4 ms·

Reminds me of https://www.brow.sh/ https://www.brow.sh/

• capitainenemo 4y ago
  Exactly what I was thinking. Brow.sh has been around for 5 years. I guess the difference is this one is a fork instead of a wrapper of a standard browser?
  • forgotpwd16 4y ago
    It's a fork in the sense that it patches Chromium. More accurately difference is in this case the rendering happens by hooking a new capture device to the graphics library utilized by Chrome whereas browsh utilizes a webext which communicates with a background process (thus theoretically* could be browser-independent but currently only supports Firefox). *Issue is Chrome doesn't support extensions in headless mode.
    • niutech 4y ago
      There is a workaround to headless mode with extensions - run Chrome in Xvfb and make screenshots using Chrome DevTools Protocol: `xvfb-run --server-args="-screen 0 1920x1080x24" google-chrome --remote-debugging-port=9222 --disable-gpu http://example.org http://example.org`
  • spijdar 4y ago
    I remember trying brow.sh several years back, and thinking it was cool, and then not touching it since it was a bit too sluggish and "off" to be a practical tool for multi-media heavy sites. This might not be a fair evaluation, but that was my first impression. This project, on the other hand, allows me to "watch" Youtube videos across a fairly slow SSH connection on a remote host on the other side of NA, and "smoothly" scroll around, looking through comments and the like. Comparing them side by side, it seems like brow.sh is a bit more precise (re: layout), but carbonyl is much more responsive. Very impressive. Not sure if there's a use for watching Unicode youtube videos in the terminal, but impressive!
• skerit 4y ago
  Same here. But then done properly. Very cool.