Imagine if ladybird gets used regularly by ~1000 nerds, which is its current audience, then gets forked by microsoft and the current ME gets replaced by ladybird. Even if ladybird got over 9000 users, there's no competing with megacorps.
Well maybe they're ok with that? They want browser diversity. Getting Microsoft to use a new engine is better for diversity than if they just used chromium like now.
Getting Microsoft to use a new engine and contribute back to the original repository is better for diversity, but forking and running away with it is certainly not.
> Forking and running away with it is certainly not
If your goal is browser diversity, this would take an ecosystem of 2 browser engines and turn it into an ecosystem of 4. That seems in-line with the goal of browser diversity.
Currently we have an ecosystem of two browser engines, yes. One of them is weaponized against users by its designers, both in its open and closed form.
Having 4 (or 3.5 more realistically) browser engines where 2 of them weaponized against its users doesn't change things.
Instead, we should have 3 (or 2.5) browser engines where only one of them is (and can be) weaponized against its users. This is what brings diversity and change.
Ideally, yes. Microsoft should stay away from this, but I wanted to highlight that adopting a technology doesn't automatically make it better for diversity.
Google was almost killing Go overnight because they wanted more user data from people using the language.
Sorry for my grammatical mistake, English is not my first language.
That said, my point here was that realistically no company is going to fork ladybird since there's already chromium, plus even if ladybird was somehow forked by let's say microsoft and got popular, I don't think it would be detrimental to ladybird itself, if not even beneficial, since it would attract more users and, to a lesser extent, more contributors.
Also, its* not it's