4 ms·

> 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

by 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.
Deukhoofd 4y ago
Serenity and Ladybird aren't written from the perspective of the user though. They're written from the perspective of the developers, who write functions they'd like, and that they'd like to learn more about, or as the Serenity website states: > This is a system by us, for us, based on the things we like.
- vesinisa 4y ago
  And funnily enough, this is exactly how Linux was born. It was literally started as "just a hobby, won't be big and professional."[1] Nowadays it runs in almost every home at least in the developed world. [1]: https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~awb/linux.history.html https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~awb/linux.history.html
  - Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
    Linux was inevitable as there was no GNU licensed kernel anger there was a need for one. If not Linux, something else would have emerged within months. New browser is not inevitable, as the need for free-ish browser is already satisfied.
    - voidskull 4y ago
      Hurd was in development and it still is I guess. Hurd was a predecessor of Linux
      - Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
        Hurd stalled precisely because Linux appeared: there was an urgent need for a GNU kernel, but there was no urgent need for another GNU kernel.
- wpietri 4y ago
  This is correct, and it's why most open-source software will never have much in the way of users: > They're written from the perspective of the developers And I get it. A few years back I had an open-source project [1] get users and it was terrible. What had previously been a fun technical exercise became a pain in the ass that felt a lot like actual work. I was relieved when my hardware broke and I had an excuse to archive the project. But that does create a huge gap that mostly gets filled by commercial interests. [1] https://github.com/wpietri/sucks https://github.com/wpietri/sucks
stefanve 4y ago
you properly mean the average user. The average user would not download this browser. so the user of ladybird might want to live with the shortcomings. That being said , Firefox still exists and is a very good cross platform OSS browser
onion2k 4y ago
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. There are a couple of implicit assumptions here that I think should be unpacked; First, you're assuming that users have favorite websites, and that those sites wouldn't work. As I said in my post, so long as the browser worked with standards compliant modern websites I think that would be fine ... and that would cover 99.9% of user's favorite websites. People don't carry on using old, unmaintained (or even maintained) sites for a particularly long time. I don't believe people return to old websites that haven't been maintained very much. I don't think many users would even notice if their browser stopped supporting things that browser developers consider edge cases that eat up dev time. Secondly, you're assuming that users who choose a browser like Ladybird wouldn't understand the choice they're making. Of course they would. They could still make that choice though. The idea of trading out-of-standards compatibility for increased privacy is actually really appealing to a lot of people. Hell, a lot of people see out-of-standards compatibility as a bug rather than a feature.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  > so long as the browser worked with standards compliant modern websites Define which subset of standards would qualify for "standards compliant". Don't forget that quite a few of standards (for example, HN's darlings like bluetooth) are barely drafts.
- andsoitis 4y ago
  > First, you're assuming that users have favorite websites, and that those sites wouldn't work. As I said in my post, so long as the browser worked with standards compliant modern websites I think that would be fine ... and that would cover 99.9% of user's favorite websites. I wonder then why developers test on multiple browsers... Is it because website developers code not to standards per se, but rather how their top two browsers behave? That being said, I think this is a cool project and since the goal is personal satisfaction and usability, there isn't the pull to satisfy hundreds of thousands of users.
  - bornfreddy 4y ago
lhnz 4y ago
Users often prefer it when sites don't work as the developer intended. Users like browsers that strip away adverts and that show undecorated content. If you make a browser that does this, you stand a chance against a browser that complies to the whims of corporations.
leidenfrost 4y ago
Then let that user use Chrome and be happy with it. If the average user wants to lean to a corporation and use its product because on the reliability it offers then that's fine. While the privacy concerns are there, I don't think it's wrong for a consumer to reach to a company to fulfill their needs. Product mentality can be a problem on FOSS software. People forget that all of this started as a project made by volunteers because it was fun to them.
staticautomatic 4y ago
I get that it’s a chicken and egg problem but this strikes me as, at least preliminarily, being more about developers than users in a world where devs often no longer even test for compatibility with Firefox.

by shagie 4y ago

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.

