←back to thread

Bringing SerenityOS to real hardware, one driver at a time

(sdomi.pl)
309 points LorenDB | 3 comments | 08 Jan 25 16:54 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
mysterydip ◴[08 Jan 25 18:02 UTC] No.42636747[source]▶
I love the serenityos concept (and ladybird browser) so I'm glad to see this progress!
replies(1): >>42637449 #
LeFantome ◴[08 Jan 25 19:14 UTC] No.42637449[source]▶
Me as well.

Sadly, they have parted ways at this point. Not only has Ladybird broken off into an independent project but it does not consider SerenityOS a target platform anymore.

Ladybird is slowly shedding a lot of the “home grown” Serenity layers and replacing them with more mainstream alternatives.

As I am primarily a Linux user, I am excited to see Ladybird become a real alternative on Linux. However, as a fan of SerenityOS as well, I am sad to see all the energy and innovation that was going into Ladybird get stripped out of SerenityOS.

replies(2): >>42637665 #>>42638439 #
bowsamic ◴[08 Jan 25 21:06 UTC] No.42638439[source]▶
Ladybird has a very large political aim: to become the only browser that isn't funded by Google or based on Google's browser engine. The reason it left behind SerenityOS is because it has moved from a hobbyist aim to a very serious political aim.
replies(2): >>42638524 #>>42638572 #
Apocryphon ◴[08 Jan 25 21:14 UTC] No.42638524[source]▶
You should say only major browser that fits those categories because examples of the latter exist- Orion uses WebKit and Zen uses Gecko- and I imagine the former is even more common.
replies(1): >>42638900 #
bowsamic ◴[08 Jan 25 21:58 UTC] No.42638900[source]▶
WebKit and gecko are funded by google
replies(2): >>42638945 #>>42639167 #
fiddlerwoaroof ◴[08 Jan 25 22:27 UTC] No.42639167[source]▶
WebKit is funded by Apple, not Google anymore as far as I know
replies(1): >>42639518 #
adamrt ◴[08 Jan 25 23:06 UTC] No.42639518[source]▶
Google pays Apple ~$20B to be default search engine in Safari/Webkit though
replies(2): >>42640653 #>>42641265 #
fiddlerwoaroof ◴[09 Jan 25 03:19 UTC] No.42641265[source]▶
I think it’s pretty different when it’s going to a trillion-dollar company than when it’s the main source of money for a foundation.
replies(1): >>42642166 #
bowsamic ◴[09 Jan 25 06:21 UTC] No.42642166[source]▶
Andreas, creator of Ladybird and ex Apple employee who worked on WebKit, claims that WebKit dev is completely paid for by that deal
replies(1): >>42643545 #
Apocryphon ◴[09 Jan 25 09:45 UTC] No.42643545[source]▶
So? It’s not as if Apple wouldn’t have plenty of other ways to fund WebKit development otherwise.
replies(1): >>42643588 #
bowsamic ◴[09 Jan 25 09:52 UTC] No.42643588[source]▶
Sure but would they? Currently they get it totally for free. If they had to finance the development themselves then it would get real hard to justify real quick. $20bn is a lot of money even for Apple

It's not about whether or not Apple have the resources to make their own browser engine, it's about whether it makes sense from a business point of view to make their own browser engine. Currently it does, because Google pay them huge amounts of money to do so. But what business case would there be to pay that $20bn themselves if Google did not fund them? Would it be worth that just to avoid Chromium?

replies(2): >>42645768 #>>42645952 #
1. spencerflem ◴[09 Jan 25 14:18 UTC] No.42645768[source]▶
Tbf - they don't pay for WebKit, they pay to be the default search engine. If Apple wanted, they could switch to Chromium and still have the same captive audience and bargaining power (but a lot less control of the direction web standards go)
replies(1): >>42649851 #
2. Apocryphon ◴[09 Jan 25 21:14 UTC] No.42649851[source]▶
That’s not necessarily true, even Microsoft has its own tweaks of Chromium:

> We’ve seen Edge adding some privacy enhancements to Chromium pioneered by Safari. Edge shipped those, but Chrome did not. And as more browsers start using Chromium and large companies will work on improving Chromium, more of these disagreements will happen. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Just because a browser is based on Chromium, that does not mean it is identical to Chrome and that Google is in control. Even if the unthinkable happens and Apple is forced to adopt Chromium, that will only ensure that Google is not the only one having a say about Chromium and the future of the web.

https://nielsleenheer.com/articles/2022/why-safari-does-not-...

replies(1): >>42650307 #
3. spencerflem ◴[09 Jan 25 22:07 UTC] No.42650307[source]▶
Fwiw, I agree its problematic to lock down phones the way Apple does. I won't use them because I'm not buying a device where I don't get to decide what runs on it.

And for sure they would put their twist on Chromium, like Edge or Brave or Vivaldi.

I still think they have a lot more control the way it is now, for better or worse