Browser

why its so hard to find a decent browser? they're all buggy, bloated, lose compatibility with extensions after every major upgrade and filled with burger politics/tech hipsters imposing what's good or not can you nerds rec me a browser? no firefox, chromium, definitely no firefox flavors nor "degoogled" chromium forks; they're all trash and I'm tired of this soykaf

> burger politics/tech hipsters imposing what's good or not Perhaps specify who you would prefer to have imposing changes on you instead.

You can't escape the big frameworks because there are now so many web standards that that no one can wake up and write a functioning web browser from scratch in a few months, hell even years. Mozilla started on Servo in 2013, brought in multiple corporate contributors, and it's still not what you'd call functional yet. Everyone else stuck building an interface around Chromium, Gecko, or Webkit. Speaking of webkit browsers since you didn't mention any, Luakit and GNOME Web are both decent. They don't contain "essential" functionality like noscript, however. (Luakit does have a noscript module, but it only turns all scripts on and off on a per-page basis. No running first-party scripts while leaving google analytics off)

To maintain anything approximating complete HTML support requires an obscene amount of manpower So the options are: >Giant corporation (e.g., Firefox, Chrome) Completely unsteerable development, it will continue as dictated by the will of its sponsor, and its code base will inevitably swell to inconceivable size, making an overhaul or fork infeasible >smol team (e.g., Midori) Dying eternally Will always be behind the curve with standards support, usability depends in part on what range of websites is visited >turbo autist squad (e.g., Pale Moon) May work, pretty well in some cases. Same issues as corporations, mostly (development direction determined based on autist's rather than CEO's vision); except with the added perspective that the project is guaranteed to die at some point

>>5297 Nobody makes decent add-ons outside of the firefox/chromium ecosystems. I think it's silly to categorically reject all of these variants just because of generalized presumptions. That said, qute /qt browser is the most sensible 3rd party i've found. Again though, it has like no fuarrrking add-ons and since everything is made to render in chrome or firefox or edge it sometimes renders things incorrectly. I usually use waterfox and tor browser on phone and desktop. lynx for simple things. No offense but you sound like the tech hipster here anon.

>>5297 If you look close enough, you'll see that pretty much everything out there is either gecko, web kit or blink, which is a webkit derivative. MS can do Edge but it's Windows only. Other engines are not mature enough nor have sufficient developers to get close to a fully functional browser. If Mozilla fall we'll have a monopoly, and Firefox being a big piece of turd nowadays is not helping. Opera abandoned its engine to use Chrome's. Heck, even Firefox Focus and Edge on Android are using Chrome's engine. If you decide to use alternatives like ungoogled Chromium or waterfox, keep in mind that you are getting security patches later with a promise of better privacy, but what good is that Google or Mozilla aren't getting your data (supposing that the modifications are working) if there are unpatched security flaws for days? These are the darkest time in browsers since internet explorer's monopoly, only worse because Google is actually doing a good job in securing its position for the foreseeable future.

>>5297 It's hard because none exists right now.

>SHIFT 7 >Text 'qutebrowser' not found on page. Check it out, OP. It runs well and if you get used to the shortcuts you're much faster. Just make sure to set a few keybindings yourself in order to make your life easer (like opening urls with mpv since theres no flash)

>>5313 thats webkit right? Browsers suck because people have tortured and twisted a document delivery system into a way to write horrible programs, to the point where even the documents are presented as retarded little interactive toys. the only way to make them not suck so horribly is to just block all that soykaf out whenever you dont absolutely have to use something that forces it on you(college website, banking, whatever else.) use netsurf or dillo and keep ungoogled chrome or firefox around for such sites, or use firefox/chrome with extensions to kill all of it and only disable them when you have to. use cleaner, saner ways of accessing soykaf on the web than your browser wherever possible.(youtube subs via rss, megatools for downloading files from mega, mpv+youtube dl for videos.) you can make this basically as easy and smooth to use as the normal way with 1-5 line shell functions and scripts+some program launcher or hotkey program.

