Announcing the Ladybird Browser Initiative

I want to follow updates from this project. They have a Twitter account but not Mastodon sigh

RSS is not even enabled on the Newz page on the website.
- I share the disappointment.
- Im glad to see this. Discord is a nightmare. It's the same as a Facebook only group to me.

The website makes it sound like all of the code being bespoke and "based on standards" is some kind of huge advantage but all I see is a Herculean undertaking with too few engineers and too many standards.

W3C lists 1138 separate standards currently, so if each of their three engineers implements one discrete standard every day, with no breaks/weekends/holidays, then having an alpha available that adheres to all 2024 web standards should be possible by 2026?

This is obviously also without testing but these guys are serious, senior engineers, so their code will be perfect on the first try, right?

Love the passion though, can't wait to see how this project plays out.

W3C lists 1138 separate standards currently, so if each of their three engineers implements one discrete standard every day, with no breaks/weekends/holidays, then having an alpha available that adheres to all 2024 web standards should be possible by 2026?
Yes, that is exactly the plan: "We are targeting Summer 2026 for a first Alpha version"
a Herculean undertaking with too few engineers and too many standards
Yeah, as a layperson this is my take. If mozilla is struggling to stay in the game then I just don't really see how an unfinanced indie team has a shot.
- Let's not forget that Mozilla (the company) is largely mismanaged, so that doesn't help.
- Mozilla has loads of projects, not just the browser. I doubt more than a 30 work exclusively on the engine nowadays.
You are assuming that they only started now from point 0. They have probably been working on it for a bit before announcing everything.
- They say they already use it to manage GitHub issues so it's definitely more than "point 0" right now.
- Exactly. They have been working on Ladybird Browser for few years already, before it was announced as standalone product (It was a part of SerenityOS).
Sure, but an individual website may use only a few of those standards. Ladybird devs will pick a website they like to use - Reddit, Twitter, Twinings tea, etc. and improve adherence to X or Y standards to make that one website look better. In turn, thousands of websites suddenly work perfectly, and many others work better than before.
Ladybird is largely conformant to the majority of HTML standards now. It's about the edge cases (and where standards aren't followed by websites) and performance. This isn't a new project.
- Lol, mentioning Twinings tea together with Reddit and Twitter sounds so random
They've been at it for four years and they plan to have an alpha by 2026. Maybe wait how it actually turns out?
Wait, 1138? If there are any Star Wars fans in there, there won't be more.
Let's not do zomething because it's hard pretty much sums up every new generation.
Imagine if they said that when they had to program everything in assembly...
- Software nowadays is a lot more complex. You'd get nowhere using assembly. Are you also gonna call me lazy if I say making a smartphone from scratch is complicated? "But the Nokia 1234 only had 4kb of memory" Is what you will probably say.

Love the idea! Shopify as the highest tier sponsor? Not so much.

I mean if they're gonna give money without demanding anything I'm sure no complaints from the devs.
Shopify or an exec there might find some value in avoiding Google owning the web, could maybe bring goodwill for the company, or they could just be looking for a write off.
I'm curious what issue you see with that? It seems like the project is only accepting unrestricted donations, but is there something suspicious about shopify that makes it's involvement concerning (I don't know much about them)?
- My best guess would be that Shopify either care about the open Web or had some disagreements with Google.
  I can't find anything shady on them, but maybe I'm looking the wrong places.
Why? Shopify has been sponsoring stuff like community gaming events for a few years now.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. I've had more than a handful of people bitching at me that it's impossible to make a new, open web browser in this day.

I think it's less that it's "impossible" but rather that it's expensive.
Honestly we've in general shoved too much shit into the browser that's not strictly related to just browsing web sites.
And you "have to" support all the layers and layers and layers of added stuff, or you can't "compete".
But, at the same time, the goals of making a good-enough browser that mostly works and isn't completely enshittified and captured by corpo big tech interests is a very worthy project and 100% support what they're doing.
- JavaScript was a mistake.
  And it went downhill from there.
- I feel like the internet is such a lost cause at this point that it would be better to invest in other efforts like the Gemini protocol.
- No, I'd have accepted too expensive as an answer. They were ready to die on the hill that no one could possibly create a new browser from specs.
- or you can't compete
  Nah nah fuck that noise. 'Jack of all trades but ace of none' or however the saying goes, is a shitty way to go about things. I don't have the biggest dick but I know my way around around the block, and I know I'm good at it. More specialized > the catch-all bitches.
  Let the fucks with their special engine requirements eat shit. Standardize or write a fucking proper program (miss me with that "app" bullshit) or fuck right off. "everyone is special... exactly like you" now fuck off web dev. Your shit doesn't get a permit.
  .....
  I may have some... disputes with the way the web is done nowadays.
Only 114 million words of spec!
- Interestingly the founder of the project seems to explicitly disagree with that article
Their rendering engine is already pretty solide (see penultimate video in their channel). Now that their "no third party code" restriction is lifted, they can actually focus on building a browser engine instead of recreating 30 years worth of technologies from scratch.

