6 ms·

I read it the opposite way: - I feel more passion from the author. - I value the pride they show in their work. - I know many people actually care about beau

I read it the opposite way: - I feel more passion from the author. - I value the pride they show in their work. - I know many people actually care about beauty. In fact, with the same amount of bugs, the users of the most beautiful software will actually report it's less buggy. The problem is when someone makes appearances more important than being useful. But I want to give this project the benefit of the doubt. We need more browser diversity.

gexla 2y ago
How do you know it was one of the developers who wrote this? Maybe they hired someone to create the site and the content. Granted, the site is in the repo and you can see who committed the assets. But that still doesn't tell you who originally wrote it.
- billsmithaustin 2y ago
  You're suggesting one of the developers went through all the trouble to create a browser, then allowed someone to add assets to the repo without the developer reviewing them first?
  - gexla 2y ago
    I'm suggesting that you don't know who wrote the content. You don't know the developers wrote it. And if a non-developer wrote it, then that person probably isn't going to commit the content to a repo.
- mthoms 2y ago
  The developers either created or commissioned the website. Accordingly, I think we can safely assume it conveys their goals.
dartos 2y ago
This is based on Firefox, so it doesn’t really help with browser diversity. Ladybird does, but it’s not really ready for prime time yet
- BiteCode_dev 2y ago
  Of course it does. Right now FF shares are so low devs are ignoring it. If more browsers use this engine, more devs will test with it. Also, if it reaches success, it make FF future more robust, which also helps with future diversity.
  - dartos 2y ago
    No way. If google decides that they don’t want to fund Mozilla anymore, then these Firefox derivatives fall as well. I don’t really see the zen team (or other ff forks) hiring the FF devs that are making 6 figures at Mozilla. If Firefox decides to deeply ingrain some DRM standard, there’s a high likelihood that it’ll be included in downstream browsers like this one, unless they are privacy nuts like librewolf. We need entirely new browsers that are more than window dressing on top of existing ones.
    - immibis 2y ago
      Remember what happened to Thunderbird, though. Mozilla dropped it, and it got better. There are good reasons to think that Mozilla - the corporate entity - is cancer.
      - dartos 2y ago
        Isn’t thunderbird still part of Mozilla? It says it still is on their site.
        manuelmoreale 2y ago
        > Thunderbird operates in a for-profit subsidiary of the non-profit Mozilla Foundation. I guess the answer is yes.
        cxr 2y ago
        Nominally yes, and insofar as the Mozilla Foundation is "Mozilla". Even then, the relationship is ceremonial. And Mozilla Corp is something different altogether.
beAbU 2y ago
The first sentence in the first paragraph on the website is "beautifully designed". Clearly the creator wants to bring to our attention that they spent a lot of time designing the visual aspects of this browser. And from the looks of things, this is indeed true. The browser does look very beautiful. But... this is literally form over function. Browsers should be like car tyres. Only after you have selected for your functional use case and requirements, do you filter for visual aesthetics.

gexla 2y ago

How do you know it was one of the developers who wrote this? Maybe they hired someone to create the site and the content. Granted, the site is in the repo and you can see who committed the assets. But that still doesn't tell you who originally wrote it.

billsmithaustin 2y ago
You're suggesting one of the developers went through all the trouble to create a browser, then allowed someone to add assets to the repo without the developer reviewing them first?
- gexla 2y ago
  I'm suggesting that you don't know who wrote the content. You don't know the developers wrote it. And if a non-developer wrote it, then that person probably isn't going to commit the content to a repo.
mthoms 2y ago
The developers either created or commissioned the website. Accordingly, I think we can safely assume it conveys their goals.

dartos 2y ago

This is based on Firefox, so it doesn’t really help with browser diversity. Ladybird does, but it’s not really ready for prime time yet

BiteCode_dev 2y ago
Of course it does. Right now FF shares are so low devs are ignoring it. If more browsers use this engine, more devs will test with it. Also, if it reaches success, it make FF future more robust, which also helps with future diversity.
- dartos 2y ago
  No way. If google decides that they don’t want to fund Mozilla anymore, then these Firefox derivatives fall as well. I don’t really see the zen team (or other ff forks) hiring the FF devs that are making 6 figures at Mozilla. If Firefox decides to deeply ingrain some DRM standard, there’s a high likelihood that it’ll be included in downstream browsers like this one, unless they are privacy nuts like librewolf. We need entirely new browsers that are more than window dressing on top of existing ones.
  - immibis 2y ago
    Remember what happened to Thunderbird, though. Mozilla dropped it, and it got better. There are good reasons to think that Mozilla - the corporate entity - is cancer.
    - dartos 2y ago
      Isn’t thunderbird still part of Mozilla? It says it still is on their site.
      - manuelmoreale 2y ago
        > Thunderbird operates in a for-profit subsidiary of the non-profit Mozilla Foundation. I guess the answer is yes.
      - cxr 2y ago
        Nominally yes, and insofar as the Mozilla Foundation is "Mozilla". Even then, the relationship is ceremonial. And Mozilla Corp is something different altogether.

beAbU 2y ago

The first sentence in the first paragraph on the website is "beautifully designed". Clearly the creator wants to bring to our attention that they spent a lot of time designing the visual aspects of this browser. And from the looks of things, this is indeed true. The browser does look very beautiful. But... this is literally form over function. Browsers should be like car tyres. Only after you have selected for your functional use case and requirements, do you filter for visual aesthetics.