/g/ - Technology

install openbsd

[Make a Post]
[X]





Browser thread Nanonymous No.6059 [D][S][L][A][C] >>6065 >>6070 >>6341 >>8474 >>8628
What's the best browser for Windows?


>Edge
kek
>Firefox
Pozzed
>Chrome
Pozz king
>Ungoogled chrome
Outdated
>Waterfox and Palemoon
Shitty version of Firefox. Pretty sure one of them was caught phoning home and other has Jewish ties

Seems Firefox with the pozzed bits cut off seems to be the only option right now

Nanonymous No.6062 [D] >>6076
Brave or Dissenter
or you can go with firefox and apply various fixes

Nanonymous No.6063 [D]
>Pretty sure one of them was caught phoning home
Yeah that was Waterfox.

>other has Jewish ties
Palemoon Really? i thought he was just a furry.

Iridium is okayish they update like once in 6 months, good for normie browsing though.
palemoon and firefox esr are the best browsers to use i guess just have to disable the startpage in palemoon.

Nanonymous No.6064 [D] >>6294
I tried Palemoon, wasn't that surprised by it, it lacks the support firefox has and doens't offer that much more new beside the rendering engine.
My browsers of choice are hardened firefox and tor browser, they werk, i know them really well since i use them pretty much since they were out.
I agree that Mozilla is cucked but firefox cuckery is still fixable with a couple of configs and extensions.

OP read https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/browsers.html and https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/mozilla.html so you know what's wrong with mozilla and you know how to defebnd yourself.

Nanonymous No.6065 [D]
>>6059
>Shitty version of Firefox.
shut the fuck up retard. firefox and every modern browser are 100x worse. literally clickbait as a browser

Nanonymous No.6067 [D] >>6085
>literally clickbait as a browser
what did he mean by that

Nanonymous No.6070 [D]
>>6059
>windows user is worried about backdoors in his open source browser.
[insert suitable reaction]

Nanonymous No.6071 [D] >>6082
ungoogled-chromium
there is no alternatives

Nanonymous No.6073 [D] >>6086 >>6289
Brave really triggers SJWs. I am tempted to use it just to see them suffer. Even torfags are unhappy there's an alternative to tbb.

And speaking of tor have you read surveillancevalley.com? There's a based lefty there who rips tor a new one. Pretty intense stuff.

Nanonymous No.6076 [D]
>windows
Nigger, I...
>>6062
OK now this is total bait.

Nanonymous No.6078 [D][U][F] >>6080
File: df49e45f478db651fdd72ef342b86b8622aa1e5b19fe02ad475971d4223b1514.jpg (dl) (553.23 KiB)
https://surf.suckless.org/

Nanonymous No.6079 [D] >>6086
No one mentioned Internet EExplorer? I live in India and I am a Senior HTML Developer and I use internet Explorer every day along with all my friends.

Nanonymous No.6080 [D][U][F] >>6086 >>6095
File: 772d4b7033bb9457278c7b3da4a7f70cafe0845c97a76896e0daf4ceade7d183.jpg (dl) (703.32 KiB)
>>6078
>suckless
<sucks
Why am I not suprised?

Nanonymous No.6081 [D] >>6083
>find in page: icecat
>0/0
Guhnoo icecat. Remove the freetard extensions, select the appropriate checkboxes on the new tab page and you're good to go. I prefer it over palememe or iridium/ungoogled because it still has working sync. From what I can tell the sync data is encrypted on the client side and I'm not autistic enough to be able to live without it
Tor browser is also a great choice if you want complete privacy

Nanonymous No.6082 [D] >>6084 >>6085
>>6071
Enjoy being seven versions behind

Nanonymous No.6083 [D] >>6098
>>6081
>icecat
>windows

Nanonymous No.6084 [D]
>>6082
still better than firefox

Nanonymous No.6085 [D] >>6119
>>6067
it means the browsers are consumer garbage. you know? like picking up a gossip magazine in the checkout lane of walmart.
>>6082
thats a feature you fucking cucksumer (but only cucksumers use chrome and its forks anyway). the web hasn't added a useful feature aside from <video> since 2000, aside from security fixes for their stupid ass mistakes, and even then most of those were bad (for example request policy bullshit)

Nanonymous No.6086 [D] >>6089
>>6079
Is it because of government requirements? Use linux so you can ascend.
>>6073
Leftists and commies are mad that their former mozilla CEO started another browser. Firefox went downhill after he left so I will try Brave and see how it scores.
>>6080
Those are some impressive legs.

Nanonymous No.6087 [D]
>Edge, Firefox, Chrome, Aterfox and Palemoon and any other jewish shit
XD

Whonix or just Tor Browser

Nanonymous No.6089 [D]
>>6086
>brave
its shit and you're shit for having to try it to know it's shit

Nanonymous No.6090 [D] >>6096
the only good browser is links -g
and any website that doesnt with it is shit

Nanonymous No.6091 [D]
s/doesnt with/doesnt work with/

Nanonymous No.6092 [D] >>6096 >>6099
i literally used 3 computers (2 windows 1 linux) yesterday and on each of them it took multiple seconds to open firecuck. another time on windows after doing heavy IO, it actually took over a minute to open firecuck. same went for palememe and tor browser. meanwhile, links -g always takes under a second to open

Nanonymous No.6093 [D][U][F] >>6097
File: 144685d59999feae940610c233dd4116784f2253300a8b57a2001c30fb90841b.jpg (dl) (113.14 KiB)
TBB for onions
TBB without tor for everything else: https://www.whonix.org/wiki/Tor_Browser_without_Tor

Nanonymous No.6095 [D]
>>6080
I admit the thought of those smooth legs wrapped around me makes my brain melt. Almost made me forgot what some leftist jew wrote about tor and deep state
https://surveillancevalley.com/blog/tag:Tor+Files

Minimalism is retarded Nanonymous No.6096 [D][U][F] >>6106
File: ce4c30fb63a0f08b2714dedfc11e0fb4f0e6c2d2fb5f94f63f2a5d013c504de3.jpg (dl) (75.00 KiB)
>>6090
I care about features, minimalism is retarded, even firefox lacks features and could be improved with more stuff like a native script blocker umatrix-like, native css/js user injectors and multiple concurrent sessions of cookies etc(yeah i know profiles exist but they are a pain in the ass).
>anything that doesn't work with my autistic software its cancer!!!
wow
>>6092
I keep my browser always open so it's a non-argument, it takes less than a second on my pc though so maybe you just have shit hardware?

Nanonymous No.6097 [D]
>>6093
At that point just use firefox and tweak it to your preferences.

Nanonymous No.6098 [D]
>>6083
What are you talking about? I'm running icecat compiled independently for windows just fine. I wouldn't have chosen icecat for its syncing ability if I couldn't use it across different platforms would I?

Nanonymous No.6099 [D]
>>6092
That's windows pagefiling for you, swap was a mistake

Nanonymous No.6100 [D] >>6775
>iridium
Iridium is just Ungoogled-Chromium but for people who haven't heard of Ungoogled-Chromium.
Ungoogled-Chromium uses Irdium's patch-set + more.

>Brave and Dissenter
Total memes. No extensions. No themes either afaik.
Gab is a total boomer meme, they don't even federate despite switching to Mastodon because of their own broken code base.
Also they block Tor, what else do you need to know? Stay away from Gab IMO.

>Waterfox
Does not phone home (maybe it used to?), why not just use Ungoogled-Chromium?

>Firefox, Edge and Chrome
No comment necessary.

Basically:
Ungoogled-Chromium & Tor Browser.

Everything else is a meme or is too new/experimental, or you are just using something else because you have to (ie running 9front or something).

Falkon is good, but has no extensions.
Next web browser (the LISP one) sounds kinda neat, but doesn't really have extensions iirc.

Pale Moon is a total meme, the whole browser looks like an adware toolbar.
Basilisk at least doesn't, but doesn't have enough extensions.

It goes like this:
1. Is it secure & open source?
Yeah? Ok good.
No? Trash.
2. Does it/can it support Dark Reader-esque functionality (doesn't apply to mobile browsers, because only 2 of them do, Privacy Browser and slow Firefox)?
Yeah? Ok use it.
No? Trash.
>inb4 lmao dark is a meme

Nanonymous No.6106 [D][U][F] >>6108
File: 7750e968fb6d177323194429c6164f3a9a21b3ba7d294d88ba564cf6559419a9.jpg (dl) (133.17 KiB)
>>6096
>minimalism is retarded
Then get off this board you fucking retard. Minamalism is a misnomer. Simplicity (obviously) makes better, faster, more secure, more stable, more user friendly software than American corporate garbage run by some monkeyfucks who think adding a new animation will make their product stand out.
>even firefox lacks features
You mean like how they failed to implement every single thing outside of the latest meme web standards?
>broken as fuck in every single way download functionality
check
>block popups option in settings that hasnt worked for 15 years
check, and they most likely were paid to do this
>CSS injector.
Rice that shit faggot.
CSS is retarded and serves no purpose. Its only use is to let ad companies dress up their garbage ass website as a magazine. How does CSS help me read and share articles? The web was made for sharing information, not garbage Livestrong articles.
>>anything that doesn't work with my autistic software its cancer!!!
The web was built for static content. Even that it sucks at, but Links lets you view it far better than any other retarded browser that has to spin its loading wheels every 2 seconds and replace half the GUI with JS turds like 'undefined' and buttons that don't work.
> I keep my browser always open so it's a non-argument,
Great, now they just need to fix the fact that every single _other_ thing besides startup is dog slow as well. Even opening the "view source" page is slow as fuck in firegag and forks, and all it has to do is display a fucking text file. It was even like this before they "improved" it with syntax highlighting.
>it takes less than a second on my pc though so maybe you just have shit hardware?
First of all, that's still fucking slow. Links -g opens practically instantly. A second is pathetic. Secondly:
Kill yourself you fucking cock sucking faggot. I'm sick of hearing faggots defend software that is utter shit in every aspect while saying shit like "hurr durr your hardware is slow". Like, calling firegag utter shit does not even begin to do describe it. It's like if script kiddies went and had an orgy and made their son code a browser at 5 years of age, and then used that to make a specification, then got some indians to implement it from that spec, and then used that to derive a new spec, and went to saudi arabia and asked some people in a mosque to implement the second spec, then "fixed" crashes for the next 20 years.
Why do you fucking retarded faggots default to defending the software made by corporations who spend 99% of their budget on marketing and couldn't be fucked to even know the real definition of softare engineering? Do you even have any perspective on the software industry? Only 1 in 1000 companies can create something that even remotely works and even then it's beyond garbage (it's not like sofware is hard or anything, but a culture of retard fucks who worship blog posters who go around saying "software is hard" is not helping). Are you like retarded and actually think Firegag is perfect in every way (aside from lacking features, which is irrelevent. Firegag _fucks up_ every single feature that _is_ implemented). I'm going to release my image viewer nigchink here soon and you will see how retarded your gayass syncophant infested software is compared to real engineering. I will compare it to every single popular image viewer and show you how fucking trash your average software is. And nigchink isn't even meant to do that, it's a PoC to explain how you can implement beam racing.

Pic related is the game equivalent of modern browsers like firefox,chrome,internet explorer etc. Pure trash. And that was just in the early 2000s. Imagine what they are capable of now.

