I'm funding Ladybird because I can't fund Firefox

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Frustration is growing among open‑web supporters who want to financially back an independent browser engine but feel they can’t directly fund Firefox’s development. Many are turning their attention to projects like Ladybird and Servo, weighing the appeal of a clean-slate, donation-funded engine against concerns over technical choices (C++ vs. Rust, memory safety) and the sheer complexity of building a modern, secure browser. Underpinning the debate is unease with Mozilla’s reliance on Google search money and side businesses, and the absence of a clear way to earmark donations specifically for Firefox.

Why fund Ladybird instead of Firefox?

  • Many commenters are frustrated that there’s no way to directly fund Firefox development; donations go to the Mozilla Foundation, which doesn’t develop Firefox and explicitly funds advocacy and research instead.
  • Paying for Mozilla side products (VPN, Pocket, etc.) is seen as an imprecise signal; users can’t ensure money goes to the browser rather than new “distraction” projects.
  • Several argue Google’s search deal (and large revenue share) makes Mozilla structurally dependent on its main competitor and reluctant to accept user-directed funding.
  • Some see Firefox as mismanaged and distracted by side projects and branding efforts, yet still the only major non–ad company browser.

Ladybird vs Servo and other alternatives

  • A strong contingent urges funding Servo instead: Rust-based, rendering-engine only, actively developed, and currently underfunded compared to the hype and money around Ladybird.
  • Some suggest an ideal future where Ladybird uses and helps fund Servo as its engine.
  • Others point to hardened Chromium derivatives (e.g., ungoogled-chromium) as another practical option.

Language, memory safety, and browser design

  • Large subthread debates C/C++ vs Rust for browsers.
  • Concerns: browsers are massive attack surfaces; C/C++ memory bugs dominate serious vulnerabilities in existing engines.
  • Counterpoints: OSes and current browsers are mostly C/C++; modern C++ with RAII is “good enough”; Rust and GC integration are complex; unsafe Rust may erode guarantees.
  • Ladybird’s FAQ says C++ was inherited from SerenityOS and that a migration to a “successor language” is planned, with prototypes in multiple languages.
  • Some see choosing C++ in 2024 as a red flag; others view it as pragmatic given tooling, expertise, and existing code.

Feasibility and timelines of a new engine

  • Many are skeptical a from-scratch, standards-compliant browser can catch up; existing engines are the result of decades of work by hundreds of engineers.
  • Others argue a clean-slate, independent implementation is exactly what the web needs and that if it proves impossible, that’s evidence the standards surface has grown too large.

Mozilla’s broader role and ads

  • Debate over whether Mozilla is now primarily an ad-tech and subscription vendor rather than a browser steward.
  • Some point to Mozilla’s own writing about the necessity of ad-funded “free” content; others note Firefox still supports strong ad-blocking.
  • Several argue user donations, even if smaller than Google money, would at least align incentives with users instead of advertisers.