6 ms·

Hmm, not sure it's for me (a bit too much hacker) but I'd definitely like a highly customizable, module based browser with a pure shell by default. Something li

by jug 3y ago

Hmm, not sure it's for me (a bit too much hacker) but I'd definitely like a highly customizable, module based browser with a pure shell by default. Something like Visual Studio Code but with less cruft from the get go. I've never thought about it until I saw this! Now I'm really irked about there not being a solid, mature browser based on extensibility. Where the base is basically an address bar and history awareness (i.e. back/forward) and even bookmarks is a module, so that you don't even need an integrated solution but can instead rely on e.g. Raindrop.io as your bookmarks manager. Tab management another one, so for example you could have _only_ a powerful vertical tabs mode if that's all you need. You know what, it feels like this should have happened 20 years ago and it would be as popular as Vim or Emacs now, but somehow never actually did. It would be the ultimate response to Chrome, Edge, even Firefox feature creep, forcing its developer to commit fully to web renderer excellence (speed, RAM, web standards) and maybe some optional official modules if you want them.

comfypotato 3y ago
Contemplating my navel, I propose that it didn’t happen because the purpose of an editor and browser are so different. (Realistically the driving factor is that an editor is much more useful for making money.)
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  I’m building it
  - replwoacause 3y ago
    As in… you’ve been building it, or you just started building it because of this comment?
    - wahnfrieden 3y ago
      I've been building it
graderjs 3y ago
I'm building something similar: WebDriver protocol not WebView tag, more extensible, written in JavaScript, web tech. Get in touch (cris@dosyago.com) if you want to contribute! or check out the project: https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBoxPro https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBoxPro / https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBOx https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBOx
- soulofmischief 3y ago
  I commented here [0] and am extremely interested in discussing BrowserBox with you. This is something I've brought up over and over, I'm an experienced web dev and generalist but simply couldn't tackle on my own. Curious about your roadmap with dosyago and BrowserBox, where our goals converge and diverge and how we can help each other. Feel free to reach out via email, it's in my bio. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36008340 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36008340
  - graderjs 3y ago
    Dude! I can't parse your email but like definitely reach out to me: cris@dosyago.com :D ;p
    - culi 3y ago
      This is a very cool interaction and I hope it turns into something. Would love a place to keep up if anything ever materializes. Here's some other projects you might have inspo or crossover with and some discussions you might find possible collaborators in: Bonsai https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28446147 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28446147 Mullvad Browser (security oriented FireFox-based) https://mullvad.net/en/browser https://mullvad.net/en/browser Browsh (purely text-based browser) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17487552 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17487552 Ladybird (browser from scratch for SerenityOS) Kosmonaut (browser from scratch in Rust) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24170201 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24170201 Refresh (concepts for a new kind of web browser) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17638477 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17638477
hattmall 3y ago
I use to build my own like this with the VB web browser control. I had tons of automation built in for a lot of tasks but it becomes too much to keep up with. I've looked into headless chrome but it's not as cool as working in the Visual Studio and being able to pause and just develop on the fly. Honestly it was incredibly cool but websites just get more and more complicated. From like 2004 to maybe 2014-2016 it was great. Somewhere after that, I'm not sure, something changed, maybe me, but it just became too much.
- culi 3y ago
  The web standard really has exploded since that time range you mentioned. Nowdays there's a native browser API for text-to-speech. It's easier to generate speech for an article you wrote than it is to style an option in a native <select> element
soulofmischief 3y ago
So I've ranted about this in various places on the internet... Some recent HN comments of mine: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34855750 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34855750 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33541173 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33541173 I am 100% down for building this, open source, if I had a team to help me see it through as it's just too much for one person. Do you have any dev experience / interest in helping create such a thing?
- ghostpepper 3y ago
  How much work would it be to convert either Firefox / Chromium / Nyxt into this instead of starting from scratch?
  - micimize 3y ago
    There are always going to be limitations to extension-based approaches but Firefox with tridactyl is most of the way there capability-wise IMO (https://github.com/tridactyl/tridactyl https://github.com/tridactyl/tridactyl). I use that plus tree-style tabs and find it excellent. There's always some extensibility limitations that break the integration though, like extensions getting disabled on mozilla domains. I love projects like nyxt and respect their priorities, but without big-player extension support it's usually a no-go for me. Still, I'll be interested to see the ideas they develop trickle out into the rest of the power-browser ecosystem. I especially like that lossless tree history – history management is a very under-explored UX area IMO
    - bovine3dom 3y ago