C++

If they're starting a browser from scratch, why would they not have chosen Rust? Seems very short sighted to not have learned from Firefox.

They used c++ initially since it was spawned from SerenityOS, which was designed to be a mashup of win2000 and unix.
now that Ladybird is its own project, it's not constrained to that goal, and they have said they will incorporate modern languages.
- Glad to hear that!
@asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world There's Servo ( @servo@floss.social ), it's a browser engine written in rust
@Diabolo96@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- Yes, that's what I'm referring to. They could build on that, or they could write something their own in Rust. But I'd think building on Servo would be fantastic.
- I know about servo. It was pretty much a dead project until they joined the Linux fondation last year and started getting some sponsorship. Since then, they being doing pretty good on there own with personal donations rising by around 20% each month, reaching more than 2000$ monthly. Wish them all the best!
Must be planning on actually shipping something
/s
- Ship what, segfaults / invalid memory access? Lol
This you?
https://forum.qt.io/topic/142885/rewriting-qt-in-rust

Funny how in the video the guy say that all other browsers are based on Google's code. But Firefox is also independent right?

He says "powered by or funded by Google". Firefox depends on Google financially, most of the income of Mozilla comes from Google paying for being the default search engine.
They try to diversify their income (Firefox VPN, email alias service, etc.), but anything they try gets a huge backlash from the community, and still small compared to the the money from google.
- Is this their way of asking Google for money?
Google is Mozilla's biggest source of income, and google developers have actively contributed code to the Firefox engine.
So you decide for yourself what level of independence you assign to it.
Firefox gets tons of funding from Google, and their code is quite frankly humongous. From what I understand, it's extremely hard to get the gecko web view engine to work. In another browser, unless it's a fork of Firefox, unlike Chromium where you can just redesign an entire browser around it.
- It doesn't help that there's basically no documentation for how to use the Gecko engine either.
- Neither Chromium nor Gecko have a stable public API. Companies are just willing to spend money rebasing every Chromium update.

Best of luck, I guess, but seems like a doomed project to me. Forking WebKit, Gecko, or even Servo would seem much more reasonable, and even that is a huge undertaking.

Contributing directly to Firefox and reducing the dependence on Google should be three best bet

They’re making a new browser engine from scratch in an open way, absolutely amazing!

I do have several questions:

Why would they use BSD instead of GPL? If you care about open-source so much, why would you make it possible for a company to run away with your fancy new engine?

Why are they creating a new browser, when even firefox has to struggle to keep some semblance of market share? I get that not every project needs to aim to be “the biggest”, and that even a smaller project (in terms of users), can be fun. It’s just that writing a browser engine that can handle the modern web seems like an almost Sisyphean task; which makes me wonder what their motivation(?) is.

Why the FLOSS are they using closed-source proprietary discord as their main communication channel?

1. (BSD vs GPL) Andreas stated on twitter that he wanted to give devs total freedom to use his work because when he worked at Apple he felt frustrated he couldn't incorporate some code/software into his work because of GPL.
2. (Why?) The aim is not to create a chrome competitor, but to make a good enough, truly free browser that isn't either chrome or funded by chrome. A browser made for and by its user's.
3. (Discord) Because of gen-z.
As someone who uses BSD licensed modified code at work and relies on it quite a lot, it's crucial to me choosing which projects I'm able to use in the first place.
Personally, I prefer a license that allows for commercial use in the way that companies need them to, and if my own work ever can provide a patch back upstream I'd be happy to do so, but most of what I do is just tweaking things that exist to suit my purposes which doesn't really help anyone but my business rivals which I personally am not interested in doing if I don't have to.
I prefer to have the freedom to do as I wish with the code, as compared to being bound to do as the author wishes and essentially just not using that code in the first place because I can't. I'm not in a position to change what I can and can't do because of the requirements of the business I work for, and I'm grateful to those that choose licenses that allow me to use their work.
They're creating a new browser because they want to. It started as an OS building project that the lead dev did to help stay sober.
They use discord because it's popular. Insert Ouroborus argument here, and at the end of the day it's still the most popular app.
- They use discord because it's popular. Insert Ouroborus argument here, and at the end of the day it's still the most popular app.
  Using this logic why shouldn't I just download chrome and forget this project exists?

