15 ms·

My favorite part: > Q: Why bother? You can’t make a new browser engine without billions of dollars and hundreds of staff. Sure you can. Don’t listen to armcha

My favorite part: > Q: Why bother? You can’t make a new browser engine without billions of dollars and hundreds of staff. Sure you can. Don’t listen to armchair defeatists who never worked on a browser.

Cthulhu_ 4y ago
Armchair defeatist here: Browsers are huge, complicated beasts, the standards are a constant moving target, and websites won't uphold standards. I wouldn't be surprised if 80% of the work spent on current webbrowsers is spent on maintaining compatiblity and edge cases.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  It is true, but it does not change the fact that it is a worthwhile effort just to force some level of differentiation on the browser scene.
  - godshatter 4y ago
    I was happy to see them state that influence over their browser cannot be bought. Mozilla taking $400 million+ a year from Google is the elephant in the room when it comes to browser competition. Not to mix metaphors, but this would give us a large competitor not beholden to Google, the gorilla in the room.
- cfcosta 4y ago
  Yes, they are. And even if the project fails (for any definition of failure), putting hundreds of people in contact with production quality core browser code is worth it. Also, lightweight browsers have been a dying breed for a while, if ladybird ends up as a more modern alternative to surf and Dillo, I'm already satisfied.
  - rollcat 4y ago
    Surf[1] is merely a Webkit wrapper. If you mean NetSurf[2], it's actually doing OK in resource constrained environments, although it's been a while since a release, which is a bit concerning. [1] https://surf.suckless.org https://surf.suckless.org [2] http://www.netsurf-browser.org http://www.netsurf-browser.org
    - cfcosta 4y ago
      Seen it way too late to edit it seems, but you are correct, I meant NetSurf.
- einpoklum 4y ago
  > the Ladybird browser, based on the LibWeb and LibJS engines from SerenityOS. So, the project does _not_ cover rendering web pages and tracking the HTML, CSS and JS standards. Those are separate projects. What remains, then? I guess that would be the user interface and user experience.
  - trashburger 4y ago
    They're "separate" projects only in name; Ladybird is under the SerenityOS organization on GitHub.
    - einpoklum 4y ago
      But SerenityOS was started 4 years ago...
  - zppln 4y ago
    Doesn't Ladybird let you work on LibWeb and LibJS from a Linux angle though?
    - rhdunn 4y ago
      Yes. LibWeb and LibJS were written for the SerenityOS. As mentioned in the article, some work was done to make them buildable and usable on Linux in a headless environment. The Ladybird project is then taking that work and adding a Qt GUI on top of it.
  - resoluteteeth 4y ago
    > So, the project does _not_ cover rendering web pages and tracking the HTML, CSS and JS standards. Those are separate projects. > What remains, then? I guess that would be the user interface and user experience. To be clear it uses a novel rendering engine (libweb) that the creators of LadyBird develop, it's just that that rendering engine has its own name and exists as a separate library. This is not just another skin around webkit or chromium.
- throw7 4y ago
  Firefox can't even keep up/not tested by developers. We sometimes use roll20 to game, but things like blank screens make it unusable. I've had to just use chromium and not worry about it.
  - philote 4y ago
    Interesting, could it be plugins/extensions causing the issue? I've been using Roll20 with Firefox and with Edge for a while without any major issues.
    - throw7 4y ago
      Our last game was about 2 weeks ago... two of us hit the same issue with the screen not "repainting" and being black. No issue with the chrome browsers, so it's easier to just switch rather than bog the game down with debugging/diagnosis. It's usually "ok" and I can deal with performance issues; but these little niggles just makes you want to not deal with it.
      - cpeterso 4y ago
        Did you have an ad blocker or other privacy add-ons installed? Many "website doesn't work in Firefox" issues are related to ad blockers. OTOH, if the page is black and not repainting, that might be a graphics issue (in Firefox or the GPU driver). Firefox uses the GPU more than Chrome for rendering and video decoding, which can be great for performance but unfortunately means users can be exposed to GPU driver bugs.
        midoridensha 4y ago
