this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2025
85 points (100.0% liked)

Free and Open Source Software

18319 readers
20 users here now

If it's free and open source and it's also software, it can be discussed here. Subcommunity of Technology.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Gaywallet@beehaw.org
alyaza@beehaw.org
85
Monthly update on the FOSS "Ladybird" browser engine (www.youtube.com)
submitted 4 days ago by Cris_Color@lemm.ee to c/foss@beehaw.org
42 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Update was from 3 days ago, I'm really hopeful ladybird could be a future browser option to help break the stranglehold chrome has over the market, while Mozilla is struggling to find meaningful direction.

It seems like an exciting project with monthly progress updates :) they keep chipping away at compatibility.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Patch@feddit.uk 9 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I'm not sure I really understand the point of this. Even if you hate Mozilla, the Gecko engine is excellent and it would make far more sense to fork it than to start a new one from scratch.

Building and maintaining a browser engine is hard. FOSS means that everyone is of course free to pursue the projects that interest them, but this doesn't seem like a great use of effort to me.

[–] mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago

Really why don't they hard fork chromium/gecko and relicence it and maintain that under completely different name instead of making entirely different engine?

[–] Cris_Color@lemm.ee 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

While I do think the point about forking is true, it is worth acknowledging that the gecko engine is
a) very behind other browsers in terms of implemented functionality and standards, and
b) I've seen devs say on multiple occasions that because of the wide range of platforms it has officially supported over time (or other reasons), the codebase has become very hard to work with and apparently it's really hard to add new standards to it

[–] mke@programming.dev 1 points 2 days ago

That second point sounds interesting, do you remember any names or other sources I could look into?