The amount of salt in just one post Nanonymous No.6108 [D][U][F] >>6109 >>6121 >>6129 >>6194 >>8312
File: b99bebea030071721b4d50abc18e461178b0a761cb410ddc2a2ea733791da89b.gif (dl) (295.43 KiB)
>>6106
>Then get off this board you fucking retard.
I am here since a lot of time faggot, make me leave.
I like nanochan for other reasons than minimalism like cause it's tor only and cause it's normalfag proof and let's be honest nanochan lacks lots features compared to other imageboards, like index view(seems like sakamoot seems interested in implementing one luckily), automatic post number insert in the post form, image inlining/expansion, multiple themes, i could go on for a while, but it's fine since i can add features client-side with userstyles and userscripts, in fact i am the nanon that made the CSS dark theme and is developing a site-wide userscript that's gonna add lot of missing features.
>Simplicity (obviously) makes...
>better
not necessarily if it lacks features its not better its worse, faulty argument
>faster
it all depends on the hardware, we are not in the 80's anymore, as long as the software is appropriate for hardware is fine, if you don't use your hardware to its full potential you are wasting it
>more secure
>more stable
if you write shit code it's gonna be less secure and stable regardless of complexity, just write good software
>more user friendly
PFFFFFFFFTAHAHAHAHAH, nopeee
>CSS is retarded and serves no purpose. The web was made for sharing information
CSS conveys information along with the HTML, for example if i have a website i want it to have a certain style, this way i am communicating information to the user, without styling the web is a really sad place, even before CSS people on BBS used to add style with ASCII, do you just hate creativity?
>The web was built for static content.
30 years ago maybe, then we realized that doing dynamic stuff is actually cool and you can do lot of useful stuff that you cannot in printed or static documents, i agree that today websites exaggerate and i think that every website should work without JS, but JS has a place on the web and can be used well, if i am trading crypto online i want the page to upload asyncronously each time prices change, if i am chatting with somebody i don't want to update the page manually without knowing if my partner has replied, it's not that hard to understand that dynamic pages can be useful, countless examples could be made.
>Even opening the "view source" page is slow as fuck
Opens in under 200ms on my pc lol, so either you are desperately trying to defend your argument cause of personal hate towards firefox or you have shit hardware or most probably both.
The developer tools take about 500ms, but has so many useful features that is completely worth it, if i have to invest 500ms to get a realtime DOM viewer/editor, a realtime CSS viewer/editor, a JS debugger, a performance logger, a network logger, a cookie/storage viewer/editor and a console, well then so be it, it's fucking worth it, think of how many different programs do you need to launch if you want the same features and ask yourself how much time that would take to launch complessively.
>First of all, that's still fucking slow. A second is pathetic.
A second is fine, i need to do it only once a day, i waste more time everyday scratching my smelly balls.

>Kill yourself you fucking cock sucking faggot.
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>muh ebil corporations, muh kill yourself cause you use superior software and i need to justify my own software inferiority, muh /pol/ ramblings
I don't give a single fuck if it's made by a corporation or a cocksucker like you in a cum smelling basement, a software it's just a tool that serves a purpose, firefox is the swissknife for the www and is therefore a fine piece of software and a fine tool in my hands, i have a swissknife that does not let me down in any situation, you have a dull knife that can cut cheese at most, but only if the cheese doesn't need JS and in that case not only cheese.
You don't use actually useful software like firefox only cause of petty ideological reasons, people like you that try to attach useless ideological values to technology are the reason to why the open source community is full of retards, i am a pragmatist and don't give a fuck about your ideologies, fuck shills like you and now suck my cock(it's salt flavored).

Nanonymous No.6109 [D]
>>6108
<and in that case not only cheese.
>and in that case not even cheese.

Nanonymous No.6112 [D] >>6114
>all this retardation over browsers
Is this the new "android vs iphone" thread? This is not 4chan. Fuck off.
If you want to discuss about browser, make more effort than "muhh no extensions" or "muh firefox betttttter". Go read the fucking code.

Nanonymous No.6113 [D][U][F] >>6294
File: d177013cb6bb28373364829427aa4d9d02dfb123deb884072320f3040e654abe.ogg (dl) (11.34 MiB)
This guide is 100% correct: https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/browsers.html
Change my mind.

Nanonymous No.6114 [D][U][F] >>6163
File: 30f7059594237201d614219c45a58577e965e37bb02efde0a2236fb1dea253e8.jpg (dl) (854.06 KiB)
>>6112
You just lack testosterone to indulge in pointless debates ove whether your opinion suits other person more than his own.

Nanonymous No.6119 [D]
>>6085
>being seven versions behind ungoogled chrome for unix is a feature
>It's only security goyim, give it up
Brah why you gotta be retarded?

Nanonymous No.6121 [D] >>6126
>>6108
>site-wide userscript that's gonna add lot of missing features
Will I be able to hide threads?

Nanonymous No.6122 [D] >>6125
qutebrowser is the only browser I find usable

Nanonymous No.6125 [D][U][F] >>6126 >>6138
File: b9e57ee68536fbbbd4a8584ca058e073fc550dc67a0af53705ceb4878d0a0cad.png (dl) (401.51 KiB)
>>6122
>Will I be able to hide threads?
Yes, i finished implementing filtering about a week ago, it is regex based so you can use whatever regex patterns you wish(regex flags are supported), filters are applied to the post number, post comment, post subject, name(includes capcode and tripcode), email, board(you can filter entire boards from overboard or recent posts page) and thread flags(you can hide all autosaged threads from a board), it works on recent posts page, overboard, any board and any thread.

Nanonymous No.6126 [D]
>>6125 was meant for >>6121
This wouldn't have happened with automatic post number insertion, ya know what i'm gonna go add that to the script xD

Nanonymous No.6129 [D] >>6131
>>6108
Not the same anon, but you're so full of shit that I wanted to couterargument you:
>developing a site-wide userscript that's gonna add lot of missing features.
Reddit 3.0
>if you don't use your hardware to its full potential you are wasting it
Yeah, so let's develop retarded software just because(TM).
>regardless of complexity
Complex code is much more difficult to track possible bugs and vulnerabilities.
>without styling the web is a really sad place
The issue is not with the styling, but with the useless features CSS has. You can make good styling only using HTML4 functions. More complex styling should be made in a software, using a library specific for this purpose (FLTK/QT/GTK).
>useful stuff that you cannot in printed or static documents
Yeah, like ad pop-ups. You don't need CSS to make the work have videos, images or animated images. You don't need to have infinite scrolling or smooth pointer or 'parallax backgrounds'. These as simply bullshit.
>i want the page to upload asyncronously each time
>i am chatting with somebody
These should be a specific software, not a web page.
>has so many useful features
These features should be removed and put on a external tool. How many people that uses firefox actually find those features "useful"? I would guess that less than 5% of the users. Mozilla made Firefox so bloated that it got bigger than a entire operating system.
>cum smelling
My cum don't smell. Drink more water.
>petty ideological reasons
Not wanting to be exploited is a "ideological reason" now?
>open source community is full of retards
Yeah, the retards that built Android, the most used system in the world. The same retards (the actually few sane people) that made you be able to write those messages on the internet and call them retards.

Nanonymous No.6131 [D][U][F] >>6166
File: abcd1a86222568657c050034bae79d72c1822aa4db92c0cecaa6f270f4fc34a0.png (dl) (1.24 MiB)
>>6129
>developing a site-wide userscript that's gonna add lot of missing features.
>Reddit 3.0
Your reasoning makes no sense, how is adding features relevant to imageboards is gonna make this place like reddit? Did you think i wanted to add updoots? As long as the features follows the design philosophy of anonymous imageboards it just makes it better. I'm also not forcing anybody to use it lol.
And let me say that this muh reddit doesn't even means shit anymore, if you want to insult me at least get new material it's starting to get boring mate.
>let's develop retarded software just because
That's literally what technological and scientific advancement is, let's make new stuff cause we can and cause we want. Man if everyone was like you and the other guy we wouldn't have computers cause you don't need anything else than a pen and a piece of paper to hold information amirite?
>Complex code is much more difficult to track possible bugs and vulnerabilities.
I never said that it's not more difficult to mantain complex software, what i said is that if you're an incompetent programmer no matter the complexity your software has gonna have vulnerabilities and stability issues, unless by simple you mean a fucking hello world program and remember that no matter how simple your software is you are still relying on complex systems like your processor and operating system, the real complexity is in the hardware, OS, protocols, frameworks, and libraries.
>The issue is not with the styling, but with the useless features CSS has
Then don't use the useless features in your websites? Can you make some examples of useless CSS properties? You mean stuff like calc, filter, url or content? Those are probably bloat, but most of CSS is fine for the purpose it serves.
>Yeah, like ad pop-ups. You don't need CSS to make the work have videos, images or animated images.
I was talking about JS no CSS there, yeah JS can be used for bad like any tool, that doesn't mean it's bad in all circumstances, your is the same argument people that wants to ban guns make, somebody uses a gun for bad, ban all guns, somebody uses JS for bad, ban all JS, it's a stupid argument.
>You don't need to have infinite scrolling or smooth pointer or 'parallax backgrounds'.
What if i want them? Infinite scrolling saves time from reloading the page and looking for the changes, which can be stuff like bumped thread that moved around in the meantime, it also saves bandwidth since you have to fetch only the new content, it's actually just better than static lol. I think you meant smooth scrolling not smooth pointer? Smooth scrolling it's pretty useless and a pain in the ass, i consider it bad design. Parallax background are stylish and cool nothing wrong with that, the problem with infinite scrolling and parallax backgrounds may be that they would not work without JS, but you can make a fallback mode for no-JS users, pretty easy to do for parallax background just make it static if JS is blocked, while for infinite scrolling it may be harder to fallback to a paged mode but not impossible, like you could hide the next page links at JS runtime and replace them with a load new content button.
>These should be a specific software
Sure, but the everything-is-a-web-app-now issue is a different problem.
The today web lives in a gray area between applications and documents, there are some applications that should be strictly native applications, for example all that interacts with the filesystem should be native(cloud is cancer), i'm talking about word processors, IDEs and media players etc, but stuff like imageboards, instant messaging and forums are totally fine as "web-apps" cause you have to interact with a server anyway and it's even more secure in a webpage, an example is Discord, it's way more secure to use it in the browser than installing their desktop application that logs your processes and spies on you, think about having a fucking application for each website and all the risk associated with that, it would end up the same way as with mobile apps where each app spies on you. As for my example of a crypto trading platform it's fine both in a web-app and a native application, you still need to interact with the server and authenticate to use it so it's the same.
>These features should be removed and put on a external tool.
The other guy was arguing that it takes time to load and is complex, well in a separate tool if would take more time to load cause it needs to sync with the browser and IPC adds LOTS of complexity if you ever done IPC you know it.
>Not wanting to be exploited is a "ideological reason" now?
Firefox exploits you? How? You can change search engine, customize it in a lot of ways until it is to your preferences, and like i'm not here to suck off Mozilla don't get me wrong, i dislike Mozilla as a company, but Mozilla the company and Mozilla Firefox the software are two different things.
The ideological bullshit i mentioned is stuff like not using a software cause there are trannies in its company or not using anything made by companies cause muh ebil corporations or not using a software cause its project got CoCed like that is gonna influence the user in any way whatsoever(it's bad for you only if you are one of the developers), these are petty reasons to not use software and i just don't give a fuck i just want good tools to do useful stuff.
>Yeah, the retards that built Android, the most used system in the world.
<the most used system in the world
>the most cucked system in the world
ftfy

Nanonymous No.6136 [D]
The situation with Gab and Mastodon:
Many Mastodon instances are owned by commies who made it a point to isolate Gab. So Gab prioritizes other things besides Mastodon.
But it's true that Gab never had good code, it's slow and it doesn't load correctly under tor.

