(1/2)
@nicktaylor
I take your point about browser lock-in being theoretically weaker than platform lock-in. But you may be letting a definition of "web browser" obscure the reality of how we depend on the one we're used to.
In practice, right now, switching browsers means losing (or gaining) a bunch of product-specific affordances. Most notably, as of late, the ability to use browser extensions to dis-enshittify the base browser without coding knowledge. As well as interface familiarity, etc.
(2/2)
@nicktaylor
> re: "From the ground up" - Ladybird is having a go
Awesome, thanks for the tip. @alcinnz has been developing a browser from scratch for a while.
But again, my question is focused on replacing Mozilla, as a coordination and funding scaffolding. FireFox could easily be hard forked if Mozilla is irrecoverable. The question is how to fund that properly, and how to set up governance to hedge against enshittification (eg a platform co-op owned by devs).
PS My apologies @nicktaylor, now that I've read more into Ladybird I see they're doing both. Creating a new browser and a new not-for-profit for it. I'll be intrigued to see how they plan to structure the org to avoid Mozilla's fate.
Also why they decided to start from scratch, instead of forking at least some components of a working libre browser. Even if only to swap them out over time, as Chromium did.
Me:
> Also why they decided to start from scratch, instead of forking at least some components of a working libre browser
Again, further reading has allowed me to answer my own question. SerenityOS was an itch-scratching project where the goal was to try out entirely new approaches. One of the reasons for spinning Ladybird into its own entity is to move away from that, and start making use of existing code where it makes sense.
A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate
