• KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    oh good firefox. Wonder what other browser i can use, oh wait…

    Can someone just make a minimalist browser that isn’t chrome/firefox based?

    • force@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      There are plenty of browsers. Dillo, NetSurf, surf, w3m, Lynx, Links, Via, Midori, Pale Moon although it’s based on a fork of Gecko, Tunnel, qutebrowser. And there are even options for a search engine, although the only one worth considering that isn’t just a layer on top of other search engines is Kagi which costs $10 a month, and I wouldn’t exactly call it minimalist.

      The problem is that no browser can allow you to escape the horror that is web standards & practices that have been developed over decades and are almost unchangeable, without sacrificing basic web functionality and just making it a worse experience than it needs to be at least. The fact is that practically the entire web is reliant on JavaScript, on top of HTML and CSS which take a lot more resources to utilize/display than it looks, meaning 3 interpreters constantly running that must be sandboxed to each tab you have open with a lot of overhead to manage security.

      In an ideal world we’d all just be using provably-safe high-performance compiled WASM-but-stronger (from functional languages or more likely Rust or something less boiler-platey but similar), without having such a complex and fucked dependency situation*, where we wouldn’t need to sandbox interpreted languages and slaughter performance. Of course, in an ideal world, we also wouldn’t have to be concerned about aggressive tracking, ads, clickbait, SEO abuse, scams, or even malware, so there’s not much use in imagining a reality where we actually have quality web browsing.

      The actual answer to using the web without the fucked-ness of browsers is to not use a web browser at all for sites you use frequently. Use stuff like this instead.

      *seriously, you can write the most basic website with JavaScript and it’ll probably rely on tens of thousands of expressions of code which realistically should just be expressable in like a small page or two, you do webdev and you’ll probably accidentally be implicitly committing a sacrifice to some Aztec God in order to check if a number is even or odd

      Also just imagine if all of web dev was just ML/Scala/Rust/Swift/Erlang without compiling to JavaScript 🤤 That is the definition of a perfect universe

      • lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        The problem is that no browser can allow you to escape the horror that is web standards & practices that have been developed over decades […] practically the entire web is reliant on JavaScript, […]

        I’ve been saying it for a while: continuing to play catch is a losing move for Mozilla or for any independent browser maker.

        The real move, is to switch to or at least integrate an alternate internet, something that uses a protocol that is simpler and more limited by design - just get rid of Javascript (or of “remote execution”, really) and you instantly get a much leaner, much securer internet design.

        I’ve heard pretty good things about the Gemini protocol, but IMHO they went too far too extremist into the “text internet” philosophy, and as a result is a raw downgrade from Gopher. Gopher could actually be a good option.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I’ll definitely have to check out a few of those browsers at some point. It’s kind of insane how much tech debt we’ve accrued over the years.

        I think honestly we just need to start waning off half the shit we support. Minimize the amount of support required, and somehow manage to provide a smaller attack window so that way we can stop writing protections for problems that honestly shouldn’t even exist to begin with. Bonus points to microsoft for creating security certs that don’t do their jobs because hahafunneemalware.exe is signed by fucking oracle of all people, and i guess we should just blindly execute that file because it says it’s trustworthy!

        Though it would be interesting to have a sort of “web browser” which is actually just an application based on plugins for different frontends, for stuff like yewtube, we do only use a handful of sites from time to time. Plus maybe a basic web fronted for stuff that isn’t JS because honestly who wants it anyway.

    • AnAngryAlpaca@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      11 months ago

      Unfortunately none. Developing a rendering engine that can handle css, html, javascript, while also rendering a website in the exact same way as Chrome and Firefox is a huge tasks, and not something a hobby programmer can whack out in a few weeks. Thats the reason why even Microsoft abandoned their own rendering engine, because things did always look and work different in IE.

      • laughterlaughter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Unfortunately none.

        This is not true. Pale Moon, Ice Weasel, Librewolf…

        Developing a rendering engine that can handle css, html, javascript, while also rendering a website in the exact same way as Chrome and Firefox is a huge tasks

        It doesn’t have to be from scratch. Not even Apple did this with Safari (they based in on KHTML, the rendering engine of KDE’s Konqueror.)

        • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          librewolf is a firefox fork, anything thats a fork of firefox/chrome is automatically not counted, because it is inherently bulkier than the original (though maybe more secure)

          Unless it’s pissandshittium of course.

          • laughterlaughter@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            anything thats a fork of firefox/chrome is automatically not counted

            Says who?

            because it is inherently bulkier

            How is “being bulkier” relevant at all? But let’s just go down that route and say that a fork does not necessarily end up in a bulkier product. A dev team could decide to fork, then remove unwanted features from the original project; which is what’s happening with Librewolf as far as I know (e.g. no Pocket bs.)

            Finally, let’s remember that both Safari and Chrome have their roots on Konqueror’s KHTML rendering engine. By your metric, we should be saying that they don’t count either; because they’re “(definitely) bulkier forks” of KHTML.

            • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Says who?

              says me, the one who made the original comment.

              How is “being bulkier” relevant at all? But let’s just go down that route and say that a fork does not necessarily end up in a bulkier product. A dev team could decide to fork, then remove unwanted features from the original project; which is what’s happening with Librewolf as far as I know (e.g. no Pocket bs.)

              now you just have a patched together, disjointed, mess of a browser, on top of a second dev team, who now needs to unpatch it together, re patch it together, and then somehow repackage that. It’s just hopeless. It’s like trying to turn a full size pickup into a small lightweight town car. It’s just not going to happen.