Nanonymous No.6138 [D] >>6207
>>6125
Actually the latest userscript a nanon posted a while ago does this quite nicely, and I fixed it up to work with the post-container shit (and other features that didn't work for me) with my very limited knowledge of javascript about a month ago. I keep putting off posting the changes in the thread (still am) but seems like you're already pretty close to completion with yours

Nanonymous No.6166 [D] >>6207 >>6226 >>6235
>>6131
>I'm also not forcing anybody to use it
And then guys like you come together on IETF and W3C to make "standards". Then, you're forcing it on everybody and don't even know.
>muh reddit doesn't even means shit anymore
It means: cancer.
>That's literally what technological and scientific advancement
Nope. Every technology developed before these retardations were made for a purpose. Do you need a efficient way to move around? Let's build a car. Do you need a shelter from environment conditions? Let's build a house. And so on.
Javascript tries to solve a problem that himself created. This is not technology, this is bullshit.
>I never said that it's not more difficult to mantain complex software
You basically implied. Let me quote:
>"regardless of complexity, just write good software"
How do you write "good software" in a massive clusterfuck? What is easier, to make "good software" out of a 2000LoC program or a 16 million LoC program? That's basically lynx vs firefox.
>Then don't use the useless features in your websites?
It doesn't matter if I use or not. Other retards like you will use it anyway and this will affect my browsing, because now I have to download 2MB of useless scripts and 1MB of dumb CSS.
>I was talking about JS no CSS there
The same goes for JS. You don't need JS for playing video, decoding images or animated images. None of the things that make "the web [a less] sad place".
>that doesn't mean it's bad in all circumstances
It means because other people will exploit it.
>your is the same argument people that wants to ban guns make
More like you built a gun in a so stupid way that you'll have to pay 3x more for it and there's a change it will backfire. Instead of a simple electroshock gun, that will cost you less than half the price and always work, without putting you in jail.
>What if i want them?
Make them into a proper software, using FLTK, QT or GTK.
>[infinite scrolling] it also saves bandwidth
Yeah, except now you have to download 3 JS libraries with 1+MB each.
>the everything-is-a-web-app-now issue is a different problem.
How is that? Everything is a software. This is a software problem, created by stupid people.
>cloud is cancer
Finally something we agree.
>i'm talking about word processors, IDEs and media players
All of these are on modern web browsers.
>instant messaging
>on web
Nope. For strong protocols and encryption you need 'native' software.
Even imageboards would benefit from a 'native' software, such as these TUI clients for mastodon.
>it's even more secure in a webpage,
>instant messaging
What? TLS is more secure than Double-Ratchet now? Fuck off.
>desktop application that logs your processes and spies on you
That's why we are so autistic about open source software. This is a issue with their model and not a argument in favor of the "web".
>you still need to interact with the server and authenticate to use it so it's the same
It's not. Because you're limited to HTTP protocol. In 'native' software you can use more efficient and secure protocols. In your example, ZeroMQ might work much faster and securely.
>well in a separate tool if would take more time to load cause [...]
Yeah, so let's put everything in the same bag, and everybody that needs the browser now gets the bloat 'for-free'. That's the issue here. I understand it will be less efficient, because the external software would need to daemonize and make a protocol to communicate with the browser. But you can't put everything together and make the guy that just wants to read some journal have to load all this bloat. Oh, wait, you can. That's modern browsers.
>Firefox exploits you? How?
By having insecure and complex software you're much more likely to be not only robbed (online banking), but also tracked in every single place you go online.
>The ideological bullshit i mentioned is stuff like [...]
>using a software cause its project got CoCed
I see. In that I agree too. But this is a /pol/ mentality. Most people on /g/ don't agree with these.
I thought you were against open source, because you said you "give a fuck i just want good tools".
>the most cucked system in the world
I agree, but it doesn't change the fact that open source is a successful model.

Nanonymous No.6170 [D] >>6207
>The ideological bullshit i mentioned is stuff like
>evil corporations
I personally try to avoid that because the corporation holds the copyright and is free to do whatever with the project. Indeed, corporation cannot change the license on what's already been released, but they can change it for further releases of the product. Mostly I find this alarming if the project is literally unforkable by a developer or a small team, because that would mean we would be heavily dependent on corporate decisions, whether we like it or not. Also people who in the end add the code to the project, essentially rule it by a sheer fact it's them who actually designed and coded it, and it's not even about trust, it's about the design of the software. I say GTK is so shit because its designers really wanted to clone Mac or whatever, and did it questionably. Also GTK is not for a random-ass linux desktop developer, it's for GNOME people, quite literally.
>CoC
Say I don't really have a problem with trannies or whomstever as long as they put out a good code. However, I have my doubts about a programmer if they put identity politics before the good code or if they want to enforce CoC for other people to follow so the people cannot tell'em their software is shit. True, some of the bitching about safespaces is probably just that - bitching, and I myself do not make a habit of abusing people on the Internet, but let's just say some people actually need the abusive trash talk to improve, no kidding.

Nanonymous No.6172 [D] >>6174 >>6194
>Browser thread suddenly devolves into avatarfagging and walls of text

Nanonymous No.6174 [D]
>>6172
Welcome to Nanochan, a place with actually good discussions.

Nanonymous No.6194 [D] >>6207
>>6108
further proof that lainfags are retard skiddies
>automatic post number insert in the post form
because it's meant to work without JS (and referers [sic] or cookies) you fucking zoomer. this is the first real website since 1990. interactive websites are supposed to be like this and nothing more. if you want real software, use real software instead. websites are meant to be a simple hack like nanochan and nothing more. anything else is pretentious bullshit
>not necessarily if it lacks features its not better its worse, faulty argument
features dont make something better you retarded faggot. it brings risk of bugs (such as being a slow piece of shit)
>it all depends on the hardware, we are not in the 80's anymore, as long as the software is appropriate for hardware is fine, if you don't use your hardware to its full potential you are wasting it
you don't know what you're talking about. as i explained, firecuck does not even remotely use hardware to its full potential, since it spends 7 billion clock cycles per second doing some mundane shit that cant even be described
>CSS conveys information along with the HTML,
yes, it conveys marketing information
>do you just hate creativity?
yes. when im reading technical articles, i don't want bullshit like CSS and JS. what the fuck are you reading? some fucking garbage like techcrunch or gayme journalism, because that's the only shit that uses CSS
>Opens in under 200ms on my pc lol, so either you are desperately trying to defend your argument cause of personal hate towards firefox or you have shit hardware or most probably both.
shut the fuck up retard. it shouldn't cost more than $10 in hardware to use a fucking document viewer. you really have no fucking clue what you're talking about
>The developer tools take about 500ms, but has so many useful features that is completely worth it, if i have to invest 500ms to get a realtime DOM viewer/editor, a realtime CSS viewer/editor, a JS debugger, a performance logger, a network logger, a cookie/storage viewer/editor and a console, well then so be it, it's fucking worth it, think of how many different programs do you need to launch if you want the same features and ask yourself how much time that would take to launch complessively.
>defending 500ms
juts fuck off and kys already. there's absolutely no excuse
>cocksucker
you stole my line
>firegag
>swiss army knife
it's just b8 at this point
>firefox only cause of petty ideological reasons
no. YOU like firefox because you're a fucking retard burger who somehow is both retarded enough to think its good software as well as vehemently defend it like a cock sucking cucksumer as i originally named you
>people like you that try to attach useless ideological values to technology are [one] reason to why the open source community is full of retards
true aside from trying to ascribe this to me. calling my arguments ideological is like complaining that i didnt buy a window screen with 1 inch holes in it
>frameworks
not real programming. kys
>Can you make some examples of useless CSS properties?
is this b8? howbout that rotating bullshit. but actually, all of CSS period is useless
>but most of CSS is fine for the purpose it serves.
nope. even for layout it sucks monkey dick
>eah JS can be used for bad like any tool, that doesn't mean it's bad in all circumstances,
and yet it is
>Infinite scrolling saves time from reloading the page and looking for the changes, which can be stuff like bumped thread that moved around in the meantime
ive never seen an infinite scrolling implementation that worked. you must be from marketing and have no idea how any of the stuff you're talking about actually works in practice. or a retard who just got into webdev
>it also saves bandwidth since you have to fetch only the new content,
hardly any, and webshit already wastes tons of bandwidth on fuck all anyway. this is a good point, every single thing in webshit land is just to bring it closer to real software, while never actually remotely reaching that point. in the end its just 10000 new specs and still worse in every way than a simple real program
>but stuff like imageboards, instant messaging and forums are totally fine as "web-apps"
no they aren't
>cause you have to interact with a server anyway and it's even more secure in a webpage, an example is Discord, it's way more secure to use it in the browser than installing their desktop application that logs your processes and spies on you,
jesus christ. no more replies for you.
>>6172
this is how it should be every time. how can you have a serious discussion about browsers? it's like a bunch of faggots saying why they like mcdonalds or wendy's better. fuck your stupid browser thread

Nanonymous No.6195 [D]
wait i see the problem, i didn't make my post autist-proof
>features dont make something better you retarded faggot. it brings risk of bugs (such as being a slow piece of shit)
what i mean is that, adding a feature can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on what it is. for example: executing code from a document in order to display some text and images is a bad feature

Nanonymous No.6196 [D]
(cont)
and there are also cases where a feature _is_ good, but still not worth it to implement, either because it can't be implemented securely, or it adds to much strain to system resources, or some other reason

ebin wall of text incoming Nanonymous No.6207 [D][U][F] >>6226 >>6235
File: 5588c5e795c7a29ac0c0c410d34356eb3703091b209fa20371c3ab8eea314804.png (dl) (417.02 KiB)
>>6138
>Actually the latest userscript a nanon posted a while ago does this quite nicely
Oh you are right, i forgot about that userscript, it's pretty good, i took some inspiration from it for the insert quote part of my script. I also improved the insert quote part so that instead of adding the post number at the end of the textarea it adds it at the cursor position.
I used https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Tech/XUL/Property/selectionStart and https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Tech/XUL/Property/selectionEnd
>seems like you're already pretty close to completion with yours
I'm very close to publishing it, i just need to finish one last feature, then i need to finish documenting it with comments and i also want to write a small user manual cause it's pretty big(muh features) and there is lot of configuration options and optional stuff, i hope i can finish it in the weekend.

