MOZILLA CAUGHT SELLING USER DATA

>vivaldi.com/source/
Jesus fucking christ.

Web browsers are complete clusterfuck. The technology which was designed for marking up documents has been stretched way beyond what it was ever meant to do and browser developers are in a constant race to the bottom to support more and more broken hipster code to appear more "compatible" than their competitors. It's a miracle anything works at all. Recently I was scratching my head as to why one part of my website was working find in Safari and Chrome, but was hopelessly broken in Firefox. After running it through an evaluator it turned out that my code was not standard compliant, but the two browsers took it just fine. That's bullshit, if it's broken tell me it's broken so I can fix it.

I blame Windows and the fact that it doesn't come with any interpreters or compilers pre-installed. Most Linux distros and macOS come with a bunch of interpreters pre-packaged, like Python, Perl or Ruby. This means someone who wants to learn to code has a proper scripting language they can start with. The only thing close to an interpreter Windows people have out of the box is the web browser with Javascript. So if you want to write an app that runs on everyone's system you have to write it for the web browser, because that's the only interpeter your mom is going to have installed on her laptop.

Web technologies are such a mess that it is now impossible for an individual or a small group to write a browser, you need a big company for that.

Hahahahahaha

Wrong. It's impossible to write one that's bug for bug compatible with the existing ones, but something that's mostly standards compliant is well within reach.

Right, and your mostly standard compliant browser will be incompatible with most of the internet, so no one will use it. Just run a popular website like Amazon through the validator and weep in despair. This is the kind of shit we have ended up with because of tolerant browsers and low standards in hiring.

What we need to do is nuke HTML and Javascript from orbit and just start over. All of the biggest problems with modern websites and browsers stems from the fact that we've been using HTML since 1993 and done nothing but twist and warp and extend and fuck with it because it ultimately was not sufficient for the things people wanted to do.

The foundations of the modern web, and thus web browsers, are weak and shitty -- and you can only pile on more and more stuff before the whole thing collapses.

Assuming downgrade in capabilities is not an option, what would you replace html/js with?

Wow, it's fucking nothing.

Fuck you. Those ads were anonymous and only appeared in the first launch of the browser. They didn't open any new tabs or make the usage worse, disappeared immediately tonshow the most used webpages and could be disabled with a menu.

You're just as retarded as the "muh SJW" autists.

We need a replacement tho. Gopher would work for simple stuff but most people won't be satisfied with that.

And this time we should not fall for a meme like XML. I think some gopher-inspired document format would be the best. That is every line starts with some identifier (0-9,i,h and so on in gopher). Gopher's list isn't quite extensive enough and most of them are deprecated anyways.

Oh great, they TELL me they are shitting on my privacy. How generous of them.

And anonymous ads? I don't give a shit. I don't want any ads polluting my browser.

Go away shill.

...

...

how is it a botnet when it's open-source

show me the line of code

This. It would also be nice to have the ability to use other languages en leiu of Javascript, though I'm not sure how that would be implemented without massive compatibility issues.

bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=786909
github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium

...

The BLOB does nothing else but make voice commands possible as far as I'm aware.

And as another user pointed out, what are people going to use? Waterfox is developed by a pre-puscent teen.

Also, to those who haven't read the article : the point of contention is not with Firefox that most people know (for Desktop).

S-expressions. Why would you ever use more than one character to represent a closing tag?

Wow it's another screaming OP with anti-firefox fud and a blogspam link to ghacks.net. We sure haven't had a hundred of these threads before.

Drink bleach you fucking kike.

Such yellow title.

First, it's a fucking iOS application. iOS users do not deserve to have their privacy respected because they automatically give up their freedom by just using iOS.
LOL

Second, they didn't hide anything, their intentions were written clearly. So, no sneaky shit actually.

Yes. Telemetry is extremely useful for developers, they tell you when and what they are gathering and ask you whether or not you wish to continue.

If you don't, they stop taking telemetry. There's no problem in that.

Then pay Mozilla or build your own browser. They don't have to make a browser that caters 100 % to you, especially when your need is an autistic tantrum since those ads aren't really intrusive.

Some declarative UI descriptions, similar to Android's UI system in semantics, but JSON instead of fucking XML.
For scripting — Python 3 (subset) interpreter running in a hard sandbox. Language features are also severely limited, for example there should be no `eval` or any other features which are of little use for frontend anyway but make obfuscation easier.
Also, scripts can't read anything about the rendered content (no screenshots, no canvas data reading, no access to rendered sizes of UI elements or window sizes, etc). Scripts may only access data about the content (what's the value of text in an element, etc), not the presentation.
Interpreter should be severely restricted in what it can do, on the spec level.
For example, it might not request running itself at arbitrary future time (i.e. things like setTimeout should be completely possible to implement). Only HTTP responses or incoming Websocket frames may trigger script execution.
Also, scripts have a hard limit on execution time, expressed in a number of primitive operations (steps of interpretation made by interpreter). When a script exceeds allowed step count, it's crashed.

so I think it still allows to implement stuff like instant messaging, but leaves no way to implement sneaky shit like mining bitcoins on user machine, etc

That would be a pretty significant downgrade in capabilities.

Look up web beacons and solve that before you start doing pointless shit like this.

Really? Why?

