3 ms·
>>browsers should do one thing >browsers should do it all The essential Multics vs Unix mindset clash. One application to rule them all vs. a versatile toolbox
by dexen 7y ago
>>browsers should do one thing
>browsers should do it all
The essential Multics vs Unix mindset clash. One application to rule them all vs. a versatile toolbox of interchangeable modules. Telco heads vs hacker heads.
In the end, the hackers always win - but the telcos grow to be fat cats.
- TeMPOraL 7y agoIn a way, it's a Multics vs. Multics clash. I already have one application to rule them all. My operating system. I do not appreciate when the browser tries to supersede it. Not (just) because of philosophical reasons, but because browsers completely suck at being operating systems. The web takes a lot of control from the users, and offers near-zero interoperability. It all feels like a step-by-step attempt at turning general-purpose computers into cable TV.
- gnode 7y agoI don't think this is at odds with "should do one thing well". Safety is not an application in itself, it is a design principle. "rm"'s purpose is only to delete, yet it still tries to ensure safety and sanity with its flags: -r, -f, --no-preserve-root, etc. Even simple tools should be safe by default.
- userbinator 7y agoWe already have applications that can take all your traffic and send it over an encrypted tunnel somewhere else, if you don't want to exit to the Internet from a place you don't trust. They're called VPN clients. DoH is like a partial VPN client. It doesn't belong in the browser.
- gnode 7y agoDoH servers are not open proxies, they're just DNS resolvers with support for a security layer; they are comparable to HTTPS, SMTPS, SSH, etc. servers, not to a VPN. VPNs are not a substitute for, nor a better solution than DoH in the same way as they are not for HTTPS or SSH.