[fooqux]

> WebKit.

> A web browser designed from the ground-up.

Both of these can't be true. Perhaps they're thinking of Ladybird?

[saagarjha]

WebKit is a web engine, not a browser.

[LoganDark]

WebKit is also not the ground.

[silverlemontea]

Ladybird is dogshit

[MYEUHD]

Ladybird is still in early development. They don't provide binaries.

I don't think it's fair to deem it "dogshit" at this point.

[konart]

Can't you build (and design before that) an OS from ground up around Linux?

[randallsquared]

Well, no, to be clear! There are a lot of decisions that are made already for you when you use something else as a foundation.

[KPGv2]

WebKit is a rendering engine, not a browser. It's a bit like saying "that isn't original art because you used Earth physics that govern how paint flows and dries.

[mdlxxv]

I dunno. It's more like saying "that isn't your original art because you didn't paint it, only provided the frame". A pretty elaborate frame, yes, but only the frame, not the painting.

[danpalmer]

I think this is underselling the browser UX. In many ways, Safari, Orion, Chrome, Brave, Opera, are all very different products despite all sharing the WebKit lineage.

[doodlesdev]

Chrome, Brave and Opera are as much WebKit as Safari and Kagi Orion are KHTML. I wholeheartly agree on the UX part, though.

[mattmcal]

The particular choice of the marketing phrase "from the ground up" sort of invites this kind of commentary on HN. This is hardly the first WebKit-based browser, so any commenter specifically holding their breath for a new, independent rendering and layout engine or JS engine might feel inclined to roll their eyes and snark.

[lugoues]

How dare you paint without making your own pigments!

[self_awareness]

You make your own pigments? I hope you didn't re-use already existing atoms for that

[LoganDark]

Sir, you have a license for those electrons?