        >Did you have an ad blocker or other privacy add-ons installed? How can you possibly use any web browser without an ad blocker installed?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- onion2k 4y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if 80% of the work spent on current webbrowsers is spent on maintaining compatiblity and edge cases. I don't really see anything wrong with a browser that doesn't fully support every website and every weird example of HTML and CSS that a developer decided to hack together. If a browser supports the standards well and does a pretty good job of rendering modern websites then I'd happily trade failing to render some ancient HTML for a web browser that was truly open and free and doesn't send swathes of data about me back to some corporation. Web browsers are compatible with old HTML because we choose to make them that way. That is a choice. If the cost of having a free and open browser is a requirement to drop some backwards compatibility with old HTML then I think that's actually quite a simple choice. After all, if people want to view an old website then they can still use Chromium or something. It's not like people have to pick a single browser and stick with it.
  - shagie 4y ago
    > I don't really see anything wrong with a browser that doesn't fully support every website and every weird example of HTML and CSS that a developer decided to hack together. Consider from the perspective of the user. They're using chrome and browsing the web - all their favorite sites work. They switch to a new browser and some of the sites stop working correctly. Is it the fault of the browser? or is it the fault of the site? For most users, if site X works using browser A and breaks using browser B - then it is browser B that is at fault. This is a lesson that Microsoft learned. https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/06/13/how-microsoft-lost-the-api-war/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/06/13/how-microsoft-lost... There's no refund involved, but switching back to the old browser is certainly possible.
    - zibby8 4y ago
      There would need to be a compelling reason to use the browser other than it being "different." For instance, the user experience you describe is exactly what it's like to use Firefox. Many websites don't support Firefox, even big ones like Vanguard. And yet, I continue to use Firefox when possible because I know uBlock Origin will continue to work in the future and I value privacy.
    - 4y ago
- Deukhoofd 4y ago
  I'm fairly certain Andreas knows, considering he worked on Safari before starting Serenity.
- rtpg 4y ago
  I would say that HTML5 changed the game a lot. There are serious standards now that go into deep detail about how something should work, leaving relatively little on the margins. There are still loads of cross compatibility issues and performance differences based on certain features of course! But I would say the set of "sites that require weirdness" is going down, not up, every day
- redredyupdy 4y ago
  It seems like there could be a nice middle man software project. Something that translated the non-standard compliant code on the web to something more standard compliant, and then you could have many different browsers each doing different things with the standard html it output. I wonder if such a tool is extractable from current projects? Disclaimer: I am not a browser scientist.
- IshKebab 4y ago
  Yeah the argument is just about the definition of "browser". Something that can pass Acid3 and render simple sites fine, or even complex specific sites? Totally doable. Something that will work reliably on every site and support the gazillions of APIs that Chrome provides? Hell no. Even Microsoft threw in the towel on that. Mozilla barely manages it. You can make a browser that people can use if they really really want to make a point of using your browser. You can't make one that the average person would choose.
  - zzo38computer 4y ago
    What we need isn't to make one "that the average person would choose", since they already have that. What we do need is to make one that you may choose if you want to be able to fully control the system (with fine customization, and interaction with other programs including native codes in C), and is designed for advanced users who have read all of the documents, rather than trying to hide things from the user or believe they know better than what the end user specified, and also it must be one that avoids all of the bad stuff that Google put in.
    - IshKebab 4y ago
      None of that stuff is about the browser engine. If you want all that you'd just use an existing engine, which is what people do.
- Avshalom 4y ago
  One nice thing about html/css/javascript is that a lot of it works even when some of it doesn't. It's not an all (or even almost all) or nothing proposition.
- loudmax 4y ago
  If the goal is to compete with Chrome/Edge/Safari directly then yeah some spunky team of ragtag volunteers isn't going to be able to match what the megacorps can bring to the table. Even Firefox struggles here. If the goal is to have something that's usable in limited cases for a self-selected set technically competent enthusiasts, then this is well within reason and not without value. What I find particularly interesting is that there's an intent to support WebAssembly. That may turn out to be overly ambitious, but if they succeed there's a lot of potential upside to having another WebAssembly engine that's independent from the major browsers.
  - dmytrish 4y ago
    What's ambitious about supporting WebAssembly? It's very well-specified and minimalistic compared to almost anything in the web space.