I do not understand the urge to start from scratch instead of forking an existing, mature codebase. This is typically a rookie instinct, but they aren't rookie so there's perhaps an alternative motive of some sort.

Because there are only like 3 browser engines: Chrome’s Blink, Firefox’s Gecko and Apple‘s WebKit. And while they are all open source, KHTML, the last independent browser engine got discontinued last year and hasn’t been actively developed since 2016.
There’s need in the space for an unaffiliated engine. Google’s share is far too high for a healthy market (roughly 75%), WebKit never got big outside of Safari (although there are a few like Gnome Web, there’s no up to date WebKit based browser on Windows) and Gecko has its own problems (like lack of HEVC support).
So, in my book, this is exciting news. Sure it‘ll take a while to mature and it is up against software giants but it‘s something because Mozilla doesn’t seem to have a working strategy to fight against Google‘s monopoly and Apple doesn’t have to.
- Also Gecko's development is led by people thinking that it being usable outside of Firefox\Thunderbird is a bad thing. There was a time when Gnome's browser was based on Gecko, not WebKit. And in general it's influenced by bad practices.
  SerenityOS is an amazing project, of course. To do so much work for something completely disconnected from the wider FOSS ecosystem, and with such results.
  So it's cool that they've decided to split off the browser as its own project.
- Mozilla doesn’t seem to have a working strategy
  Guess they couldn't replicate the "own everything that people use to get stuff on the internet and make secret breaking changes to constantly mess up other browsers" strategy.
- Could they not add HEVC support? Or is there some technical limitation that meant starting from zero was a good idea?
- Webkit and blink have the same base
- WDYM "independent" ?
  Isn't mozilla / gecko more or less independent?
- webkit and blink are based of KHTML
Because software monocultures are bad. The vast majority of browsers are Chromium based. Since Google de-facto decides what gets in Chromium, sooner or later the downstream forks are forced to adopt their changes. Manifest V3 is a great example of this. You can only backport for so long, especially when upstream is being adversarial to your changes. We need an unaffiliated engine that corrects the mistakes we made with KHTML/Webkit.
- I agree mostly, but forks don't need to keep the upstream. They can go their own way.
- Why are open source software monocultures bad? The vast majority of non-Windows OSes are Linux based. Teams who don't like certain decisions of the mainline Linux team maintain their forks with the needed changes.
  Manifest V3 is a great example of this. You can only backport for so long, especially when upstream is being adversarial to your changes. We need an unaffiliated engine that corrects the mistakes we made with KHTML/Webkit.
  And we could get a functional one today by forking Chromium and never accepting a single upstream patch thereafter. I find it really hard to believe that starting a browser engine from scratch would require less labor. This is why I'm looking for an alternative motive. Someone mentioned licensing.
  Perhaps some folks just want to do more work to write a new browser engine. After all Linus did just that, instead of forking the BSD kernel.
There is currently no implementation of web standards that is under a more permissive license than LGPL or MPL. I think that is a gap worth filling and if I recall that is what Ladybird is doing.
- I guess Chromium isn't fully BSD. This could be the reason. Although I'd think reimplementing the non-BSD bits in Chromium would be less work than reimplementing all the bits, including the BSD ones.
- i'd argue its better for software to max foss license like AGPL, not bsd that can be taken out by companies
- Why is that a gap worth filling? There is no benefit to users as long as its free of a EULA they don't have to care either way. For those wanting to produce open source software based on same they already have all the rights they could need. The only party clamoring for permissively licensed software are companies intending to close off the source and sell other people's work.
  I understand why they would want to do that I don't understand why anyone would feel the need to work for free for something someone else closes off.
I can't understand how people can continue relying on chrome and derivatives like electron, CEF etc. and not see it as a problem.
- It's easy to understand when you think most comments are similar to yours and don't provide any insight as to why this might be a problem.
  Maybe you could update your post and share your knowledge and experience with others, so that there are less people in the world who don't see the problem.
Ladybird was born from SerenityOS, which is a hobbyist unix-like (or POSIX compliant?) OS that simply aimed to do things "from the ground up". It just happened that they needed to make a browser, and the response was to make one from scratch.
From there it seemed to have brought a lot of attention organically to the point where it can stand on its own, but originally it was never intended to be a "third browser engine" from its inception.
- That actually makes the most sense. So similar to how Linux was started.

