7 ms·

This raises a few questions: * Will this be open source? * Will this support WebExtensions? Assuming they'll have to develop their own implementation since th

This raises a few questions: * Will this be open source? * Will this support WebExtensions? Assuming they'll have to develop their own implementation since they are using the operating system's own rendering engines, so they will most likely have to have their own implementation. * Will this allow ad-blocking and tracking protection? Once again, seems they will have to develop this feature themselves. Will the ad-blocking whitelist their own properties or does the user have granular control? * Will this allow usage of other search engines within the browser, or are you locked in to DDG only? (Of course, ignoring actually navigating directly to the relevant search engines own website). Interestingly enough, from their blog post[1]: > Instead of forking Chromium or anything else, we’re building our desktop app around the OS-provided rendering engines (like on mobile), allowing us to strip away a lot of the unnecessary cruft and clutter that’s accumulated over the years in major browsers. On macOS, Safari is probably the most anaemic "major" web browser out there. Interested to see how it compares to that. I'm not convinced a more minimalist browser compared to Safari is actually useful? [1] https://spreadprivacy.com/duckduckgo-2021-review/ https://spreadprivacy.com/duckduckgo-2021-review/

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
gwbas1c 5y ago
I interviewed for the position. (They regularly posted the position in the "Who's hiring" threads for awhile.) It's going to be an extremely simple browser. Their strategy is to use the HTML rendering component built into each OS. The way I interpreted it was that they're trying to make a browser that's simple enough to develop with a small team, "good enough" for most people, and doesn't have every feature under the kitchen sink. > Will this be open source? Doubtful. It also doesn't "make sense" to open source, as they're basically using the same rendering engine as Edge / Safari, with a different UI around it. (Side note: If you want something like this that's open source, it's probably easier to clone it than to fork it. Every few years I write an experimental browser based on these rendering engines, and I frequently come across "simple" open-source browsers that provide great examples of how to use these components.) > Will this support WebExtensions? No. They are building ad-blocking and privacy functionality into the browser. To paraphrase what they told me, most people only install ad-blocking and privacy extensions. > Will this allow ad-blocking and tracking protection? Yes, that is the major feature they are trying to build. They have extensive blacklists already, as they already ship privacy-focused plugins for Chrome. (Their take-home assessment involved using a well-known privacy list published on Github.) > Will this allow usage of other search engines within the browser, or are you locked in to DDG only? We didn't discuss that. This is speculation on my part, but I think their motivations are to "keep it simple" instead of offer every feature under the sun.
- _fat_santa 5y ago
  > Their strategy is to use the HTML rendering component built into each OS. So sounds like they are not going the Chromium route. Many comments in this thread are pretty cynical on that point.
  - gwbas1c 5y ago
    On Windows, the plan (when I interviewed) was to use C# and the new WebView2 (apologies if I got the name wrong) component. Under-the-hood, it uses Microsoft's fork of Chromium in a separate process.
- bscphil 5y ago
  > To paraphrase what they told me, most people only install ad-blocking and privacy extensions. Welp, zero interest from me then. And probably most others here as well. I don't use Firefox from hatred of Google or even fear of monoculture. I use Firefox because that's where the enthusiast community is. All the cool stuff (Tree Style Tab, uMatrix) gets built for Firefox, not for Chrome. Firefox is currently retaining that group, in part because there's nowhere else for them to go. What I would like to see is a diversity of enthusiast browsers.
  - gwbas1c 5y ago
    IMO: Sounds like a good reason to create an open-source browser that just re-uses the OS's rendering engine. Most of these features have very little to do with HTML rendering.
- kgwxd 5y ago
  I can't imagine it not being open source. Closed source pushes any privacy assumptions that can be made to 0. Trying to pitch it as a privacy focused browser would be even more disingenuous than all the mainstream, open source, browsers that already try to make that claim. IMO, it would completely destroy all of DDG's credibility to even try to justify it.
- nunez 5y ago
  To be fair, Chrome also started as a very simple browser that was "good enough" compared to IE6.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

gwbas1c 5y ago

I interviewed for the position. (They regularly posted the position in the "Who's hiring" threads for awhile.) It's going to be an extremely simple browser. Their strategy is to use the HTML rendering component built into each OS. The way I interpreted it was that they're trying to make a browser that's simple enough to develop with a small team, "good enough" for most people, and doesn't have every feature under the kitchen sink. > Will this be open source? Doubtful. It also doesn't "make sense" to open source, as they're basically using the same rendering engine as Edge / Safari, with a different UI around it. (Side note: If you want something like this that's open source, it's probably easier to clone it than to fork it. Every few years I write an experimental browser based on these rendering engines, and I frequently come across "simple" open-source browsers that provide great examples of how to use these components.) > Will this support WebExtensions? No. They are building ad-blocking and privacy functionality into the browser. To paraphrase what they told me, most people only install ad-blocking and privacy extensions. > Will this allow ad-blocking and tracking protection? Yes, that is the major feature they are trying to build. They have extensive blacklists already, as they already ship privacy-focused plugins for Chrome. (Their take-home assessment involved using a well-known privacy list published on Github.) > Will this allow usage of other search engines within the browser, or are you locked in to DDG only? We didn't discuss that. This is speculation on my part, but I think their motivations are to "keep it simple" instead of offer every feature under the sun.

_fat_santa 5y ago
> Their strategy is to use the HTML rendering component built into each OS. So sounds like they are not going the Chromium route. Many comments in this thread are pretty cynical on that point.
- gwbas1c 5y ago
  On Windows, the plan (when I interviewed) was to use C# and the new WebView2 (apologies if I got the name wrong) component. Under-the-hood, it uses Microsoft's fork of Chromium in a separate process.
bscphil 5y ago
> To paraphrase what they told me, most people only install ad-blocking and privacy extensions. Welp, zero interest from me then. And probably most others here as well. I don't use Firefox from hatred of Google or even fear of monoculture. I use Firefox because that's where the enthusiast community is. All the cool stuff (Tree Style Tab, uMatrix) gets built for Firefox, not for Chrome. Firefox is currently retaining that group, in part because there's nowhere else for them to go. What I would like to see is a diversity of enthusiast browsers.
- gwbas1c 5y ago
  IMO: Sounds like a good reason to create an open-source browser that just re-uses the OS's rendering engine. Most of these features have very little to do with HTML rendering.
kgwxd 5y ago
I can't imagine it not being open source. Closed source pushes any privacy assumptions that can be made to 0. Trying to pitch it as a privacy focused browser would be even more disingenuous than all the mainstream, open source, browsers that already try to make that claim. IMO, it would completely destroy all of DDG's credibility to even try to justify it.
nunez 5y ago
To be fair, Chrome also started as a very simple browser that was "good enough" compared to IE6.