7 ms·
There are two internets now -- the internet of documents and the internet of applications. For reading documents, including somewhat dynamic documents like HN,
by sevensor 9y ago
There are two internets now -- the internet of documents and the internet of applications. For reading documents, including somewhat dynamic documents like HN, all I need is w3m. But for the internet of applications you need a thin client: a javascript VM and layout engine. I regard anything that runs javascript as inherently malicious, out to violate my privacy and drain my battery. Of these, shenanigans notwithstanding, Firefox is still the least bad of the bad actors. Like most of the community, I'm disgusted but not surprised by this stupid stunt.
- mrighele 9y agoI would in fact be happy if we could just have a simple VM and a low level rendering engine, let's say something like a WASM based VM (or even JS if we really have to), and WebGL or similar for rendering. Define a standard way to provide (or refuse) access to local and remote resources and leave all the rest (HTML, CSS, Web Workers, Audio Playback, Video Playback etc) as software running on the VM. This way you would not need a few GB of memory if you need only to display a wall of text and it would be easier both to share code between implementations and contribute software (as libraries ? plugins?) to the platform.
- yathern 9y agoBecause then every site would need to include a CSS + HTML rendering library to be executed in this VM - it would be like every site needing to include their JS framework of choice except much heavier.
- loup-vaillant 9y agoNo they wouldn't need to. They'd just have to advertise CSS + HTML, and the app browser would just use their internal CSS + HTML engine (possibly written in WASM for better sandboxing). There are probably a whole spectrum between those two extremes (all the code in the server, or all the code in the client).
- mrighele 9y agoI was thinking about something more like a "flash plugin": you may have to install once (or it might be bundled with the installer) and then "it just works". The main difference would be that it would be sandboxed and so limited on what it can do.
- dvfjsdhgfv 9y agoActually it would be great - in the best interest of users - to make this distinction more pronounced. The "document web" should be a relatively safe space that you can comfortably browse with JS disabled. The "app web" is a different beast, and the trust of the user to turn on the JS engine should be earned. We could have "web browsers" and "app browsers", with the former being much more safe and less resource-consuming.
- krapp 9y agoThe distinction isn't pronounced. Few sites are, distinctly, only "apps" or "documents." So how would one define an "app" in this case, in a way that wouldn't encompass most of the existing web as "apps?"
- ethbro 9y agoAnything that uses JavaScript? Or allows only the minimal subset required to implement AJAX type functionality. The argument for expanding web standards has always been "if we don't, then they'll just appify it and we won't have any say" (see DRM debate). An explicit decoupling of information from interactivity would lessen the pressure for that.
- krapp 9y ago"Anything that uses Javascript" would include, as I said, almost the entire web, including sites which primarily serve text and act as documents, including Hacker News. View the source - it even uses AJAX.
- librexpr 9y agoI've just replied to you with JS disabled. I also created this account with no JS (this was a year ago). Upvoting also works without JS. In my experience, of all the websites that don't work without JS, only a minority actually need it. Most of the time it's silly things like articles and blog posts that just show a blank screen without JS, or drop-down menus that rely on JS even though there are perfectly fine non-JS ways to do it, etc.
- danjoc 9y ago>Of these, shenanigans notwithstanding, Firefox is still the least bad of the bad actors. I would say Brave is better here. By default Brave blocks 3rd party cookies and ads. Brave has browser fingerprint blocking as well, but that is not enabled by default, presumably because that would break a lot of web applications and give the users a bad first impression of Brave. Brave also comes with built in cryptocurrency micropayments as an optional way to sustain websites without advertisements. The least bad actor in my view currently, is Brave.
- daodedickinson 9y agoYep, don't wonder about the downvotes.
- p15 9y agoAgree with this, but the problem is user demand in competitive markets. > I regard anything that runs javascript as inherently malicious, out to violate my privacy and drain my battery. Tech people like those on HN may understand the centralizing corporate control that's embedded in the current structure of the internet. Average users a) have zero technical understanding b) mainly use JS-heavy, DRM/surveillance-loaded "big tech" websites c) lack the skills, awareness, and desire to change anything for increased user freedom. There's more reward for positive features than lack of negatives. Unless a compelling case can be made to the minimally-competent user who sees only speed, usability, and immediate real-world social use (I can watch DRM movies, play DRM music, use FB / YT / Google Apps / other "big tech"), any shift seems unlikely. The problem is less technical than social. DRM / surveillance tech crapware is now a social norm, and there's rarely a good time to have a discussion. Most non-technical people just don't know or care.
- citiguy 9y agoThanks for this! For years I've been looking for a unixy command line browser that cuts through all the web related cruft. W3m fits the bill nicely.