Deukhoofd 4y ago

Serenity and Ladybird aren't written from the perspective of the user though. They're written from the perspective of the developers, who write functions they'd like, and that they'd like to learn more about, or as the Serenity website states: > This is a system by us, for us, based on the things we like.

vesinisa 4y ago
And funnily enough, this is exactly how Linux was born. It was literally started as "just a hobby, won't be big and professional."[1] Nowadays it runs in almost every home at least in the developed world. [1]: https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~awb/linux.history.html https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~awb/linux.history.html
- Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
  Linux was inevitable as there was no GNU licensed kernel anger there was a need for one. If not Linux, something else would have emerged within months. New browser is not inevitable, as the need for free-ish browser is already satisfied.
  - voidskull 4y ago
    Hurd was in development and it still is I guess. Hurd was a predecessor of Linux
    - Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
      Hurd stalled precisely because Linux appeared: there was an urgent need for a GNU kernel, but there was no urgent need for another GNU kernel.
wpietri 4y ago
This is correct, and it's why most open-source software will never have much in the way of users: > They're written from the perspective of the developers And I get it. A few years back I had an open-source project [1] get users and it was terrible. What had previously been a fun technical exercise became a pain in the ass that felt a lot like actual work. I was relieved when my hardware broke and I had an excuse to archive the project. But that does create a huge gap that mostly gets filled by commercial interests. [1] https://github.com/wpietri/sucks https://github.com/wpietri/sucks

stefanve 4y ago

you properly mean the average user. The average user would not download this browser. so the user of ladybird might want to live with the shortcomings. That being said , Firefox still exists and is a very good cross platform OSS browser

onion2k 4y ago

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. There are a couple of implicit assumptions here that I think should be unpacked; First, you're assuming that users have favorite websites, and that those sites wouldn't work. As I said in my post, so long as the browser worked with standards compliant modern websites I think that would be fine ... and that would cover 99.9% of user's favorite websites. People don't carry on using old, unmaintained (or even maintained) sites for a particularly long time. I don't believe people return to old websites that haven't been maintained very much. I don't think many users would even notice if their browser stopped supporting things that browser developers consider edge cases that eat up dev time. Secondly, you're assuming that users who choose a browser like Ladybird wouldn't understand the choice they're making. Of course they would. They could still make that choice though. The idea of trading out-of-standards compatibility for increased privacy is actually really appealing to a lot of people. Hell, a lot of people see out-of-standards compatibility as a bug rather than a feature.

dmitriid 4y ago
> so long as the browser worked with standards compliant modern websites Define which subset of standards would qualify for "standards compliant". Don't forget that quite a few of standards (for example, HN's darlings like bluetooth) are barely drafts.
andsoitis 4y ago
> First, you're assuming that users have favorite websites, and that those sites wouldn't work. As I said in my post, so long as the browser worked with standards compliant modern websites I think that would be fine ... and that would cover 99.9% of user's favorite websites. I wonder then why developers test on multiple browsers... Is it because website developers code not to standards per se, but rather how their top two browsers behave? That being said, I think this is a cool project and since the goal is personal satisfaction and usability, there isn't the pull to satisfy hundreds of thousands of users.
- bornfreddy 4y ago

lhnz 4y ago

Users often prefer it when sites don't work as the developer intended. Users like browsers that strip away adverts and that show undecorated content. If you make a browser that does this, you stand a chance against a browser that complies to the whims of corporations.

leidenfrost 4y ago

Then let that user use Chrome and be happy with it. If the average user wants to lean to a corporation and use its product because on the reliability it offers then that's fine. While the privacy concerns are there, I don't think it's wrong for a consumer to reach to a company to fulfill their needs. Product mentality can be a problem on FOSS software. People forget that all of this started as a project made by volunteers because it was fun to them.

staticautomatic 4y ago

I get that it’s a chicken and egg problem but this strikes me as, at least preliminarily, being more about developers than users in a world where devs often no longer even test for compatibility with Firefox.