3 ms·

There's room for a third browser that is 100% open source, built on desktop technologies (non of this HTML/JS nonsense) that takes privacy to absurd levels. I

There's room for a third browser that is 100% open source, built on desktop technologies (non of this HTML/JS nonsense) that takes privacy to absurd levels. I wonder why one hasn't popped up yet, there are lots of people in the tech industry who would switch in a heart beat. I would still use Chrome for my dev work but the only URL Google would see is localhost.

dominotw 11y ago
>I wonder why one hasn't popped up yet Because all the sites need html/js nonsense ?
- sergiotapia 11y ago
  You misunderstood. I meant browsers built with something like QT or .NET - another other than HTML and JS. See Atom's performance for why it's a bad idea to use web technologies for something that needs performance.
  - lewisl9029 11y ago
    I've rewrote so many similar replies that I think I'll just copy and paste from now on. See here for more context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9813873 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9813873 > See Atom's performance for why it's a bad idea to use web technologies for something that needs performance. This sentiment, that Atom is not performant because it's built on web technologies, gets repeated a lot, but it's provably false. Light Table and VS Code both use the exact same HTML/CSS/JS stack on top of Electron. Both are much more performant than Atom. Whatever performance issues plaguing Atom are more likely caused by flawed architecture and/or lack of optimization. The underlying web technologies it's built on have been demonstrated to be capable of delivering highly performant text editors.
  - NeutronBoy 11y ago
    Part of the reason is that once you write it in QT or .NET, performance might cease to be an issue, but now you have significant issues with platform compatibility and ease of porting.
adventured 11y ago
It's a case where the existing solutions aren't perfect but are plenty good enough, and building a high quality product requires an immense amount of effort and long-term support.

dominotw 11y ago

>I wonder why one hasn't popped up yet Because all the sites need html/js nonsense ?

sergiotapia 11y ago
You misunderstood. I meant browsers built with something like QT or .NET - another other than HTML and JS. See Atom's performance for why it's a bad idea to use web technologies for something that needs performance.
- lewisl9029 11y ago
  I've rewrote so many similar replies that I think I'll just copy and paste from now on. See here for more context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9813873 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9813873 > See Atom's performance for why it's a bad idea to use web technologies for something that needs performance. This sentiment, that Atom is not performant because it's built on web technologies, gets repeated a lot, but it's provably false. Light Table and VS Code both use the exact same HTML/CSS/JS stack on top of Electron. Both are much more performant than Atom. Whatever performance issues plaguing Atom are more likely caused by flawed architecture and/or lack of optimization. The underlying web technologies it's built on have been demonstrated to be capable of delivering highly performant text editors.
- NeutronBoy 11y ago
  Part of the reason is that once you write it in QT or .NET, performance might cease to be an issue, but now you have significant issues with platform compatibility and ease of porting.

adventured 11y ago

It's a case where the existing solutions aren't perfect but are plenty good enough, and building a high quality product requires an immense amount of effort and long-term support.