Nook Browser

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Arc-style sidebars and tab management

  • Multiple commenters see Nook as part of a wave of Arc-like browsers centered on vertical sidebars and multi-tier tab organization; several say they really do like this model.
  • Zen (Firefox-based) is repeatedly cited as a strong implementation of this pattern; some find it “hugely better” than stock Firefox for profiles/workspaces and large tab counts.
  • Others report Zen being buggy or unstable over time, with regressions in basic behaviors like pinned tabs.
  • A subset dislikes sidebars entirely and doesn’t understand the current obsession; they prefer simpler, traditional tab layouts.

Ad blocking, engines, and extensions

  • Built‑in ad blocking is seen by some as a must‑have, comparing Nook unfavorably to Brave and Comet if it lacks this.
  • There’s agreement that uBlock Origin remains strong on Mozilla-based browsers, while Chrome-based browsers are hampered by Manifest V3.
  • One person notes built-in features (like Brave’s shields) reduce reliance on extensions, which are seen as security risks and annoying to re‑install, especially on mobile.

Code quality and architecture

  • A deep dive into Nook’s GitHub raises red flags: a “Managers” directory is viewed as a smell, suggesting feature-centric “manager” objects that may encourage duplication, inconsistent patterns, and weak shared infrastructure.
  • A specific example: simplistic handling of domain suffixes (hardcoding a few two-part TLDs) is criticized as inappropriate for a browser; commenters point to the public suffix list as the correct approach.
  • Others ask what is actually wrong with this architecture; the critique is detailed but not universally understood or accepted.

Licensing and “open-source forever”

  • The marketing line “open-source forever” plus “permissive license” is called out as contradictory, since the project actually uses GPLv3.
  • A nuanced debate follows on what “permissive” vs copyleft licenses guarantee:
    • One side argues permissive licenses explicitly allow future closed derivatives, so “open source forever” is misleading.
    • Others emphasize that once code is released under any license, those copies remain under that license; the real issue is what happens with future releases and derivatives.

Branding, similarity, and trademark concerns

  • Many initially assume “Nook” is related to Barnes & Noble’s e‑reader or an Animal Crossing reference; several expect possible trademark conflict.
  • The UI and marketing site are repeatedly described as nearly identical to Zen and Arc; people note even matching background colors and visual language.
  • Some dismiss Nook as “yet another browser” with a familiar “new browser starter pack”: fancy logo, WebKit/Chromium base, minimal Arc/Safari-like UI, AI mentions, privacy promises, and macOS-only support.

Browser landscape, engines, and longevity

  • Commenters worry about sustainability: creating a browser shell is easy; keeping up with engine security and web changes is hard, and many small projects appear semi‑abandoned.
  • Nook is confirmed to be WebKit-based; some find that appealing as a non-Chromium option, alongside Orion (also WebKit-based) and Zen (Firefox-based).
  • A few predict that forks of Chromium/WebKit/Gecko will eventually give way to new engines like Ladybird, while others think the current engines will persist in heavily modified form.
  • Nostalgia surfaces for classic browsers (Opera 8/9, Camino) and earlier, more customizable UI paradigms (MDI, XUL, NeXTSTEP-style desktops), contrasted with today’s more constrained designs.

Privacy messaging and data collection

  • The slogan “No selling of browsing data. Ever.” makes several readers uneasy; they infer this might still allow collecting or centralizing browsing data, just not selling it.
  • Suggestions are made that the project should explicitly state that browsing data stays local and is never sent to the vendor.