> I don't really see anything wrong with a browser that doesn't fully support every website and every weird example of HTML and CSS that a developer decided to hack together.
Consider from the perspective of the user. They're using chrome and browsing the web - all their favorite sites work. They switch to a new browser and some of the sites stop working correctly. Is it the fault of the browser? or is it the fault of the site?
For most users, if site X works using browser A and breaks using browser B - then it is browser B that is at fault.
Serenity and Ladybird aren't written from the perspective of the user though. They're written from the perspective of the developers, who write functions they'd like, and that they'd like to learn more about, or as the Serenity website states:
> This is a system by us, for us, based on the things we like.
Linux was inevitable as there was no GNU licensed kernel anger there was a need for one. If not Linux, something else would have emerged within months.
New browser is not inevitable, as the need for free-ish browser is already satisfied.
This is correct, and it's why most open-source software will never have much in the way of users:
> They're written from the perspective of the developers
And I get it. A few years back I had an open-source project [1] get users and it was terrible. What had previously been a fun technical exercise became a pain in the ass that felt a lot like actual work. I was relieved when my hardware broke and I had an excuse to archive the project.
But that does create a huge gap that mostly gets filled by commercial interests.
They're using chrome and browsing the web - all their favorite sites work. They switch to a new browser and some of the sites stop working correctly.
There are a couple of implicit assumptions here that I think should be unpacked;
First, you're assuming that users have favorite websites, and that those sites wouldn't work. As I said in my post, so long as the browser worked with standards compliant modern websites I think that would be fine ... and that would cover 99.9% of user's favorite websites. People don't carry on using old, unmaintained (or even maintained) sites for a particularly long time. I don't believe people return to old websites that haven't been maintained very much. I don't think many users would even notice if their browser stopped supporting things that browser developers consider edge cases that eat up dev time.
Secondly, you're assuming that users who choose a browser like Ladybird wouldn't understand the choice they're making. Of course they would. They could still make that choice though. The idea of trading out-of-standards compatibility for increased privacy is actually really appealing to a lot of people. Hell, a lot of people see out-of-standards compatibility as a bug rather than a feature.
> First, you're assuming that users have favorite websites, and that those sites wouldn't work.
Both are true almost in my case. Browsers based on older Firefox versions such as Palemoon and Seamonkey don't work with GitLab and Github - which are not my "favorite" websites but rather, are hard to avoid.
> I don't think many users would even notice if their browser stopped supporting things that browser developers consider edge cases that eat up dev time
That's not the issue. The issue is that some websites use the shiny new features - probably through some new shiny framework - that older browsers don't support.
And this is a loser's game for browsers done from scratch, because by the time they implement one missing features, two others have been standardized. That will probably kill Firefox too.
> First, you're assuming that users have favorite websites, and that those sites wouldn't work. As I said in my post, so long as the browser worked with standards compliant modern websites I think that would be fine ... and that would cover 99.9% of user's favorite websites.
I wonder then why developers test on multiple browsers...
Is it because website developers code not to standards per se, but rather how their top two browsers behave?
That being said, I think this is a cool project and since the goal is personal satisfaction and usability, there isn't the pull to satisfy hundreds of thousands of users.
> I wonder then why developers test on multiple browsers...
Do they still? I find myself using only Firefox and I haven't had a Chrome-related bug for a loooong time. I do however avoid using latest features and wait until the support is good enough.
I agree with GP, seeing a new hobbyist browser enter the arena is awesome, I need to check it out. I for one don't care if some pages don't display, I can still open them in FF. I just hope that corporation doesn't "happen to it" too soon...
There are certainly "favorite" websites. You could use that as "sites that I use for professional work and track the latest features." Gitlab, Github, Gmail, and so on.
There are also the "Mom's cooking blog" that is running an ancient copy of Wordpress and mom still doesn't understand that <b><i>This is important</b></i> is not formatted correctly. Some browsers are able to handle this, but if you browse it with a "this browser only follows standard compliant html" you may get the entire page in italics or bold.
> Fidelity of modern websites in Ladybird is steadily improving, but you’ll often see lots of layout and compatibility issues. For example, here’s Reddit right now:
> (mangled layout)
We could put Reddit in that list of favorite sites that need to work. And so, is it the fault of reddit or the browser that the page isn't rendering right? As reddit works on other browsers, surely its the browser's fault and not something janky that reddit is doing that the other browsers happen to work with.
And thus my post - if a page works correctly in a different browser but incorrectly on Ladybird, to a user it is always the browser's fault.
> so long as the browser worked with standards compliant modern websites
Define which subset of standards would qualify for "standards compliant". Don't forget that quite a few of standards (for example, HN's darlings like bluetooth) are barely drafts.
Then let that user use Chrome and be happy with it.
If the average user wants to lean to a corporation and use its product because on the reliability it offers then that's fine. While the privacy concerns are there, I don't think it's wrong for a consumer to reach to a company to fulfill their needs.
Product mentality can be a problem on FOSS software. People forget that all of this started as a project made by volunteers because it was fun to them.
There would need to be a compelling reason to use the browser other than it being "different." For instance, the user experience you describe is exactly what it's like to use Firefox. Many websites don't support Firefox, even big ones like Vanguard. And yet, I continue to use Firefox when possible because I know uBlock Origin will continue to work in the future and I value privacy.
Users often prefer it when sites don't work as the developer intended. Users like browsers that strip away adverts and that show undecorated content. If you make a browser that does this, you stand a chance against a browser that complies to the whims of corporations.
you properly mean the average user. The average user would not download this browser. so the user of ladybird might want to live with the shortcomings. That being said , Firefox still exists and is a very good cross platform OSS browser
I get that it’s a chicken and egg problem but this strikes me as, at least preliminarily, being more about developers than users in a world where devs often no longer even test for compatibility with Firefox.
Consider from the perspective of the user. They're using chrome and browsing the web - all their favorite sites work. They switch to a new browser and some of the sites stop working correctly. Is it the fault of the browser? or is it the fault of the site?
For most users, if site X works using browser A and breaks using browser B - then it is browser B that is at fault.
This is a lesson that Microsoft learned. https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/06/13/how-microsoft-lost... There's no refund involved, but switching back to the old browser is certainly possible.