>>5315 There's two versions. An older one running webkit and a newer one running webengine. Default is still webkit I think because they haven't cleant up enough stuff with webengine yet (but they recommend installing it over the other one)

>>5013 >>5305

>>5297 The problem is not browsers, the problem is javascript. Try otter browser

>>5315 >Browsers suck because people have tortured and twisted a document delivery system into a way to write horrible programs, to the point where even the documents are presented as retarded little interactive toys. This is why nobody should have let gopher and telnet bbs's (mostly) die out. Javascript, flash, and Java (clientside applets) are the cancer that killed the "web".

>>5401 >The problem is not browsers, the problem is javascript. This. Look at this beauty: http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/ >>5297 Did you try Surf by suckless team? https://surf.suckless.org/

>>5303 >To maintain anything approximating complete HTML support requires an obscene amount of manpower true enough. the problem isn't necessarily the rendering engine though. i'd be perfectly happy with a webkit/gecko browser without all the bloat and potential tracking bullsoykaf of chrome and firefox. shouldn't take that much manpower to put a simple qt gui around a webkit window and tack on some open source javascript vm. >>5305 >Nobody makes decent add-ons outside of the firefox/chromium ecosystems. it always seemed strange to me that browser addons are shoved into the DOM. are there any browsers out there that just have a python api or something? >>5315 this is exactly my philosophy. i just keep a stock chromium fork around for running particularly demanding web pages, but most of the sites i visit these days don't really need complete cutting edge html5 compliance and js. >>5415 >google analytics they were so fuarrrking close.

Midori was it! Midori was the savior! But the devs went silent. It was so sad. A small, simple and fast browser, killed too young.

look into qutebrowser. Once they get the configuration engine working I'll probably switch to it.

Does anyone remember the KHTML engine? Perhaps some of the awesome programmers here could try reviving it?

Also, Noscript is awesome for both privacy and decluttering purposes.

>>5457 I use noscript in addition to umatrix for this purpose. The thing is that umatrix either blocks all scripts or allows them all. Noscript lets you choose each individually. However umatrix blocks other websites (like facebook), which noscript doesn't.

>>5456 I thought that WebKit was fork of KHTML?

>>5461 >>5456 I was playing with Konkeror recently, it has an option to switch between khtml and webkit backends. Khtml rendered many things wrong, but in each case it seemed to render things more in a more readable way than if it had been correct...

>>5431 >>5305 >>5416 Luakit is extremely extensible; being written in Lua it's essentally all extension and as configurable as awesomeWm. If someone put as much effort into it as they do qutebrowser/palemoon/extensions for the big browsers, it could be everything we've been looking for in this thread. As it it, it's still a decent browser and a great starting point for making a great browser.

>>5405 It sounds like you'd like EinChan. ssh einchan@einchan.god.jp password: ein sage for offtopic

>>5483 i used to use uzbl, but it was getting buggy and development was slow so i dropped it. i've been thinking about giving it another shot, but i think i'll try luakit out first. one of the problems i had with uzbl was the focus on a 'script' api vs a 'plugin' api ...although maybe this distinction only exists in my head... with uzbl you'd basically put executable scripts in a folder and run them from the browser's command line (think i3wm). it was all very unix-y, but i'd rather have proper dynamically loaded plugin modules like irssi (the ideal for me is the profanity xmpp client. extensions are written in python and executed using your installed interpreter). i'm kind of surprised nobody has mentioned uzbl yet. it's the best example of a 'minimal gui wrapper for webkit' i can think of and it's been around for a while.

>>5425 midori always seemed like the XFCE of browsers to me: simple, fast, attractive enough (with some customization). in both cases i could never really get on board because they were so damn *normal*. like if i'm going to switch off of firefox, i want something with the whole nine yards of autistic bullsoykaf. full keyboard control, deep scripting capabilities, etc. i totally get why people like them though. it's nice to have something genuinely simple that isn't aimed exclusively at "power users".

>>5484 neato.

try seamonkey

Why not Icecat?

currently i'm very satisfied with Brave. Based on Chromium, built-in Ad/Script/Fingerprinting-Blocking, fast as heck. Only the Bookmark-Tool is pretty soykaf. On Win/Mac it works great, on Linux there are some Problems with the Sandbox but idk why and if there is a fix.

I use lynx and links, they're both decent enough browsers.

Otter Browser is looking swell