>>6166
>And then guys like you come together on IETF and W3C to make "standards".
Now standards are bad? WTF
Are you too young to remember what a pain in the ass was to support internet explorer at the time cause web standards were not as consolidated as now? Thank god we have web standards, i stand my point that nobody is forcing anybody to use JS(and i agree with you that it should be strictly optional and websites should still work without it).
Anyway i wouldn't call my userscript a "standard" that doesn't really make any sense, maybe you've read my post wrong? I started making that script for personal use, then i thought about sharing it with others cause i like sharing stuff with good people, that's it, don't wanna use it? Don't use it.
>reddit
>It means: cancer.
Ok, i'm gonna explain you really simple since you don't get it, the "go back to reddit" meme and all its variations were born cause of all the actual redditors that discovered 4chan cause of the /r/4chan and /r/greentext subreddits, using that meme mnakes sense on 4chan, but it sounds really stupid here, this place is so hidden that there is no way a redditor would ever discover this. At most we use the "go back to pigchan" meme here. Get relevant insults if you want to insult me or you are gonna sound like a newfag.
>Nope. Every technology developed before these retardations were made for a purpose.
This is mostly true for basic inventions, but it's completely not relevant in modern age.
Let me explain what i mean, when the man invented(or i guess it would be more correct to say discovered) fire, whoever invented it was trying to satisfy a basic human need which was probably not die of hypothermia, or when the bow was invented it was to hunt fast animals to not die of hunger, this two examples fits your opinion that inventions are made to satisfy specific needs, this kind of invention are called horizontal innovation(inventing completely new stuff), but if we go ahead by some millennia things changed, cause at a certain point(the exact year it's difficult to define, but let's say after the industrial revolution) humans had already satisfied all of their basic needs efficiently, so what now? Meet vertical innovation, or in other words making things slightly better at each iteration, this is what we actually do in our current day when we say advancing in technology, and it's not necessarily bad, it's still improving things, it's still a noble thing IMO. So unless you have some sort of revolutionary new idea, if you want to work(or play) in the tech world you need to accept that you are gonna mostly improve stuff.
>Javascript tries to solve a problem that himself created.
Not sure what you mean, JS was created to add programmable interaction to webpages, the problems that caused to the web are completely unrelated to its design(javascript was created in 1995 btw, long before all the bad things of the modern web even existed).
>What is easier, to make "good software" out of a 2000LoC program or a 16 million LoC program?
Using lines of code as an indicator of complexity is a bad idea, but probably the 2000 line of code program is easier to mantain. (Firefox is 20505184 LoC btw)
Let me then ask you what has more features between a program with 2000 LoC or one with 20 millions LoC?
I think what we really disagree on is the definition of "better", i define better in the context of a software tool as "more features" and "works in most of situations i'm gonna use it in", i'm curious about your own interpretation, give me your honest definition of better in the context of a software tool.
>that doesn't mean it's bad in all circumstances
>It means because other people will exploit it.
People can also use it well, yours is just blind absolutism caused by personal hatred, you had bad experiences caused by JS(who hasn't had some) like ads and tracking and now you consider all JS bad, but it's not all black and white in life, if i use some JS on my website to make a cool animation doesn't mean i'm tracking you or am part of the "cancer of the modern web".
>What if i want them?
>Make them into a proper software, using FLTK, QT or GTK.
Now i have to support a bunch of different operating systems, i need to deal with the likes of google and apple if i want to make an app or renounce to all mobile users(i know f-droid exists, it's not that better and nobody uses it), i need to test my software on a bunch of different devices, in hsort a fucking nightmare to mantain, i thought you wanted to reduce complexity? Does this sound simpler to you?
>[infinite scrolling] it also saves bandwidth
>Yeah, except now you have to download 3 JS libraries with 1+MB each.
Oh come on dude, that's just false, you can implement infinite scrolling with a simple API and AJAX, no frameworks required, no libraries required, just plain JS.
>the everything-is-a-web-app-now issue is a different problem.
>How is that? Everything is a software. This is a software problem, created by stupid people.
The web app problem is mostly caused by companies that wants to shift comnputing to the cloud for their own interests(they own the datacenters and they want the data), doesn't have much to do with JS, well JS enables them to do that but it's not the cause, what you're saying it's like that if a missile hits an hospital and kills a bunch of people it's the C language that is responsible cause the target pointing software was made with C instead of whoever launched the missile. Give fault to who deserves it.
>discord
>This is a issue with their model and not a argument in favor of the "web".
Kind of missed my point there, my point was that a web browser acts as a kind of "sandbox" (don't take me too literally there), a web app can't do that much damage, it can't read your processes, it can't record your keystrokes(it can keylog in it's own webpage i know, but not outside of it), it can't read your filesystem, you don't have to look at the source of each website to be sure about these things.
>you still need to interact with the server and authenticate to use it so it's the same
>It's not. Because you're limited to HTTP protocol. In 'native' software you can use more efficient and secure protocols.
I'm not arguing that web is more efficient, it's not. Security it's not all about the encryption algorithm strength, compartmentalization is more important read previous paragraph.
>Yeah, so let's put everything in the same bag, and everybody that needs the browser now gets the bloat 'for-free'.
I mean that is the same philosophy that google and apple uses to design their software, they take away advanced features cause most people(normalfags) are not gonna use them, sure let's take away developer features and let's make software for retards! Noice idea. Be careful cause that road takes you straight towards the normiefication of software.
>By having insecure and complex software you're much more likely to be not only robbed (online banking)
That happens only if you don't do your opsec right and are susceptible to social engineering.
>but also tracked in every single place you go online.
That happens only if you don't know what you're doing and don't know how to block tracking.
>I thought you were against open source, because you said you "give a fuck i just want good tools".
I'm not against open source. Why would i? Open source lets me study other people code and learn from it(both what to do and what not to do), it makes software easier to modify for my needs and it guarantees(well in most cases) an alternative if the mantainer goes full retard by forking it. I wish more stuff was open source like video games and professional tools. But having "good tools" or good software in general it's more important to me, if a videogame i like is closed source i'm gonna play it regardless, if i need to edit a video i'm gonna use adobe premiere cause it's just the best tool available. There are people that are seriously autistic about open source like the FSF and stallman, for they and most freetards open source is a political ideology, i don't want any of that, keep politics outside of tech thanks.
>I agree, but it doesn't change the fact that open source is a successful model.
I was just making a pun on android, i agree that the reasons it's cucked are unrelated to the open source model.

>>6170
>I find this alarming if the project is literally unforkable by a developer or a small team
The various kinds of vendor lock-in are a problem yes, usually i try to use software that uses open protocols so i can switch to alternatives if the devs goes full retard, but it really depends what we are talking about, if we are talking about the likes of text editors or browsers then it's really easy to switch, you just need to get used to the new one, if instead we are talking about a library that your own projects depends on, then shit gets real and it can be a real problem, sometime community based forks are succesful, other times you are just fucked.
>I have my doubts about a programmer if they put identity politics before the good code
I really dislike the whole CoC thing as a developer and i have my doubts too on that kind of people, but as a user i don't really care, i'm more concerned about services run by that kind of people.

>>6194
>because it's meant to work without JS (and referers [sic] or cookies)
I know that you can't do that without using JS, that's my point something like JS is needed to add useful features like post number insert.
Nanochan use cookies for mod sessions, look at the source(i'm not trying to make a point, i'm just saying).
>websites are meant to be a simple hack like nanochan and nothing more
There is no specific way websites are meant to be dude, there is no sacred book of the web that says "Thou shall not make use of code inside webpages!", it's up to us to define tech and if you want to push your argument you gotta do better than that.
>features dont make something better you retarded faggot.
In my own definition of "better" yes features make a software tool better, read what i said to >>6166, if you disagree with my definition os "better" give me your own interpretation of it.
>firecuck does not even remotely use hardware to its full potential, since it spends 7 billion clock cycles per second doing some mundane shit that cant even be described
So now you are arguing that it's an optimization problem and not a complexity problem anymore?
>CSS
>yes, it conveys marketing information
Oh fuck off, it's the same argument as before, some people use X for bad now X is automatically always bad, this is liberal-tier logic, the same anti-gun people uses, i get it you hate anything remotely creative, fine stay on your sterilized hospital-like black on white text only page.
>shut the fuck up retard.
>juts fuck off and kys already.
You are getting boring.
>cocksucker
>you stole my line
Yes cause it fits better on you. I did you a favor.
>all of CSS period is useless
>and yet it is(JS)
You're not even trying making arguments anymore and are resolving to just attacking like a cornered animal, no point in continuing the discussion, bye.

anyway your posts are too long Nanonymous No.6212 [D][U][F] >>6214 >>6218
File: 28902a5cab53c7d2db713b9da1bef88ae020713243a6b2671c177305c9992911.jpg (dl) (333.40 KiB)
Contemporary CSS/JS are pure cancer though, let me show you why.
>the problems that caused to the web are completely unrelated to its design
It actually is though. The Web is hacks upon hacks which mostly evolved instead of being designed. The Web has gone from a textual format to a graphical format without redesign, and that's just one the few monsters.
Now, you're saying about programmability of webpages, but it is exactly what is wrong with it.
If we define the Web as a collection of interlinked documents for a user to read, we
a) actually use the Web what it was DESIGNED for in the beginning
b) don't need any hacks into it for programmability of interactions
Like, let's elaborate on b). For example, in a saner format you wouldn't need JS for inserting a post number (or anything) into a POST form. You could just have a UI element that is correctly parsed by a client and turned into a clickable thing in the UI. JS is adding this into webpages because there is no way the core Web supports it, even with the newest CSS.
And that could be said essentially about anything concerning text manipulation. Some crazy graphical interactions with a document are already stretching the definition of the Web we set earlier, but even with that, the DECLARATIVE UI description instead of literally allowing anybody use your PC as a coin miner or whatever is clearly a better choice.
The Web is being kept alive mostly for the fact that it's a lowest common denominator and that there isn't really anything production-ready for people to hop on. Well, also Web allows you to absolutely shit on users by ads and trackers, and people make money on that too, but I believe that marketers will follow new trends should they appear and dominate.
>it's the same argument as before, some people use X for bad now X is automatically always bad
It's really fits the definition "bad by design" though, which you seemingly deny earlier. Anyway, if you think that allowing random peeps to execute some random code for no good reason is better than some clearly-defined (preferrably powerful, I guess) declarative UI model, we will not come to the agreement. Allowing such power to webpages literally is the reason behind the Web being so vulnerable AND hard both for users and webmasters to get right, the reason why all those vulnerabilities exist in the first place (well, maybe not all, various DNS-based attacks have nothing to do with Web per se), and people here are crying you a river about that LOL.

Anyway, tell me some wonderful news about the contemporary Web. Are CSS Turing-complete yet? xD I mean, they have counter-increment property already, like, holy shit.

Nanonymous No.6214 [D]
>>6212
This.
>CSS has a counter-increment property already, like, holy shit.
holy shit indeed.

I'll try to keep it short this time, but only for you starfren NETF(Nanocode Engineering Task Force) No.6218 [D][U][F] >>6227 >>6235 >>6270
File: c35bb4b5e41b7dbfa1e41292024a0fcac8c7daaaaf4e1f298351b3036b6c8f55.jpg (dl) (353.86 KiB)
>>6212
>Contemporary CSS/JS are pure cancer though
I never argued against this, i don't mind CSS, but i dislike JS as a programming language, it's what we have now though and there are no alternatives to it, so i have to use it for my web realated projects. Anyway this is kind of another discussion, the 2 guys before were saying pretty much that anything other than pure HTML is bloat and i disagree with that, but if we are discussing how to make the styling and programmable interaction parts of the web better then i am on board, there is a lot that can be improved and that can be changed or remade.
>It's really fits the definition "bad by design" though, which you seemingly deny earlier. Anyway, if you think that allowing random peeps to execute some random code for no good reason is better than some clearly-defined (preferrably powerful, I guess) declarative UI model, we will not come to the agreement.
I won't argue that downloading, installing and running code each time you visit a page is a good thing cause it's not, but like the only difference with normal software is that the download, installation and execution of the software is done automatically without user action, so that if the website owner adds malicious stuff you don't even really notice, it's a similar cancer to software auto-update if you think about it, in theory you could make a browser that asks you to approve scripts every there are changes in the code since last time you visited and it could also show you a diff of the changes.

Anyway if you really think CSS and JS are impossible to "save", then let's discuss on designing new standards.

Since existing browsers probably won't adopt our new standards, let's design our own browser(and also to remain on-topic with the browser thread), i present you the nanobrowser!
I'm gonna assume we are gonna keep HTTP and HTML as the connection protocol and document language, so first we need to support HTTP or HTTP/2, TLS and HTML or HTML5 in our browser, of course lot of HTML5 stuff can be omitted like <script>, <style>, event attributes, etc, we are also gonna have some tor support out of the box like automatic circuit switch cause it's the fucking nanobrowser, the UI is up to discussion and not really important now.
So let's get to the document styling and the document programmability, i think that your idea of using a declarative language it's an interesting one, but it needs to be powerful or it will not stand a chance as competition to JS. First we need to decide two things:
#1 Since HTML by itself it's a declarative language should we extend HTML or make a separate language?
#2 Should we separate styling and interaction in two languages or unify these two aspects in one language?
IMO we should make it separated from HTML, so it can be disabled or blocked by user in case they don't want it, although probably extending HTML directly would make it more compact and efficient, styling and interaction should be unified in it, let's call it nanocode for now. We decided that nanocode it's gonna be a declarative language, so first we need a way to select a DOM element, i'll leave this open to discussion for now cause i'm trying to keep this short, but either we do something like CSS selectors or we have to mirror the DOM hierarchy into nanocode syntax, if we extend HTML this is a non-issue of course, after we can select DOM elements we need to declare conditions on when a block of nanocode is gonna be executed on one or more elements, should we use something like events? Then to the actual code, there should be at least some state and an extensive library that use can use, the problem of declarative languages is that they leave the implementation up to the browser in our case, so defining a standard nanocode library is important.
This is more like a thinking out loud post, i probably wrote a bunch of crap, i should sleep now, fuck.

Nanonymous No.6219 [D]
As of 2019, no browser exists that doesn't phone home and is capable of browsing the modern web.
This hardly even matters however, since "the modern web" already spies on you in every way possible.

Nanonymous No.6223 [D]
Which is why we got to Whonix isolation and easy to discard VMs.

