Ladybird uses a new browser engine called LibWeb that is being created from scratch by the development team.
Browsers that rely on Chromium / Blink rely on Google. Firefox relies on Google for its funding, so any browser based on Gecko relies on Google. If they can make a browser engine that has rough feature parity with Chromium but doesn’'t rely on Google that’s very healthy for the web.
The standard point is most around how big that ‘partly’ is, and how attached a project can become to that part. If a project has, for easy math, a $10M bankroll and $5M comes from, say, Goog or MS, the project can face a moment where the corporation comes and says, ‘we don’t like that you’ve implemented this feature that interferes with our control of users. We’re pulling our funding unless you remove it.’ (more realistically, ‘we see you have allocated some dev time to this feature request we don’t like. Cancel it before the public can demand it.’) If that happens, you have to have a project lead with some real rectitude to say, ‘okay,’ and just cut their budget in half. The more diversely sourced a FOSS project’s funding is, the harder it is to control, and vice versa.
Wauw, that’s crazy speculations. Google buys a service from Firefox, that doesn’t give them the right to manage Firefox. Give me 1 example where Google did what you say? Otherwise, let’s archive that fantasy rambling as paranoid speculation.
Mozilla, though getting funding from Google to make google its default search engine, officially decided to keep supporting Manifest v2.
For now. Google probably isn’t too concerned since they have a more than 70% market share, and nearly 90% if you count all Chromium-based browsers. Firefox has managed to do what Google wants, which is “exist” and “not meaningfully compete with Chrome”. If that changes, Google might lean on them harder.
That speaks a valume about how much control google has on Mozilla decision making process.
It doesn’t say anything about that at all. Just because you’re paying for something doesn’t mean they have to do it your way. It is at most something to keep an eye on.
Google pays them for two reasons. To be the default search engine giving them substantial marketing and ad space, and to keep them floating and independent to lessen their probable status as a monopoly.
In fact, in the recent antitrust ruling, Google is precluded from even making exclusive deals with them.
Ironically, we already had that - Microsoft’s first version of Edge was using their own engine. On release, it had the highest W3C compatibility score.
Google started shitting on it (including things like serving clear HTML version of Gmail because “the browser is outdated” if it detected the Edge user agent) and massive self-delusion campaigns of “Edge is just Internet Explorer” eventually killed the thing and forced MS to switch to Chromium.
I have Ladybird installed and I check it out every now and then, but I honestly doubt that a bunch of random developers will succeed where Microsoft failed. Unless Cloudflare somehow chips in and forces Google’s hand into compatibility, but I don’t know if even they are big enough to do that.
Personally, I think if the engine was closed source, then we didn’t in fact “had that”. Maybe Microsoft had it, not us.
What makes things like chromium, firefox and webkit actual ecosystems is that they at least have an open source basis. Edge isn’t an ecosystem, it’s a black box. We don’t even know whether it’s true or not that it was its own thing or just they sneakily used bits and pieces of chromium from the start anyway.
User Agent checks is the easiest thing to overcome. Had edge’s engine been open source we would have had spins of it resolving the issue within hours. There are many examples of “random developers” succeeding where big companies tied by business strategies (I bet they had business reasons to keep a distinctive user agent) didn’t, to the point that the web runs on servers using FOSS software.
Yes, I understand that. But in my view, Microsoft is the one that might have had “a non Google-reliant engine” (if it’s true that they didn’t rely on Google code).
They just let us use it under their conditions, for the limited time they decided to make it available to us… but it was never “ours”. We were just contractually allowed to use it, but we didn’t really “have” it.
Yes, the matter of fact is that the reason why that choice was taken away is because everyone except MS was forbidden from “having” that engine. It might have still been alive today in some form had it not been an exclusive MS-owned thing.
I imagine the reason that Cloudflare is doing this now is that Google just got off with no punishment from their antitrust loss.
Anybody who competes with Google now has to worry that they’ll do to them what they did to Microsoft. And, with Trump’s DOJ, the government will probably just ignore it if Sundar Pichai shows up with a shiny bauble for Trump. So, I’d imagine that Microsoft, Cloudflare, Amazon (AWS, Twitch), and Meta, among others, might all decide to fund an alternative browser.
Microsoft - in theory - had the finances to push their browser to peoples homes. Be it by baking it in to Windows, by ad campaigns, etc., etc. And they still lost to Google’s control over the Web.
Ladybird, by comparison, is an obscure no-name product, being made by a controversial figure, with (relatively to MS) zero ability to market itself to the wider audience. All Google has to do is make their products completely inoperable under Ladybird and, other than some extremely committed power-users who want to “de-google” their lives, nobody will use it.