- kornhole 4y ago
  Much of it is the other way around where the browser compatibility drives the development of sites. Everybody developing a site needs to test on the major browsers before releasing. It may take a while for Ladybird to make the list of browsers to be tested before release, but it can get there.
- soheil 4y ago
  It's insane we let Google run the web and be the literal gatekeeper of it. Chrome is literally the gate you use to enter the web and its owned by Google. The solution is surely to make that monopoly illegal. After all we/government constantly blocks mergers that seem much more benign and less impactful (see Amazon/iRobot acquisition) just because they involve money? This is far worse.
  - aembleton 4y ago
    > Chrome is literally the gate you use to enter the web and its owned by Google. I don't even have it installed and yet I'm typing this into a website.
    - soheil 4y ago
      Three quarters of the internet uses Chrome.
- divbzero 4y ago
  > Browsers are huge, complicated beasts, the standards are a constant moving target, and websites won't uphold standards. This is all true. On the other hand, operating systems are huge, complicated beasts, hardware compatibility is a constant moving target, and manufacturers won’t uphold compatibility guarantees.
- blablabla123 4y ago
  > Armchair defeatist here: Browsers are huge, complicated beasts, the standards are a constant moving target, and websites won't uphold standards. I think that's the irony here, the standards are pretty much set in stone and just incrementally grow. Some old cruft is beyond obsolete though. On the other hand nobody uses most of the bleeding edge APIs. But JS (and the part that is actually in use) is indeed growing at a solid pace.
bobajeff 4y ago
This is encouraging because I too plan to make my own browser engine.
- userbinator 4y ago
  As someone who has been and still is working on one of my own for many years now (and at this point it's far even from his efforts), I think having the time to do it is the biggest challenge.
  - bobajeff 4y ago
    Yes. With me it's motivation and energy. I'm not forcing it though. This is for me and it's currently solo project so I don't feel pressure to ever get it off and complete it. It's still worth it because I really enjoy doing it.
- niutech 4y ago
  Maybe you could continue developing Kosmonaut? https://github.com/twilco/kosmonaut https://github.com/twilco/kosmonaut
tambourine_man 4y ago
Came here to post that exact quote. Truly inspirational
devwastaken 4y ago
It's a cool pet project, but not realistic. Even Mozilla can't compete. There isn't anything "new" to be done that will give a browser an edge over chromium. And the elephant in the room, regardless of adoption it will never be on iphone.
- trashburger 4y ago
  Well, what is it trying to be "realistic" about? Does the announcement mention anything about taking over other browsers? I suggest reading https://justforfunnoreally.dev/ https://justforfunnoreally.dev/ .
- wbear 4y ago
  The armchair defeatist appears
- neogodless 4y ago
  > realistic They are doing it though; it's "real." Perhaps you are setting goals for them that they are not themselves setting? > can't compete You actually can read about their goals on the linked page, though. They are not attempting to "compete" with Chromium. > iphone So don't use iPhone, and use a phone that allows you to use the browser engine you want to!
  - Ygg2 4y ago
    > They are doing it though; it's "real." It's obviously the grandparent meant it as not a toy implementation. As in, non computer literate people can use it without complaining about broken sites. The first 80% will take 10% of time. Now last 20% will take 90% of the time.
    - bowsamic 4y ago
      That’s irrelevant as it’s not a goal of the project
      - Ygg2 4y ago
leidenfrost 4y ago
My thoughts exactly. If Linux could, I don't see why a new browser can't. If we start slowly, focus not on delivering a working product ASAP but a nice codebase that's accessible for other developers to read, carefully split modules so each part of the browser is a mini project by itself, with clearly defined business logic, outward connections (GUI, APIs, Drivers, etc), it can be done. Yes, it will be a lot of work. But with a tidy codebase and a welcoming community (at least for a programmer) that "a lot of work" will instead become a playground to hack whatever component they desire. The problem is that people don't want another Linux-like hobby project, they want another Firefox
- ly3xqhl8g9 4y ago
  If you want to build another Chromium you need billions, since that's how Chromium was built. But maybe you don't even need to build another Chromium. The enduser couldn't care less what if-else nightmare logic you ran in your "application engine" in order to reach the current framebuffer, they care only about the framebuffer. Following this logic, that tidy codebase should perhaps be also tiny: in the extreme case, just thinking on a whim right now, it should be comprised of only one "module": a stable diffusion-like algorithm which ingests the HTML/CSS/JS specification documents and the requested website response and "simply" outputs the adequate framebuffer, with which the enduser interacts accordingly. This kind of approach probably reduces the cost from billions to only a few millions for the GPUs training time. Sort of a "generative browser", a "genser", if you will.
