some form had it not been an exclusive MS-owned thing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    I imagine the reason that Cloudflare is doing this now is that Google just got off with no punishment from their antitrust loss.

    Anybody who competes with Google now has to worry that they'll do to them what they did to Microsoft. And, with Trump's DOJ, the government will probably just ignore it if Sundar Pichai shows up with a shiny bauble for Trump. So, I'd imagine that Microsoft, Cloudflare, Amazon (AWS, Twitch), and Meta, among others, might all decide to fund an alternative browser.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 11 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Firefox relies on Google for its funding, so any browser based on Gecko relies on Google

    Google introduced Extension manifest v3 to effectively to kill/handicap AdBlock extensions.

    Mozilla, though getting funding from Google to make google its default search engine, officially decided to keep supporting Manifest v2.

    Adblockers are direct challenge to Alphabet’s ad revenue which is still their biggest cash cow.

    That speaks a valume about how much control google has on Mozilla decision making process.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Mozilla, though getting funding from Google to make google its default search engine, officially decided to keep supporting Manifest v2.

    For now. Google probably isn't too concerned since they have a more than 70% market share, and nearly 90% if you count all Chromium-based browsers. Firefox has managed to do what Google wants, which is "exist" and "not meaningfully compete with Chrome". If that changes, Google might lean on them harder.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    If that changes, Google might lean on them harder.

    If you remember, at one time Firefox used to hold 30% of total browser market share, and it was pro-privacy organization back then as it is now.

    Even at that time Google was not managed to influence their decision making process.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    That speaks a valume about how much control google has on Mozilla decision making process.

    It doesn't say anything about that at all. Just because you're paying for something doesn't mean they have to do it your way. It is at most something to keep an eye on.

    Google pays them for two reasons. To be the default search engine giving them substantial marketing and ad space, and to keep them floating and independent to lessen their probable status as a monopoly.

    In fact, in the recent antitrust ruling, Google is precluded from even making exclusive deals with them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    I just wanna say that we have Webkit. After Google moved over to Blink Webkit has not stopped development.. and it even has multiple big names behind it (like Apple, but also Valve partnered with WebkitGtk maintainers, and many devices like Amazon's Kindle are heavily invested on it) so it's not gonna go away anytime soon. Specially with Safari being the second most used browser on the web, right after chrome and several times more users than Firefox.

    On Linux we have some browsers making use of Webkit (like Epiphany, Gnome's default browser) that are thus independent from Google or even Mozilla. I'm not sure if there's any browser like that for Windows though.

    There's also Netsurf, they also have their own rendering libraries, but development for it is super slow, I've been following them for a couple decades and they still haven't got a stable javascript engine, so it only works for the most basic of websites. The plus side is that it's very light on resources, though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 69 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    Cloudflare has announced its sponsorship of the Ladybird browser, an independent (still-in-development) open-source initiative

    Is it still independent?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 80 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yes, and their donations are limited to 100k a year per corporation/organization, so there cant be a company who comes, donates 20million and then tries to gain control of them through money

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yes, and their donations are limited to 100k a year per corporation/organization

    Interesting that they did that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 53 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yes, it is still independent. Cloudflare is just one of the three Platinum sponsors. Other two are Shopify and FUTO. Proton is also a sponsor, but in Gold tier, iirc.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I think It's on their charter that no matter how much corporate money they'll get they'll never accept any outside influence just the same. The donators are amply warned to not expect anything other than development as usual or faster.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    People always imagine this as "I will pay you $100 to kick the puppy" and of course they would never.

    But what actually happens is that you have a long-term donor. You rely on their help (they're paying for you to be able to hire a nice college intern who's really smart and has been fun to have on the project). They never tell you what to do so you see them as more of a friend than anything else. It's perfectly normal to get some lunch with friends and talk. You're stuck on some problems and they have some good connections that help you out. That might even be worth more than $100k, but it's not money at all so it's OK that they're helping you like this. They also talk you up, which is like free advertising except you didn't ask for it so that also doesn't count. Anyway, at some of the lunches they're telling you about what's going on with them and there's some problems they're dealing with that you could help with. They don't ask for help, of course, because they know you're independent. But being independent means it's OK for you to do what you want. Even help a friend out who didn't ask for help so they're not influencing you...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    No browser with third party investors can be really independent, they always will obey more the interests of the investors as on those from the users. Anyway the guys from Ladybird have balls of steel to develope an browser engine from scratch in an market saturated of browsers of any kind and a brutal competition, this would had more sense 15 years ago, but not now. Good luck, maybe in 2029-2030 there is an good browser multi-platform with all the needed infrastructure, servers and extensions, but I'll see to believe.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    How can you say it's saturated when chrome has an effective monopoly. If you look at browser engines, there's basically only 3 for desktop, with one of them targeting only Macs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago

