3 ms·

Well Ladybird [0] it is [0]: https://ladybird.org/ https://ladybird.org/

by lionkor 10mo ago

rvz 10mo ago
And we can at least donate directly to Ladybird's development [0] Unlike Mozilla which Firefox is completely funded with Google's money. [0] https://donorbox.org/ladybird https://donorbox.org/ladybird
- smt88 10mo ago
  You can donate to any nonprofit and stipulate that your money be used only for a certain purpose, and they're legally bound by it.
  - sfink 10mo ago
    Not relevant here. Yes, you can donate to Mozilla.org and stipulate whatever you like, but Mozilla.org does not develop Firefox so telling them to use it for developing Firefox will do about as much good as telling them to use it to resurrect unicorns. Mozilla.org owns Mozilla Corporation, which is a for-profit entity that develops Firefox, but thus far the corporation hasn't wanted the complications and restrictions that would come from accepting donations.
    - smt88 10mo ago
      Everything I can find online says that there are contributors working for both Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corporation
      - sfink 10mo ago
        Contributors are people. Donations are dollars. People ≠ dollars. Unless you grind them up and eat them as sausages, but don't do that. The anti-theft threads will get stuck in your teeth.
        smt88 10mo ago
        The contributors are paid by Mozilla Foundation. This is not complicated.
        sfink 10mo ago
        Hm. I'm dumb so you'll need to spell it out for me. MoFo and MoCo both have contributors, yes. Both have unpaid contributors, which apparently are not who you're talking about. Both also have paid people who work for them. Whether or not you call them "contributors" or "employees" doesn't matter much, I guess. But still, MoFo contributors, paid or not, do not work on Firefox. Firefox is not a MoFo product. Most MoCo contributors do work on Firefox. Firefox is a MoCo product. It's confusing because MoFo owns MoCo, but owning a company does not mean its products are your products, nor that you can freely assist with those products (especially in an arms-length setup involving taxes, which is the very reason for the MoFo/MoCo split in the first place.) MoFo does other things, non-Firefox things, like advocacy and pissing off HN commenters who assume that "Mozilla does X" headlines always mean MoCo is doing X. One of us is confused. I have that uneasy sensation I get when something is going "whoosh!" over my head, so it might be me.
        smt88 10mo ago
        > Most MoCo contributors do work on Firefox. Firefox is a MoCo product. This is true. > But still, MoFo contributors, paid or not, do not work on Firefox. This is not true, based on what I've read about it. Do you have personal experience with these orgs that suggests otherwise? Regardless, nothing is stopping Foundation funds from being directed to Firefox development. If someone gave them, for example, $1M that could only be spent on Firefox, they could pay Corporation or an external consultancy to contribute to the open-source Firefox repositories. This is already happening, either through Foundation or Corporation. One of the biggest Servo contributors works for a FOSS consultancy. There are corollaries to what I'm describing in most large nonprofits in the US. You get money that a donor requires you to spend in a certain way, and you spend that money that way. If you can't do it with in-house people, you give it to consultants.
hamdingers 10mo ago
Is this usable day to day yet? I built it a few months ago and there were showstopper bugs on any nontrivial website. Exciting project nonetheless.
nine_k 10mo ago
> it is You must be meaning "will be". Because the first alpha release is promised some time in 2026. So hopefully by 2028 it will be solid enough.
- GalaxyNova 10mo ago
  You can use it right now if you build it from source, in fact I am writing this HN comment from it.
shayway 10mo ago
I'm reading HN on my laptop outside, and a ladybug landed on my screen right as I was reading this comment. It's sitting there as I write this. I know this doesn't contribute to the discussion in any way but it's so neat I just needed to share.
ares623 10mo ago
I know it's very shallow but the marketing page gives me the ick. I have been Pavlov'd that websites with such designs are scams/vaporware.
- lionkor 10mo ago
  Fair, but I've been following Andreas Kling since he started (publically) with SerenityOS back a couple years ago, and he's a real hacker -- as real as they come. I've watched hours of how he works on YouTube, it's fantastic, if anyone can lead a browser team, its him.