  - a-user-you-like 4y ago
    He’s explicitly refuting that you need billions. Just because they did it that way doesn’t mean the next browser/chromium has to be that way.
  - arboles 4y ago
  - trashburger 4y ago
    > If you want to build another Chromium I don't want to build another Chromium. I want to build a web browser. I don't think every browser is required to be like or support as many websites as Chromium does. Note that competing with the popular browsers of today has never been stated as one of Ladybird's goals.
happycube 4y ago
Webkit and Blink trace their roots back to KDE 2.0, afterall. The web was a bit simpler back then, but still...
- nottorp 4y ago
  Too many people forget WebKit was KHTML initially... no, Apple didn't start it.
FlyingSnake 4y ago
Your comment made me go and read the article and the history behind it all, which was a fun read. To the naysayers, we’re HackerNews FFS, if we don’t encourage moonshots, who else will?
squarefoot 4y ago
Exactly. This isn't a commercial product that must be shipped yesterday because of competition and not to anger investors; just go ahead and do things, the journey is a big part of the reward. The guy is amazing! Should we have some day the analog of the Nobel prize for software development that benefits people, he should be among the first 10 to receive it.
- hiccuphippo 4y ago
  Look at the Turing award, it is known as the "Nobel of computing."
  - chubot 4y ago
    The ACM Turing Award is for computer science, not building software. The ACM Software System award is more relevant here. https://awards.acm.org/software-system/award-winners https://awards.acm.org/software-system/award-winners For example, Richard Stallman (GNU) and Chris Lattner (LLVM) have both won the software system award, but it seems unlikely for them to be considered for a Turing award.
pipeline_peak 4y ago
You can make "a browser", but it's impossible to make a modern one that supports all sites without those human resources. Even Fabrice Bellard said it's too difficult. I know it isn't a pretty thing to hear, but someone in this comment section has to say it.
- liotier 4y ago
  > it's impossible to make a modern one that supports all sites without those human resources. Then let's not - death to irregular HTML and let the era of lean browsers begin ! Yes, I know, Martian Headsets (https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2008/03/17/martian-headsets/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2008/03/17/martian-headsets/) - but considering how much of a contemporary web browser is about supporting irregular markup and other grandfathered hacks, deliberately scoping them out is an exciting approach to a possible non-RFC793 compliant future. Won't fly with mass market, but worth exploring by people who don't care about the mass market - and the marketing will come later, once someone with no money and a device to ship figures out how fast such browser can be with ridiculously low resources !
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - wpietri 4y ago
    For sure. There's also a big question of what "support" means. If rendering is usable but not pixel-perfect, then maybe that's fine. Especially when what's being rendered is in categories like "visual fluff" and "needed for advertising".
  - pipeline_peak 4y ago
    As much as I love personal projects, if you want something to survive it needs industry support, that's how Linux and Python are still going. Who's going to support a browser compatible with stuff from 2011? There are companies like Ekioh that make niche solutions for embedded stuff, but there's nothing open source.
- senko 4y ago
justapassenger 4y ago
I’ve spent few years trying to build my own browser engine ~15 years ago, when they were much much simpler. You cannot make a useable, modern engine without such huge investments. But it’s a cool hobby project.
snarfy 4y ago
Honest question, why not contribute to Firefox instead?
- bowsamic 4y ago
  Because it’s fun and rewarding to write it yourself, and it means you have experience and control of it
soheil 4y ago
You should quote the second line two. It makes it sound like that's something you're adding and the author disagrees with your sentiment.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
hinkley 4y ago
I mean, there is a degree of regulatory capture that goes with standards bodies. The big boys keep making the ladder taller and that ultimately makes it harder for new people to join because they don’t follow the standard. I am still sad that xhtml-basic failed, as it was an attempt to create a legacy free spec that might be feasible on embedded devices and phones. It got some adoption and then the iPhone ran full safari and that was the end of that.

