5 ms·

Ladybird has a very large political aim: to become the only browser that isn't funded by Google or based on Google's browser engine. The reason it left behind S

Ladybird has a very large political aim: to become the only browser that isn't funded by Google or based on Google's browser engine. The reason it left behind SerenityOS is because it has moved from a hobbyist aim to a very serious political aim.

Apocryphon 2y ago
You should say only major browser that fits those categories because examples of the latter exist- Orion uses WebKit and Zen uses Gecko- and I imagine the former is even more common.
- bowsamic 2y ago
  WebKit and gecko are funded by google
  - Apocryphon 2y ago
    WebKit is forked by Google and Firefox is funded by Google.
  - fiddlerwoaroof 2y ago
    WebKit is funded by Apple, not Google anymore as far as I know
    - adamrt 2y ago
      Google pays Apple ~$20B to be default search engine in Safari/Webkit though
      - fiddlerwoaroof 2y ago
        I think it’s pretty different when it’s going to a trillion-dollar company than when it’s the main source of money for a foundation.
        bowsamic 2y ago
        Andreas, creator of Ladybird and ex Apple employee who worked on WebKit, claims that WebKit dev is completely paid for by that deal
        Apocryphon 2y ago
        So? It’s not as if Apple wouldn’t have plenty of other ways to fund WebKit development otherwise.
        bowsamic 2y ago
        Sure but would they? Currently they get it totally for free. If they had to finance the development themselves then it would get real hard to justify real quick. $20bn is a lot of money even for Apple It's not about whether or not Apple have the resources to make their own browser engine, it's about whether it makes sense from a business point of view to make their own browser engine. Currently it does, because Google pay them huge amounts of money to do so. But what business case would there be to pay that $20bn themselves if Google did not fund them? Would it be worth that just to avoid Chromium?
        spencerflem 2y ago
        Tbf - they don't pay for WebKit, they pay to be the default search engine. If Apple wanted, they could switch to Chromium and still have the same captive audience and bargaining power (but a lot less control of the direction web standards go)
        Apocryphon 2y ago
        That’s not necessarily true, even Microsoft has its own tweaks of Chromium: > We’ve seen Edge adding some privacy enhancements to Chromium pioneered by Safari. Edge shipped those, but Chrome did not. And as more browsers start using Chromium and large companies will work on improving Chromium, more of these disagreements will happen. It will be interesting to see what happens. Just because a browser is based on Chromium, that does not mean it is identical to Chrome and that Google is in control. Even if the unthinkable happens and Apple is forced to adopt Chromium, that will only ensure that Google is not the only one having a say about Chromium and the future of the web. https://nielsleenheer.com/articles/2022/why-safari-does-not-need-any-protection-from-chromium/ https://nielsleenheer.com/articles/2022/why-safari-does-not-...
      - Apocryphon 2y ago
        Safari and WebKit are not the same thing.
        ronsor 2y ago
        WebKit is still mostly developed by Apple, isn't it?
        Apocryphon 2y ago
        But WebKit does not contain any default search engine.
zamadatix 2y ago
Ladybird aims to build a true new browser engine bit it's using big Google libraries like ANGLE and Skia to do it I don't know it's really fair to frame it as escaping Google completely like that.
- 5- 2y ago
  i'm not sure why you are being downvoted -- i can see angle as just a platform compatibility layer (in the same category as qt, which ladybird also uses), but skia (vector graphics) is definitely an important part of a rendering engine, which, coupled with the insane complexity of skia's implementation, does appear to jeopardize the whole 'web rendering engine from scratch' aim.
  - LeFantome 2y ago
    Well, the "engine" is pretty much from scratch but the project no longer believes in "being responsible for everything ourselves". The goal with Ladybird is to be "independent" in the sense that nobody influences their decisions. However, they have no desire to be independent from a technology stand-point (other than being Open Source). In fact, they are talking about moving to Swift as their core language.
    - shiomiru 2y ago
      > The goal with Ladybird is to be "independent" in the sense that nobody influences their decisions. However, they have no desire to be independent from a technology stand-point (other than being Open Source). Wouldn't a hard fork Blink instead of LibWeb still achieve this goal?

