Re: [dev] Talk about sane web browsers

From: Uriel <>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 14:54:22 +0200

On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Anselm R Garbe<> wrote:
> 2009/9/8 Uriel <>:
>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Anselm R Garbe<> wrote:
>>> 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?
> Theoretically it can suck less than webkit, geko or what not, but it
> still would suck much more than a web replacement engine that has not
> to support the current web stack.
> BUT it is nearly impossible to do considering the man years needed to
> make the existing web stack "work" and the continuous effort to keep
> it working (considered all the upcoming features such as html5,
> geolocation, device apis, etc that are expected to be supported by a
> browser engine).
> Undertaking the development of a less sucking browser engine could
> easily end up in a more sucking browser from the end user point of
> view... because it won't support every web page. Or in other words it
> will be the w3m or lynx  experience when trying to access Google Maps
> ;)
>> 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'.
> Have you considered that this is because of the web stack and not
> because of stupid WebKit C++ developers?
> I mean come on, that netsurf thing is barely comparable to WebKit atm,
> otherwise you must be joking.
>>> 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.
> The "clever" aspect is that others do the work, mostly people that
> have far more clue about the current web stack than ourselves...
>> 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.
> Ok
>>> 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.
> I more and more dislike using the term "unix philosophy". At least the
> official surf website doesn't claim surf to follow the unix philosophy
> or to be "sane" in some way. I didn't follow the whole thread here
> however.
>>> 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.
> I'd be careful with this "Google gets it right" trust.

Don't give me this shit, Google could not get 2+2 right even if their
stock options depended on it.

Still the design of the Chrome architecture is *way* saner than that
of any other browser out there. It is still hideous and awful, but if
you can see it is light years ahead of the mozilla crack monkeys or
the Apple cult of fucktards, you have no clue what you are talking

Of all things Google has done since they built a search engine, Chrome
might be the first that is not pure liquid shit (if there were others,
I have forgotten them).

>Theoretically a
> very thin layer around WebKit should perform better, have less bugs
> and be more secure than the rather thick layer of "Google Chrome" --

Theoretically and practically you have fuck shit clue what you are
talking about. You are wrong on *every account*.

Perhaps you want to go back to operating systems where all code runs
in ring 0 and all processes are cooperatively scheduled, that is much
simpler so according to your 'theory' it should perform better, have
less bugs and be more secure.

> but this only holds unless the developers of both layers are similar
> experienced.

This has very little to do with the experience of any developers and
with the architecture involved. Precisely because the Chrome design
means that mistakes are much less harmful, so even if developers are
total morons (which they are), they can cause much less damage.

> And one has to admit that Google has hired damn good
> developers compared to the average IT world.

Hah! Google developers are a bunch of delusional XML-addled crackheads
that for the most part could not build any system worth shit without
ruining it with tons of Java, XML, C++, OO and any other garbage

Still, somehow, god only knows how, they have come up with a design,
that while it sucks, it is *way* superior to that of any other major
web browser out there.


P.S.: Funny thing, I was comparing mentally the architecture of chrome
to that of all other browsers, and realized the one it is most closely
similar to is abaco! (Of course not quite, and actually in a few ways
the division of labour among he various processes is more sensible in

> Kind regards,
> Anselm
Received on Tue Sep 08 2009 - 12:54:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Sep 08 2009 - 13:00:01 UTC