Ladybird is not threatened to be killed by whatever anybody but the developers do.
It absolutely is. If Google forces incompatibility on it (like it did with Edge) ordinary users won’t switch. Because the majority of ordinary users are still deep in the ecosystem.
All it takes is for Google to block high quality streaming on YouTube and the browser will never go outside of 2-3% market share.
But we’re discussing the potential future of the browser, not its current state. Right now it can barely render a modern page without crashing (but not always).
What’s not bad? Ladybird sitting at floor-leves of market share?
If we want to threaten the status quo in any way, it absolutely is. Firefox has 2.26% and - in terms of defining standards or forcing changes upon Chromium - it’s 100% irrelevant.
I just wanna say that we have Webkit. After Google moved over to Blink Webkit has not stopped development… and it even has multiple big names behind it (like Apple, but also Valve partnered with WebkitGtk maintainers, and many devices like Amazon’s Kindle are heavily invested on it) so it’s not gonna go away anytime soon. Specially with Safari being the second most used browser on the web, right after chrome and several times more users than Firefox.
On Linux we have some browsers making use of Webkit (like Epiphany, Gnome’s default browser) that are thus independent from Google or even Mozilla. I’m not sure if there’s any browser like that for Windows though.
There’s also Netsurf, they also have their own rendering libraries, but development for it is super slow, I’ve been following them for a couple decades and they still haven’t got a stable javascript engine, so it only works for the most basic of websites. The plus side is that it’s very light on resources, though.
This is very encouraging:
Browsers that rely on Chromium / Blink rely on Google. Firefox relies on Google for its funding, so any browser based on Gecko relies on Google. If they can make a browser engine that has rough feature parity with Chromium but doesn’'t rely on Google that’s very healthy for the web.
You do know the difference of “built by” and “partly funded by”, right?
What exactly is your problem by Mozilla/Firefox being partly funded by Google?
The standard point is most around how big that ‘partly’ is, and how attached a project can become to that part. If a project has, for easy math, a $10M bankroll and $5M comes from, say, Goog or MS, the project can face a moment where the corporation comes and says, ‘we don’t like that you’ve implemented this feature that interferes with our control of users. We’re pulling our funding unless you remove it.’ (more realistically, ‘we see you have allocated some dev time to this feature request we don’t like. Cancel it before the public can demand it.’) If that happens, you have to have a project lead with some real rectitude to say, ‘okay,’ and just cut their budget in half. The more diversely sourced a FOSS project’s funding is, the harder it is to control, and vice versa.
Wauw, that’s crazy speculations. Google buys a service from Firefox, that doesn’t give them the right to manage Firefox. Give me 1 example where Google did what you say? Otherwise, let’s archive that fantasy rambling as paranoid speculation.
“Partly funded by”?
https://windscribe.com/blog/windscribe-expose-mozilla/
That’s what you call “partly”. You know, unlike “solely”…? So what is your question here?
Do you mean “almost completely”?
Which is still partly, because it’s not solely. But yes, that is a rather large part of the total sum.
Google introduced Extension manifest v3 to effectively to kill/handicap AdBlock extensions.
Mozilla, though getting funding from Google to make google its default search engine, officially decided to keep supporting Manifest v2.
Adblockers are direct challenge to Alphabet’s ad revenue which is still their biggest cash cow.
That speaks a valume about how much control google has on Mozilla decision making process.
For now. Google probably isn’t too concerned since they have a more than 70% market share, and nearly 90% if you count all Chromium-based browsers. Firefox has managed to do what Google wants, which is “exist” and “not meaningfully compete with Chrome”. If that changes, Google might lean on them harder.
If you remember, at one time Firefox used to hold 30% of total browser market share, and it was pro-privacy organization back then as it is now.
Even at that time Google was not managed to influence their decision making process.
What makes you think Google didn’t influence their decision making process? (Assuming that’s what you’re saying)
It doesn’t say anything about that at all. Just because you’re paying for something doesn’t mean they have to do it your way. It is at most something to keep an eye on.
Google pays them for two reasons. To be the default search engine giving them substantial marketing and ad space, and to keep them floating and independent to lessen their probable status as a monopoly.
In fact, in the recent antitrust ruling, Google is precluded from even making exclusive deals with them.
You are agreeing with the person you replied to lol
Ironically, we already had that - Microsoft’s first version of Edge was using their own engine. On release, it had the highest W3C compatibility score.
Google started shitting on it (including things like serving clear HTML version of Gmail because “the browser is outdated” if it detected the Edge user agent) and massive self-delusion campaigns of “Edge is just Internet Explorer” eventually killed the thing and forced MS to switch to Chromium.