Kudos to them. Opera gave up on this dream being unable to accommodate all the nuances of web standards and accounting for out of conformance behaviours that many websites rely on the daily.

I reckon this browser will need to be at least on par with reasonably recent version of Firefox to see significant adoption.

I still mourn the death of Presto-days Opera.
- I do too. What a joke the browser became after moving to Chromium... I remember it didn't even have bookmarks in the first version.
  On the flip side I kind of understand the decision to pull the plug - if you've looked at Browser.js and think that potentially any site might need a fix to work properly...

Laaaaaaaaa^dybird.

The comment I came here for 🐶
We're gonna have to put laaaaaaaadybird down... Mr Hill?

Servo already exists and is independent and written in a modern language and way ahead of this.

I mean, competition is good but they aren't the only independent browser engine.

is it open source?

https://github.com/LadybirdBrowser/ladybird

Remind me in 2 years when this project becomes discontinued...

Good luck!

It would be nice if people read the post and the project before randomly making assumptions such as implying the project started from scratch yesterday or its run by some amateurs, this is a 4 year old project! It's founded by a former KHTML/Webkit developer for Apple!

If only.

Wasn't this the transphobic one?

Brave?
Don't believe they're related
- Brave is the one run by transphobes who also love crypto.
yuppppsies https://github.com/SerenityOS/serenity/pull/8046#issuecomment-860350155
- i like how they're like this isnt the place for personal politics while ignoring the fact that gendered readme files are patently stupid in the first place.
- Shoutout to the user pointing out that forcing "he" is just as, if not more, political ❤️
- Changing to gender neutral seems like a no brainer to me but how is this transphobia?

you shouldn't use this browser the devs are transphobic sexist chuds

https://cyberpunk.lol/@vantablack/112717420300967771

Hmm. I just read the github thread that this is about. The devs made a mistake on this; but it seems to me that there is a bit of an over-reaction here. The people in the thread seem to be discussing it calmly and politely; and the issue (i.e. use of pronouns in the build instructions) ends up being resolved. By contrast, the reaction outside of the actual thread... is extreme.
Like I said, this seems like an overreaction to someone making a mistake of ignorance & indifference. It wasn't an act of malice.
Appears to be fixed now: https://github.com/SerenityOS/serenity/pull/24648
Why don't ya'll contribute some meaningful code instead of finding ways to deny those who do
- Please describe to me how someone who offered up changes to change “he” to “they” for them, and then the contributor getting pissy about “politics” is denying work.
... What
All this because they won't change a "he" into "they" ? Who gives a fuck about such rampant whiteknightism ? Why does a browser even need to know your gender ? In what context even is there a pronoun in the user interface ?
- You could find out the context by reading the title of the thread, but then you'd have less to bitch about, so I can understand why you chose ignorance.
they must be trying to go after the brave marketshare
Yeah, I saw this, and all my excitement for the project died. If it becomes successful, I might use it anyway though.

The project management may have some obvious problems (jOin dIsc0Rd sErVEr; w0rD "thEy" t0o p0liTicAl). But we really need an alternative to browsers funded by Google (Chrome and Firefox).

So I'll do my best to actually build from sources and see what can I help with. Attacking the author is helping nobody.

And for the folks who are saying "wHy n0t rUst", you can always show me the (rust) code.

And for the folks who are saying “wHy n0t rUst”, you can always show me the (rust) code.
https://github.com/servo/servo
I really wish they would publish flatpaks because I can't be arsed to either build the thing or get a non-standard precompiled binary to run on nixos.