Cthulhu_ 4y ago

Armchair defeatist here: Browsers are huge, complicated beasts, the standards are a constant moving target, and websites won't uphold standards. I wouldn't be surprised if 80% of the work spent on current webbrowsers is spent on maintaining compatiblity and edge cases.

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
It is true, but it does not change the fact that it is a worthwhile effort just to force some level of differentiation on the browser scene.
- godshatter 4y ago
  I was happy to see them state that influence over their browser cannot be bought. Mozilla taking $400 million+ a year from Google is the elephant in the room when it comes to browser competition. Not to mix metaphors, but this would give us a large competitor not beholden to Google, the gorilla in the room.
cfcosta 4y ago
Yes, they are. And even if the project fails (for any definition of failure), putting hundreds of people in contact with production quality core browser code is worth it. Also, lightweight browsers have been a dying breed for a while, if ladybird ends up as a more modern alternative to surf and Dillo, I'm already satisfied.
- rollcat 4y ago
  Surf[1] is merely a Webkit wrapper. If you mean NetSurf[2], it's actually doing OK in resource constrained environments, although it's been a while since a release, which is a bit concerning. [1] https://surf.suckless.org https://surf.suckless.org [2] http://www.netsurf-browser.org http://www.netsurf-browser.org
  - cfcosta 4y ago
    Seen it way too late to edit it seems, but you are correct, I meant NetSurf.
einpoklum 4y ago
> the Ladybird browser, based on the LibWeb and LibJS engines from SerenityOS. So, the project does _not_ cover rendering web pages and tracking the HTML, CSS and JS standards. Those are separate projects. What remains, then? I guess that would be the user interface and user experience.
- trashburger 4y ago
  They're "separate" projects only in name; Ladybird is under the SerenityOS organization on GitHub.
  - einpoklum 4y ago
    But SerenityOS was started 4 years ago...
- zppln 4y ago
  Doesn't Ladybird let you work on LibWeb and LibJS from a Linux angle though?
  - rhdunn 4y ago
    Yes. LibWeb and LibJS were written for the SerenityOS. As mentioned in the article, some work was done to make them buildable and usable on Linux in a headless environment. The Ladybird project is then taking that work and adding a Qt GUI on top of it.
- resoluteteeth 4y ago
  > So, the project does _not_ cover rendering web pages and tracking the HTML, CSS and JS standards. Those are separate projects. > What remains, then? I guess that would be the user interface and user experience. To be clear it uses a novel rendering engine (libweb) that the creators of LadyBird develop, it's just that that rendering engine has its own name and exists as a separate library. This is not just another skin around webkit or chromium.
throw7 4y ago
Firefox can't even keep up/not tested by developers. We sometimes use roll20 to game, but things like blank screens make it unusable. I've had to just use chromium and not worry about it.
- philote 4y ago
  Interesting, could it be plugins/extensions causing the issue? I've been using Roll20 with Firefox and with Edge for a while without any major issues.
  - throw7 4y ago
    Our last game was about 2 weeks ago... two of us hit the same issue with the screen not "repainting" and being black. No issue with the chrome browsers, so it's easier to just switch rather than bog the game down with debugging/diagnosis. It's usually "ok" and I can deal with performance issues; but these little niggles just makes you want to not deal with it.
    - cpeterso 4y ago
      Did you have an ad blocker or other privacy add-ons installed? Many "website doesn't work in Firefox" issues are related to ad blockers. OTOH, if the page is black and not repainting, that might be a graphics issue (in Firefox or the GPU driver). Firefox uses the GPU more than Chrome for rendering and video decoding, which can be great for performance but unfortunately means users can be exposed to GPU driver bugs.
      - midoridensha 4y ago
        >Did you have an ad blocker or other privacy add-ons installed? How can you possibly use any web browser without an ad blocker installed?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
onion2k 4y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if 80% of the work spent on current webbrowsers is spent on maintaining compatiblity and edge cases. I don't really see anything wrong with a browser that doesn't fully support every website and every weird example of HTML and CSS that a developer decided to hack together. If a browser supports the standards well and does a pretty good job of rendering modern websites then I'd happily trade failing to render some ancient HTML for a web browser that was truly open and free and doesn't send swathes of data about me back to some corporation. Web browsers are compatible with old HTML because we choose to make them that way. That is a choice. If the cost of having a free and open browser is a requirement to drop some backwards compatibility with old HTML then I think that's actually quite a simple choice. After all, if people want to view an old website then they can still use Chromium or something. It's not like people have to pick a single browser and stick with it.
- shagie 4y ago
