Author Topic: Why doesn't DC make its own browser? (Read 24,496 times)

dantheman · « **on:** December 25, 2017, 08:32 PM »

With all the decent coders here (many of whom are doing some good, honest, free-will work) could we not come up with a viable alternative to present browsers?
I'm sure plenty of donations would come in to encourage this kind of venue and who knows just how far the project could go and be of benefit to all.

A 2018 N.A.N.O. project maybe?

Merry Christmas and a Blessed New Year to all!

rgdot · « **Reply #1 on:** December 25, 2017, 09:05 PM »

cody.net

KynloStephen66515 · « **Reply #2 on:** December 25, 2017, 09:24 PM »

It's not a bad idea, as ideas go, but if experience has taught me anything, it would be that trying to coordinate the coders on DC to work on one big project would be as futile as trying to scoop water from a sieve :')

dantheman · « **Reply #3 on:** December 25, 2017, 09:54 PM »

cody.net

@Stephen6615 - with so many frustrated Firefox users and little alternatives to go to (Chrome and clones)... perhaps the time has come for something different?

panzer · « **Reply #4 on:** December 26, 2017, 09:55 AM »

There are some alternatives out there like K-Meleon, Pale Moon etc. Problem is that they are lacking devs.

dantheman · « **Reply #5 on:** December 26, 2017, 11:18 AM »

Indeed!

Who knows, perhaps one of these alternatives could make it big someday.

mouser · « **Reply #6 on:** December 26, 2017, 11:54 AM »

Just what the world needs.. another browser $:-\$

anandcoral · « **Reply #7 on:** December 26, 2017, 12:02 PM »

All these alternatives were born due to frustration and requirement. But require sustained time and energy to keep development as the environment and requirements grow.

Running only on donations does not help much and keeping the enthusiasts developers together becomes problem as day passes by.
Mozilla is now asking for donations to continue. Linux is faltering.

So most turn out to be hobby projects not lasting more than few years.

Regards,

Anand

Ath · « **Reply #8 on:** December 26, 2017, 12:18 PM »

Quote from: dantheman on December 25, 2017, 08:32 PM

could we not come up with a viable alternative to present browsers?

Please explain what would be a viable use-case for anyone to switch to that browser?
What unique features should it have to make it stand out from the crowd?
What's not good enough in the current browsers to even consider starting to develop a new branch?
How do you want to motivate and organize the devs here? (I won't be joining, as I and most other coders here have payed daytime jobs and a life)
And what should it be based on? even that will cause serious discussions, and all questions I've put here will start similar quests.

My vote: minus 100, plus all negative reasons posted above. (resulting in a minus 150 on my scoreboard so far)

Some advise: If you want to have a browser with your wishlist of features, find the closest and support its development the best way you can, submitting your time and feature-&change requests as you go.

dantheman · « **Reply #9 on:** December 26, 2017, 01:15 PM »

Sometimes we just don't realize the amplitude of some requests we make...

Maybe it was a bit of disgruntle with regards to Firefox moves as of the last few years that have surfaced at initiating this thread.

With regards to Mozilla: (correct me if i'm wrong) you have the Foundation (not for profit) and the Corporation (multi-million dollar business around $400 if i'm not mistaken).
So, i'm kind of weary as to just how much Mozilla really needs in funding.

Linux distros are plentiful and you wonder why the devs don't merge their efforts to improve on the top 20 ones.
Perhaps it's because there will always be a niche for something better?

mouser · « **Reply #10 on:** December 26, 2017, 01:31 PM »

One of the hard lessons you learn after decades of coding is how large the burdens are of maintaining software compared to the initial work involved. It is my impression that this has gotten much much more true in the modern age of the internet. And for some programs, like browsers, this is even more true.
And for some programs, like web browsers, there is a huge amount of work involved in maintaining the ecosystem of addons, etc., and there is a real competition for the attention of peripheral players in the ecosystem (addon coders, etc.), and people would need to see some real long-term commitment to a new project before they invest their time migrating to something new.

So what we have in the world of web browsers is a situation where it's technically easy now to build a "new" browser using open source components and libraries (or indeed just forking an existing open source browser), but where people would be foolish to ever adopt your new browser until they were convinced you had a serious long term commitment to it, and had the time, energy, and skill to maintain it for a long period, and the social networking savvy and connections (and monetary backing) to establish and keep a real foothold in the browser marketshare.

dantheman · « **Reply #11 on:** December 26, 2017, 01:50 PM »

I get the picture mouser.

