[z64]

(I work at Kagi, but do not work on Orion)

There's a lot of different reasons that people ask for open sourcing of Orion / software in general; could I ask you to expand a bit more as to which issues being open source would address for you?

I can assume of course, but I'd rather listen to you articulate it, even if it's usual reasons.

[luma]

Single word answer: trust.

Y’all seem like nice people but trust isn’t automatic these days.

[z64]

Trust with regards to...? Orion doesn't have any telemetry, doesn't force any updates on you, doesn't require any account. You can audit the application's behavior with standard tools to verify that it isn't "phoning home", etc., it doesn't need to be open source to do that, nor would making it open source obviate auditig the final executable anyways.

What do you perceive as the risk to "trusting" Orion in this case?

edit: Sandboxing the app also further reduces the surface area for "trust", though I'm unfamiliar with MacOS as a platform when it comes to that.

[sedatk]

In return, could we ask Kagi to expand on which problems they find in open sourcing it?

[nicce]

Business model from Orion+ would likely take a hit in the long run.

[tucnak]

Only my 2c, but being able to modify commodity software (including, but not limited to browsers, text editors, etc.) I am running on my computer is table stakes.

[kachapopopow]

I think the bigger question is: why not open-source it? At bare minimum provide the debug symbols for it (even chrome provides them!).

[dartharva]

Linux distro portability without having to rely on third-party package management like Flatpak. I'd prefer there'd be independent maintainers and packagers for Debian and Arch and all others.

[crossroadsguy]

I expect a lot of people saying trust. My reason is simpler - a browser is not like an email service, it's not like an IM, it's not like a social network, not that these as FOSS wouldn't be better, but a browser is literally the most fundamental end-user software to access the Internet and I don't want to bother spending even 10 mins to support another browser that is not FOSS. This sounds harsh but I am not shitting on Kagi or Orion. While I have not much positive views on Kagi Search either, I understand that and accept that and hence I acknowledge that, but the closed-source browser - nope! In some twisted way it feels like paying public taxes to build a private road. It's not a great analogy, I know, but that's the closest I could come to in terms of a connotation.

[TingPing]

I would contribute to it if it was FOSS.

[warkdarrior]

Can't speak for OP, but open source allows the community to check for spyware inserted to exfil data to the company and its partners.

[redserk]

As much as I'd appreciate more open source for the sake of transparency, binaries provided on websites aren't guaranteed to match the source code provided and I'd assume most users are pulling binaries versus building themselves.

[inesranzo]

Why would and what incentive does Kagi have to put 'spyware' in a browser?

[barnabee]

Sure :)

tl;dr: I'm a tinkerer, an idealist, and someone who wants to retain control over my digital life and deny influence over it to the likes of Google, Apple, Meta, et al. at pretty much all costs, and there are absolutely good enough open source options that I couldn't bring myself to use a proprietary browser unless I absolutely have to.

To elaborate…

First off, there are a few reasons I always prefer to use open source software:

- I like being able to open things up, see how they work, chops bits off them, attach other things too them, use them in unexpected ways and general use (and abuse) them however I see fit. After all, I can do that with all the physical stuff I own, so why not the digital stuff too…?

- Code costs nothing to copy and is trivial to copy perfectly. This means that the potential compounding benefits of everyone sharing not only their complete software products but individual libraries, algorithms, and solutions to common (and not-so-common) problems are huge. When we use and contribute to open source software we help build those benefits for everyone.

- Closed source code is always open to being abandoned or moving in a direction we don't care for with nothing we can do about it. When it's open source, the question is "will I submit a PR", or "will I maintain a fork" (even if just for me). When it's closed, the question is "will I build a replacement". These are not the same category of thing! I can start running a fork any time[0]. Building a replacement may take months or years, if it's even feasible. But there are individuals who run their own fork of my favourite text editor (Helix).

- I'm a big believer in the value of communities and efforts made primarily for the benefit of one's community rather than financial gain. Open source can act as a kind of insurance against the latter.

Secondly, I think this is all uniquely important for browsers because the web is so dominant and it's therefore so important to me (and I think to Kagi's mission) to protect that platform for everyone, for all time. Even though Chromium and Webkit are open source, Google and Apple exert huge influence and control through their ownership of Chrome and Safari. Firefox is better but even that project is not free of Google's influence, which is steadily making the web worse for everyone.

Kagi probably won't be the next Google, in that respect. As a long time payed user of Kagi[1], I really do believe they want to build a good browser that does not abuse an exploit it's users. But Google's motto used to be "Don't be evil", and many of us believed that for a while too. My point is not that Kagi will or is likely to become evil, it's that when Firefox/Zen, ungoogled Chromium, and maybe one day Ladybird and others exist, *I can't invest time, effort, and attention into something that could in theory go down such a path without the community even retaining the option to fork it[2]. This is especially true when using a closed source browser would also simultaneously weaken those more open efforts, however slightly, by subtracting from their community.

So there you have it. I hope that's helpful.

[0] Case in point: I've used Firefox for years. Sometime last year I start using Zen (a fork/derivative of Firefox) alongside it with no drama or fanfare. Now I rarely open Firefox.

[1] Honestly, I couldn't imagine going back. It's a genuinely excellent product and I believe the company is generally doing, and certainly trying to do the right thing.

[2] Just look at the cautionary tale/disaster that is Arc/Dia. For a while I was worried I was missing out on something special. Then Zen came a long and I worried less. Then the whole Dia thing… boy am I glad I didn't invest my time in that.

[z64]

Thank you!