Nanonymous No.6226 [D] >>6270
>>6207
>muh webb muh web is the pinnacle of creation
just stop retard. the web is literally no different than Java EE or C# .NET, Adobe Flash or Microsoft Silverlight. It's just another shit aids corporate platform. How retarded do people have to be to defend this shit. You're literally the market. They publish a new feature like lambdas (or whatever the fuck trends JS has, generators or whatever the fuck) and you suck their cock for 10 more minutes, only taking it out of your mouth to "rebuttle" anyone who doesn't behave the same.

>Now standards are bad?
No. Shit standards are bad.
>WTF Are you too young to remember what a pain in the ass was to support internet explorer at the time cause web standards were not as consolidated as now?
They weren't noticeably different for someone not engorged in webdev. All we see is the broken code here and there when we have to workaround it. Web standards are shit because they are trash like X.509, webgl, html5, CSP, webthis, and webthat. Yes, obviously each of these standards have merit, but they are bloated as fuck and misguided by webdevs who have been fucked in the mind by corporate engineering culture.
>Thank god we have web standards, i stand my point that nobody is forcing anybody to use JS
The web has JS. You're using a subset of the web when not using JS. This is how it is de-facto, we don't even need to consider whether this is as specified or not.
>Anyway i wouldn't call my userscript a "standard" that doesn't really make any sense, maybe you've read my post wrong?
Yeah I read it wrong, I thought you're talking about nanochan adding JS support.
>this place is so hidden that there is no way a redditor would ever discover this.
wtf is this turbob8? this place is full of /pol/niggers which is basically a different brand of reddit, just like 8gag was.
>>features dont make something better you retarded faggot.
>In my own definition of "better" yes features make a software tool better, read what i said to >>6166, if you disagree with my definition os "better" give me your own interpretation of it.
Jesus christ, I forgot to make the post autist proof, and you ignored my addendum. Here is the fix:
>>features dont [automatically] make something better you retarded faggot.
>you had bad experiences caused by JS(who hasn't had some) like ads and tracking and now you consider all JS bad,
You're reasoning in terms of memes. I used adblock for like 3 days 15 years ago and realized it's pointless. Actual humans don't care about this ads/tracking meme. They are annoyed that every single website with JS is a complete piece of shit. Literally go to any webpage whatsoever that makes revenue (even if this is ad revenue), and watch the performance drop to shit and their shitty JS GUI do retarded bullshit. Web developers are shit programmers, and JS is a shit language. The only result to expect from this is shitty slow buggy code, which all websites are. In a network of hyperlinked documents, having constructs to run code when you open documents is not even a valid design, mostly so because we already know ahead of time (even in 1970, unlike what webshotters will tell you) how this is gonna turn out - it means you can't have more than 5 tabs open before encountering a retard website that slows everything down. Even CSS makes more sense conceptually because it's declarative and (should be) computationally bound, but that's not desireable either because the browser shouldn't change fonts and layout each time you view a different scientific article (which by that I mean literally anything that isn't clikbait or interactive entertainment, the latter which isn't a document anyway).
>webshit is easier to write than real software
not even remotely true. this is an old webshotter meme only of deluded 9-5 webshotters who have never seen normal software. it's funny because webshit even manages to rival _C_ in terms of security problems. literally visual basic .NET in the year 2000 is still easier and more stable than any webshit even today.
>Nanochan use cookies for mod sessions, look at the source(i'm not trying to make a point, i'm just saying).
cookies are a moronic hack. sessions should be encoded in the URL (which stuff like PHPBB supported for ages). read about waterken. i'm not going to bother commenting further on this because its a can of worms and the web makes it insecure and hard to accomplish this simple task which gives rise to all kinds of webshotter misconceptions.
http://waterken.sourceforge.net/
^also lol one of the only decenlty designed webshit themes in existence. mostly because of minimal use of CSS and other trash
>There is no specific way websites are meant to be dude, there is no sacred book of the web that says "Thou shall not make use of code inside webpages!", it's up to us to define tech and if you want to push your argument you gotta do better than that.
You idiot, the web was literally made for what I said. In the 90s it was just a simple page with maybe some bullshit line of JS here and there. All the web nationalism came only much later and resulted in far worse hacks than ever before seen, and now if you have JS enabled and open a tab, the entire browser freezes (or one core is used. inb4 hurr durr ur hardwarez).
>So now you are arguing that it's an optimization problem and not a complexity problem anymore?
Are you a robot? It's possible to fail in both fields, and they do (unsurprisingly).
>Oh fuck off, it's the same argument as before, some people use X for bad now X is automatically always bad, this is liberal-tier logic, the same anti-gun people uses,
No, CSS is near useless and mindnumbingly complex to implement and slow and insecure. How can you call this good? Are you from the marketing department of livestrong.com? If you try really hard you can get enough CSS hacks going to make your article look cool (and even then it still wont be sound), but why not just use PNG at that point? Or PDF if you want people to be able to copy text. And like all webshit it's in constant flux and not consistent on any platform. You go back to any old web page and it will look like shit because they don't have people working 9-5 to constantly fix it. CSS is just an idea with no working implementation so its up to the programmer to use smoke and mirrors to make it work.
>calls me a polarized americunt
>posts this polarized americunt logic:
>>i get it you hate anything remotely creative, fine stay on your sterilized hospital-like black on white text only page.
creativity has no place in a medium for publishing technical articles. this is why every PDF looks the same (but doesn't mean fuck all, since PDF is also dogshit). meanwhile in webshotter land, every technical article has some moronic CSS so ever page looks completely different and breaks in different ways and needs different workarounds. luckily they all look almost the same in links -g
>attacking like a cornered animal
you are tweeting your retard b8 misconceptions and i'm knocking them down, noone here is cornered.

Nanonymous No.6227 [D][U][F] >>6228 >>6235
File: 3843c64ea0307d45063bb6b2810f46eb68a505817780f9b039484c714ed46969.jpg (dl) (96.02 KiB)
>>62121
>You could just have a UI element that is correctly parsed by a client and turned into a clickable thing in the UI.
Do you have a concrete example of this? I'm not up to speed but all the declarative GUI ideas I've seen have failed. We need turing completeness to implement useful programs anyway. Only 1/10000 websites should be programs instead of 99/100 as we have now. And in those cases, I argue that they should simply be programs and not websites. What we really need is a real OS that can securely execute arbitrary code, and easily run such programs instead of being a clusterfucc of build systems and dependency graphs encoded in 17 different languages instead of 1. If people are so willing to universally use retarded JS, they can be mended to universally use _any_ PL, and this should be a minimal, secure, and solid one (don't bother looking to any mainstream PL for this, they're all shit).
>instead of literally allowing anybody use your PC as a coin miner or whatever is clearly a better choice.
Being turing complete is a problem simply because idiots will write shit code and your browser will be slowed down when 1 of 100 tabs is an AIDS. But even non turing complete PLs could be just as bad or worse performance wise. But yeah, they could be better too.
>Allowing such power to webpages literally is the reason behind the Web being so vulnerable AND hard both for users and webmasters to get right, the reason why all those vulnerabilities exist in the first place (well, maybe not all, various DNS-based attacks have nothing to do with Web per se), and people here are crying you a river about that LOL.
The web has a fuckton of security problems. JS is only a tiny part of it. DNS as an MITM vector or phishing are still only small parts.
I'd say half the problems are because some bullshit feature from 30 years ago you didn't even know exist is exploited.
The other half of the problems are because of the all around terrible design of every single standard, protocol, and directive of the web.
Concepts like reflected XSS are utter nonsense and only can exist in the clown world the webshotters have built themselves. They will literally reply to this "your system from scratch will have the same problem", because it sounds good, without any evidence, and they will all unanimously agree with this "counterargument". Webshotters are literally worse than UNIX braindamage.
Book related I think covers most of the security problems of webshit.
>>6218
>Since existing browsers probably won't adopt our new standards, let's design our own browser(and also to remain on-topic with the browser thread), i present you the nanobrowser!
I've been thinking of fixing Links -g to have sane mouse support, beam racing for 0-latency 0-motion blur 0-tearing panning, <video> support, clipboard, and whatever else was missing, I forget. The only use for the web until it dies I see at this point is exchanging articles with basic elements like <table>, <video>, <img>, <b>, <i>, <p>, <hX>. But dunno I think I'll be spending my time more on non UNIX braindamaged systems from now on. Just thinking of clipboard in UNIX is giving me hepatits.

Nanonymous No.6228 [D][U][F] >>6235
File: e6200139a27f5248596dc86d4451332207062074af98602945323cd78f31a08c.jpg (dl) (213.93 KiB)
>>6227
>(don't bother looking to any mainstream PL for this, they're all shit).
I'll list the ones I've verified to be shit: JS, Bash, Java, C#, Python, Perl, C, C++, Go, Go, Ruby, PHP, Haskell, Standard ML, Ocaml
and I haven't used but am 99% sure these are also shit: Scala, Clojure, F#, Pascal, Ada, Fortran
Forth and LISP are OK if you write your own OS and never use anyone else's code.
Contemporary PL design is just a bunch of idiots trying to make things "readable" and "intuitive" by adding 50 different meme constructs to their language, at which point it becomes bloated trash.
The first thing I tried 10 years ago was forcing a bunch of Java programs to run in the Java sandbox. It worked without a ton of trouble, but then it turned out Java is a complex piece of shit and it will never be possible to implement a secure sandbox within it (see the Javapocalyps). There are vulns after vulns to escape the sandbox. Browser sandboxes have similar problems. UNIX isn't a good way of isolating programs either, nor is stuff like SELinux. VMs aren't good either because they're not even meant to be secure. They started marketing them for security purposes to the same retards who came up with the idea that they are secure. Even hardware VM shit like Intel's is continuously exploited and patched. The only good idea I see is capability based security implemented at the PL level. So that simply means the PL has no global mutable state. And it has to be simple so we can see there are no bugs in it. Then we need a system on top of this to distribute code, which is easy to implement actually.

Nanonymous No.6235 [D] >>6237 >>6239 >>6263 >>6272
>>6166 (me)
>>6207 (you)
I won't answer everything. Too many text-walls here...
>Now standards are bad? WTF
You didn't read my comment. You said that "if you don't like JS, no one is forcing you". I replied saying guys like you will get in touch with IETF and W3C to make standards and *this* will force me use your shit ideas, because the web will be populated with these same shit ideas.
I didn't mean all standards are bad.
>Anyway i wouldn't call my userscript a "standard"
I'm not talking about your script. I'm talking about web.
>horizontal innovation
>vertical innovation
Where did you got this from? Your ass?
Anyway, your example shows "vertical innovation" as improving previous technology. This is not the case of JS.
>Not sure what you mean, JS was created [...]
JS, as used in web pages, have created many issues trying to solve a issue he himself created. If they used a proper graphic library, many these security/privacy issues wouldn't happen.
>i'm curious about your own interpretation [of "better" software]
My definition: a good software is the one that solves a *specific* problem efficiently. Where 'efficiency' is a equation between of performance and security in the least code complexity possible (this includes least use of hardware requirements). For "security", the code should be auditable. Hence why open-source is needed.

>People can also use it well, yours is just blind absolutism
Not 'absolutism', just realism. If you open the possibility for explaitation, you can be sure some motherfucker will use it for bad.
>Does this sound simpler to you?
From a software point of view? Yes.
>my point was that a web browser acts as a kind of "sandbox"
A very, very bad one. You're executing code in realtime from strangers. A least when you install a software you have to agree with it and give your permission.
>Security it's not all about the encryption algorithm strength, compartmentalization is more important read previous paragraph.
And where did I disagree with this? You said the web is more secure and I rejected it because TLS is shit (when compared with Double-Ratchet or something else).
>That happens only if you don't do your opsec
Nope, it doesn't. It happens everytime because JS opens innumerous possibilities for exploits.
>That happens only if you don't know what you're doing and don't know how to block tracking.
Most people using internet don't know what they are doing. Security should be the default.
Also, "block tracking" is solving a problem created by the ridiculous model already in place. And, you can't block tracking without having holes. Using blacklisting is a very retarded way of doing this, just like uBlock does.

