Thread

1. clivedup · 1791025056 · focus · HN ↗

   > We also chose to build it the hard way by not forking Chromium.

   Bad call, because it's genuinely too hard for someone the size of Kagi, as they've discovered.

   There's room for a Chromium fork that has a better reputation than Brave. (I use Brave, and it's great, but I realise many people don't want to use it.)

   1. ajdude · 1791025221 · focus · HN ↗

      I use Orion (because pay for Orion Plus to support them) specifically because it is not a fork of Chromium.

      We need more rendering engines out there in the wild, as the situation with chrome's monopoly is already critically dire.

      1. clivedup · 1791026106 · focus · HN ↗

         I agree. But I think it'll take someone bigger than Kagi to achieve that.

         Mozilla have more momentum, experience, and funding, but still struggle.

         1. prox · 1791026752 · focus · HN ↗

            The struggle is the blind opening of chrome, like most people probably just do without thinking. Unless you are really a hardcore frontend developer, you lose nothing by switching to Firefox (or non chrome/chromium browser). I operate both and for 95%, maybe even more, there is no difference. By switching you will put pressure on google to keep on the users good side.
         2. aucisson_masque · 1791095563 · focus · HN ↗

            They never made the rendering engine. It’s open source.

            I don’t see any more difficulty between being a chromium browser or being a WebKit browser.

            1. TingPing · 1791156701 · focus · HN ↗

               The main thing difference was WebExtension support. Upstream WebKit on Linux didn’t support them. However it will very soon.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.