4 ms·

Pretty sweet! Curious: why headless firefox and not headless chrome? Also: 'its main purpose is...to reduce bandwidth.' How does this reduce bandwidth? Is the

by RSZC 8y ago

Pretty sweet! Curious: why headless firefox and not headless chrome? Also: 'its main purpose is...to reduce bandwidth.' How does this reduce bandwidth? Is the assumption that you would deploy browsh on a server and ssh/mosh against that, and the bandwidth savings are to the client? (But full bandwidth usage to the server)?

lucb1e 8y ago
Because Firefox is open source, in the same vein as this project? Just a guess.
- NikolaeVarius 8y ago
  Chromium is also open source
  - lucb1e 8y ago
    He said Chrome, though. Or is there no headless Chrome but only Chromium? Can't say I've ever heard of headless Chrome, though, so I guess that's why I'm being downvoted.
tombh 8y ago
Curiously, Chrome doesn't support extensions in headless mode. And Browsh needs to run some custom CSS and JS to help with parsing, so Chrome was a no go. You can inject CSS and JS using the RPC though, but that RPC standard (https://remotedebug.org/ https://remotedebug.org/) isn't yet supported by Firefox. So at the time I felt that using the webextension standard was a more cross-browser investment. Perhaps I should revisit that decision. And yes you're right about the use of a remote server to make use of the bandwidth savings.