Re: [dev] Talk about sane web browsers

On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Anselm R Garbe<garbeam_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/9/8 Uriel <lost.goblin_AT_gmail.com>:
>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 9:35 PM, markus schnalke<meillo_AT_marmaro.de> wrote:
>>> The point is: It is simply not possible to have sane web browsers. But
>>> you both come to bad results IMO.
>>>
>>> Uriel says: Okay, so we'll not have a sane web browsers, thus we use
>>> one of the bad ones or better don't use the web at all.
>>
>> No, I'm saying that I wish people would write or help write a browser
>> that sucks less. My point is that adding a coat of paint on top of an
>> existing browser (>90% of the browser is the rendering/js/etc. engine)
>> is not the same as writing that sucks less at all, it is a lazy and
>> meaningless gesture of little practical value and that contributes
>> little to the sorry state of things.
>
> I think it is clear that the existing web stack can't be implemented
> in a less sucking way.

This is ridiculous, are you saying that a web rendering engine can't
suck less than webkit or geko? Are you fucking kidding me?

Any implementation will suck hugely, but there is tons of shit that
suck in webkit and geko that are in no way required to suck to be 'web
compatible'.

> That's why it's quite clever and pragmatic to
> let the WebKit folks do the ugly work.

It might be pragmatic, but there is nothing 'clever' about it.

> We wouldn't have the resource
> to do it anyways.
>
> We'd have the resource to think about a web stack replacement that can
> be implemented in less sucking ways and that's designed with
> simplicity and clarity in mind. However it is uncertain if such a
> replacement won't be a dead-end project unfortunately, because it has
> to provide additional use if it wants to compete or replace the
> existing web stack. But I'm very open to discuss the new technology of
> the future.
>
> I think we all agree that it is pointless to waste our time with
> implementing the existing web stack.
>
>> Well, first, the 'black box' is >90% of what the user, and code has to
>> interface with, so the box is not black at all, it is quite
>> translucent and with plenty of holes and leaks, and it is filled with
>> liquid feces.
>>
>> Note that the Chrome people, while far from perfect, have built a much
>> more sensible 'black box' around a rendering engine which actually
>> does have serious benefits for security and performance, it still
>> sucks, but the approach is way more useful than the 'I will just write
>> another GTK UI and change a few keybindings'.
>
> First of all I wouldn't consider WebKit or Chrome a black box (the
> latter for the same reason you give above).

Chrome is not a black box, what I meant was that Chrome has put WebKit
into something much closer to a real black box than what uzbl and surf
are doing.

> Second, I see nothing wrong with experimenting with browser chromes
> like what uzbl or surf do.

Experimenting with anything is cool, pretending it is something it
clearly isn't is not cool. Uzbl and surf are not 'sane browsers' that
'follow the Unix Philosophy', and to claim so is to be either
delusional or disingenuous.

> Actually I welcome these projects much more
> than the next incarnation of Mozilla's new Firefox UI.
>
> I agree that using chrome as a foundation for a desktop browser would
> make much more sense, because you could really concentrate on the
> purpose you are after, which is getting the browser UI right (which
> Chrome doesn't).
>
> BUT using Chrome as a base looks like much more effort to me, not to
> mention its baroque build system.

Perhaps, but Chrome has actually built something much closer to a real
black box around WebKit, which is what some people here were claiming
they had done, when it clearly isn't the case, and unless that is
addressed not only will uzbl and surf be little more than very thin
coats of paint on top of the sewage leaking WebKit turd, they will
also be insecure and performance hogs.

uriel

> Kind regards,
> Anselm
>
>
Received on Tue Sep 08 2009 - 08:26:21 UTC