3 ms·

Ladybird sure thinks they are going to. I’m curious how successful they will be.

by arzig 3y ago

TheMode 3y ago
Kinda doubt they will achieve parity. Even if they do, for how long? The problem is that the spec is a moving target, you cannot justify maintaining a platform indefinitely while a complete version exist on the side.
- lbotos 3y ago
  Lets say they get 90% of modern site compatibility, could they dethrone Mozilla? Possibly? I'd consider switching and supporting "the next Mozilla" if they were close. I just got a built in to the browser pop-up add a few weeks ago from Mozilla about a VPN product... sheesh.
  - bruce511 3y ago
    Let's separate the -browser- from the -engine- for a moment. Nothing stops a new project (eg Brave) from implementing a new browser based on an existing engine. And you even have 3 big mature engines to choose from (gecko, website and blink). The engine is responsible for the HTML, CSS and JavaScript support, which is the bit everyone seems concerned about re standards. The wrapper around that engine is significant - and where most of the complaints actually seem to lie. Built in popups, tracking, phoning home etc. I'm not sure we need another engine. By contrast there are quite a few browsers to choose from built on those engines. Building a new -browser- is "easy". Building a new engine is "hard" (and would be very expensive to keep current.) Incidentally 90% is likely useless. 99% -might- be enough, depending on which 1% is missing.
safety1st 3y ago
It's been many years since you could build and maintain a new browser rendering engine without a lot of money. It's labor intensive enough that Microsoft decided it wasn't worth it. Today, all the money for this comes from only two companies in the world: Apple and Google (since Mozilla's main source of income is its deal with Google, we have three widely used rendering engines, but the money really comes from two companies). Now what's interesting about Ladybird is it's this big pile of BSD licensed code that looks like it would be a good start if you wanted to build a fourth engine. Is there someone out there who has a lot of money and a reason they would want to spend it on developing another engine? I.e. they don't want their fate owned by Apple/Google or the existing engines are somehow inadequate for their needs? This is the really interesting question.

Ladybird sure thinks they are going to. I’m curious how successful they will be.

by arzig 3y ago

Ladybird sure thinks they are going to. I’m curious how successful they will be.

Kinda doubt they will achieve parity. Even if they do, for how long? The problem is that the spec is a moving target, you cannot justify maintaining a platform indefinitely while a complete version exist on the side.

lbotos 3y ago
Lets say they get 90% of modern site compatibility, could they dethrone Mozilla? Possibly? I'd consider switching and supporting "the next Mozilla" if they were close. I just got a built in to the browser pop-up add a few weeks ago from Mozilla about a VPN product... sheesh.
- bruce511 3y ago
  Let's separate the -browser- from the -engine- for a moment. Nothing stops a new project (eg Brave) from implementing a new browser based on an existing engine. And you even have 3 big mature engines to choose from (gecko, website and blink). The engine is responsible for the HTML, CSS and JavaScript support, which is the bit everyone seems concerned about re standards. The wrapper around that engine is significant - and where most of the complaints actually seem to lie. Built in popups, tracking, phoning home etc. I'm not sure we need another engine. By contrast there are quite a few browsers to choose from built on those engines. Building a new -browser- is "easy". Building a new engine is "hard" (and would be very expensive to keep current.) Incidentally 90% is likely useless. 99% -might- be enough, depending on which 1% is missing.

safety1st 3y ago

It's been many years since you could build and maintain a new browser rendering engine without a lot of money. It's labor intensive enough that Microsoft decided it wasn't worth it. Today, all the money for this comes from only two companies in the world: Apple and Google (since Mozilla's main source of income is its deal with Google, we have three widely used rendering engines, but the money really comes from two companies). Now what's interesting about Ladybird is it's this big pile of BSD licensed code that looks like it would be a good start if you wanted to build a fourth engine. Is there someone out there who has a lot of money and a reason they would want to spend it on developing another engine? I.e. they don't want their fate owned by Apple/Google or the existing engines are somehow inadequate for their needs? This is the really interesting question.