      You can let extensions run on Mozilla domains by tweaking some settings in about:config [1]. Mozilla believes that it creates a security risk and that you shouldn't do it. [1]: https://www.ghacks.net/2017/10/27/how-to-enable-firefox-webextensions-on-mozilla-websites/ https://www.ghacks.net/2017/10/27/how-to-enable-firefox-webe...
      - 3y ago
hughw 3y ago
I mean, you're looking at it, but you said it was too much hacker.
tenebrisalietum 3y ago
There was uzbl.
jahsome 3y ago
Tridactyl checks my boxes.
graderjs 3y ago
> I've never thought about it until I saw this! Now I'm really irked about there not being a solid, mature browser based on extensibility. Where the base is basically an address bar and history awareness (i.e. back/forward) and even bookmarks is a module If you guys are really into the idea of an extendable virtualized browser API, an extendable browser that you can hack on, and customize programmatically fully (including all the browser UI, the so-called “chrome”), then my BrowserBox project might be for you.^0^1^2 That open extendable browser is actually my vision of BrowserBox and I think it’s a really powerful thing. For example: I imagine being able to create an "extension store" using the more powerful set of APIs enabled by this (compared to the more limited APIs available to regular browser extensions). Similar to the idea you related where bookmarks is a module--which is something we've wanted to do for a long time--but not sure about the API contours! The other ideas you talk about are all great, too: a UI that can be fully customized (vertical tabs!) or even tree tabs / history. Or all kinds of crazy things. Browser UIs are pretty uninnovative mostly, but a fully customizable UI could really open that up. Modules ideas (that in some sense we've been exploring at Dosyago over the last few years, through DiskerNet, client projects, GraderJS and so on): - web scraping / automation script builder - vim shell - vertical tabs UI - bookmarks - public / shared bookmarks - full text searchable bookmarks (DiskerNet) - NodeJS shell (GraderJS) And I think BrowserBox may have the right model for that extensibility (maybe not totally right but the idea of: instead of using a WebView tag you’re using the much more extensible and powerful set of APIs for browser instrumentation and automation in other words, the "remote debugging protocol" APIs) to create the surface of extensibility. And our company has already built the the application with the browser UI at the front, and the instrumented browser engine at back to enable that building out an API. Our system is already a fully functional browser: with multiple tabs, back/forward history, but no other modules! The main modules we have built so far have been: web scraping / automation script building for clients. We've experimented with other modules, but the majority of the work we need to do is around carving out the contours of that API. What surface do we provide in order to make modules really great? That's the key question and one we are looking for help answering. Having that API for the browser to allow like a modules type thing is something that’s been on our plans for a long amount of time we always thought it was a good idea, but we’ve never been sure if there was much demand for it. Like you say here this Nyxt project really highlights the fact that this is something that really is a good idea or at least it seems like it and definitely people seem like they want it. There's still a lot of problems with this approach, but I believe they all have achievable solutions! While our project may not be as technically elegant as using lisp, but I think it has the prosaic advantage of: having a simple client/server architecture (browser UI at the front, instrumented engine at the back); using a highly extensible set of powerful API‘s that are on essentially standard track with the WebDriver specifications (making, at least in theory, the future ability to swap out the browser engine between Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or whatever else that supports WebDriver); and I think most importantly--it’s written in JavaScript, Node.JS, HTML, CSS--greatly widening the field of potential contributors I’m encouraged today by this project and the thread you have started to push our BrowserBox project more in this direction and I would like to encourage people to come on and check it out and because of that we are opening up our projects today to contributions. I think there's a lot of work to do and we can't do it alone! 0: https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBox https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBox 1: https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBoxPro https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBoxPro 2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35996647 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35996647
rakoo 3y ago
uzbl (https://www.uzbl.org/ https://www.uzbl.org/) used to do that but it seems it was too heavy in practice. Today I'm more interestea in turning the web into a more textual format to integrate it in acme (http://acme.cat-v.org/ http://acme.cat-v.org/) which is already built around modularity. Making the web a content provider and letting me interact withit the way I want
- 0x445442 3y ago
  But of course those no money in just giving away data in an easily parsable way.
PurpleRamen 3y ago
We basically had this with old Firefox, didn't work out. We kinda have and had this with all the small custom browsers, like Qutebrowser or Nyxt here, doesn't work either. Customizability is a liability, it's work. It comes with many problems, responsibility, work for the users, and not many are willing to take this. Chrome, Firefox and the others are more or less the best we can get regarding balancing customizing, stability, security and user-friendliness. I mean even in Editor/IDE-Space the popular tools are not the ones who give you the most customizability, but those who give you enough customizing, while not bothering you with the rest, and instead focusing on stable powerful features. Maybe if Coding AI becomes stronger, we can reach this utopia of perfect customizability without all the problems.
- revelio 3y ago
  Maybe? IntelliJ plugin API is pretty much infinite in scope, you can customize nearly anything. Not everything is well documented, mind you.