I think the more important thing is to prevent identification of the users using different forms of fingerprinting.

These things are used to fingerprint users so it's necessary.

And I'm not convinced that it would even hurt the capabilities, how many LEGITIMATE things require you to read back whats actually rendered?

Have you reverse engineered it?

Nowhere in the link does it say this.

It just says Firefox put voluntary anonymized analytics in their phone app.

OP is a literal Google shill spreading FUD to get you to switch to Chrome, or some other shitty botnet.

I don't have to pay shit, since there already exist free browsers that are not shoving ads down my throat. Besides, Mozilla prides itself on getting funded by donations (but really gets 99% of its money from anti-privacy search engines), so should be pro-user since they pay for their existence. But instead, they decided to use that money to stick ads into the users' brains. It's a scam and people are realizing that regardless of your shilling.

Is it really a "scandal" to have an opt-out telemetry option in the settings?

It's only voluntary if you are asked if you want it. If it's there by default, it's not voluntary. The "opt-out = voluntary" scam needs to die.

It allows you to get the size of the containing element after all the text has been rendered inside of it. Look at this thread for instance, all the replies are different sizes because of the text/image content.

And if you're moving shit around, you may want to get the position and size of elements. Window size is very useful for the same purpose and detecting how far elements are from off screen and calculating the scroll position etc etc.

Let's say you want to scroll the window down so that X reply in this thread is visible. You'll need to find the distance of the bottom of the post container relative to the bottom of your window.

For a company that pretends to care about privacy and anonymity, absolutely.

It's a shame that words mean so little these days, people can just claim to be all about privacy, then shit on it and it's being justified

Oh and a better example, in order to move the quick reply box without it going off-screen, you'll need to know both the quick reply box size and the window size.

And what is stopping the language from providing such functions? Sounds like these are just hacks to get around the fact that javascript can't be just told to move the window so that it aligns with the top of some element or something like that.

Point is that then scripts would be telling the browser to do X instead of asking for information Y so the script can do X.

Windows comes prepackaged with Visual Basic.

You're going to end up with a bloated eldrich abomination of horrors that puts current javascript to shame if you want to start doing that for every possible situation that could otherwise just be handled by letting the script know the element size.

This was a strange post, it wasn't with dubs to be checked.

HTML and JavaScript indeed should be wiped from existence.

Not everything has to be possible only the most general stuff.

The condition was that you don't remove capabilities.

If we don't remove capabilities there isn't much reason to replace them tho.

Yes, it is. How would you feel if I took a shit behind your couch and when you get upset I tell you could have at any moment told me that shitting behind your couch is not OK? That's stupid, how were you supposed to know that I would be taking a shit behind your couch?

Why do you need to replace the language if all you want is remove capabilities? Other languages are just as if not more powerful.

They got their money from Google searches. Now they get it from Yahoo! searches.

Every time you make a search with Yahoo! they see the user agent and pay Mozilla a little bit of money, that's it. There's no information being sent.

But hey, keep on hatin' Mozilla for no reason. I'm sure those Firefox forks will some day be usable.

Except Firefox literally shows a pop-up that says that they're collecting information, complete with a button to disable telemetry settings, when you run it the first time.

That shouldn't be a problem. See the Tor Browser fork of Firefox, whose whole point is to remove all the tracking and fingerprinting from Firefox. Sure, it would be easier for them if Firefox was already as aggressive about preventing data collection, and Tor team is working with Mozilla do achieve that to at least some extent, but in any case TBB is still a lot better than other browsers.

Tor browser would do better using something else. It's not like they have to care about javascript.

Which browser could they use though? They need something that is completely open-sourced, has a lot of devs maintaining and patching it (same reason why Whonix is based on Debian), and most importantly has a familiar UI for as much people as possible.
They can't use Chrome, and other browsers don't have as many devs or are as retard-proof.

So it's the same as Brave, then

There's only one escape.

The moment you first run it, before that popup can even open, it has already started to send telemetry data. Being able to disable it means almost nothing if you need to send data before it can be disabled.

Those ads exist only for brand new profiles. You see it the first time you load the profile for a total of 2 seconds and you will never see it again because your browsing history will cover it. If you have an active profile, you will never see it at all. What a horror!

Opt out = voluntary. You are illiterate if you don't read what's in front you.

Opt in = voluntary.
Opt out = involuntary, but at least you can voluntarily reverse it, right?

Installing the software is voluntary. Reading what's there in front of you is not forced on you because you chose it.

You're ignoring the fact that most people are tech-retarded. What that's got to do with you? Almost all tech currently is built around that fact, the tech that you yourself use. Opt-out is just another way to exploit the retardation of people and is part of the general attitude. Which is why fighting for opt-in to replace opt-out is important.

presumably a globally unique identifier which is stronger than IP address

who would have thought vague PR-filtered technical listings are not accurate?

Anything that has telemetry should just be considered botnet and cancer. It's a new trend among incompetent developers to rely on crash data and user usage patterns coming from clients to them in real time. They use this to optimize the normalfag use cases and let the browser crash or have terrible performance in absolutely any other case.

cool infos bro. so what does that actually mean, does it send a list of each domain name you've vistited today? or each time you visited a domain name? or each URL you visited?