  > I don't really see anything wrong with a browser that doesn't fully support every website and every weird example of HTML and CSS that a developer decided to hack together. Consider from the perspective of the user. They're using chrome and browsing the web - all their favorite sites work. They switch to a new browser and some of the sites stop working correctly. Is it the fault of the browser? or is it the fault of the site? For most users, if site X works using browser A and breaks using browser B - then it is browser B that is at fault. This is a lesson that Microsoft learned. https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/06/13/how-microsoft-lost-the-api-war/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/06/13/how-microsoft-lost... There's no refund involved, but switching back to the old browser is certainly possible.
  - zibby8 4y ago
    There would need to be a compelling reason to use the browser other than it being "different." For instance, the user experience you describe is exactly what it's like to use Firefox. Many websites don't support Firefox, even big ones like Vanguard. And yet, I continue to use Firefox when possible because I know uBlock Origin will continue to work in the future and I value privacy.
  - 4y ago
Deukhoofd 4y ago
I'm fairly certain Andreas knows, considering he worked on Safari before starting Serenity.
rtpg 4y ago
I would say that HTML5 changed the game a lot. There are serious standards now that go into deep detail about how something should work, leaving relatively little on the margins. There are still loads of cross compatibility issues and performance differences based on certain features of course! But I would say the set of "sites that require weirdness" is going down, not up, every day
redredyupdy 4y ago
It seems like there could be a nice middle man software project. Something that translated the non-standard compliant code on the web to something more standard compliant, and then you could have many different browsers each doing different things with the standard html it output. I wonder if such a tool is extractable from current projects? Disclaimer: I am not a browser scientist.
IshKebab 4y ago
Yeah the argument is just about the definition of "browser". Something that can pass Acid3 and render simple sites fine, or even complex specific sites? Totally doable. Something that will work reliably on every site and support the gazillions of APIs that Chrome provides? Hell no. Even Microsoft threw in the towel on that. Mozilla barely manages it. You can make a browser that people can use if they really really want to make a point of using your browser. You can't make one that the average person would choose.
- zzo38computer 4y ago
  What we need isn't to make one "that the average person would choose", since they already have that. What we do need is to make one that you may choose if you want to be able to fully control the system (with fine customization, and interaction with other programs including native codes in C), and is designed for advanced users who have read all of the documents, rather than trying to hide things from the user or believe they know better than what the end user specified, and also it must be one that avoids all of the bad stuff that Google put in.
  - IshKebab 4y ago
    None of that stuff is about the browser engine. If you want all that you'd just use an existing engine, which is what people do.
Avshalom 4y ago
One nice thing about html/css/javascript is that a lot of it works even when some of it doesn't. It's not an all (or even almost all) or nothing proposition.
loudmax 4y ago
If the goal is to compete with Chrome/Edge/Safari directly then yeah some spunky team of ragtag volunteers isn't going to be able to match what the megacorps can bring to the table. Even Firefox struggles here. If the goal is to have something that's usable in limited cases for a self-selected set technically competent enthusiasts, then this is well within reason and not without value. What I find particularly interesting is that there's an intent to support WebAssembly. That may turn out to be overly ambitious, but if they succeed there's a lot of potential upside to having another WebAssembly engine that's independent from the major browsers.
- dmytrish 4y ago
  What's ambitious about supporting WebAssembly? It's very well-specified and minimalistic compared to almost anything in the web space.
kornhole 4y ago
Much of it is the other way around where the browser compatibility drives the development of sites. Everybody developing a site needs to test on the major browsers before releasing. It may take a while for Ladybird to make the list of browsers to be tested before release, but it can get there.
soheil 4y ago
It's insane we let Google run the web and be the literal gatekeeper of it. Chrome is literally the gate you use to enter the web and its owned by Google. The solution is surely to make that monopoly illegal. After all we/government constantly blocks mergers that seem much more benign and less impactful (see Amazon/iRobot acquisition) just because they involve money? This is far worse.
- aembleton 4y ago
  > Chrome is literally the gate you use to enter the web and its owned by Google. I don't even have it installed and yet I'm typing this into a website.
  - soheil 4y ago
    Three quarters of the internet uses Chrome.
divbzero 4y ago
> Browsers are huge, complicated beasts, the standards are a constant moving target, and websites won't uphold standards. This is all true. On the other hand, operating systems are huge, complicated beasts, hardware compatibility is a constant moving target, and manufacturers won’t uphold compatibility guarantees.
blablabla123 4y ago
> Armchair defeatist here: Browsers are huge, complicated beasts, the standards are a constant moving target, and websites won't uphold standards. I think that's the irony here, the standards are pretty much set in stone and just incrementally grow. Some old cruft is beyond obsolete though. On the other hand nobody uses most of the bleeding edge APIs. But JS (and the part that is actually in use) is indeed growing at a solid pace.

