4 ms·

Dillo is so awesome! I urge you to apt-get install dillo The forgotten feeling when computers responded immediately. I guess I'll be using it for some web.

_pmf_ 12y ago
Dillo also has an easy, approachable plugin architecture: http://www.dillo.org/dpi1.html http://www.dillo.org/dpi1.html This makes me feed sorry for the people dealing with the XUI/JS/CSS cesspit of Firefox plugins.
- k__ 12y ago
  Do they plan to add a JavaScript engine?
  - suprjami 12y ago
    It's graded low prio: http://www.dillo.org/Plans.html http://www.dillo.org/Plans.html
  - angersock 12y ago
    Why would you ruin a perfectly good browser with JS support? :|
    - krapp 12y ago
      Probably because most users would prefer that the sites they visit actually work. Supporting other embedded languages might be nice, but of course, unless all the major browsers also support the same, sites would have to provide an alternative in javascript for everybody else. Not supporting javascript at all when it's integrated so deeply into the web, when you will doubtless be able to simply turn it off if you want, seems unreasonable. For better or worse, the web is becoming a platform for distributing javascript binaries which execute in the browser. Unlike most other platforms, however, at least you can turn it off or view the source or block parts of it if you like.
      - barsonme 12y ago
        Every site should be able to function normally without JS. Granted that doesn't necessarily hold true for web apps, but for regular sites they shouldn't lose functionality because somebody has JS disabled (or doesn't have it at all!)
        krapp 12y ago
        I agree with you. I have js disabled by default and every time I run up against a site that uses client-side templating I find it incredibly annoying - I understand the rationale behind it but it's still annoying how many things tend to break without javascript. However, you can't design a browser around an expectation of what the web should be like. And anyway, it could be worse. If there were no javascript we would all be complaining about the dominance of VBScript in the browser.
        barsonme 12y ago
        > VBScript shudder JS itself isn't bad, it's the misuse which is bad. Subtle JS use should add _extra_ functionality, not _be_ the functionality. It's funny, I was just having a conversation about JS in freenode #python the other day and we were complaining/discussing the same thing. The worst is when my browser freezes because of some JS that's too over the top.
        DanBC 12y ago
        I really hope that people start installing and testing against minimal browsers. Modern browsers are fucking huge. Obviously they do very much more than browsers used to, but most of the time I really am just reading text and I don't want a bad designer's idea of novel UI to get in the way. Sadly it seems like hundreds of years of design iteration for the printed word are being weakened.
- icebraining 12y ago
  Dillo plugins use CSS (see the download manager source) and Firefox addons can use HTML instead of XUL (see the add-on SDK).
Eiriksmal 12y ago
Wow. On FC20, Dillo is 1.4M installed. Chrome 37 is about 200M. Dillo looks to be a more interesting way to test websites' graceful fallbacks than hacking up Chrome or Firefox's settings.
aeflash 12y ago
Too bad nearly every page is broken on it (CSS wise). The only error it detected on my site was that newfangled <doctype html> declaration... The entire layout was jumbled.

_pmf_ 12y ago

Dillo also has an easy, approachable plugin architecture: http://www.dillo.org/dpi1.html http://www.dillo.org/dpi1.html This makes me feed sorry for the people dealing with the XUI/JS/CSS cesspit of Firefox plugins.

k__ 12y ago
Do they plan to add a JavaScript engine?
- suprjami 12y ago
  It's graded low prio: http://www.dillo.org/Plans.html http://www.dillo.org/Plans.html
- angersock 12y ago
  Why would you ruin a perfectly good browser with JS support? :|
  - krapp 12y ago
    Probably because most users would prefer that the sites they visit actually work. Supporting other embedded languages might be nice, but of course, unless all the major browsers also support the same, sites would have to provide an alternative in javascript for everybody else. Not supporting javascript at all when it's integrated so deeply into the web, when you will doubtless be able to simply turn it off if you want, seems unreasonable. For better or worse, the web is becoming a platform for distributing javascript binaries which execute in the browser. Unlike most other platforms, however, at least you can turn it off or view the source or block parts of it if you like.
    - barsonme 12y ago
      Every site should be able to function normally without JS. Granted that doesn't necessarily hold true for web apps, but for regular sites they shouldn't lose functionality because somebody has JS disabled (or doesn't have it at all!)
      - krapp 12y ago
        I agree with you. I have js disabled by default and every time I run up against a site that uses client-side templating I find it incredibly annoying - I understand the rationale behind it but it's still annoying how many things tend to break without javascript. However, you can't design a browser around an expectation of what the web should be like. And anyway, it could be worse. If there were no javascript we would all be complaining about the dominance of VBScript in the browser.
        barsonme 12y ago
        > VBScript shudder JS itself isn't bad, it's the misuse which is bad. Subtle JS use should add _extra_ functionality, not _be_ the functionality. It's funny, I was just having a conversation about JS in freenode #python the other day and we were complaining/discussing the same thing. The worst is when my browser freezes because of some JS that's too over the top.
      - DanBC 12y ago
        I really hope that people start installing and testing against minimal browsers. Modern browsers are fucking huge. Obviously they do very much more than browsers used to, but most of the time I really am just reading text and I don't want a bad designer's idea of novel UI to get in the way. Sadly it seems like hundreds of years of design iteration for the printed word are being weakened.
icebraining 12y ago
Dillo plugins use CSS (see the download manager source) and Firefox addons can use HTML instead of XUL (see the add-on SDK).

Eiriksmal 12y ago

Wow. On FC20, Dillo is 1.4M installed. Chrome 37 is about 200M. Dillo looks to be a more interesting way to test websites' graceful fallbacks than hacking up Chrome or Firefox's settings.

aeflash 12y ago

Too bad nearly every page is broken on it (CSS wise). The only error it detected on my site was that newfangled <doctype html> declaration... The entire layout was jumbled.