Apocryphon 2y ago

You should say only major browser that fits those categories because examples of the latter exist- Orion uses WebKit and Zen uses Gecko- and I imagine the former is even more common.

bowsamic 2y ago
WebKit and gecko are funded by google
- Apocryphon 2y ago
  WebKit is forked by Google and Firefox is funded by Google.
- fiddlerwoaroof 2y ago
  WebKit is funded by Apple, not Google anymore as far as I know
  - adamrt 2y ago
    Google pays Apple ~$20B to be default search engine in Safari/Webkit though
    - fiddlerwoaroof 2y ago
      I think it’s pretty different when it’s going to a trillion-dollar company than when it’s the main source of money for a foundation.
      - bowsamic 2y ago
        Andreas, creator of Ladybird and ex Apple employee who worked on WebKit, claims that WebKit dev is completely paid for by that deal
        Apocryphon 2y ago
        So? It’s not as if Apple wouldn’t have plenty of other ways to fund WebKit development otherwise.
        bowsamic 2y ago
        Sure but would they? Currently they get it totally for free. If they had to finance the development themselves then it would get real hard to justify real quick. $20bn is a lot of money even for Apple It's not about whether or not Apple have the resources to make their own browser engine, it's about whether it makes sense from a business point of view to make their own browser engine. Currently it does, because Google pay them huge amounts of money to do so. But what business case would there be to pay that $20bn themselves if Google did not fund them? Would it be worth that just to avoid Chromium?
        spencerflem 2y ago
        Tbf - they don't pay for WebKit, they pay to be the default search engine. If Apple wanted, they could switch to Chromium and still have the same captive audience and bargaining power (but a lot less control of the direction web standards go)
        Apocryphon 2y ago
        That’s not necessarily true, even Microsoft has its own tweaks of Chromium: > We’ve seen Edge adding some privacy enhancements to Chromium pioneered by Safari. Edge shipped those, but Chrome did not. And as more browsers start using Chromium and large companies will work on improving Chromium, more of these disagreements will happen. It will be interesting to see what happens. Just because a browser is based on Chromium, that does not mean it is identical to Chrome and that Google is in control. Even if the unthinkable happens and Apple is forced to adopt Chromium, that will only ensure that Google is not the only one having a say about Chromium and the future of the web. https://nielsleenheer.com/articles/2022/why-safari-does-not-need-any-protection-from-chromium/ https://nielsleenheer.com/articles/2022/why-safari-does-not-...
    - Apocryphon 2y ago
      Safari and WebKit are not the same thing.
      - ronsor 2y ago
        WebKit is still mostly developed by Apple, isn't it?
        Apocryphon 2y ago
        But WebKit does not contain any default search engine.

zamadatix 2y ago

Ladybird aims to build a true new browser engine bit it's using big Google libraries like ANGLE and Skia to do it I don't know it's really fair to frame it as escaping Google completely like that.

5- 2y ago
i'm not sure why you are being downvoted -- i can see angle as just a platform compatibility layer (in the same category as qt, which ladybird also uses), but skia (vector graphics) is definitely an important part of a rendering engine, which, coupled with the insane complexity of skia's implementation, does appear to jeopardize the whole 'web rendering engine from scratch' aim.
- LeFantome 2y ago
  Well, the "engine" is pretty much from scratch but the project no longer believes in "being responsible for everything ourselves". The goal with Ladybird is to be "independent" in the sense that nobody influences their decisions. However, they have no desire to be independent from a technology stand-point (other than being Open Source). In fact, they are talking about moving to Swift as their core language.
  - shiomiru 2y ago
    > The goal with Ladybird is to be "independent" in the sense that nobody influences their decisions. However, they have no desire to be independent from a technology stand-point (other than being Open Source). Wouldn't a hard fork Blink instead of LibWeb still achieve this goal?