by jug 3y ago

comfypotato 3y ago

Contemplating my navel, I propose that it didn’t happen because the purpose of an editor and browser are so different. (Realistically the driving factor is that an editor is much more useful for making money.)

wahnfrieden 3y ago
I’m building it
- replwoacause 3y ago
  As in… you’ve been building it, or you just started building it because of this comment?
  - wahnfrieden 3y ago
    I've been building it

graderjs 3y ago

I'm building something similar: WebDriver protocol not WebView tag, more extensible, written in JavaScript, web tech. Get in touch (cris@dosyago.com) if you want to contribute! or check out the project: https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBoxPro https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBoxPro / https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBOx https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBOx

soulofmischief 3y ago
I commented here [0] and am extremely interested in discussing BrowserBox with you. This is something I've brought up over and over, I'm an experienced web dev and generalist but simply couldn't tackle on my own. Curious about your roadmap with dosyago and BrowserBox, where our goals converge and diverge and how we can help each other. Feel free to reach out via email, it's in my bio. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36008340 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36008340
- graderjs 3y ago
  Dude! I can't parse your email but like definitely reach out to me: cris@dosyago.com :D ;p
  - culi 3y ago
    This is a very cool interaction and I hope it turns into something. Would love a place to keep up if anything ever materializes. Here's some other projects you might have inspo or crossover with and some discussions you might find possible collaborators in: Bonsai https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28446147 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28446147 Mullvad Browser (security oriented FireFox-based) https://mullvad.net/en/browser https://mullvad.net/en/browser Browsh (purely text-based browser) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17487552 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17487552 Ladybird (browser from scratch for SerenityOS) Kosmonaut (browser from scratch in Rust) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24170201 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24170201 Refresh (concepts for a new kind of web browser) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17638477 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17638477

hattmall 3y ago

I use to build my own like this with the VB web browser control. I had tons of automation built in for a lot of tasks but it becomes too much to keep up with. I've looked into headless chrome but it's not as cool as working in the Visual Studio and being able to pause and just develop on the fly. Honestly it was incredibly cool but websites just get more and more complicated. From like 2004 to maybe 2014-2016 it was great. Somewhere after that, I'm not sure, something changed, maybe me, but it just became too much.

culi 3y ago
The web standard really has exploded since that time range you mentioned. Nowdays there's a native browser API for text-to-speech. It's easier to generate speech for an article you wrote than it is to style an option in a native <select> element

soulofmischief 3y ago

So I've ranted about this in various places on the internet... Some recent HN comments of mine: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34855750 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34855750 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33541173 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33541173 I am 100% down for building this, open source, if I had a team to help me see it through as it's just too much for one person. Do you have any dev experience / interest in helping create such a thing?

ghostpepper 3y ago
How much work would it be to convert either Firefox / Chromium / Nyxt into this instead of starting from scratch?
- micimize 3y ago
  There are always going to be limitations to extension-based approaches but Firefox with tridactyl is most of the way there capability-wise IMO (https://github.com/tridactyl/tridactyl https://github.com/tridactyl/tridactyl). I use that plus tree-style tabs and find it excellent. There's always some extensibility limitations that break the integration though, like extensions getting disabled on mozilla domains. I love projects like nyxt and respect their priorities, but without big-player extension support it's usually a no-go for me. Still, I'll be interested to see the ideas they develop trickle out into the rest of the power-browser ecosystem. I especially like that lossless tree history – history management is a very under-explored UX area IMO
  - bovine3dom 3y ago
    You can let extensions run on Mozilla domains by tweaking some settings in about:config [1]. Mozilla believes that it creates a security risk and that you shouldn't do it. [1]: https://www.ghacks.net/2017/10/27/how-to-enable-firefox-webextensions-on-mozilla-websites/ https://www.ghacks.net/2017/10/27/how-to-enable-firefox-webe...
    - 3y ago

hughw 3y ago

I mean, you're looking at it, but you said it was too much hacker.