    As said, there are currently three engines + two forks of these (Gonanna and Qt), except some basic render engines from text only browsers (Links, Lynx and some others), but over hundred different browsers which use these engines, + almost 70 abandoned ones, because outdated engines and others which also tried to develope an own engine. This is what I mean with saturated. It's nice to try to release a browser with a new independent engine, but if there are not enough users which also use it, it's a death born child. For some products the market is limited. Make it eg. sense to release a new OS? There also existing only 4, Unix, Unixbased like Windows or Mac and Linux with tons of distros. It's not only the browser engine, in over 20 years there are also growed complete infrastructure arround these engines, dedicated plug ins, extensions, etc, which don't exist for a new indie engine, precisely because other browsers, which also tried to release a new engine, before Ladybird, are currently all death. Sad, but you need also a minimum of infrastructure for an browser and which offer also somewhat more as only a new engine. It need security and privacy measures, inbuild or with extensions/plug-ins which need an extra developement and other things more.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    No browser with third party investors can be really independent, they always will obey more the interests of the investors as on those from the users.

    That's why they limited donations to $100k per organization. No one is allowed to make themselves indispensable to the project.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 26 points 1 year ago

    challenge the status quo by partnering with the status quo...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I've seen a lot of Ladybird news recently. Let me know when I can actually try using it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (22 children)

    Still, it’s hard to understand why Cloudflare chose to back exactly Omarchy.

    Maybe the developers in Cloudflare use it? Also weird because Omarchy's default browser is Chromium I think. The webpage didn't list the default browser, so not sure about that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
    •
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (21 children)
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
    •
  • [–] 32 points 1 year ago (19 children)

    Anyway, Omarchy and Ladybird are both run by fascists. Omarchy makes this pretty obvious from the outset – on the home page the big YouTube poster image prominently features SuperGrok, which is a pathetically transparent dog-whistle to signal alliance with Elon Musk’s fascist politics. Omarchy is the pet project of David Heinemeier Hansson, aka DHH, who is well known as a rich fascist weirdo.2 One need only consult his blog to browse his weird, racist views on immigration, fat-shaming objections to diverse representation, vaguely anti-feminist/homophobic/rapey rants on consent, and, recently, tone-policing antifascists who celebrate the death of notable fascist Charlie Kirk.

    Speaking of tributes to Charlie Kirk, that brings us to Andreas Kling, the project lead for Ladybird, who tweeted on the occasion of his assassination:

    RIP Charlie Kirk

    I hope many more debate nerds carry on his quest to engage young people with words, not fists.

    – @awesomekling

    I was not prepared to learn these things today.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    most people outside the us have never heard any of kirk's talking points. if you only know that he is a conservative debater and use your normal (non-us) definition of "conservative", then "people should not die for their opinions" is not a controversial take. i'm not saying that's what's happened here but it's the most likely situation considering klings history.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I definitely wouldn't expect people to have heard of Kirk at all. Even within the US he was a bit of a niche asshole. But I would expect that before posting "RIP he was a good guy" they would do some quick web searches and get an idea of what somedude was about and then only post if they agreed that that's their notion of a good guy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [+] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Honestly, Firefox has been stable AF and forks are doing awesome work. Maybe those forks might even continue doing their own thing by the time this project will be ready for beta testing.

    Competition is great but this one's on already on shaky ground.

    I'm rooting for Servo more than these fascist wannabes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    The argument on Kling seems pretty weak to me… is he Fascist because… he doesn’t support violence and an assassination? 🙄

    By this logic for being not fascist one must support the death penalty?

    I am pretty sure fascists are in favour of violence and murder (in fact the person cited was killed by a fascist)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    RIP Charlie Kirk

    I hope many more debate nerds carry on his quest to engage young people with words, not fists.

