SerenityOS Creator Is Building an Independent, Standards-First Browser Called 'Ladybird' (thenewstack.io)
- Reference: 0177724439
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/05/24/173222/serenityos-creator-is-building-an-independent-standards-first-browser-called-ladybird
- Source link: https://thenewstack.io/ladybird-that-rare-breed-of-browser-based-on-web-standards/
"We are building a brand-new browser from scratch, backed by a non-profit..." says [2]Ladybird's official web site , adding that they're driven "by a web standards first approach." They promise it will be truly independent, with "no code from other browsers" (and no "default search engine" deals).
"We are targeting Summer 2026 for a first Alpha version on Linux and macOS. This will be aimed at developers and early adopters." More [3]from the Ladybird FAQ :
> We currently have 7 paid full-time engineers working on Ladybird. There is also a large community of volunteer contributors... The focus of the Ladybird project is to build a new browser engine from the ground up. We don't use code from Blink, WebKit, Gecko, or any other browser engine...
>
> For historical reasons, the browser uses various libraries from the SerenityOS project, which has a strong culture of writing everything from scratch. Now that Ladybird has forked from SerenityOS, it is no longer bound by this culture, and we will be making use of 3rd party libraries for common functionality (e.g image/audio/video formats, encryption, graphics, etc.) We are already using some of the same 3rd party libraries that other browsers use, but we will never adopt another browser engine instead of building our own...
>
> 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.
"Ladybird's founder Andreas Kling has a solid background in WebKit-based C++ development with both Apple and Nokia,," [4]writes software developer/author David Eastman :
> "You are likely reading this on a browser that is slightly faster because of my work," he wrote on his blog's introduction page. After leaving Apple, clearly burnt out, Kling found himself in need of something to healthily occupy his time. He could have chosen to learn needlepoint, but instead he opted to build his own operating system, called [5]Serenity . Ladybird is a web project spin-off from this, to which Kling now devotes his time...
>
> [B]eyond the extensive open source politics, the main reason for supporting other independent browser projects is to maintain diverse alternatives — to prevent the web platform from being entirely captured by one company. This is where Ladybird comes in. It doesn't have any commercial foundation and it doesn't seem to be waiting to grab a commercial opportunity. It has a range of sponsors, some of which might be strategic (for example, Shopify), but most are goodwill or alignment-led. If you sponsor Ladybird, it will put your logo on its webpage and say thank you. That's it. This might seem uncontroversial, but other nonprofit organisations also give board seats to high-paying sponsors. Ladybird explicitly refuses to do this...
>
> The [6]Acid3 Browser test (which has nothing whatsoever to do with [7]ACID compliance in databases) is an old method of checking compliance with web standards, but vendors can still check how their products do against a battery of tests. They check compliance for the DOM2, CSS3, HTML4 and the other standards that make sure that webpages work in a predictable way. If I point my Chrome browser on my MacBook to [8]http://acid3.acidtests.org/ , it gets 94/100. Safari does a bit better, getting to 97/100. Ladybird reportedly passes all 100 tests.
"All the code is [9]hosted on GitHub ," says the Ladybird home page. "Clone it, build it, and join our Discord if you want to collaborate on it!"
[1] https://ladybird.org/posts/fork/
[2] https://ladybird.org/
[3] https://ladybird.org/#faq
[4] https://thenewstack.io/ladybird-that-rare-breed-of-browser-based-on-web-standards/
[5] http://serenityos.org/
[6] https://www.webstandards.org/action/acid3/
[7] https://thenewstack.io/acid-compliant-distributed-sql-enters-the-agentic-ai-era/
[8] http://acid3.acidtests.org/
[9] https://github.com/LadybirdBrowser/ladybird
I support the Ladybird project (Score:3)
The only big problem is of ossification of browser requirements, and getting blocked by services like Cloudflare. This will be an uphill battle. Mozilla failed to manage their browser effectively, running out of money despite getting $600 million in free money from Google. Hopefully a more tightly run project like Ladybird can finally bring back browser freedom to the state it was in between 2004-2008 when Firefox 1.0 was out and Chrome wasn't out yet.
Re: I support the Ladybird project (Score:2)
can finally bring back browser freedom to the state it was in between 2004-2008 IE6
Re: (Score:2)
> when Firefox 1.0 was out and Chrome wasn't out yet.
One very big difference is the sources of Firefox 1.0 were 291 MB decompressed (sources from [1]https://website-archive.mozill... [mozilla.org] ) and Chromium 136 is 9 GB decompressed. Not only the target is 30 time bigger but it's also moving much faster then before. Even MS gave up. I wish them best luck in their monstrous effort but I'm not very hopeful.
[1] https://website-archive.mozilla.org/www.mozilla.org/firefox_releasenotes/en-us/firefox/releases/1.0.4
I wouldn't mind trying it out (Score:2)
Having a couple of binaries in the git tree would be a kind act: I often do that with (much smaller!) project of mine to make it easy of people to try and use them. Of course, to create MRs, you'll still need to build and debug it yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
> Having a couple of binaries in the git tree would be a kind act: I often do that with (much smaller!) project of mine to make it easy of people to try and use them. Of course, to create MRs, you'll still need to build and debug it yourself.
IIRC, they will start posting binaries when the Beta arrives.
Re: (Score:2)
They plan an alpha release in 2026, right now it's probably not doing anything useful.