tenebrisalietum 3y ago

There was uzbl.

jahsome 3y ago

Tridactyl checks my boxes.

graderjs 3y ago

> I've never thought about it until I saw this! Now I'm really irked about there not being a solid, mature browser based on extensibility. Where the base is basically an address bar and history awareness (i.e. back/forward) and even bookmarks is a module If you guys are really into the idea of an extendable virtualized browser API, an extendable browser that you can hack on, and customize programmatically fully (including all the browser UI, the so-called “chrome”), then my BrowserBox project might be for you.^0^1^2 That open extendable browser is actually my vision of BrowserBox and I think it’s a really powerful thing. For example: I imagine being able to create an "extension store" using the more powerful set of APIs enabled by this (compared to the more limited APIs available to regular browser extensions). Similar to the idea you related where bookmarks is a module--which is something we've wanted to do for a long time--but not sure about the API contours! The other ideas you talk about are all great, too: a UI that can be fully customized (vertical tabs!) or even tree tabs / history. Or all kinds of crazy things. Browser UIs are pretty uninnovative mostly, but a fully customizable UI could really open that up. Modules ideas (that in some sense we've been exploring at Dosyago over the last few years, through DiskerNet, client projects, GraderJS and so on): - web scraping / automation script builder - vim shell - vertical tabs UI - bookmarks - public / shared bookmarks - full text searchable bookmarks (DiskerNet) - NodeJS shell (GraderJS) And I think BrowserBox may have the right model for that extensibility (maybe not totally right but the idea of: instead of using a WebView tag you’re using the much more extensible and powerful set of APIs for browser instrumentation and automation in other words, the "remote debugging protocol" APIs) to create the surface of extensibility. And our company has already built the the application with the browser UI at the front, and the instrumented browser engine at back to enable that building out an API. Our system is already a fully functional browser: with multiple tabs, back/forward history, but no other modules! The main modules we have built so far have been: web scraping / automation script building for clients. We've experimented with other modules, but the majority of the work we need to do is around carving out the contours of that API. What surface do we provide in order to make modules really great? That's the key question and one we are looking for help answering. Having that API for the browser to allow like a modules type thing is something that’s been on our plans for a long amount of time we always thought it was a good idea, but we’ve never been sure if there was much demand for it. Like you say here this Nyxt project really highlights the fact that this is something that really is a good idea or at least it seems like it and definitely people seem like they want it. There's still a lot of problems with this approach, but I believe they all have achievable solutions! While our project may not be as technically elegant as using lisp, but I think it has the prosaic advantage of: having a simple client/server architecture (browser UI at the front, instrumented engine at the back); using a highly extensible set of powerful API‘s that are on essentially standard track with the WebDriver specifications (making, at least in theory, the future ability to swap out the browser engine between Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or whatever else that supports WebDriver); and I think most importantly--it’s written in JavaScript, Node.JS, HTML, CSS--greatly widening the field of potential contributors I’m encouraged today by this project and the thread you have started to push our BrowserBox project more in this direction and I would like to encourage people to come on and check it out and because of that we are opening up our projects today to contributions. I think there's a lot of work to do and we can't do it alone! 0: https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBox https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBox 1: https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBoxPro https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBoxPro 2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35996647 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35996647

rakoo 3y ago

uzbl (https://www.uzbl.org/ https://www.uzbl.org/) used to do that but it seems it was too heavy in practice. Today I'm more interestea in turning the web into a more textual format to integrate it in acme (http://acme.cat-v.org/ http://acme.cat-v.org/) which is already built around modularity. Making the web a content provider and letting me interact withit the way I want

0x445442 3y ago
But of course those no money in just giving away data in an easily parsable way.

PurpleRamen 3y ago

We basically had this with old Firefox, didn't work out. We kinda have and had this with all the small custom browsers, like Qutebrowser or Nyxt here, doesn't work either. Customizability is a liability, it's work. It comes with many problems, responsibility, work for the users, and not many are willing to take this. Chrome, Firefox and the others are more or less the best we can get regarding balancing customizing, stability, security and user-friendliness. I mean even in Editor/IDE-Space the popular tools are not the ones who give you the most customizability, but those who give you enough customizing, while not bothering you with the rest, and instead focusing on stable powerful features. Maybe if Coding AI becomes stronger, we can reach this utopia of perfect customizability without all the problems.

revelio 3y ago
Maybe? IntelliJ plugin API is pretty much infinite in scope, you can customize nearly anything. Not everything is well documented, mind you.