No fuck you for normalizing opt-out telemetry. Tricking normalfags into botnet is bad for my security too. But yes OP is indeed a faggot for claiming "selling"

palemoon is shit too and getting shittier, for example they recently adopted the "new" firefox download manager, which is slow to open, and downloads often get stuck at 0% and can't be cancelled, then when you restart the browser it will resume them (even if you cleared all history etc)

Time for Holla Forums to create a very simple alternative to WWW.

Requirements:

Hey user, I just took a shit behind your couch. Is it OK if I keep shitting behind your couch?

That information is not used to identify users, only to send information regarding the installation status (fun fact: it doesn't send that on GNU/Linux as it doesn't rely on an executable.)

You can check the source code or the Privacy Policy yourself. None of that is true.

I think windows comes with cl.exe but I'm unsure. I know msdn is a really great resource with lots of free developer tools, even though the windows api isn't that great of a library at times.

Hello MIDF.

How do we still have newfags here? Where do you people come from?

That repo is licensed under 3-clause BSD. However much is contained in there is FOSS; unless of course it's only part of the source and some other part is proprietary (like most Chromium-based browsers) or it fetches some proprietary code or binary blobs during compilation/post install.
That said, I still wouldn't use Vivaldi myself even if it was 100% FOSS. Chromium and the browsers based on it are far too massive to ever really be sure how free they are considering things like how Chromium fetching proprietary blobs slipped into Debian so easily, and it still most likely has google botnet crammed inside of it anyway.

Hate Mozilla and Chromium... what do?

This is only "useful" because you're thinking in an imperative mindset. In a declarative app you'd specify that there is a window with fields for name, email, subject, and the comment, then the browser decides the best way to accomplish that. Rather then telling the browser how to do something, you just tell it what to do. This is how html was originally supposed to work, before javascript, "muh pixel perfect" plebs, the browser wars, and retarded perl-addled webdevs came along.

"Most people" today just don't care about privacy. Some of them may act shocked when some news like this surfaces, but the fact that they continue to use mozilla, google, and microsoft products as their primary browser and/or OS shows they don't actually care.

Fuck those developers. If they're not smart enough to debug their own shit without botnet, then they're incompetent.

They don't understand the need for privacy, because they're using one of those browsers to share the most intimate parts of their life on some social media site.

I'm glad he's working on things that are much more important, like wallpapers for KDE.

Please look up what the actual definition of open source is, or properly read what the FSF has to say about open source. Open source software that's not free software exists, but it's extremely rare and mostly because of different judgements by the OSI and the FSF and not because of the different requirements. Open source has a fairly strict list of requirements that is in fact adapted from the Debian Free Software Guidelines, which the FSF approves of since they approve of the Debian main repository, which those guidelines are strictly applied to.

opensource.org/osd-annotated
gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html (pay attention to "The two terms describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for views based on fundamentally different values")

Open Watcom is the only license I know of that is open source, but proprietary. Except for Watcom, nobody uses it. There are also some complications involving tivoization, but that doesn't apply here.

99.999% of web "apps" boil down entirely to a CRUD GUI for one or more databases, with any document-like characteristics confined to what are essentially Db records.

The typical "app" part should be an actual standardized database client API, that could display using anything from the client OS's native WIMP toolkit (using some kind of standardized abstraction, like Qt or wxWidgets), clear down to direct interfaces for CLI scripting or full-custom native clients.

Any "document" parts should be in a format with clear separation of content and presentation like pure HTML/CSS were supposed to be, but ideally something intended primarily for stable machine/GUI generation/editing instead of being supposedly "human readable", like FrameMaker.

Ideally, there would also be a full RAD suite included, using the same standardized interfaces. Basically, the web never should've existed separately from OpenStep. Bring it back Apple, you have the power!

THIS! Anyone else remember the foggy, ancient days of newsgroup, file transfer, mail, chat, and streaming clients that were just normal desktop programs connecting to open standards, behaving the way the programmers and users wanted them to, instead of being squeezed inside one giant window that only acts the way the service provider dictates?

I'm actually fine with telemetry, so long as users/other devs can see if what's being transmitted is sufficiently anonymized.

What's stopping you from reading WWW without CSS or JS? You just have to disable styling and Javascript and everything will be text or blank because the website's designed to be defective.

I just wanted to say nearly the same but you did it for me. Thank you

When I proposed an "UI" system for web, of course that means well defined layout algorithms, which allow to do these kinds of things declaratively. And scripts don't have any fucking business seeing the rendered results.

all of this is not business for scripts.
it should be implemented in UI system, with well defined behavior and impossible for web devs to fuck with.

They are equally important.

If either is missing, nobody is just going to accept it as replacement for the current botnet-web.

Also, the most worrisome thing is…
think about this: is the new impossible-to-fuck-with-users web standard profitable for big brothers like (((Google))) and (((Apple)))?
If they don't support it in their browsers eventually and their browsers do not vanish from market, it'll be almost impossible to move to any new standard. Because normies are okay with being cucked by corporations.

Have you ever tried this? I can tell you from experience (because I'm always using Links or Lynx) that most file-sharing sites now break compeletely if you don't have JS. And yet, uploading or downloading a file is something that was easily done in pure HTML 3 (I even wrote CGI script to do that stuff, many years ago).