bobajeff 4y ago

This is encouraging because I too plan to make my own browser engine.

userbinator 4y ago
As someone who has been and still is working on one of my own for many years now (and at this point it's far even from his efforts), I think having the time to do it is the biggest challenge.
- bobajeff 4y ago
  Yes. With me it's motivation and energy. I'm not forcing it though. This is for me and it's currently solo project so I don't feel pressure to ever get it off and complete it. It's still worth it because I really enjoy doing it.
niutech 4y ago
Maybe you could continue developing Kosmonaut? https://github.com/twilco/kosmonaut https://github.com/twilco/kosmonaut

tambourine_man 4y ago

Came here to post that exact quote. Truly inspirational

devwastaken 4y ago

It's a cool pet project, but not realistic. Even Mozilla can't compete. There isn't anything "new" to be done that will give a browser an edge over chromium. And the elephant in the room, regardless of adoption it will never be on iphone.

trashburger 4y ago
Well, what is it trying to be "realistic" about? Does the announcement mention anything about taking over other browsers? I suggest reading https://justforfunnoreally.dev/ https://justforfunnoreally.dev/ .
wbear 4y ago
The armchair defeatist appears
neogodless 4y ago
> realistic They are doing it though; it's "real." Perhaps you are setting goals for them that they are not themselves setting? > can't compete You actually can read about their goals on the linked page, though. They are not attempting to "compete" with Chromium. > iphone So don't use iPhone, and use a phone that allows you to use the browser engine you want to!
- Ygg2 4y ago
  > They are doing it though; it's "real." It's obviously the grandparent meant it as not a toy implementation. As in, non computer literate people can use it without complaining about broken sites. The first 80% will take 10% of time. Now last 20% will take 90% of the time.
  - bowsamic 4y ago
    That’s irrelevant as it’s not a goal of the project
    - Ygg2 4y ago

leidenfrost 4y ago

My thoughts exactly. If Linux could, I don't see why a new browser can't. If we start slowly, focus not on delivering a working product ASAP but a nice codebase that's accessible for other developers to read, carefully split modules so each part of the browser is a mini project by itself, with clearly defined business logic, outward connections (GUI, APIs, Drivers, etc), it can be done. Yes, it will be a lot of work. But with a tidy codebase and a welcoming community (at least for a programmer) that "a lot of work" will instead become a playground to hack whatever component they desire. The problem is that people don't want another Linux-like hobby project, they want another Firefox