Re: (Score:2)
You can try:
* Servo [1]https://servo.org/ [servo.org]
* Netsurf [2]https://www.netsurf-browser.or... [netsurf-browser.org]
* Dillo Plus [3]https://github.com/crossbowerb... [github.com]
* Flow (proprietary) [4]https://www.ekioh.com/flow-bro... [ekioh.com]
Posted this with Netsurf. Works, kind of.
[1] https://servo.org/
[2] https://www.netsurf-browser.org/
[3] https://github.com/crossbowerbt/dillo-plus
[4] https://www.ekioh.com/flow-browser/
HTML4? (Score:2)
"sir, I have 2008 on the line.."
Re: (Score:3)
Tell me about it, you want to build a browser for 2026, tell me how it's going to be Web3 compliant rendering pages using AI running entirely on the blockchain.
Re: (Score:2)
HTML4 websites load fine in modern browsers. Literally no browsers enforce newer HTML versions strictly.
Now, the reverse isn't true. I can't say that some React-based site is going to load in a 2008 browser. But that's more because we've gone to more or less mandatory reliance upon JS than because of any truly breaking changes in HTML itself.
There are two things about Ladybird I like (Score:3)
The first one is the security architecture, it has a few very interesting security paradigms incorporated, and from day one, not bolted-on like more traditional browsers.
The second is the License, BSD. Chromium is GPL, Webkit is GPL, and while Gecko is MPL, MPL allows to mix and match, so many parts are GPL.
I believe that a GPL license monoculture is just as bad as any other monoculture, be it browser, OS, software or whatever. As long as I can choose between FOSS licenses, all is well.
BussyBox (GPL) - ToyBox (BSD), UUtils (MIT?) - CoreUtils (GPL), Ladybird (BSD) - Chromium (GPL) ... All FOSS.
Acid (Score:4, Informative)
If I point my Chrome browser on my MacBook to [1]http://acid3.acidtests.org/ [acidtests.org], it gets 94/100. Safari does a bit better, getting to 97/100."
And Firefox gets 97/100
But I don't think ACID 3 tests matter anymore. Even says so on their website:
" the Acid Tests are correspondingly no longer being maintained. Acid3, in particular, contains some controversial tests and no longer reflects the consensus of the Web standards it purports to test [...] The tests remain available for historical purposes and for use by browser vendors. It would be inappropriate, however, to use them as part of a certification process"
[1] http://acid3.acidtests.org/
Re: (Score:2)
If I point my Firefox at the test link, it won't run because I have "no script" installed and I prefer not to use websites without no script until I know they are safe.
Re: (Score:2)
Pale Moon on Devuan Linux: 99/100.
When SerinityOS releases an ISO (Score:2)
Of their operating system so I can download & install into an extra disk partition and boot it with Linux's LILO or grub boorloader then and not until then will I take SerinityOS seriously
Screw standards compliant (Score:2)
I want a browser that is coded exclusively with the users interests in mind and that explicitly means BREAKING standards in some cases. Crazy ideas like reporting yes to the existence every plugin, font, or anything else that can be fingerprinted. If they are required by the site and actually are not there despite saying they are, let it fail in way that is reported to user and choose to actually go get that thing if they choose to. Masquerade as another browser so that advertisers or site operators can't b
3 2 (Score:5, Informative)
There are only two major, multi-platform, open-source browser bases left: Firefox and Chromium. Although I am fine with Firefox (and its few derivatives), because it is just as fast, mostly free of direct Google control, more open, more customizable, and more privacy-oriented, we desperately need additional diversity in the browser space. What we have now is mostly a Chrom*-dominated nightmare situation of security, actual standards, choice, and privacy. Much of that applies whether it is actual Chrome/Chromium, or one of the tons of browsers based on it.
Even three isn't enough, but it is certainly a great start. So I am excited to see Ladybird coming on the scene. Of course, if it can't also run on MS-Windows, it won't be of much relevance/acceptance.
Re: (Score:2)
> There are only two major, multi-platform, open-source browser bases left: Firefox and Chromium. Although I am fine with Firefox (and its few derivatives), because it is just as fast, mostly free of direct Google control, more open, more customizable, and more privacy-oriented, we desperately need additional diversity in the browser space. What we have now is mostly a Chrom*-dominated nightmare situation of security, actual standards, choice, and privacy. Much of that applies whether it is actual Chrome/Chromium, or one of the tons of browsers based on it.
> Even three isn't enough, but it is certainly a great start. So I am excited to see Ladybird coming on the scene. Of course, if it can't also run on MS-Windows, it won't be of much relevance/acceptance.
IIRC, WebKit is also FOSS, and is also multiplatform.
Re: (Score:2)
> "IIRC, WebKit is also FOSS, and is also multiplatform.
Yes, but it isn't a browser.
Re: 3 2 (Score:1)
The Orion browser uses WebKit. Currently macOS and iOS only, but they're working on a Linux version.
Re:3 2 (Score:5, Informative)
> "And what about the eleventy gazillion websites that don't adhere to "web standards"? When your browser chokes and can't display the page properly **YOUR** browser gets blamed."
This is very true. And it really is intolerable that web sites are now being "programmed" to a single browser. And any problem report is met IMMEDIATELY with an inflammatory "What browser are you using? Please install Chrome for the best experience".
In some ways, the corrupted web that Firefox freed us from is returning, and we are reverting back to the "IE-Only" days.
Re: 3 2 (Score:2)
A bit like the old days, where the de facto standard was Internet Exploder. But at least the standard implementation now is open source, although controlled by Google.