You mean PHP and later stuff. Perl/CGI was mostly used with simple HTML, before even CSS was popular. I kept using it for many years though, since later languages were crap (PHP didn't even have exception handling for a very long time).
Anyway I don't do web dev anymore, glad about that too.

They won't ever support something that doesn't give them leverage and control. Forget about their support, it'll be easier to just make an alternative corportate-free web (or gopher-like system, or whatever).

Why would I ever read a privacy policy? I expect my software to just be secure (i.e not leak info to third party). I don't think any of the software I use even has a privacy policy (except maybe palememe). Telemetry is not a problem in it self. In theory, I could just turn it off, but it's a red flag indicating poorly built software. Why would I read the source code of some program which I just discovered the existence of today? I was mocking the "news" article for not giving any real info, which you haven't provided either, so I'm still assuming it at least leaks the domain names of the sites you visited (what else could "server connections" mean?).

Firefox was caught sending data to Google in 2013/14

I stopped trusting them then.

It's a chinese dataminer, fuckoff shill.

Oddly enough, most software I use doesn't have a "privacy policy" and when there is one, it raises some suspicion (what are they trying to hide behind all this legal mumbo-jumbo?)
And "anonymous" telemetry might sound harmless, but keep in mind that they do have your IP and browser fingerprint, and can easily correlate it with various information from ad networks and services like google analytics, to build an extensive profile about every user. How do you know they're not already doing this? Well, you don't, unless you actually work for them and can verify it with your own eyes. And even *if* they're actually honest for once, that too can change in the future. Or their network/database can be hacked by another entity. Or maybe their system can be subverted in a MITM attack to also send all info elsewhere.
My point is: you should be much less trusting, given the sad state of privacy in this day and age.

Explain? I thought it was developed by ex-Opera people.

vivaldi.com/story/?lang=en

Serious question: Why should any of this matter when they easily allow you to turn off all data collection features? Plebs don't matter. If you're serious about privacy, they atleast give the opportunity to remain anonymous. Lastly, all major browsers have tracker features enabled by default.

What makes you think they allow you to turn off all data collection? Just because some things are visible in their GUI settings dialogs?
And what makes you think that screwing everybody else will somehow stop them from eventually screwing you too? Isn't this the usual way things go now?

File sharing sites use JS because they don't want robots leeching from them. JS along with Captcha represent a massive hurdle for robots and that's why they're used. If is was the will of the site owners, they can design their sites to use no Javascript and pure HTML to deal with the uploading and downloading of files but they decided to have some projection from robots.

You should read the software of something you use so that you can prove it does what it claims to do. Without hard proof, you're implicitly trusting the claim of the distributor who do not necessarily have your best interests as their interest.

...

It's a programming platform for interacting with web pages. I don't believe that using PhantomJS makes it any easier to write robots that will successfully challenge the robot test.

Previous post made it sound like file sharing sites use JS-only zero-accessibility pages to mitigate bots, this is nonsense.

As for old-style captchas, there's captcha-solver services. In fact, I don't see how me using those and jDownloader doesn't count as a "bot".

phones are one step away from being RFID chips, you retarded normalfags. the only difference is that you don't shove the damn phone under your skin.

if you don't want to be tracked, use a PC, with encrypted hard drives and proxies/TOR for internet browsing.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V8_(JavaScript_engine)
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chakra_(JScript_engine)
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpiderMonkey

Once again, Holla Forums larps and looks like complete idiots.

I've thought about this, too, but given that FF is open sores, I no longer consider this to be much of a possibility. As for your other point, as much as we have a general dislike of data collection, if Mozilla needs the money just to keep operating, so be it. What matters most is their transparency. As long as they don't get too greedy, I seriously doubt Mozilla will forget their position as a preferred browser of choice for the privacy aware. If they ever start becoming too greedy, there'll simply be a major exodus to something else.

We all know they're separate but I've yet to see a Gecko + V8, Blink + *Monkey, etc.

AFAIK MS made Node run on Chakra or something so it should be possible...

Next time use an archive link for your fucking clickbait.

Heartbleed was there for like two years before being discovered. It's still possible.

wew it's literally nothing

SEND KEN YOUR ENERGY AND SUMMON HIM WITH BLOGPOST BACKLINKS

the whole file-sharing site fad sucks though. All that bloat and web apps just to download a file? I only use those things as a last resort. In the old days, we just traded files via IRC bots and various FTP servers. That was a whole lot easier to deal with, and worked fine even over a dialup connection to a Unix shell account.
Now I try to get most of my files via archive.org and other places that are relatively easy to download from. Since I mostly only care about old computer systems and other old stuff, this works pretty good.

...

Well, somebody has to pay the server costs, and currently it is ads. If your file is popular there's a torrent, if it's personal you probably have your own server(s) anyway, and if it's an user thing you use something like cuntflaps.me

So, for a good start we need:

• Specification for FreeWeb 1.0 (Declarative UI system, and let's not bother with scripts at this point)
• Reference implementation of FreeWeb-compatible browser in a memory-safe language

HTTP (as a protocol) could work fine, so there's no need to develop new server software (except maybe some templating engine). We only redefine the markup and (later) client side scripting, which would be really limited to prevent abuse, but it shouldn't be a problem because UI engine should be very expressive.

Who wants to become a part of the FreeWeb committee?
We might start with a cock.li mailing list, discuss some shit, then maybe something will work out

IRC bots are still a thing, at least when it comes to anime and manga fan translations.

