I would have preferred Rust, a language created by Mozilla instead of one with ties to Apple, but I'm not a dev so I can't really judge. What are your thoughts?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ksynwa@lemmygrad.ml 10 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Why is there so much hype around this?

[–] turnipjs@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Ladybird or rust?

[–] ksynwa@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Ladybird

[–] turnipjs@lemmy.ml 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The biggest part is that Chromium has all but taken over the browser space, and Google is additionally 90% or so of Firefox's funding which likely gives them power even when it's unspoken. That is to say that Google has way too much control over browsers to go along with their way too much control over internet traffic in general. The recent Manifest V3 thing and Mozillas "privacy preserving" ad personalization also likely have significant effects.

[–] ksynwa@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I agree with what you said but there is next to no chance a new browser engine from scratch will be able to challenge Blink's dominance.

Google's power comes from a combination of unfortunate factors. They have limitless money to support Chrome's development. They are one of the biggest vendors of online services. They are one of the biggest drivers of new web standard adoption.

Breaking this monopoly will require regulation and enforcement, not a "tech visionary" and a GitHub co-founder playing hero.

[–] turnipjs@lemmy.ml 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

The alternatives have to exist first before the monopoly can break. One doesn't have to think the browser will singlehandedly change the entire browser space to be hyped about more alternatives. I am just excited to see some amount of motion in opposition to the decline into the google-net. Not that this is the only thing happening but it is an interesting one that I hope pans out.

[–] ksynwa@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

But alternatives already exist in the form of Safari and Firefox.

[–] firewood010@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Firefox is somehow struggling at picking up feedback from users and Safari is not open source.

[–] ksynwa@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 3 months ago

Alright then when the stars align perfectly and this pie in the sky becomes a reality maybe we can seriously consider regulating Google.

[–] leopold@lemmy.kde.social 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Putting aside the fact that you're engaging in extremely blatant goalpost moving, WebKit is open source and is being used by open source browsers like GNOME Web.

[–] jjlinux@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

So you'd rather live in a world where nobody does anything about it because politicians won't do anything? That's an idea to move forward 🙄

[–] ksynwa@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

My point is that no one talks about using regulations to curb Google's browser monopoly ever. Even the anti-trust suit against them was related to their search offering. This relates to how Mozilla is beholden to Google for funding, and other players in the game being big corporations themselves.

politicians won’t do anything

Politicians can be made to do stuff. It is not always easy or even possible but activism sometimes works. Either way it is more likely to work than a toy browser for a niche segment of nerds becoming a viable alternative.

[–] jjlinux@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I do get your point, and in a perfect world that would be the solution. However, there are too many considerations to keep in mind with this:

1.- it's usually the nerdy crowd that is willing to go out of their way to resist monopolies like this. The rest of the people cannot be bothered with this because they risk missing an Instagram post of a dog scratching a carpet. So, creating a solution geared at nerds is highly likely to achieve the desired effect.

2.- doing something like this is still doing something, which is much more than anyone can expect from "regulators". Librewolf, Mulkvad browser, Brave, etc, are there because a bunch of nerds did them, nothing was being regulated.

3.- in every post about enshitification I've seen the last couple of years the need to regulate these companies always comes up. This has had little to no impact in getting those regulations even started.

Those are only 3 of the many reasons why we do need more of these independent and nerd focused applications. If we didn't have them, then we'd be unequivocally fucked.

Lemmy and Mastodon, what was/is being regulated to make them happen instead of fakebook, Quitter and fucking reddit? Nothing at all.

You make a good point, but the chances of anything happening on the regulatory side of things in the near future is basically null. I hope I'm wrong.

[–] ksynwa@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I take your point. I am not against this project existing and it could turn out positive even. But as I said it doesn't have the potential to hinder Chrome's monopoly.

[–] jjlinux@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago

Agreed. I don't think anything does.

[–] GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml -5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Because people love Rust, even though it's not entirely FOSS.

[–] turnipjs@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

What are you referring to? https://www.rust-lang.org/policies/licenses and https://github.com/rust-lang/rust?tab=readme-ov-file#license seem to say otherwise...