>another browser you can't tweak its interface, pretty much like ChromiumIt was over before it even started.
Never do drugs, never trust drug addicts.
>>107652199That is absolutely retarded.
>>107652199>t. webshitter who literally can't even conceptualize a ui not based on a browser
Who cares? Browsers don't need this feature. I'm pretty sure Firefox was the only one to ever have it and they made it extremely user-hostile to modify anyway.
I'm just going to wait a year and tell Claude to write a new browser for me
>>107652264That's plan as well. All browsers sucks. I will have to make my own.
>>107652199>https://github.com/LadybirdBrowser/ladybird/issues/6872>we are sticking with un-apologetically native looking UIs for now.I think that's very much NOT like Chromium.
>closed as not plannedisn't that a good thing?
>>107652199lol I solved this problem by eliminating the web entirely. There's nothing redeemable in the web to begin with, it's bloated and FUBAR'd. The trick is development of a parallel system that runs as an alternative to the web. Plot twist: this isn't even the main purpose of the solution either, it's an addon.
>>107652326Gemini already exists.
>>107652199I think native UI is better. Web based UI over-complicates the browser.
Let them figure out the core of the engine, usability before doing this autismo. I imagine extensions are planned
why web based ui, they already mention qt for linux,windowsfirefox uses gtk and provides ways to customizationublock and plugins support is also promised
>>107652258It may not need that, but some customization is needed if the default appearance is bad like what has happened with Firefox.
>>107653610I go outside regularly and that prevents me from tinkertrannying with appearance of the box that I use to look stuff up online, you could try it too.
>>107652199I don't see the issue
>>107652199pale meme can't stop winning