Let's not bother with anyone using it then. Only paranoid autists use NoScript.

So you want to implement everything at once?
If you read carefully you'd see that scripts are not that necessary when UI declaration is more powerful. A lot of usual things can be done without custom scripts.
Also,
why don't you just accept the current web as it is and don't bother discussing alternatives? Of course they are for those who are dissatisfied with the current HTML+JS clusterfuck.

Then just use HTML+CSS, pre-processed as Jade+Less or whatever. Just make something that "compiles" to HTML+CSS and be done with it.

Also, script with whatever you want, any language compiles to JS now. Anything you want to do can be done right now.

PEOPLE WHO BUY IPHONES DESERVE WHAT THEY GET

The problem is not with developing websites. This is fairly easy to somehow generate a pile of HTML+CSS+JS crap any way you like.

The problem is preventing their developers from fucking with users.

javascript as we know it is very hostile to users and it's not possible to fix it without breaking everything and even this would be harder than just do a properly designed frontend technology from scratch.

Install icecat.

Total bullshit. Your utopian future doesn't have any modern feature and every website is static pages.

I want client-side databases. I want drag&drop upload. I want AJAX, I want WebGL and raytracers and captcha-solving neural networks running in a userscript. I don't want every website to look like Holla Forums (and even this has a whole lot of JS frankly).

Do I want to be tracked and spied upon? No! But I don't want a web made of glorified PDFs either.

Shit, good point.

Do you believe that heartbleed was intentionally inserted and kept hidden in plain sight?

There's also the option that the letter soup agencies just know about enough bugs as to not need to insert them themselves. Like audit teams hired to find exploits in popular open source projects and keep them under secret.

I've been playing with WebGL. Its great. I've been able to bring in models and apply textures... I'm going to try and setup Miku Miku Dance with WebGL as soon as I get a chance.

That's true,

The people who currently run Opera are the chinese dataminers.

shieeeeeet

what browser do i use now

Read the thread faggot, it doesn't affect desktop Firefox.

that's your personal autism

all other things are possible to do with very limited client side scripting.
drag&drop upload won't require any scripting.

You want something that's never going to exist. The more complicated something is, the more exploitable. If you haven't recognized this pattern by now, you're not paying attention (or maybe you're just dumb).
I don't even like CSS, because it's overly complicated. Something like plain old HTML 3 would be alright. Anyway I find even old geocities crap sites better-looking than "slick" modern shit that are just complicated polished turds that need bloated-ass browser full of exploits to view. Fuck that bullshit, even Gopher is nicer.

This is very likely actually. The problem with audits is that they cost money, so they are not done frequently... unless you're a governmental agency that can get loads of money from taxpayers.

Not that user, but all the recent changes have done wonders on my machine. It actually runs on an old Acer netbook nicely, even without atom support.

Also running will on a regular desktop, I don't get massive memory leaks anymore like Chrome/Firefox do.

I don't get this problem with the download manager, can you tell me the steps to reproduce this?

That's exactly what I wanted to do with WebGL... that, and rendering this dank MoonMan in real time.

We don't know what people will build in the future. Web languages should enable anything. If you want to build something that involves neural networks, no CommieScript should get in your way.

This is why CSS sucks - why do you want a parent selector? Just a child selector should suffice! More than :before and :after? You're asking too much, comrade!

All the things I mentioned exist, including the captcha-solving neural network in a bookmarklet (was for Megaupload though). What I want is what Javascript is, quirky and fun, even if often ugly, but you can make it yours. What you want is the Apple of scripting languages. Elegant, fast, simple, and "you better like it the way it is".

No. Fuck that. Client side scripting is one gigantic performance exploding, security destroying blob of cancer. Web languages should enable a good interface with servers for interactive documents. You want more? Either do it server side or use another protocol and stop trying to cram everything and the kitchen sink through HTTP.

Install Lynx problem solved.

So people will install a Java plugin, a Flash plugin, a Unity plugin, etc., and then your CommieScript will go back to what JS is doing here and now.

Unless you forbid them from installing plugins, then they will use another browser. Because their friends will be using the cool new app that your perfect-by-design language didn't account for.

Just come to terms with the fact that we won't get anything better than JS in at least a decade or two, and try to work around that with an actual plan. In fact, JS improved and will keep improving, so maybe add even another decade there.

WIth the advent of HTML5 video and the existence of, y'know, actual programs aside from the web browser there is no reason for such things to exist.

You laugh, but that's exactly what I'm going to do when I get around to making my own web browser. And fuckers will still use it because it'll Just Werk(tm) instead of being a bloated crashing pile of shit.

HTML 5 is kinda bloated too. Why have video in the browser? That's just stupid, since you already have mplayer or other similar program installed.
The old way was to just offload non-HTML stuff to a separate program via file type associations. This is old as dirt (well email anyway, see: MIME) and worked fine even on 90's consumer hardware. But now they keep bloating up the HTML standard, the browsers, and everything. And the end result: you need beefier hardware, GPU support (sometimes a problem in open-source OS, since various chips have to be revers-engineered), and overall a lot bigger codebase -> more bugs & exploits.

So what? Normies already have the current web. The new tech is only for those who value their freedom.

