Also a bunch of somewhat less heinous cringe shit.
uh have you tried xydfgq-blurble browser it’s my home brew fork of chromium and firefox i call it “chromefox” which is also my fursona
thinking of changing the name to something lighthearted, marketable and non-objectionable like “GNU-Scrotum”
i am the only maintainer and i keep up with 110% of security issues
we are not in the android store as the oppressive statists at google said that if i ever switched on this uh “piece of shit” in a built up area theyd cut my nuts off, but
ignore the FUD about chromefox spilling your bank account and leaking your tastes in hentai and fucking your cat it’s all LIES FILTHY LIES by THAT BITCH ANDREW he is SUCH an asshole
anyway free software stallman was right peace out
I just curl pages and render it all in my head. It’s easy with my 10 Morbillion IQ
the only reasonable way to interact with the web is to write a shell script that mails the source to each page you try to view to the 2001 laptop you insist on using even in spite of freer modern options, I said, reaching for delicious foot skin to chew
Lmao look at this chud actually trusting awk, head and date
@morrowind I created my own binaries by flipping the switches on the front of a PDP-11 though, I don’t trust
gcc, and neither should you
I mean don’t use anything besides Firefox, pretty obvious.
Vivaldi has been great the whole time
Except that it uses chromium which contributes to the Google dominance of web standards
But do they have to follow what Google is doing? Can’t they have full control over their own chromium version?
Not really, chromium is mostly maintained by Google. They could fork it but that wouldn’t solve what I’m concerned about here
I actually wonder about that. So Firefox is seemingly becoming more corpo in their approach. Their home tab now has random adverts and suggested sites that I should visit. I guess the general vibe that I’m getting is “sleek, polished”, which triggers some latent suspicion about the way they are headed. As many people, I keep returning to Firefox every year or so, just to see whether it can be transitioned to. Maybe that’s why it’s so jarring.
I am also worried that “Firefox is the only real alternative” is not a healthy state of things. We get Chromium flavors, high maintenance nonsense, and Firefox.
Yes, Chromium flavours vs Firefox flavours is not healthy.
It’s less unhealthy than a defacto Google monopoly though.
It’s impossible to build a new web browser… At least until someone proves otherwise.
My estimate (source: sounds good in my head) is you’d need a dozen or so browser experts working full time for years to build a browser capable of rendering most modern “web-app” style websites.
The core specs have a lot of integration tests (one of the shittier ones written by yours truly!), and most of the specs are pretty readable for experts (I hate the CSS Device Adaptation Module Level 1 spec though).
There’s just a lot of it and a lot of subtle interactions which is where the time would go.
If you were foolish enough to set many millions of dollars on fire* to do this you’d end up with a browser lacking in key non-core-spec areas too. Off the top of my head: print layout, security, JIT performance, HTTP2 / HTTP3, general browser performance, UI polish, PDF rendering, mobile version, plugins, and DRM “support” (good luck getting the DRM gatekeepers to let you bundle that stuff with your browser). Add some more years for all of that.
* and/or smart enough to make it an open source project and convince people to do it for free, see the other commenter’s link to Ladybird below
This appears to be a good excuse to hate on CSS Device Adaptation Module Level 1, let me quote from it so you understand the great sorrow I had when I needed to understand it:
This section is not normative. This section describes a mapping from the content attribute of the viewport <META> element, first implemented by Apple in the iPhone Safari browser, to the descriptors of the @viewport rule described in this specification.
…
Below is an algorithm for parsing the content attribute of the <META> tag produced from testing Safari on the iPhone. The testing was done on an iPod touch running iPhone OS 4. The UA string of the browser: “Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A293 Safari/6531.22.7”. The pseudo code notation used is based on the notation used in [Algorithms].
…
If a prefix of property-value can be converted to a number using strtod, the value will be that number. The remainder of the string is ignored.
Some websites don’t work with Firefox. That’s why I use Brave as a secondary browser.
Then these websites can go get fucked. I’m not using them, and when its my bank i walk my ass to my bank and cancel my bank account there.
If you require chromium, you make people use a less secure browser because your company sucks Google dong. Fuck that, fuck them fuck it all.
I’ve been using FF for over 15 years at this point and I have never, not even once, ran into any issues with any site that I went to. Now, is the website you are talking about shareable by you? I don’t want it if it’s a bank or something that could some how be linked to you. I just really really want to see a website that doesn’t work on FF. I’m not trying to come off as a dick or anything, I am genuinely interested to see what it looks like and how it behaves.