              Finally, let’s remember that both Safari and Chrome have their roots on Konqueror’s KHTML rendering engine. By your metric, we should be saying that they don’t count either; because they’re “(definitely) bulkier forks” of KHTML.

              It’s worth noting that when a fork is building on top of something, there is a point where the original roots are no longer present, or no longer significantly present. It’s like saying that android is linux. Which doesnt stop the charts from displaying android separately to linux, or chromeos for that matter. Even if it did i don’t like the browsers because they’re too bulky so it’s not like it influences my opinion anyway lol.

              • laughterlaughter@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                says me, the one who made the original comment.

                Then it’s a weak argument without real support.

                now you just have a patched together, disjointed, mess of a browser, on top of a second dev team, who now needs to unpatch it together, re patch it together, and then somehow repackage that. It’s just hopeless. It’s like trying to turn a full size pickup into a small lightweight town car. It’s just not going to happen.

                You are assuming way too much. As if Apple and Google did all this with KHTML. Which lead us to:

                It’s worth noting that when a fork is building on top of something, there is a point where the original roots are no longer present, or no longer significantly present.

                And what’s your point by saying this? What does it matter if the roots “disappear,” if the product is good enough for competition?

                Even if it did i don’t like the browsers because they’re too bulky so it’s not like it influences my opinion anyway lol.

                What bulky browsers don’t you like?

                • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Then it’s a weak argument without real support.

                  I mean yeah, but it’s my opinion on the matter. Even then my original claim is based on the fact of something being an active fork of another browser. Which is still going to line up with my point just fine.

                  You are assuming way too much. As if Apple and Google did all this with KHTML. Which lead us to:

                  assuming too much if you think modern applications are programmed/designed well. Ultimately no matter what you do, having a product be around for a decade, let alone multiple of them, is going to incur substantial tech debt, and significant feature creep. There is nothing you can do about this. It happens in EVERY industry. In fact the only thing that helps to prevent this is an almost religious and fervent dedicated to pure minimalism when it comes to what your software is doing. Look at something like DWM for example.

                  And what’s your point by saying this? What does it matter if the roots “disappear,” if the product is good enough for competition?

                  My point is that beyond a certain point, a fork is no longer a fork, but more like a competing piece of software. You see this all the time, look at android or chromeos. Technically “based” on linux, but so far gone that almost nobody considers it linux, i only ever see it mentioned in jokes. Something like prism which is a fork of poly, which is a fork of multimc is starting to get to the point where it’s more of an alternate piece of software, than a direct fork. It’s twice independently maintained, it’s feature set is focused differently.

                  If you need more examples why dont we have a look at a COW filesystem? When you make a change to a file, a fork is created, and that change is then saved on that forked path, so now you have multiple different versions, throughout the chronological history of that fork. If you have auto-deletion enabled for old forks, as you should, at some point you will have “orphaned” forks. Which no longer represent in anyway the original file, but exist as an independently separate instance of that file, in a different state. It’s a similar idea, in a different scale, on a different system. There is also a point where it no longer exists as a fork, but as an implementation on top of that original piece of software. How that’s defined is a little more complicated though.

                  It’s a little bit philosophical, and semantical, but my point is simple, if your piece of software exists as a fork on top of another piece of software, you don’t get to call yourself “faster” or “leaner” or “more optimized” than the original. Your base browser is still a piece of shit, you’ve taken a bad car, and repainted it, now it looks a little bit better. But it’s still a shit car. You turn a beater into a race car by completely stripping it to bits, at a certain point, it’s not really a fork anymore. In the same way that putting a body on a different frame isn’t the same as the original.

                  What bulky browsers don’t you like?

                  it’s not like i’ve literally named them or anything.

                  • laughterlaughter@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    10 months ago

                    assuming too much if you think modern applications are programmed/designed well. Ultimately no matter what you do, having a product be around for a decade, let alone multiple of them, is going to incur substantial tech debt, and significant feature creep.

                    I still don’t understand what this has anything to do with “forking makes a product bulkier,” the original claim. At most, what you’re saying is that the fork will have its own set of tech debt. But that doesn’t make it bulkier by default. Again, a fork of Firefox without the Pocket and “experiments” crap will be lighter.

                    My point is that beyond a certain point, a fork is no longer a fork, but more like a competing piece of software.

                    Well, yeah, isn’t that the point of forking? I still don’t see why a forked browser being “yet another competing browser” is a bad thing. It’s the opposite!

                    if your piece of software exists as a fork on top of another piece of software, you don’t get to call yourself “faster” or “leaner” or “more optimized” than the original.

                    I completely disagree with you, and I think I know why you think the way you think. It seems like you assume that all forks:

                    • Must always follow the development of the original software. Nope. Not true. It can happen, but not with all forks.
                    • Are inherently bulkier because devs add features on top of it. Which again, it’s not true for all forks. Some forks solely exist to remove crap in the original software.

                    Your base browser is still a piece of shit, you’ve taken a bad car, and repainted it, now it looks a little bit better. But it’s still a shit car.

                    Man, have you never seen TV shows about mechanics taking shitty cars and making them awesome? Yes, they strip it to pieces, and reassemble said pieces. That’s part of engineering practices. It appears that you have a narrow way of seeing how software development works. Devs don’t need to take in the whole “shitty project” and be resigned to deal with it. They can take the good parts, and rewrite the bad parts. And that’s just one example.

                    it’s not like i’ve literally named them or anything.

                    You haven’t mentioned any browser that’s a fork from Firefox and that is also bulkier than Firefox. Librewolf? Bulkier than Firefox? Really?

    • THE MASTERMIND@feddit.ch
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      Its about time i would settle for the bare minimum at first then we can built up on it as a community