ly3xqhl8g9 4y ago
If you want to build another Chromium you need billions, since that's how Chromium was built. But maybe you don't even need to build another Chromium. The enduser couldn't care less what if-else nightmare logic you ran in your "application engine" in order to reach the current framebuffer, they care only about the framebuffer. Following this logic, that tidy codebase should perhaps be also tiny: in the extreme case, just thinking on a whim right now, it should be comprised of only one "module": a stable diffusion-like algorithm which ingests the HTML/CSS/JS specification documents and the requested website response and "simply" outputs the adequate framebuffer, with which the enduser interacts accordingly. This kind of approach probably reduces the cost from billions to only a few millions for the GPUs training time. Sort of a "generative browser", a "genser", if you will.
- a-user-you-like 4y ago
  He’s explicitly refuting that you need billions. Just because they did it that way doesn’t mean the next browser/chromium has to be that way.
- arboles 4y ago
- trashburger 4y ago
  > If you want to build another Chromium I don't want to build another Chromium. I want to build a web browser. I don't think every browser is required to be like or support as many websites as Chromium does. Note that competing with the popular browsers of today has never been stated as one of Ladybird's goals.

happycube 4y ago

Webkit and Blink trace their roots back to KDE 2.0, afterall. The web was a bit simpler back then, but still...

nottorp 4y ago
Too many people forget WebKit was KHTML initially... no, Apple didn't start it.

FlyingSnake 4y ago

Your comment made me go and read the article and the history behind it all, which was a fun read. To the naysayers, we’re HackerNews FFS, if we don’t encourage moonshots, who else will?

squarefoot 4y ago

Exactly. This isn't a commercial product that must be shipped yesterday because of competition and not to anger investors; just go ahead and do things, the journey is a big part of the reward. The guy is amazing! Should we have some day the analog of the Nobel prize for software development that benefits people, he should be among the first 10 to receive it.

hiccuphippo 4y ago
Look at the Turing award, it is known as the "Nobel of computing."
- chubot 4y ago
  The ACM Turing Award is for computer science, not building software. The ACM Software System award is more relevant here. https://awards.acm.org/software-system/award-winners https://awards.acm.org/software-system/award-winners For example, Richard Stallman (GNU) and Chris Lattner (LLVM) have both won the software system award, but it seems unlikely for them to be considered for a Turing award.

pipeline_peak 4y ago

You can make "a browser", but it's impossible to make a modern one that supports all sites without those human resources. Even Fabrice Bellard said it's too difficult. I know it isn't a pretty thing to hear, but someone in this comment section has to say it.

liotier 4y ago
> it's impossible to make a modern one that supports all sites without those human resources. Then let's not - death to irregular HTML and let the era of lean browsers begin ! Yes, I know, Martian Headsets (https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2008/03/17/martian-headsets/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2008/03/17/martian-headsets/) - but considering how much of a contemporary web browser is about supporting irregular markup and other grandfathered hacks, deliberately scoping them out is an exciting approach to a possible non-RFC793 compliant future. Won't fly with mass market, but worth exploring by people who don't care about the mass market - and the marketing will come later, once someone with no money and a device to ship figures out how fast such browser can be with ridiculously low resources !
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- wpietri 4y ago
  For sure. There's also a big question of what "support" means. If rendering is usable but not pixel-perfect, then maybe that's fine. Especially when what's being rendered is in categories like "visual fluff" and "needed for advertising".
- pipeline_peak 4y ago
  As much as I love personal projects, if you want something to survive it needs industry support, that's how Linux and Python are still going. Who's going to support a browser compatible with stuff from 2011? There are companies like Ekioh that make niche solutions for embedded stuff, but there's nothing open source.
senko 4y ago

justapassenger 4y ago

I’ve spent few years trying to build my own browser engine ~15 years ago, when they were much much simpler. You cannot make a useable, modern engine without such huge investments. But it’s a cool hobby project.

snarfy 4y ago

Honest question, why not contribute to Firefox instead?

bowsamic 4y ago
Because it’s fun and rewarding to write it yourself, and it means you have experience and control of it

soheil 4y ago

You should quote the second line two. It makes it sound like that's something you're adding and the author disagrees with your sentiment.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

hinkley 4y ago

I mean, there is a degree of regulatory capture that goes with standards bodies. The big boys keep making the ladder taller and that ultimately makes it harder for new people to join because they don’t follow the standard. I am still sad that xhtml-basic failed, as it was an attempt to create a legacy free spec that might be feasible on embedded devices and phones. It got some adoption and then the iPhone ran full safari and that was the end of that.