>>6227
>I've been thinking of fixing Links -g
For the features you want, you're better of starting with Dillo instead.
>sane mouse support
Text-based browsers are not meant to have mouse support. I think this is bloat in Links, even though this is my primary browser.
>0-latency 0-motion blur 0-tearing panning
If you do that properly, that would be good very nice.
><video> support
Cancer. Video should be played on a specific video player (such as mpv), not inside browser.
>clipboard
A keyboard-only clipboard would be nice.
>whatever else was missing
Not what was "missing", but what you can remove. There's too many useless features in Links (frames, auto-refresh, IPv6, FTP, SMB and links history are some examples). Also, the image decoders are shit and slow.
>>6228
>UNIX isn't a good way of isolating programs either
How is a philosophy going to isolate anything?
>I've verified to be shit
>Haskell
>Standard ML
>Ocaml
>Ada
How are these shit? Explain, please. These are the very best languages ever made.

>>6218
>i present you the nanobrowser!
Do you want to redesign browsers from scratch? The best would be to rebuild the entire network stack (redesign IP itself), but:
- Toss HTTP in the trash. Them burn the trash. TLS goes together.
- Get a better protocol. It should be fast, end-to-end encrypted and in some way distributed.
- The browser should be composed by daemons executing specific functions. One daemon for making the page request. Other daemons for image decoding. And so on.
- HTML5 has too many useless features. Even Standard Mark Down would be better.
- Build a replacement for CSS, with very simple functions. The browser daemon should only support these very simple functions and nothing more. After making a standard specification for this language, freeze it. No new additions should be made, unless it is a bug fix.
- Make a formal specification for the browser (using something like TLA+).
- Write it in some functional language (like F-star - and compile with CompCert).

Nanonymous No.6237 [D] >>6238 >>6263
>>6235
Am neither person.
A few respectful comments:

>block tracking is bad
In the current way of things working, it is helpful vs the nonexistent alternative, no?

>Use links
Isn't gonna let people pay their online bills and crap.

>video should be played by MPV
I agree, there is a plugin (at least for Chromium) called "Play With MPV" that runs a daemon for this purpose.

Nanonymous No.6238 [D]
>>6237
>it is helpful vs the nonexistent alternative, no?
Sure it is, but the previous comment was about what the "web" should be, and not what it already is.
But, yes, it is very helpful, even though blacklisting is not a efficient way of preventing bad stuff like malicious JS, because you can never have a perfect list that includes every single bad domain.
>Isn't gonna let people pay their online bills and crap.
Do the stuff you need on firefox, then return to Link for everything else. This is what I do.
>"Play With MPV"
Nice.

sage sage No.6239 [D]
>>6235
Many english fuckups here, I know. Sorry. Fix'd:
<many these security/privacy issues
>many of these security/privacy issues
<a equation between of performance and security
>a equation between performance and security
<possibility for explaitation
>possibility for exploitation
<A least when you install
>At least when you install
<that would be good very nice.
>that would be very nice.
<Them burn the trash
>Then burn the trash

Nanonymous No.6240 [D]
>Figure I'll give icecat a go
>Compiler alone is over 6 gigs and takes many hours to compile

This is why people use Windows and Chrome

Nanonymous No.6241 [D] >>6249
It's just one samefag spamming retarded walls of text on every board right?
Types the same and is just as retarded

Nanonymous No.6248 [D] >>6254
For something that comes pre packaged, Iridium is probably the best you are gonna get.

Nanonymous No.6249 [D] >>6253
>>6241
There's at least 3 other people participating in this wall-texted thread.
If you can't have long and informed conversations, just GTFO to 4chan.

Nanonymous No.6253 [D] >>6263
>>6249
You're not fooling anyone with your two digit IQ

Nanonymous No.6254 [D] >>6255 >>6265
>>6248

Ungoogled-Chromium is better, and is pre-packaged.
Just set Chrome updater (if you are a Wangeblows user) to use ungoogled-chromium.
Or install thru the official Arch repos if you are an Arch-type user like me.

Nanonymous No.6255 [D]
>>6254
>if you are a Wangeblows user
>not using Chocolatey

Nanonymous No.6263 [D]
>>6235
>Text-based browsers are not meant to have mouse support. I think this is bloat in Links, even though this is my primary browser.
The text-based meme is retarded bullshit. There isn't even a real text mode in UNIX. What I want is a graphical browser. Documents are graphical. Emulating them with text is just a workaround and it still ends up being graphical. And the only solid basis for that I've come across is Links -g. But anyway probably wont happen because I can't come up with a logo.
>Cancer. Video should be played on a specific video player (such as mpv), not inside browser.
Documents should be able to embed any type of static information (but they wont, because webshit is not extensible). Video and images is a bare minimum for sharing scientific information. And it should be embedded. Downloading stuff to a folder and then browsing to the folder and opening it is fucking retarded UNIX braindamage. It's not like the browser has to implement video decoders itself for this to work.
>frames, auto-refresh, IPv6, FTP, SMB and links history are some examples
id agree and remove all of those. but not sure about frames.
>>UNIX isn't a good way of isolating programs either
>How is a philosophy going to isolate anything?
UNIX as in the security model. users and files/folders with permissions
>Haskell
>Standard ML
>Ocaml
>Ada
>How are these shit? Explain, please. These are the very best languages ever made.
I will say SML is the best mainstream PL ever made, but like Haskell it's annoying as fuck to use because you can't go more than 3 minutes without variant types having conflicting names.
Like
datatype Junk
= Y of bool * bool
| Z f int * bool
datatype Stuff
= X of int * int
| Y of int * int
Hindley-milner type inferrence seems like overrated crap to me. Even if I had to annotate each function type and nothing else, which is more strict than hindley-milner, if it solves the above problem it would be worth it. It's literally more work to constantly rename or prefix shit to avoid namespace conflicts, than it is to put a few top level type annotations.
OCaml is a shitty """pragmatic""" (TM) version of SML. And so it's full of shitty half broken features and terrible syntax. It is the JS of MLs. Haskell is obviously bloated by design, but that aside non-strict evaluation sucks and is pointless IMO.
Ada is too bloated for the power it provides, and high level languages (which is what I'm looking for here, to write general software isolated from each other by the PL itself) should be functional, or at least nor imperative.
From a security/auditability standpoint, programming languages shouldn't even be text. They should be abstract syntax trees, with cryptographically signed UUIDs for each identifier an author creates (so everything is content-addressable). The PL needs a way to serialize structures anyway, so that very serialization method can be used to transfer the AST to other people. They could be represented by the GUI as text or a mix of text/graphics or whatever turns out to be optimal.
>>6237
>Isn't gonna let people pay their online bills and crap.
banking isn't a valid application of the web, and you should sue your bank if they don't give you an alternative. I use ATM in person. and it's literally faster than using any webshit. and buying shit from amazon will allow people to ship poison to you. but i agree, it should still be possible to do these things. and it should be done with software, not web documents. bank websites are naturally insecure as fuck. they "solve" this by saying if you get hacked they will reimburse you. but of course you might disqualify from reimbursments because you use linux or some non-{chrome,firefox,ie} (depends what kind of retard culture they have) browser, or they claim you're lying, etc. ATMs are insecure too but at least I don't have to deal with webshit (aside from when the ATM has webshit in it). nevermind, fuck this shit. this is why I store all my money as cash now.
>>6253
w-well, you're not fooling anyone with your z-zero digit IQ

Nanonymous No.6265 [D] >>6306
>>6254
If you are going to use Chromium, I think Brave or Dissenter would be a better alternative.
There are some rough edges, but still I think they offer a better user experience and a few nice extras.

Nanonymous No.6268 [D] >>6306
>chrome
>brave
>disLITERALLY_WHOsenter (literally has a bootstrap landing page, or similar such marketing tripe as the official website, i dont even need to look this up)
fuck off with your botnet browsers

Splitting my post for newfag brainlets that are not used to actual discussion No.6270 [D][U][F] >>6273
File: 8a814023f70cc333b9143790ed09cfd576c8dcf93ae79e4fae0da2cbf8913956.png (dl) (1.00 MiB)
>>6226
>just stop retard. the web is literally no different than Java EE or C# .NET, Adobe Flash or Microsoft Silverlight. It's just another shit aids corporate platform.
The various web technologies are not owned by a corporation or a group of corporations unlike Java and C#, in fact a browser could break the standard whenever they wanted, thus proving that the web model is at least partially decentralized. What do you even mean by corporate? Sounds to me you're using "corporate" as an ebil scaremongering term that applies to anything that you dislike(this is part of the retardation i was talking about). Whatever.
>No. Shit standards are bad.
If there are no alternatives, it's better than nothing, i never said current standards are particularly good, what i am saying is that i'm a pragmatic man and i'm gonna use tech even if it's not perfect(nothing is), i agree that we should develop new better standards, read >>6218.
>Web standards are shit because they are trash like...
>X.509
I agree that the way https certificates are structured and used sucks and should be changed.
>HTML5
HTML5 added lot of useful stuff like video, audio and canvas, it also added lot of useless stuff like the semantic elements, mixed bag, but mostly positive.
>CSP
Nothing wrong with CSP if you're not a pajeet that doesn't know how to use it.
>webgl
Never used webgl but isn't that an improvement to the like of flash?
inb4 it's still just bloat
>corporate engineering culture.
Again with the scaremongering and labeling, everything you don't like is ebil corporate culture, this is an example of forcing ideology and politics in tech as i was saying.
<nobody is forcing anybody to use JS
>You're using a subset of the web when not using JS.
There is a clear distinction that i want to make:
first is sites that uses JS but still work without it(example wikipedia).
second is sites that require JS to work.
third is sites that not only require JS to work, but they also fetch the script from a third party like a CDN.
I've ordered the list in order of cancerosity, i don't support second and third groups, but first group is is fine IMO.
About the first group of sites, first of all nobody is forcing the developer to add JS to his own website and second since first group still works without JS, and also the user is not forced to run JS(cause you can block it and site still works), thus no forcing involved.
About the second and third groups, they are cancer but not really cause they use JS, they are cancer cause they are using JS as a critical dependency instead of an optional one that extends functionality(which is how JS was designed to be used), they get extra cancer points if they make third party script requests for all the security and privacy implications that opens.
>You idiot, the web was literally made for what I said.
Technology is in costant change dude, nothing is written in stone and if there is one global rule to technological advancement is that is does not go back it always goes forward.
>If you try really hard you can get enough CSS hacks going to make your article look cool
>CSS is just an idea with no working implementation so its up to the programmer to use smoke and mirrors to make it work.
You can make you site look good with few CSS properties, you can already do a lot just with colors, fonts, margins and borders. Just don't be a tard and don't load stuff from third parties and no security issues.
>You go back to any old web page and it will look like shit
Can you give me an example? For the basic stuff backwards compatibility should have been kept. Maybe they looked like shit in the first place lol or used defunct stuff that only worked in IE.
>the web is only scientific and technical articles
>creativity has no place in a medium for publishing technical articles.
noooope, you are one sad person mate
What are you doing exactly on a japanese zen gardening imageboard again?

