There are several clips of the interview on his channel if you don’t have time to watch a 2 hour interview.
As for something taking place of the Mozilla Foundation itself, their activism in influencing web standards isn’t really enough anymore anyways. They are silent about fingerprinting, which their main source of funding engages in openly to track users across devices.
this is a bafflingly absurd comparison. ladybird is nowhere near the same scale as mozilla. not only is firefox a fully functional browser, available in multiple platforms, but also creating the browser is only one of the relevant things mozilla does
If you read the chain, I wasn’t comparing. It’s possible in a couple years that engines like Ladybird or Servo will take the place of Gecko, at least in part.
Mozilla has no public plan in place to deal with a loss of Google’s funding.
I’m not going to trade Firefox for a browser that is years away from being even remotely daily drivable. Even once/if it’s able to render pages mostly correctly, it will still take a while after that to make it fast.
Even with Mozilla’s funding, they’re behind on implementing featues. Ladybird has much less funding and their current policy is to just rely on donations.
It’s going to take years once it actually renders pages correctly to not only be fast but also secure.
And then it’s going to take at least a decade for it to build the necessary ecosystem and ancillary tooling (use. Devtools) that other major browsers have.
And very likely unless it gains significant funding it will never catch up.
At the end of the day, browsers are absolutely crazy expensive to develop. It takes a significant number of engineers not only to maintain it but to build new features and keep up with web standards.
I was satisfied with how Andreas explained the funding situation of the Ladybird browser. They are relying on sponsorships, in addition to individual user donations, and also engaging in fundraising (but not in the venture capital sense).
As Andreas (loosely) put it; they are melting the hearts of people that echo some of the same views as yourself. They are being careful with how they scale and utilize funding, and they aim to make a codebase where everybody working on it is generally proficient in the entire codebase.
Mozilla’s funding isn’t sustainable and (in my opinion) their leadership are not reliable actors anymore - merely masquerading as activists. They do not utilize their money effectively. Relying on the money of an ad-tech/search/browser/etc. monopoly that is openly engaging in mass surveillance, and more recently, selling their AI for war isn’t ethical or compatible with Mozilla’s mission.
Ladybird has 757,140 lines of code. There’s just no way that they don’t still need to develop manifold as much code as what they currently have, to support the features we expect from modern browsers. And they will need more money for that.
Source? I read that there was an issue with gender neutral pronouns not being used in the codebase (he stated that he has no problem with gender neutral pronouns), but I’m not a simp for him or somebody to argue for lesser evils.
This project is not an appropriate arena to advertise your personal politics.
Not the best look for him, but if this is all the meat to your accusation, then I am going to have to disagree with your statements of him being “vocally against a minority” and “calling somebody’s existence politics” - it seems like a stretch as nothing was said that targeted a minority or calling somebody’s existence politics. Was he being needlessly pedantic and insensitive to a contributor whose only contribution was that PR? Yes, I’d say so.
The use of gender neutral pronouns or pronouns in a more general sense are not politics, I strongly disagree with him. It was his choice to die on this hill in this instance, but they now use gender neutral pronouns. Again, if there is more evidence besides this singular statement, I’m all ears. Is it still concerning? Of course.
Ladybird is quickly shaping up.
See Brodie’s interview of Andreas Kling, the lead developer of the Ladybird Browser: https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/IXdBndEipps
There are several clips of the interview on his channel if you don’t have time to watch a 2 hour interview.
As for something taking place of the Mozilla Foundation itself, their activism in influencing web standards isn’t really enough anymore anyways. They are silent about fingerprinting, which their main source of funding engages in openly to track users across devices.
this is a bafflingly absurd comparison. ladybird is nowhere near the same scale as mozilla. not only is firefox a fully functional browser, available in multiple platforms, but also creating the browser is only one of the relevant things mozilla does
If you read the chain, I wasn’t comparing. It’s possible in a couple years that engines like Ladybird or Servo will take the place of Gecko, at least in part.
Mozilla has no public plan in place to deal with a loss of Google’s funding.
sadly many of the other relevant things these days are AI slop and ads
I’m not going to trade Firefox for a browser that is years away from being even remotely daily drivable. Even once/if it’s able to render pages mostly correctly, it will still take a while after that to make it fast.
Even with Mozilla’s funding, they’re behind on implementing featues. Ladybird has much less funding and their current policy is to just rely on donations.
It’s going to take years once it actually renders pages correctly to not only be fast but also secure.
And then it’s going to take at least a decade for it to build the necessary ecosystem and ancillary tooling (use. Devtools) that other major browsers have.
And very likely unless it gains significant funding it will never catch up.
At the end of the day, browsers are absolutely crazy expensive to develop. It takes a significant number of engineers not only to maintain it but to build new features and keep up with web standards.
I was satisfied with how Andreas explained the funding situation of the Ladybird browser. They are relying on sponsorships, in addition to individual user donations, and also engaging in fundraising (but not in the venture capital sense).
As Andreas (loosely) put it; they are melting the hearts of people that echo some of the same views as yourself. They are being careful with how they scale and utilize funding, and they aim to make a codebase where everybody working on it is generally proficient in the entire codebase.
Mozilla’s funding isn’t sustainable and (in my opinion) their leadership are not reliable actors anymore - merely masquerading as activists. They do not utilize their money effectively. Relying on the money of an ad-tech/search/browser/etc. monopoly that is openly engaging in mass surveillance, and more recently, selling their AI for war isn’t ethical or compatible with Mozilla’s mission.
The problem is that no matter how ineffective you believe Mozilla to be, it’s simply fucking expensive to develop a modern web browser.
According to openhub.net, Chromium has 35 million lines of code, Firefox 32 million, the WebKit engine has 29 million. Compare that to the Linux kernel which has 36 million lines of code.
The Servo engine has 7 million and is not usable.
Ladybird has 757,140 lines of code. There’s just no way that they don’t still need to develop manifold as much code as what they currently have, to support the features we expect from modern browsers. And they will need more money for that.
I guess we’ll see how it all pans out.
I don’t trust ladybird’s dev. he is vocally against a minority, calling their existence politics
Source? I read that there was an issue with gender neutral pronouns not being used in the codebase (he stated that he has no problem with gender neutral pronouns), but I’m not a simp for him or somebody to argue for lesser evils.
Edit - finally found it: https://github.com/SerenityOS/serenity/pull/6814
awesomekling commented on May 2, 2021Not the best look for him, but if this is all the meat to your accusation, then I am going to have to disagree with your statements of him being “vocally against a minority” and “calling somebody’s existence politics” - it seems like a stretch as nothing was said that targeted a minority or calling somebody’s existence politics. Was he being needlessly pedantic and insensitive to a contributor whose only contribution was that PR? Yes, I’d say so.
The use of gender neutral pronouns or pronouns in a more general sense are not politics, I strongly disagree with him. It was his choice to die on this hill in this instance, but they now use gender neutral pronouns. Again, if there is more evidence besides this singular statement, I’m all ears. Is it still concerning? Of course.