Is it true that there is no truly independent web browser or are there others?

builds a new browser from scratch without borrowing existing code

still chooses to do it in C++

Epic fail

The language choice was because Ladybird started as a component of SerenityOS, which is also written in C++. With this separation, they are free to gradually introduce other language(s) into the codebase, and maybe eventually replace C++ entirely, piece by piece.
In Hackernews thread about this, the head maintainer mentioned that they have been evaluating several languages already, so we'll see what the future brings.
In the meantime, let's try to be mature about it, what do you say?
Not sure if you are trying to be funny, but if not: enlighten us?
- Sure :)
  There are a lot of downsides of C++ compared to more modern languages that make it not a great choice if you're starting a web browser from scratch
  Complexity of the language leading to increased bugs and slower development
  Manual memory management is error-prone and leads to issues like memory leaks or segmentation faults. Modern browsers need to handle large amounts of dynamic content, making memory management complicated
  C++ lacks some of the built-in safety features of more modern languages, which has led to the majority of security vulnerabilities found in major browsers. It's so bad that Mozilla invented an entirely new programming language just to deal with this
  Compared to higher-level languages, C++ can be slower to develop in, which may impact the ability to quickly implement new web standards or features unless you have a massive team
  While C++ is cross-platform, ensuring consistent behavior across different operating systems can be more challenging than with some other languages.
  Newer languages often provide built-in support for concurrent programming, garbage collection, and other features useful for browser development, which C++ lacks.
  So tl;dr: a browser but in C++ will take much longer to develop, have fewer features, more bugs, less concurrency and and more security vulnerabilities
- C++ is a very old, extremely complex language. There are arguably objectively better modern alternatives, such as Rust.
The dev has 30 years of experience with c++ and a lot of it was on browsers.
He tried to incorporate rust with the help of "JT", one of the original rust designers/devs and according to Andreas it didn't work that well due to the web being too objet oriented or something like that. They both worked together (well, mostly "JT") to create a new safe programming language called "yakt" that transpile to c++, but the project is currently pretty much dead because nobody is really working on it anymore.
- The web being too object oriented for rust? Assuming that made sense, who wrote the dang language? If that's true I'm even less confident they know what they're doing then I was before.
Rust or bust
- Then build a browser in rust...
I'm not sure 10 years old are allowed on the internet. Isn't it time for Coco and bed?
I agree that Rust would be an interesting choice for this project but there's a reason why this particular project is done in C++
- I wouldn't go around accusing people of being 10 years old when your English skills are worse than a 10 year old's. Glass houses and all that.
- there's a reason
  Oh good that settles it, no further questions your honour

"Ladybird uses a brand new engine based on web standards, without borrowing any code from other browsers." has the same energy as

Not really. They aren't inventing new standards. They are implementing an engine that confirms to existing standards.
In this case having more browser engines not under Google's control is probably a good thing. Although this effort might've been better spent working on Servo.

I use Firefox.

Ok

It's hard to understand the purpose of this. The difficulty of the project (i.e. complexity of the web) is the real problem that needs solving. We don't need another fork of the browser-verse. We need a fork of the web itself.

They have a fork of the web. Its called the dark web. They use it to sell hookers and drugs.
- We also have a fork of money, it's called crypto and it's used to sell and buy hookers and drugs. Every fork of something end up used to buy hookers and drugs. Truly marvelous!
- Dark web should really be called dark or overlay Internet.
  All dark "web" browser use the same rendering engines and same spec as regular ones.
Considering how much Google has entrenched itself into the Internet (see manifest v3 fiasco), I would argue that creating a new browser is a fork of the web

I hope this pans out, because I've long ago lost hope on Firefox being a worthy alternative to Chromium.

Have you used Firefox recently? There are a few chrome only sites but I've been daily driving it for a few months and it's mostly upside
- I can no longer play any podcast hosted on Apple podcasts, which is a distressing amount of them.
  They work just fine in Chromium.
Firefox has been perfectly capable for the entire time it has existed. What are you talking about?

As Firefox will introduce Manifest V3 which will make ad-blockers unusable, I hope they will not implement that as well ... But since this is so new, this will not have any add-ons at all for the foreseeable future

Stop spreading lies. Firefox will not deprecate the APIs that enable adblocking..
- Lets hope they stay true to their words and do not deprecate Manifest V2 later, since firefox is an open source project, theoretically anyone could fork it and build this on their own, but I heard compile-times for firefox is long. And as complexity of the web increases maintaining your own forked web browser will become harder and harder. That is why projects like Ladybird are important imo.
  As more and more webpages do not support firefox anymore (Notion did not work for me today) the web will become unusable in a dystopian Manifest-V3 only future.