Nanonymous No.6271 [D][U][F] >>6275
File: 139f30482e6aa7d5eed39f1444305df2a94ba5e548479499941123e16fc1c22a.png (dl) (291.84 KiB)
<horizontal innovation
<vertical innovation
>Where did you got this from? Your ass?
It's just an adaptation of the horizontal and vertical scalability concept applied to innovation.
I came up with it while writing the post yes, i can come up with stuff without having to quote what other people said or wrote, seems like that is equivalent to talking from your ass now, nice way of thinking.
Javascript IMPROVES the HTML document model by adding programmable user interaction, JS is built ON TOP of HTML, therefore it is vertical improvement.
>JS, as used in web pages, have created many issues trying to solve a issue he himself created.
The issue(i would call it more like a limitation) that a user could not interact with a document in a way programmed by a developer was not created by JS, it was there by its own.
I'm still not sure if that is what you meant with "a issue he himself created".
>My definition: a good software is the one that solves a *specific* problem efficiently. Where 'efficiency' is a equation between of performance and security in the least code complexity possible
Your definition of good software is costrained by your own "specific problem" and is not applicable in general, for example let's imagine that we're writing a file viewer software, one user might be fine with a simple command line tool, cause the problem that is trying to solve is just simple browsing, while another user might need a graphical application with thumbnails cause he's trying to go though hundred of images and videos. Apply that to web browsers and you will start understanding why browsers more complex than Links exist.
>If you open the possibility for explaitation, you can be sure some motherfucker will use it for bad.
Almost every technology is prone to some kind of malicious exploitation, yours is really just a moralist argument at this point, it's not my job as a developer to think about all the possible ways my software could be used for bad, nor is my job to define what good or bad are, i am not either a politician or from law enforcement lol.
Is stuff like hacking and tampering tools bad software cause it can be used for bad?
>And, you can't block tracking without having holes. Using blacklisting is a very retarded way of doing this, just like uBlock does.
I don't use blacklisting, i use whitelisting, all third-party requests are blocked and i whitelist stuff that i want or need. uMatrix is superior.
t. whitelisting suprematist.
>Do you want to redesign browsers from scratch?
Not really, i just want to improve what works poorly.
>The best would be to rebuild the entire network stack (redesign IP itself)
>Toss HTTP in the trash. Them burn the trash. TLS goes together.
That goes way beyond the scope of making a browser. Feel free to discuss more of it if you want, but the nanobrowser should be at least compatible with nanochan, so...
>HTML5 has too many useless features.
The audio and video tags are really useful and i would keep them, if that is what you meant. We can always break the HTML5 standard but i don't think HTML5 is the worst offender of the web stack so it's not worth it.
>Build a replacement for CSS
Reread my other post about nanocode.
>No new additions should be made
>Make a formal specification
I don't believe that a system such as a browser can be designed in a perfect way, it depends on too much other stuff.

fugg Nanonymous No.6272 [D]
Previous post was meant for >>6235

honour thy father and thy mother Nanonymous No.6273 [D] >>6355
>>6270
>What exactly are you doing on a japanese zen gardening imageboard again?
Harvesting technical articles I may have missed. I never talk with anybody, just to be clear, you are an exception. Mommy told me not to talk with strangers and dad not to have fun. I'll whip my back after clicking 'post'.

Nanonymous No.6275 [D] >>6355
>>6271
>seems like that is equivalent to talking from your ass now
It's a retarded analogy based on no anthropology research. I'm allowed to criticize your ideas.
>Javascript IMPROVES the HTML
Nope, it adds a feature where shouldn't be one. This "improvement" have show to cost millions of dollars to companies affected by javascript exploits and privacy issues for billions of users. I wouldn't call this a improvement.
>your own "specific problem" and is not applicable in general
Of course it is, you just can't see because you're still in the DOS world. You have to learn UNIX a bit.
Also, I never said the specific problem is constrained to command line. Some software absolutely need graphics, such as games and advanced image/video editors. In these cases, the "how to render the graphics" becomes the specific problem and then the 'rules' I've said before apply all the same.
>Apply that to web browsers and you will start understanding why browsers more complex than Links exist.
Not even close. A browser should be very simple, with image decoders, a video protocol to call a external video player securely, a HTML interpreter and a HTTP(S) downloader tool. That's basically it. How is that complex?
>Almost every technology is prone to some kind of malicious exploitation
It shouldn't be. That's the point.
>Is stuff like hacking and tampering tools bad software cause it can be used for bad?
They are primarily for research and to make better software. In this case it's a paradox. Not like javascript.
>I don't believe that a system such as a browser can be designed in a perfect way
Yes, it can. You just have to ignore all the retarded bullshit that W3C comes up with, like JS.

Nanonymous No.6284 [D]
>The various web technologies are not owned by a corporation or a group of corporations unlike Java and C#, in fact a browser could break the standard whenever they wanted, thus proving that the web model is at least partially decentralized. What do you even mean by corporate? Sounds to me you're using "corporate" as an ebil scaremongering term that applies to anything that you dislike(this is part of the retardation i was talking about). Whatever.
I'm trying to put the web in perspective. Instead of pretending the web is somehow unique and a well-designed suite of protocols, if you take a step back and look at joke corporate platforms like Flash or Unity, you will see that they are basically the same story as the web. I'm using "corporate", as in a giant group of incompetent, bureacratic fucks that don't give a single fuck about their products and can't even understand day-to-day user concerns, let alone security or engineering. Mozilla, Microsoft, etc. The web is obviously only driven by such corporations because noone else is big enough and gives enough fucks to influence webshit.
>Nothing wrong with CSP if you're not a pajeet that doesn't know how to use it.
It's literally a workaround to fix their retarded broken by design structure of pages. And yes, there is everything wrong with it. It should not be a thing. If you can go to a web page, you should be able to link to it in any way you want. Hell domain name aren't even a thing, so that makes CSP moot.
>>webgl
>Never used webgl but isn't that an improvement to the like of flash? inb4 it's still just bloat
It's opengl api for the web. And of fucking course it's bloat, what do you expect? OpenGL is bloat and the authors know nothing about security or process isolation. Trivial bugs like being able to grab the framebuffer and screenshot the entire desktop from a malicious wepage are everywhere. WebGL will be "secure" (aka infosec fags finallay circlejerked over so many bugs that it now takes more than 10 minutes to get an 0day) in 20 years from now (actually they'll just say fuck it and switch to vulkan or some bullshit and you'll have to buy new hardware, with unprecedented corporate garbage along with it, such as what Intel's CPUs have).
>Again with the scaremongering and labeling, everything you don't like is ebil corporate culture, this is an example of forcing ideology and politics in tech as i was saying.
NO, you dickfuck, that's your moronic interpretation. I specifically refered to corporate engineering culture for a reason. The ways they program, are influenced by their culture. For example webshitter culture from 1990-2010 was literally "select * from blah where x=${_POST['blah']}". It was taught in schools. It was taught on shit tutorials on the web. It spread around like cancer. You've literally only now grown out of your diapers and only because new meme libraries don't happen to expose you to stuff like this.
>Technology is in costant change dude, nothing is written in stone and if there is one global rule to technological advancement is that is does not go back it always goes forward.
Nothing in web v1000 is "forward" (except <video> but the implementation is utter garbage).
>Just don't be a tard and don't load stuff from third parties and no security issues.
You don't know what you're talking about from a security standpoint. Unsurprising for a webshotter.
>noooope, you are one sad person mate What are you doing exactly on a japanese zen gardening imageboard again?
Say I have 100 articles to read. It doesn't help if they each have a different """STYLE""" with different bugs (because every fucking thing on the web is bugged to fuck, especially when unqualified people design UI for a fucking static document). I don't even read the web anymore because of how bad it is at this point. Just download books and/or go to the library instead. Literally 1/3rd of the page is filled with "muh cookies" "muh privacy agreement" "muh european law shit". Enjoy your clickbait tho.

Nanonymous No.6285 [D][U][F]
File: 2799b83dda22903b356b4afbf1a4e9a3c679cb3584684542bcd933cd44fe1e39.webm (dl) (5.58 MiB)
forgot vid

Nanonymous No.6289 [D] >>6290 >>6291 >>6293 >>6301 >>6356
>>6073
Why the hell would brave trigger ads? If anything it fights capitalism

Nanonymous No.6290 [D] >>6301 >>6356
>>6289
And by trigger ads I mean trigger left niggers

Nanonymous No.6291 [D] >>6356
>>6289
How exactly it fights capitalism?

Nanonymous No.6293 [D] >>6297 >>6356
>>6289
>Left means no capitalism
I always wondered how (((Amerimutts))) got to be the best goyim. Turns out it's because they're fucking retarded.

Nanonymous No.6294 [D] >>6307
>>6064
>>6113
Please stop spamming your shitty blog

Nanonymous No.6297 [D][U][F] >>6298 >>6356 >>8488
File: 6ad9aeb5f929e608927efbe7121d8b706114f0ce4c907eb92bddf1b339a04909.png (dl) (468.37 KiB)
>>6293
Can we define left and right itt?
very rough sketch
>left left (anti-work, anti-market) growth not gain
<social freedom - not at expense of others as without freedom of others yours doesn't exist - pacifistic
>right right (selectively anti-work, pro-market) you can also die
<egoist freedom - my freedom is the only freedom which matters or of selected group - militaristic or pseudopacifistic
>right left (100% labour society, pro-market) WORK!
<individual doesn't exist - we create society for individuals' benefit - pseudomilitaristic
>left right (99% labour society, pro-market) expenditure
<individual doesn't exist - (((we))) create society to benefit from it - pseudopacifistic
>center/third position (99% labour society, pro-market but can be single economy) FOR THE ...!
<individual doesn't exist - individual is society - militaristic

Nanonymous No.6298 [D] >>6356
>>6297
correction, the last is radcentrism

Nanonymous No.6299 [D] >>6301 >>6319 >>6356
>6289
>6290
Leftists are triggered by Brave (and Dissenter) because of Brendan Eich. They can't accept that he started a new successful project that can be an alternative to the SJW infested firefox.
Brendan Eich was forced to resign from mozilla because he funded some movement against same sex marriage so he has made himself a lethal enemy of the faggots.

Nanonymous No.6301 [D][U][F]
File: 2cc90260f9424d559f7d734eabd393df1f332f0ede2f647960460e8923bdb7d0.jpg (dl) (15.94 KiB)
>>6289
it replaces ads with its own. literal bloat
it's a fucking boomer project and will be no different than corporate firefux
>>6290
yes, it's hard sometimes to keep track of which (((them))) is of relevance
>>6299
>I can only reason of shit in terms of politics
>therefore Brave is good
>therefore the creator of JavaShit has any merit whatsoever
kys /pol/nigger

Nanonymous No.6302 [D]
If you want a browser that offers as much protection as possible right out of the box, runs on tablets and supports tor, then Brave is the obvious choice.
If you run a full blown linux box (Qubes, Whonix) then obviously you have no need for Brave.

And you are an idiot if you don't reason in terms of politics. It won't be long till SJW board of mozilla decides to implement censorship funded by Soros. What will be your alternatives then if there is none?

Nanonymous No.6303 [D]
>If you want a browser that offers as much [placebo] as possible right out of the box
What fucking protection? I've never even heard of Brave having any sort of security features or better programming methods than the other big browsers. You and your retard kin reason on a level so low I can't even comprehend it. Seeing as Eich is the creator, it's obviously garbage. Even if he was in a purely management role, he would bend the project so much that it would be insecure, unusuable, unstable, corporate bullshit. The entire browser is just a meme to market to "muh privacy" "muh ads" "muh creators" retards who have no idea what they're talking about.
>runs on tablets
botnet
>supports tor
Every browser supports Tor you fucking idiot. And they also all have leaks and fingerprints.

Nanonymous No.6306 [D] >>6341 >>6345
>>6265 >>6268
Besides Dissenter and Brave being meme crap browsers (and Gab being crap fake opposition to the crap social media paradigm), I DIDN'T SAY CHROMIUM!!!! I said UNGOOGLED-CHROMIUM!!!!!!!!

Brave has no extensions, no dark theme even for their crap menus, and non of the security patch sets of UNGOOGLED-Chromium afaik.

And to those pushing the Iridium Browser meme, UNGOOGLED-Chromium USES THEIR PATCH SETS PLUS MORE!!!!!!!!!!!

To much to copypasta here, but they literally outline everything in the README:
https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium/blob/master/README.md
Here's it in raw if you don't want to into JS (and I really don't blame you):
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium/master/README.md

Nanonymous No.6307 [D] >>6308 >>6341
>>6294
Just read a little bit of it, it seems okay.
It equally (and sourced, it seems) shits on all the browsers, noting which ones are less bad.

>inb4 samefagging

Nanonymous No.6308 [D]
>>6307
Continuation:
That said it's too lenient on the craptastic 2008 toolbar design of Palememe.