If you want your OS player to execute the movies in the web page, you can still do that in today's web browsers. There's nothing that says you have to use the one provided with the web browser.

You don't need "new technology" for this. Literally just make a website that doesn't have javascript or whatever.

Nobody is going to move to your special snowflake browser to make a website that they could make for the normal web an NOT exclude themselves from 99.9999% of the internet and it's users.

No, it's not stupid, because it's less fingerprintable and more secure for everyone to use the same limited player that the browser provides than to use programs installed on your system which probably have a bigger attack vector due to having more features.

I think Lua or Guile would be better for this task.

Better way would be to do dynamic throttling. A script can perform X primitive operations in Y time, after that its performance is throttled until it stops doing so many operations one after another. Basically analogous to CPU governors, but based on primitive script operations.

Didn't you want to get rid of HTML/JS/CSS?

...which have existed since long before the web.

Because now you can.

Yeah, I know that. So there's no point in having a big ass browser and bloated HTML 5 standard.
I realize the fad is to put everything in the browser, but it's retarded. It's less efficient and causes more problems in the long run.

Look there's a bridge over there. Go jump off it, just because you can...

...

...

The argument is very simple: make browsers less powerful and you'll just shift more and more normies into closed apps coded in much worse shit (like Java). Your future looks just like now but without "view source", without central accountability for app vendor's security (since they won't be sandboxed in a browser), and with none of the current problems solved.

Having browsers enhances the security by having just ONE moving target. Apps won't be better in any way and worse in many.

They do, because whatever fancy tech you want has to be used by more than 0.0001% of the population to be profitable to develop.

That was a different user. I see no major issues with HTML/CSS and merely wish for a significant reduction in pointless cancerous javascript and javascript app bullshit.

Except it does. Windows script thing for javascript, vbscript, and the combined files. Power shell is default installed I think which means there is that plus some c# and maybe other .net compilers included.

The biggest problem I see is windows doesn't come with any local help files so it doesn't really matter what they include. Alot of linux distributions are like this too now so its not much better for that. Including a reference manual should be standard for everything.

pressing ctrl+shift+y to open downloads shows some slow ass dialog box which you can see buttons appear on as it renders because that's how fucking slow it is

>go to oxwugzccvk3dk6tj.onion/b
it's not happening right now. maybe only when the .onion is slow

That is perfectly attainable - just show people the virtues of not using Javascript in a convincing manner.

Come to think about it, old MSIE (5/6) used to allow you to write website code in vbscript. I think that's a terrible idea though.

Come on, that's inconsequential.

Are you sure that isn't some kind of plugin you're using?

lua doesn't have integers afair
scheme is too hard for normies

the problem is that nobody else would do their websites clean from js mess. and browsing with js disabled by default won't be comfy

Who gives a god damn what other people are doing with their websites? Make your site useful and people will use it. Make your site a copypasted material design scriptfest with floating auto-resizing fucking banners and textless buttons with idiocracy-styled icons that everybody is supposed to be able to press with a fat finger on a phone and people will forget about it.

Uh huh, and having a special browser/language that has less capabilities and that nobody uses would surely motivate them more?

There's no point to JS at all on 99.9% of all websites, they use it only to makes things "fancy" and "cool" and horribly broken. JS is useful only on websites that are either media platforms (e.g. youtube, soundcloud), or communication platforms (e.g. twitter, imageboards) where in-place updating of content is essential.

If they fix one single thing in HTML (preferable in HTML 4 (screw HTML5)), then I see absolutely no use for JS.

They need to fix iframes to be able to have dynamic size, especially height. So that you can do embedded content with , without dual scrollbars or cut-off content.

And when was the last time it has been the case? I am tempted to not hold until your reply and call you a fucking faggot.

"view source" is just a glorified disassembler these days.

What you (and I) want there is , but Hixie is a cunt and took it out of the HTML spec so nobody gets to have it.

This thread is now under a thread tax.

ONE (1) SATOSHI must be paid by each poster for each post, and each viewer of this thread.

Settlement of this debt is on the honor system. Thank you for your cooperation.

anons i hackzd the bitcoin network and traced this faggot address and he's some fat lazy kike sitting on a buttplug in tel aviv. i see through his webcam now. do not donate.

What do you mean, go... friend?

What's wrong with html5?

It's new, so it's bad. In the Good Old Days(tm) we used Delphi 7, VB6, and no fancy-pants CSS3 and ES6, all those and stuff were put there because of the Illuminati, to track you all across the flat earth. Wake up sheeple!

how exactly and track users?
(remember, we are speaking about HTML without JS)

proprietary crap

HTML5 has built-in DRM. That's why it's bad.

Come home,white man!

Don't use the DRM. Problem solved.

If this inheritance of the white man, I don't want to be white anymore.

HTML5 isn't that bad, but CSS3 is all sorts of retarded. You see, back in our days, HTML, a tree-structured document, defined data and layout (the order you put your data in the website defined the order in which it would be rendered. CSS, a braindead simple language with no syntax-level real hierarchy, was used only for style stuff, such as colors and the likes. However, now HTML is just for data, and CSS is used for style AND layout, despite being a fucking horrible language for those purposes.