Maybe... picking up where a few of the long-trusted and used Firefox legacy extensions left off would be an easier challenge?
Autohide bookmark toolbar, scroll through open tabs with middle 'mouser'

, FTDark theme to name a few appreciated features of old that'll never come back?.
Bye bye 2017!

tomos · « **Reply #12 on:** December 26, 2017, 08:59 PM »

Quote from: dantheman on December 26, 2017, 01:50 PM

I get the picture mouser.

Maybe... picking up where a few of the long-trusted and used Firefox legacy extensions left off would be an easier challenge?
Autohide bookmark toolbar, scroll through open tabs with middle 'mouser' , FTDark theme to name a few appreciated features of old that'll never come back?.
Bye bye 2017!

wonder what's going to happen with Pale Moon, and the ESR Firefox in the future...

Deozaan · « **Reply #13 on:** December 26, 2017, 11:22 PM »

( adapted from https://xkcd.com/927/ )

anandcoral · « **Reply #14 on:** December 27, 2017, 08:43 AM »

^Agree. This is the situation now and increasing.

Regards,

Anand

kilele · « **Reply #15 on:** January 03, 2018, 01:33 AM »

I think there is a lack of lightweight browser which runs fast on low spec computers. I mean on that is updated regularly to cope with new technologies and security. One project could be taking a light browser like Qtweb and maintaing it just for the benefit of Puppy.Linux distributions that target legacy computers.

Ath · « **Reply #16 on:** January 03, 2018, 10:42 AM »

And there are how many of these type of distro's already? 100+? Just pick the one you like most

kilele · « **Reply #17 on:** January 03, 2018, 05:12 PM »

Quote from: Ath on January 03, 2018, 10:42 AM

And there are how many of these type of distro's already? 100+? Just pick the one you like most

you could compile the browser to make it compatible with every distro. It's not easy to find a light updated browser for slow 32-bits machines. That said, I guess one can just resort to a nano computer nowadays like the OrangePi which cost s15$ or so, though even modern browsers may be too heavy for these boards.

Deozaan · « **Reply #18 on:** January 06, 2018, 03:16 PM »

If you need a lightweight browser, I think there's a NANY for that.

dantheman · « **Reply #19 on:** February 19, 2018, 11:24 AM »

Spotted this one thanks to ItsFoss.com:

https://minbrowser.github.io/min/

Haven't tried it yet, but it looks pretty lean.

highend01 · « **Reply #20 on:** February 19, 2018, 01:15 PM »

And uses an outdated (missing security fixes) version of Chromium... Why on earth should somebody use such stuff?

rgdot · « **Reply #21 on:** February 19, 2018, 04:08 PM »

The biggest issue with open source small team (or not even small) projects is the need to keep up with issues. There is no way any one should use just any even if it 'works well'. Not to get off track but even in major linux repositories very old browser versions last months, even something like old insecure Putty version for example.
Browsers are very much a case of surrendering to the big guys, unfortunate but reality.

wraith808 · « **Reply #22 on:** February 19, 2018, 09:11 PM »

Quote from: highend01 on February 19, 2018, 01:15 PM

And uses an outdated (missing security fixes) version of Chromium... Why on earth should somebody use such stuff?

How did you find out it was using an outdated version of Chromium? Did you download it and try it? I don't see anywhere that it uses Chromium, so I'm curious.

highend01 · « **Reply #23 on:** February 19, 2018, 09:25 PM »

Quote

I don't see anywhere that it uses Chromium, so I'm curious.

https://github.com/minbrowser/min

Code

Note: Min uses an older version of Chromium, which may be missing security fixes from later versions. More Information

tomos · « **Reply #24 on:** February 19, 2018, 09:34 PM »

[overlapping:]

Quote from: wraith808 on February 19, 2018, 09:11 PM

Quote from: highend01 on February 19, 2018, 01:15 PM
And uses an outdated (missing security fixes) version of Chromium... Why on earth should somebody use such stuff?

How did you find out it was using an outdated version of Chromium? Did you download it and try it? I don't see anywhere that it uses Chromium, so I'm curious.

there's a github link on the linked page above. Scroll down a little for:

Quote

Note: Min uses an older version of Chromium, which may be missing security fixes from later versions. More Information

the 'more info is interesting (though mostly over my head)
https://github.com/minbrowser/min/issues/440#issuecomment-338080554