And most blogs I've read seem to really hate Waterfox, even though it's less bad than they think and does not phone home.

Nanonymous No.6315 [D] >>6319
>craptastic 2008 toolbar
this is a feature. instead of insane retard shit of current firefox, we have one of the older features, which is only 70% braindamaged instead of 99%

consumer No.6319 [D] >>6320
>>6299
Classic id/pol/. As long as you feed shit with shit, shit will be shitting you golden shit. These retards would get their balls cut off if they were told it's for anti-jewish purpose. Shame nobody did that so far. #cutyourballskillthejews
>>6315
Palemoon is best full browser. I use links/palemoon+tbb and can't complain.

Nanonymous No.6320 [D]
>>6319
Muh /pol/, cutting off balls would be against nature and a kike thing. Also you seem obsessed with shit and palemoon, one from the tribe I suppose lol.

Nanonymous No.6321 [D]
OK frens, I'm gonna install brave so I can browse the normie web and keep an eye on nanochan at the same time

Nanonymous No.6340 [D]
I've heard that GNUIcecat is pretty good, but, I can never get it to work properly.

Nanonymous No.6341 [D] >>6346
>>6306
Enjoy being six patches behind

>>6307
It also shills some home remedy bullshit site and is a gaymer

>>6059
The only sane answer is Firefox ESR configured to remove the 'features' that phone home

Nanonymous No.6345 [D]
>>6306
>Brave has no extensions, no dark theme even for their crap menus, and non of the security patch sets of UNGOOGLED-Chromium afaik.

Don't know about the security patches, though Brave seems to have plenty of work done security wise, but it definitely has a dark theme and can use extensions.

The thing with Firefox is that each new version brings more undesired "features" that you have to somehow disable.

Nanonymous No.6346 [D]
>>6341
>muh authorities
>implying webshotters can be authorities on anything
kys retard. go back to HN.

Nanonymous No.6355 [D][U][F]
File: e01cfd5a722c5dcb40066b88f13715498c4098a9f9743ffb4fec0233db8ee17a.png (dl) (3.07 MiB)
>>6273
kek
>>6275
<horizontal and vertical innovation
>It's a retarded analogy based on no anthropology research. I'm allowed to criticize your ideas.
Sure you can criticize my ideas, but you should have some counter arguments to it, saying that i pull it out of my ass does not disprove any of what i said.
<Javascript IMPROVES the HTML
>Nope, it adds a feature where shouldn't be one.
That is your opinion not a fact and i disagree with your opinion i think some of the features JS offers are cool and have a place on the web(like AJAX and DOM manipulation to make a couple of examples).
>This "improvement" have show to cost millions of dollars to companies affected by javascript exploits
It also made billion to companies that makes webapps, if you want to go there with your argument then take the statistics on internet companies profits and compare it to the damages cause by JS exploits, you're not gonna like what you will see...cause the sum is definitely positive.
(This is only purely from a money perspective of course, you can make the argument that JS caused other kinds of damages)
>Of course it is, you just can't see because you're still in the DOS world. You have to learn UNIX a bit.
The UNIX philosophy comes from 1978, it's like taking the bible and trying to apply it to modern world.
(I used UNIX systems for years btw)
>I never said the specific problem is constrained to command line...In these cases, the "how to render the graphics" becomes the specific problem and then the 'rules' I've said before apply all the same.
Well also documents, since they are visual medias, should be in a GUI then IMO. And how do you handle dependencies with your definition of good software? You say that
>a good software is the one that solves a *specific* problem efficiently. Where 'efficiency' is a equation between of performance and security in the least code complexity possible
but even the most basic UNIX util is dependent on the OS which is already incredibly complex, IMO dividing single features into lot of different programs instead of grouping them in one big software does not decrease complexity, it just make the whole system more sparse and difficult to use.
<Almost every technology is prone to some kind of malicious exploitation
>It shouldn't be. That's the point.
Well it is going to happen regardless of what you think, for example you can use GPG to organize a terrorist operation and the FSF can't do shit about it. Does this mean that we should stop developing software, nah.

Nanonymous No.6356 [D][U][F]
File: 933026d99f152da33f3346c57e46fe0d134d79981f9f0a0868254ffc59bd7fd4.jpg (dl) (133.29 KiB)
>>6289
>>6290
>>6291
>>6293
>>6297
>>6298
>>6299
you need to go back

Nanonymous No.6775 [D] >>6999
>>6100
> Brave and Dissenter
>Total memes. No extensions. No themes either afaik. Gab is a total boomer meme, they don't even federate despite switching to Mastodon because of their own broken code base. Also they block Tor, what else do you need to know? Stay away from Gab IMO.

Agreed that it's a complete shit show but you can install all extensions chrome can with them.

Gab do federate it's just completely broken because the people there are half retarded.

And didn't know they blocked tor? They have an option in both Brave and Dissenter to open a new private tab with tor?

But people shouldn't use gab to begin with something like freespeechextremist.com and neckbeard.xyz is a lot better and they don't ban you if you critize the.

Nanonymous No.6852 [D][U][F]
File: 19cb896321b0dde4da5d9b385e644dd66a5a931f9ef47499e758d02febc4aef5.png (dl) (160.00 KiB)
When I'm on a Windows machine, I fully embrace the botnet and utilize Microshit software as much as possible. Obviously I would use IE6 for any site that was well designed and edge for any JShit SPA that is designed to rot my brain.

Nanonymous No.6860 [D]
>Browser thread
>What's the best browser for Windows?
Browser threads are always quality I see.

Nanonymous No.6887 [D]
What would be RAM requirement of modern web browser made entirely in Java?

Nanonymous No.6889 [D] >>6908 >>6999
>web browser thread
>on .onion only forum
>nobody proposes Tor Browser
what is going on here?

Nanonymous No.6908 [D][U][F] >>6934 >>6973 >>6999
File: 42042e52cddd62d73943fe5acb85e23e7659cf8db789d7d0be2bc64d04697d28.flac (dl) (8.32 MiB)
>>6889
I don't think it's a coincidence that a browser thread followed the tails of the 8chan exodus.
I understand situations where you need a browser that doesn't use Tor for everything. But, Fireshit? Brave? What the actual fuck?
It really goes to show how much we've lost since this sites inception. I just wanna know where the good nanons went

Nanonymous No.6934 [D]
>>6908
We still here. We just don't participate on these low quality threads. Look the catalog and create new threads.

Nanonymous No.6942 [D] >>6999
> Windows

Nanonymous No.6973 [D][U][F]
File: a8367e62e4a7e458cefad06b09e2df73e54c87ba63180457b0cc1ec486fa8c00.jpg (dl) (368.52 KiB)
>>6908
This thread became really people shitting on Web as a whole. Consider it a rant thread.

Nanonymous No.6999 [D]
>>6775
>And didn't know they blocked tor? They have an option in both Brave and Dissenter to open a new private tab with tor?
Gab blocks Tor last I checked, not sure about the browsers.

>freespeechextremist.com and neckbeard.xyz
Pleroma!!
I didn't know any non-progressive/communist instances existed the fediverse. There needs to be moar to attract the boomers off of Facefuck and Voat-fuck (more like Goat-fuck).

>>6889
>nobody proposes Tor Browser
That's the default!!!!!!!!!!
Would be pointless to discuss, maybe?
Unless you think people are using others means to access the site.

>>6908
>I understand situations where you need a browser that doesn't use Tor for everything. But, Fireshit? Brave? What the actual fuck?
This.

>>6942
This.




Nanonymous No.8268 [D]
Palemoon ~ Icecat > firefox > chromium > shit > piss > chrome > edge

Nanonymous No.8312 [D]
>>6108
>if you don't use your hardware to its full potential you are wasting it
Has anyone noticed how normalfags default to the most destructive mindset for everything?
When talking software performance, they say that.
If you tell them Socrates said we can't be certain of anything, they'll default to "I'll just do what I'm certain is most damaging then!"
And when they have no money they'll chug expensive alcohol.

Nanonymous No.8320 [D]
Ungoogled-Chromium > Tor Browser > some niche browsers probably > Firefox > whatever else that's open source > whatever crap that's proprietary

Best Browser Nanonymous No.8376 [D] >>8377
No one has mentioned Opera Browser.

Nanonymous No.8377 [D]
>>8376
chinese botnet
jump into the messaging thread next and recommend wechat

Nanonymous No.8472 [D][U][F] >>8476 >>8530
File: 25702048de9063f71116ea7c5e9ffd4978fa340837095f1ff62a692b1886124d.png (dl) (2.86 MiB)
Anybody has a list of firefox and tor browser hardened about:config values?

Nanonymous No.8474 [D][U][F]
File: 5ed268e8d6dcc65efb89423f30820c97261bfe1e60439b4294d521f6a21ed22f.jpg (dl) (172.60 KiB)
>>6059
>What's the best browser for Windows?
K-Meleon

Nanonymous No.8476 [D] >>8480 >>8501
>>8472
There was that guy maintaining a list but at some point he snapped at that shit and nuked everything (it's on github so no big deal).

https://gist.github.com/haasn/69e19fc2fe0e25f3cff5

>Updated: Just use qutebrowser (and disable javascript). The web is done for.

Nanonymous No.8480 [D] >>8482
>>8476
That was really useful, thanks.

Nanonymous No.8482 [D] >>8515
>>8480
Also what is best way to anonimize your user agent? What do you guys use?
I'm testing with https://panopticlick.eff.org my two biggest fingerprints comes from User Agent and System Fonts.
Although javashit is necessary to fingerprint system fonts and i usually keep it disabled, for the times that i absolutely need to enable js how to make it unable to access fonts?

Nanonymous No.8488 [D]
>>6297
This kind of left-right paradigm bullshit killed the other imageboards. If someone says left and you don't agree just point out where they are wrong and move on. Don't sperg out like some sped and go an a paragraphs long expose on what the left left is and the right right is and what my special snowflake political ideology is. In short, knock it off.

Nanonymous No.8501 [D]
>>8476
>use the web browser engine made by the single strongest pushing force of the web (as in (((the web))) )
>the web is done for

Nanonymous No.8515 [D] >>8518
>>8482
>Also what is best way to anonimize your user agent?
Nobody knows? This is important regardless of what browser you use.

Nanonymous No.8518 [D] >>8519
>>8515
you can't completely. you could find the most common one for your engine, and set your browser to it.

Nanonymous No.8519 [D][U][F]
File: 3a1ee8d8a5368ed8ac22f60a205d95cd8bd2ebdb2233177b323e80b05ac6d42b.png (dl) (637.96 KiB)
>>8518
I tried, there are several problems though, i assume most popular browser is chrome, ok, now how to know what is the most popular version of chrome? I assume most popular os in windows, what version though 7 or 10? What if the most popualr version changes with time and i get more identifiable as a result?
Who was the nanon that said that HTTP is shit? I'm starting to agree.

Fuck it i'll leave it how it is until i'm sure of what i'm doing.

I'll leave this really powerful privacy tool here: https://browserleaks.com

Nanonymous No.8524 [D]
Windows 10 definetly.
If not sure just go with the most recent release version of chrome.

Nanonymous No.8530 [D]
Is it good practice to disable cache for extra security?
>>8472
This is a good updated list: https://gist.github.com/0XDE57/fbd302cef7693e62c769

Nanonymous No.8619 [D][U][F]
File: be0a052ccc3b5b8be0592ff77bfb8c2beaa6105540d58ceb0371c1702e2769e7.jpg (dl) (49.16 KiB)
How stupid would using eww (from emacs) with tor be?

Nanonymous No.8626 [D]
>using GNU emacs
very stupid

Nanonymous No.8628 [D] >>8629
>>6059
>Ungoogled chrome
>Outdated
Wrong. Bullshit. Fake news. Horseshit. Hot air.

Ungoogled-Chromium is regularly updated.

Nanonymous No.8629 [D]
>>8628
He probably means UC always lags behind a couple of versions, meaning it doesn't have the latest exploits and patches for exploits brought to you by Google Inc.