HTML has improved since then. More tags allow for more readable code, and despite still being the same stupidly designed language, at least it has managed to keep its spirit without becoming even worse after all these years. CSS3, not so much. In addition to its retarded syntax (we should have made SASS the standard long ago), we added a thousand tags, that use different naming schemes, that are aufficiently obscure not to understand what they do by looking at them despite being verbose, that depend on tags defined earlier on to a parent HTML tag, which CSS definition may be in any file in any part of the file, with several different tags solving the same problem in subtly different ways, with each browser prefixing these tags with their own brands for no fucking reason, and despite having a thousand tags, it still can't fucking bother to put a dedicated center tag and instead you require a lateral margin 0 hack. It's so fucking obtuse people have had to make several frameworks and languages to make dealing with this bullshit more palatable, and despite this, it's still utter fucking garbage. CSS3 was a mistake, and I fucking hope some day the W3C fucking realices it and tries to fix this by, at least, separating concerns of layout and style in different languages, and maybe deprecating half of the tags, but I know this won't happen.

Other reasons why HTML itself sucks is that input fields are scattered all over the place. A sane person would deduce all input fields are described using the tag and then its behaviour would be defined using the type attribute, right? Well, whoever made HTML was batshit insane, because somehow textareas are not an despite being pretty much the same as text input fields. Select menus are also somehow not an input type despite radio buttons being inputs and being virtually the same. But hey, motherfucking buttons can be as well, but they can also be so whatever.

tl;dr HTML5 sucks, and it sucks harder than it did a few versions ago. It's an inconsistent mess, and I can't fucking wait to get a less frustrating job and I am not even frontend

You forgot

I like HTML5 and CSS3 a lot more than what I was required to do in 2000 with Internet Explorer and the web technologies of that time.

I don't understand all this shitting on Mozilla, at least not from a technical point. They are the only major browser trying to actually improve shit:
wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Tor_Uplift

Law of triviality: bikeshedding. Users only understand the UI. They don't understand what it takes to develop the real value of Firefox which is the Gecko rendering engine and Javascript engine. Users do not understand that free software means users are responsible for your own software which means taking the time to study and write the source code.

Removing their entire plugin framework isn't just "the UI".

They're overhauling the plugin framework in order to improve security by containing each web page into its own sandbox. The new plugin system reduces the control a plugin has over Firefox which improves the security.

IDGF, mozzila can still selling my spoofed data.

You sound like you're too retarded to understand the meaning of the word.

Wow, yeah, Gecko, who cares about the horrifically retardified Chrome-knockoff frontend, Gecko is what matters! Wait, what's that? Mozilla hasn't supported embedding Gecko since the Firefox 3.6 era, chaining Gecko to its retarded uniplatform perversion? AND Mozilla canceled every other piece of software spun off from Communicator, except their inane browser-based Linux frontend that nobody cares about?

Well then, what IS the point of Mozilla, other than diverting a steady trickle of GoogleYahoo referralbux into the vaginas of some paper pushers while ignoring the contributers who once upon a time wrote decent-ish software?

i dont use any plugins. it happens with or without JS disabled. it happened like 50 times yesterday and this morning. also 10 minutes ago palememe randomly closed its window and i had to pkill palemoon in order to start it again. this is an old bug from like 20 versions ago in firefucks, which was probably unintentionally fixed at some point. good luck getting palememe devs to ever find that and fix it. all the bugs ive mentioned so far happened on my previous gentoo install and this fresh one im using right now.

fuck off morons. every sandboxing, security, and privacy type thing browser vendors come up with is utter trash because the web could never hope to achieve any of the 3 in the first place. the web is a shitty little product of a capitalist society. it's like some cheap tupperware that warps and you constantly cut yourself on, and contains weird chemicals that give you weird diseases. you can't explain this shit. anyone who takes the web seriously is fucking retarded and out of touch.

imagine if someone put together a trivial ad-hoc protocol to serve PDF or SWF files (both garbage formats with garbage implementations) overnight and made it so you can click on a link within one to visit some other server serving another document, and called that the web, and then masses of corporate morons who haven't the slightest clue what they're doing started cargo culting together banking applications on top of that. *that* is how shit the web is.

all i expect from the web is netscape era documents that you can browse, and the occasional post form to implement a shitty little site with no reliable security or authentication (like this one). unfortunately, you can't even do *that* anymore.

every time you morons say "security", i'm like oh fuck what bullshit am i going to have to put up with now because some asshole's making a PR move or he actually believes his bullshit will fix anything. just look at gmail (locks you out of your account whenever it feels like it because uber complex security model instead of a mere password field) or cuckflare (blocks people from viewing 50% of the web based on IP).

you dont understand. fuckholes like mozilla and google aren't doing anything what so ever for open communication medium. you dont just develop more and more trendy bullshit and shove your standards and products onto the pile. we really need to start from scratch. you cant even write international text today without some massive fucking pile of shit that is unicode (im not vouching for the previous solutions, unicode truly is garbage). forget the web at all

I'm glad I jumped ship years ago

...

You're the minority and most people support and enjoy the way the web is now which is currently cucked and fucked.

No one really cares how their car works if it gets them around just like no one cares how much of a disaster the web and it's Frankenstein browsers are as long as they can shitpost and upload pics to their [various account here.] We're all fucked thanks to normalization and catering to the lowest common denominator. Look at what mobile has done to the web and it's only getting worse.

