4 ms·
Maybe we need a stable browser without surprises. Less cutting edge. Maybe.
by pmlnr 9y ago
Maybe we need a stable browser without surprises. Less cutting edge. Maybe.
- marcosdumay 9y agoLike Konqueror? It isn't going that well. The web is evolving fast, and for good reasons.
- pmlnr 9y agoCould you please expand those 'good reasons'? I honestly don't see them. I see a world in 2017 where my instant messenger lacks functions I had in ICQ in 2000 (p2p file sharing, for example); I see video conferencing struggle to work which I had in 2007 (p2p skype); I see my browser spying on me and coming with baked in backdoors.
- marcosdumay 9y agoThe only one of those that is about the web is the sites spying on you. And JS has been evolving better sandboxes, not worse.
- pmlnr 9y agoErm... no. The trouble with video calls is that it's webrtc these days and melting CPUs with their inefficiency. The messenger apps are built on electron, and a unicorns with rainbows IRC client can eat 4GB of memory (yes, I'm talking about Slack). Everything is forced through HTTP. Those were only examples though.
- bo1024 9y agoActually a big part of the problem is hinted in your examples: feature creep from native programs into the browser. I think it would be an interesting, more private, and safer online world if browsers only displayed HTML and a minimum of JS rather than being entire operating systems, and anything like media playing and high interactivity occurred in native programs.
- awaythrowaway 9y agoDon't stable and cutting-edge go hand-in-hand for browsers as the most "compatible" browsers must properly implement the latest web standards?