I have Ladybird installed and I check it out every now and then, but I honestly doubt that a bunch of random developers will succeed where Microsoft failed. Unless Cloudflare somehow chips in and forces Google’s hand into compatibility, but I don’t know if even they are big enough to do that.
Personally, I think if the engine was closed source, then we didn’t in fact “had that”. Maybe Microsoft had it, not us.
What makes things like chromium, firefox and webkit actual ecosystems is that they at least have an open source basis. Edge isn’t an ecosystem, it’s a black box. We don’t even know whether it’s true or not that it was its own thing or just they sneakily used bits and pieces of chromium from the start anyway.
User Agent checks is the easiest thing to overcome. Had edge’s engine been open source we would have had spins of it resolving the issue within hours. There are many examples of “random developers” succeeding where big companies tied by business strategies (I bet they had business reasons to keep a distinctive user agent) didn’t, to the point that the web runs on servers using FOSS software.
Well, yeah, in that aspect, you’re correct. I meant that as a “we had a non Google-reliant engine”.
Yes, I understand that. But in my view, Microsoft is the one that might have had “a non Google-reliant engine” (if it’s true that they didn’t rely on Google code).
They just let us use it under their conditions, for the limited time they decided to make it available to us… but it was never “ours”. We were just contractually allowed to use it, but we didn’t really “have” it.
Semantics. I agree with you in principle, but the matter of fact is that we ended up with effectively zero choice over the browser engine.
Yes, the matter of fact is that the reason why that choice was taken away is because everyone except MS was forbidden from “having” that engine. It might have still been alive today in some form had it not been an exclusive MS-owned thing.
I imagine the reason that Cloudflare is doing this now is that Google just got off with no punishment from their antitrust loss.
Anybody who competes with Google now has to worry that they’ll do to them what they did to Microsoft. And, with Trump’s DOJ, the government will probably just ignore it if Sundar Pichai shows up with a shiny bauble for Trump. So, I’d imagine that Microsoft, Cloudflare, Amazon (AWS, Twitch), and Meta, among others, might all decide to fund an alternative browser.
Ladybird doesn’t have to be profitable and the org cannot be bought.
Not what I meant.
Microsoft - in theory - had the finances to push their browser to peoples homes. Be it by baking it in to Windows, by ad campaigns, etc., etc. And they still lost to Google’s control over the Web.
Ladybird, by comparison, is an obscure no-name product, being made by a controversial figure, with (relatively to MS) zero ability to market itself to the wider audience. All Google has to do is make their products completely inoperable under Ladybird and, other than some extremely committed power-users who want to “de-google” their lives, nobody will use it.
You are right, but as you noticed, we don’t argue the same thing.
Ladybird is not threatened to be killed by whatever anybody but the developers do.
It absolutely is. If Google forces incompatibility on it (like it did with Edge) ordinary users won’t switch. Because the majority of ordinary users are still deep in the ecosystem.
All it takes is for Google to block high quality streaming on YouTube and the browser will never go outside of 2-3% market share.
I think not being a default browser means that, for now, it’s not for ordinary users anyway.
But we’re discussing the potential future of the browser, not its current state. Right now it can barely render a modern page without crashing (but not always).
That’s not bad.
What’s not bad? Ladybird sitting at floor-leves of market share?
If we want to threaten the status quo in any way, it absolutely is. Firefox has 2.26% and - in terms of defining standards or forcing changes upon Chromium - it’s 100% irrelevant.
To threaten the status quo it’s bad but to have fun programming a browser it’s not bad.
I just wanna say that we have Webkit. After Google moved over to Blink Webkit has not stopped development… and it even has multiple big names behind it (like Apple, but also Valve partnered with WebkitGtk maintainers, and many devices like Amazon’s Kindle are heavily invested on it) so it’s not gonna go away anytime soon. Specially with Safari being the second most used browser on the web, right after chrome and several times more users than Firefox.
On Linux we have some browsers making use of Webkit (like Epiphany, Gnome’s default browser) that are thus independent from Google or even Mozilla. I’m not sure if there’s any browser like that for Windows though.
There’s also Netsurf, they also have their own rendering libraries, but development for it is super slow, I’ve been following them for a couple decades and they still haven’t got a stable javascript engine, so it only works for the most basic of websites. The plus side is that it’s very light on resources, though.
I love WebKit exploits because they suddenly open up several gaming consoles to homebrew, almost all of them have browsers based on WebKit too.
There’s also Palemoon with its goanna engine, which forked off Firefox when Mozilla retired XUL and has diverged since