Aside from being a new browser, will this shit bring something new to the web? Because 99% of people don't use a browser based on the browser engine itself. Even people who are geeky enough to change browsers don't use a browser based on its engine itself (the only reason why I use Firefox is because of userchrome.css and customization; if I could do that on Chromium, I would dump FF in a blink of an eye).So my point is: other than "hey, we are a new browser engine" what will this bring to the table?
If there is a gaming browser, what can't there be a drug user browser?
>>107543087he look more like cakes and pies user in latest videos than a drug user desu
>>107543056Idk much about it but the goal of any browser should be to be faster, less sluggish and consume less memory than the competitor, while innovating in UX for efficiency (things like vertical tabs), and including safe defaults (no fingerprinting, adblock, etc).
>>107543056>what does this even bring to the table >yes i know what it brings to the table, but no that doesn't count because i don't care about it personally>so other than what it brings to the table, what will this bring to the table?alright buddy....
>>107543056The point was to keep him away from drugs.
>>107543254Serenity was to keep busy while detoxing. Ladybird is just Andreas returning to Appleslop habits.
>>107543172Okay, got it. It doesn't bring anything to the table.
Right now, web browsers add things based on what a committee of three browser engines can agree on. It used to be four before ms dropped trident. So the radical and world changing proposal of ladybird is to make it... four browsers again. Also, even if he refused to implement a bunch of shit, all the other engines would just move on without him and he would be left behind. I also doubt that he would be any more of an advocate for users than mozilla is presently, just a hunch.I've occasionally thought about what web dev would look like if we didn't have the retardation that is css and js. What I wish someone would do would be make a nonretarded web browser. Devs would prefer it because it makes web dev easier. You would add a way for them to port their site to the normal web, so they wouldn't even lose users. Users would prefer it because it would have better performance, not be anti user, and have more features. I don't think this would even necessarily be that hard, you would just need a couple million in investment/donation...
The main benefit you get as a normal person is that they're finding a shit ton of bugs in the web specs and other browsers that are getting fixed.>if I could do that on Chromium, I would dump FF in a blink of an eyeThen you admit you do care about the engine. Gecko fucking sucks and Blink is cool and fast.>>107543170>innovating in UX for efficiency (things like vertical tabs)lol, lmao>safe defaults (no fingerprintingkekkkkk
>>107543452no, it means he cares about customization. someone really needs to fork vivaldi to allow user theming based on html/css/js.>>107543170all browsers use the same resources nowadays because they all work off the same principles. you need multiprocessing and insanely retarded ipc. 64 bit pointers despite the aforementioned process splitting.
>>107543087he has a gay junkie face and i want to tear it off
>>107543056>don't use a browser based on its engine itselfw-what? always have, always will
>>107543452>>107543563He's a form over function fag. Plenty of those.
>>107544251there is no difference in function
>>107543056It brings a new iToddler browser to the market.Ladybird's main competition is Safari, not Chrome.
>>107544355>there is no difference in functionWhy would you do that? Just come on the internet and lie?
>>107544375>Will Ladybird work on Windows?>We don't have anyone actively working on Windows support, and there are considerable changes required to make it work well outside a Unix-like environment.>We would like to do Windows eventually, but it's not a priority at the moment.Welp, I'll check it out when they get there, or if I install Linux.
I'm sad he abandoned SerenityOS to focus on HTML compliance bullshit. It was so comfy watching him show off the new OS features and tweaking the code
>>107543411Does the WWW even still exist?I though most of the internet is now on (((apps)))
>>107544435there is literally no functional difference in well, function. save for web compat errors, in which case servo loses on all fronts.
>>107543563>someone really needs to fork vivaldi to allow user theming based on html/css/js.You mean you want to be able to customise the browser chrome? That's a very basic and bland part of the browser, how much can you even customise in that. Most browsers have some basic themes anyway.And if you want a custom starting page, you can build that and use it with Chromium.I doubt it's possible to customise the browser's chrome areas (tabs, address bar etc) with CSS/JS. Those are part of the OS API that creates windows.
>>107543056https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kbkysPTnHcSocial media has primed an environment where this type of degeneracy is not only accepted, it thrives. Social media desensitizes and radicalizes even moderates into believing heinous and abhorrent behavior is acceptable under the correct context. Spend just 5 minutes on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, you will find hordes of these deranged people. They exist among us. The FBI knows about them but never acts until it is far too late. Western society is on a one-way fast track to collapse as long as social media continues to destroy minds and decay the culture.
>>107544763customizing the chrome is easy and that's all that firefox lets you do anyway. that's what most derivative browsers do, resource overrides, and amongst them declarative layouts. vivaldi actually does change the source's logic, for tab stacks etc. everyone else just does basic bitch vertical tabs, even tab groups are only possible if the browser allows it. you can fake tab splits and floating windows like in zen by showing many open tabs at a time then doing css, but it's still a mod on the chrome
>>107543056why shouldn't there be more engines?currently there are only 3 viable ones, and two of them are owned by apple/googleand mozilla has clearly pivoted from their previous ideologyhaving more choice is good, tho there's a reason why there are only 3 viable engines and that is because it's really, really hard to make them. so who knows if ladybird will ever truly get off the ground
>>107544817What? I remember Chromium devs saying you can't customise the tabs, they're hardcoded, made with the Skia C++ library. You'd have to remake them in the source code and recompile your own graphic rendition of tabs.Did they make it possible to customise Chromium' chrome parts with CSS?
>>107544849yeah it's really late to come up and compete with the other browser engines, because they have like more than a decade of accumulated implementations and optimisations you can't possibly match. google had the best sepples devs working on it for many years.
>>107543302Your AI slop isn't helping your case, Arjun.
>>107544853>>107544817Nvm I realised you were talking about Firefox's chrome not the Chrome browser
>>107543056>>107543302they dont have any plans for that yet. theyre focusing on making a working browser first. later on they will differentiate, which is fine because its not for end-users at all yet, its a big project after all
>>107544747and those apps are just a webview, running the website
>>107543056It's a noble effort by somebody to keep himself productive as a way of staying away from drugs. As far as the premises of it being actually usable, maybe one day it will be if he continues to work on it, but it's not going to see widespread adoption, not even remotely coming close to something like Firefox.
>>107544853answering your question, vivaldi modified the source for tabs yes. I'm guessing edge had to too for its vertical tabs. it's why I said to build on vivaldi
>>107543056Not woke
>>107543411Javascript in the browser is perfectly fine to work with, there were many improvements over the years. It's not the browser's fault that big companies use retarded frameworks to make 20MB landing pages.
>>107543056Software that isn't dogshit is what most people hope.
>>107545739>Javascript in the browser is perfectly fine to work with, there were many improvements over the years. It's not the browser's fault that big companies use retarded frameworks to make 20MB landing pages.Those improvements and features caused web developers to bloat their shit. It's like giving a monkey a gun
>>107545773anyone can make things bloated with any tools. the real question is why is this the norm. my theory is that it drives the "need" for better hardware which is seen as a good thing
>>107545739This. I hand-roll vanilla JS and the only actually annoying wart is Date behaving very erratically. Can't wait for Temporal.
