- I know many people actually care about beauty. In fact, with the same amount of bugs, the users of the most beautiful software will actually report it's less buggy.
The problem is when someone makes appearances more important than being useful.
But I want to give this project the benefit of the doubt.
How do you know it was one of the developers who wrote this? Maybe they hired someone to create the site and the content. Granted, the site is in the repo and you can see who committed the assets. But that still doesn't tell you who originally wrote it.
You're suggesting one of the developers went through all the trouble to create a browser, then allowed someone to add assets to the repo without the developer reviewing them first?
I'm suggesting that you don't know who wrote the content. You don't know the developers wrote it. And if a non-developer wrote it, then that person probably isn't going to commit the content to a repo.
The first sentence in the first paragraph on the website is "beautifully designed". Clearly the creator wants to bring to our attention that they spent a lot of time designing the visual aspects of this browser. And from the looks of things, this is indeed true. The browser does look very beautiful.
But... this is literally form over function.
Browsers should be like car tyres. Only after you have selected for your functional use case and requirements, do you filter for visual aesthetics.
If google decides that they don’t want to fund Mozilla anymore, then these Firefox derivatives fall as well. I don’t really see the zen team (or other ff forks) hiring the FF devs that are making 6 figures at Mozilla.
If Firefox decides to deeply ingrain some DRM standard, there’s a high likelihood that it’ll be included in downstream browsers like this one, unless they are privacy nuts like librewolf.
We need entirely new browsers that are more than window dressing on top of existing ones.
Remember what happened to Thunderbird, though. Mozilla dropped it, and it got better. There are good reasons to think that Mozilla - the corporate entity - is cancer.
T'bird is owned and run by a for-profit company called MZLA.
That company is owned by the non-profit Mozilla Foundation but Mozilla does not own, run, operate, or control Thunderbird.
Comparison: Pret a Manger, the fancy sandwich chain, is part-owned by Mcdonald's. But you can't buy a Big Mac in Pret, and you can't buy a Pret fancy noodle salad in McDonald's.
- I feel more passion from the author.
- I value the pride they show in their work.
- I know many people actually care about beauty. In fact, with the same amount of bugs, the users of the most beautiful software will actually report it's less buggy.
The problem is when someone makes appearances more important than being useful.
But I want to give this project the benefit of the doubt.
We need more browser diversity.