    "carry on his quest". What was Charlie Kirks quest again? Where does he say he doesn't support violence and assassination? Are you Klings PR?

    I am pretty sure fascists are in favour of violence and murder (in fact the person cited was killed by a fascist)

    Just because fascists kill fascists doesn't make spreding hate less fascist. Does your definition of fascists only start when they start shooting people on sight?

    People like kirk were revelling in current administration. But since they didn't "use violence", they must've been innocent in all this trend, huh?

    Honestly there's a reason fascists are on the rise. People like you seem too oblivious to see the subtle narrative of spreading hate by casual undertones.

    But hey, you do you. I hope you take up his quest as well.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -10 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Jesus, what a reach for two projects run by normal dudes.

    The open source community is filled with people on the left side trying to bring down people they disagree with. You can tolerate them, or fork away and leave their "shitty project run by fascists" instead of witch hunting and name calling anyone you dissagree with

    fascists guy: has an opinion

    leftist guy: wants to witch hunt a guy for his opinion amd get him kicked out of his own project

    like it or not, who's being fascist? you know it well.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Hey, hi, trans person here. Calling my mere existence "political" is not "just an opinion". Rejecting a PR to change "he" to "they" in some code comments is also just a stupid hill to die on. No singular they is basically baby's first edgy opinion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Sorry which are we talking about the rejected the PR, DHH or kling?

    I suspect its DHH just making sure

    Edit: Found it

    Kling rejected with: “This project is not an appropriate arena to advertise your personal politics.”

    For SerenityOS documentation to use a singular they to not assume gender.

    Edit 2: For the record, this is even more stupid than you think. The documentation was written with gendered language for a male reader only in mind.

    "Hey, I fixed your bad writing"

    "POLITICS?!1?!%?!"

    The tweet about Kirk has some firm context with this. I'd call it pretty dang likely that kling is a fan....

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    You yourself are tagging the fascist guy as a fascist. Not all opinions are just opinions.

    Who's the real fascist?
    The one you tagged as such.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I'm labeling him that to make clear the irony of the situation

    the supposedly "fascist" guy: has an opinion

    the totaly "moderate" leftist guy: wants him gone even from his own project from it

    hope I made myself clear now 👍

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    No, you did, but my point still stands. Not all opinions are just an opinion.

    Person A: yeh we need to accept shootings. Empathy is damaging. So much more damaging crap.

    Person B: they debated, such good people, we need more like them.

    Yeah. No? My point is that there's a reason they get tagged as fascists or fascists apologists, they have fascist opinions or condone/glorify people saying them.

    "Has an opinion" is an unacceptable generalisation in this case.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    You are not much challenging the status quo by partnering up with the NSA.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [+] 6 points 1 year ago (4 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    AIPAC doesnt partner up with politicians. They just give them. "uNrEsTrIcTeD dOnAtIoNs".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Is there evidence or something to support your assertion that Cloudflare = NSA?

    Even if Cloudflare = NSA, there no evidence to support your parallel. If the Ladybird team does something suspicious or hostile to the interests of its users - please let us know.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Edward fucking Snowden and the Patriot Act.

    Cloudflare is not authorized to disclose that they are.

    They decrypt all traffic going through them for deep packet analysis. It would be dumb of the US not to make use of that. Look at Palantir. Or the recent Azure fiasco with the Unit 8200.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    It is naive to trust any US-based service. The devil's advocate in me just wanted to hear why you believe what you do, so thanks for that.

    My angle was mostly to point out that Ladybird hasn't done anything obviously morally bankrupt like the politicians you pointed out - the only detracting factors to me about the project are 1) that the nonprofit is based in the US 2) that it's not written in Rust.

    Of course, it's worth being suspicious of a web browser of all things. I just see Cloudflare's contribution in a neutral light given Cloudflare's general strategy towards PR and the fact that the Ladybird browser is likely going to be a very niche product - and they aren't even focusing on Windows support for the foreseeable future.

    Do I trust Ladybird more than Mozilla? Only very slightly, but the bar is pretty low - and it's not blind trust.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Challenge the status quo in a Snowpiercer fashion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    When it incorporates something like TreeStyleTab, I'll look into it, horizontal tab bars are just silly - most have widescreen displays and content is usually in narrow columns.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    load more comments
    view more: next ›
    7 comments in c/browsers@programming.dev view that post