Well Ladybird [0] it is [0]: https://ladybird.org/ https://ladybird.org/

by lionkor 10mo ago

Well Ladybird [0] it is [0]: https://ladybird.org/ https://ladybird.org/

rvz 10mo ago

And we can at least donate directly to Ladybird's development [0] Unlike Mozilla which Firefox is completely funded with Google's money. [0] https://donorbox.org/ladybird https://donorbox.org/ladybird

smt88 10mo ago
You can donate to any nonprofit and stipulate that your money be used only for a certain purpose, and they're legally bound by it.
- sfink 10mo ago
  Not relevant here. Yes, you can donate to Mozilla.org and stipulate whatever you like, but Mozilla.org does not develop Firefox so telling them to use it for developing Firefox will do about as much good as telling them to use it to resurrect unicorns. Mozilla.org owns Mozilla Corporation, which is a for-profit entity that develops Firefox, but thus far the corporation hasn't wanted the complications and restrictions that would come from accepting donations.
  - smt88 10mo ago
    Everything I can find online says that there are contributors working for both Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corporation
    - sfink 10mo ago
      Contributors are people. Donations are dollars. People ≠ dollars. Unless you grind them up and eat them as sausages, but don't do that. The anti-theft threads will get stuck in your teeth.
      - smt88 10mo ago
        The contributors are paid by Mozilla Foundation. This is not complicated.
        sfink 10mo ago
        Hm. I'm dumb so you'll need to spell it out for me. MoFo and MoCo both have contributors, yes. Both have unpaid contributors, which apparently are not who you're talking about. Both also have paid people who work for them. Whether or not you call them "contributors" or "employees" doesn't matter much, I guess. But still, MoFo contributors, paid or not, do not work on Firefox. Firefox is not a MoFo product. Most MoCo contributors do work on Firefox. Firefox is a MoCo product. It's confusing because MoFo owns MoCo, but owning a company does not mean its products are your products, nor that you can freely assist with those products (especially in an arms-length setup involving taxes, which is the very reason for the MoFo/MoCo split in the first place.) MoFo does other things, non-Firefox things, like advocacy and pissing off HN commenters who assume that "Mozilla does X" headlines always mean MoCo is doing X. One of us is confused. I have that uneasy sensation I get when something is going "whoosh!" over my head, so it might be me.
        smt88 10mo ago
        > Most MoCo contributors do work on Firefox. Firefox is a MoCo product. This is true. > But still, MoFo contributors, paid or not, do not work on Firefox. This is not true, based on what I've read about it. Do you have personal experience with these orgs that suggests otherwise? Regardless, nothing is stopping Foundation funds from being directed to Firefox development. If someone gave them, for example, $1M that could only be spent on Firefox, they could pay Corporation or an external consultancy to contribute to the open-source Firefox repositories. This is already happening, either through Foundation or Corporation. One of the biggest Servo contributors works for a FOSS consultancy. There are corollaries to what I'm describing in most large nonprofits in the US. You get money that a donor requires you to spend in a certain way, and you spend that money that way. If you can't do it with in-house people, you give it to consultants.

hamdingers 10mo ago

Is this usable day to day yet? I built it a few months ago and there were showstopper bugs on any nontrivial website. Exciting project nonetheless.

nine_k 10mo ago

> it is You must be meaning "will be". Because the first alpha release is promised some time in 2026. So hopefully by 2028 it will be solid enough.

GalaxyNova 10mo ago
You can use it right now if you build it from source, in fact I am writing this HN comment from it.

shayway 10mo ago

I'm reading HN on my laptop outside, and a ladybug landed on my screen right as I was reading this comment. It's sitting there as I write this. I know this doesn't contribute to the discussion in any way but it's so neat I just needed to share.

ares623 10mo ago

I know it's very shallow but the marketing page gives me the ick. I have been Pavlov'd that websites with such designs are scams/vaporware.

lionkor 10mo ago
Fair, but I've been following Andreas Kling since he started (publically) with SerenityOS back a couple years ago, and he's a real hacker -- as real as they come. I've watched hours of how he works on YouTube, it's fantastic, if anyone can lead a browser team, its him.