They're not so happy when they have to upgrade their computer becausa the Internet has become slow.

Why are you even bitching about not having a good browser then if you're not taking it seriously?
I truly wish I could, but I can't because it's now everywhere in our lives and you can't escape from it. It will be even worse once IoT becomes more common. So the only choice we have is to prepare for the war against more bullshit coming.

You don't have to buy the products or turn on your route.! Stop yourself junkie!

Something designed from scratch for exactly this purpose.

Firefox pisses me off with it's incremental memory hogging. If go into a webm thread and watch in-browser, then suddenly firefox's memory usage is off the fucking charts, and it gets slower and slower as it tries to free up a little bit of memory for new shit and when the auto-update on a thread runs the entirety of firefox freezes because OH FUCK A FEW EXTRA BYTES OF INFORMATION ADDED TO THE PAGE MY ASSHOLE CAN'T TAKE THE STRAAAIN
I would be using w3m exclusively if I could get it to format threads to look decent, also I miss the post links with hover display.

Firefox is free software. This is means you're always free to improve it. All I see is whining for programming work that you haven't invested in. Your entitlement belongs to work you've invested into. When you invest nothing, you will get what other people have chosen to invest. This is the nature of free software: go fix it if you don't like it.

This is the way of convenience. There is no other way around it. I bet the exact same thing would happen with Chrome and any other browser with Webm support.

How would it look different?

Serious question: How many of the stupid decisions of Mozilla's we've been complaining about were actually made by the individual hackers that wrote the Firefox we fondly remember?

Very few. Again, individual hackers contribute a small fraction of what is currently Firefox. The Mozilla employees contribute the majority of the codebase so it is Mozilla's vision that is followed for Firefox. Free software means you have full permission to take Firefox into a different direction to Mozilla.

All I see are (former) Firefox users just talking shit about Mozilla's direction and effort for Firefox. What I don't see is investment into forking Firefox into their own image. It's all talk and no action by a noisy collection of entitled shit posters. I have respect for Palemoon because that team is investing that effort. This is the same respect for all other people who invest into doing real development work.

board.perfectdark.ru

You know what they say about putting lipstick on a pig?

Vivaldi exists, there's no point to firefox or its forks.

Vivaldi is non-free software so I could never support it. I can support Chromium as it is free.

why would I trust it?

free as in "I let them spy on me for free"

oh really?

Chromium is free software under a permissive license.

chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git/ /master/LICENSE

I don't believe Chromium spies on its users. Assuming that it did, the free nature of Chromium means that I am allowed to modify it to stop this spying behavior.

And you wouldn't modify it anyway.

Good software > "free" software

...

you're throwing some horse shit here.
do you even know what is free software? that is, the 4 essential freedoms?
now look at chromium again and check them. did you notice something?

It wouldn't be as bad if I could actually clear the cache, if I go to preferences and try to empty the cache manually, it doesn't fucking work. I don't know what happened that fucking broke that, but now the only way to clear the cache is to just restart firefox.

Tolerance confirmed as cancer yet again.

Except the faggots in charge will refuse to take your improvements since they do not fit their vision of the Great Poz Browser™. The best you can do is fork, at which point you're on your own in keeping up with the shit the web throws up at you.

This can't be done as a one man project. We'd have to gang up to continue development, set up the necessary infrastructure and organise ourselves - at which point we're open to the exact kind of infiltration and hijacking that wrecked Mozilla in the first place.

I'm not quite certain what you're referring to. I know that Chromium is free software because
0) I am allowed to run my copy of Chromium as I please
1) I am allowed to tinker with the source code to every part of my copy of Chromium
2) I am allowed to convey verbatim (non-modified) copies of Chromium that I possess
3) I am allowed to convey modifications of Chromium that I have chosen to do

chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git/ /master
The source code to all parts of Chromium are right there. The right to use and distribute copies are granted by the license that was linked earlier. I don't understand why Chromium isn't free software if all the requirements of free software are exhibited in Chromium.

Free software isn't inherently a panacea of perfect software. The only thing that is guaranteed is the right to improve free software to our own will. Software development is inherently a heavy mental burden - you don't plant software in the ground and wait six months for it to blossom. Somebody has to take the time to read the software, consider all the relevant knowledge in order to write new software logic. This is a long and expensive process. This is inherently the cost of all software development.

If you aren't willing to invest yourself into the improvement of the software that you use in your computer, then you should not feel entitled to direct how other people are investing into the software they have written.

Chromium =/= Chrome, faggot

I suspect the same faggots who usurped Mozilla (then suddenly exploits, Pocket, etc) will come down hard on any successful fork.

FireFux got popular solely because they were an alternative Internet Exploitive, in which the MS devs never gave any features around that time because lol monopoly. Then around 2014 funky shit happened that pushed out the Mozilla CEO over some shitty SJW-tier public image-psyop, followed by exploits galore which directly fucked the TOR browser. Top it off they added that shit proprietary add-on Pocket which sends calls to a server. Now we live in a world where you can choose to be AIDs, cancer, or nigger-skinned.

Pale moon is the only alternative I can think of for this.

No, that's not how forks work.

Chromium has binary blobs too.

Maybe not, but you can come extremely close. For instance, in the PPC Macintosh community, Cameron Kaiser writes a 99% one-man fork of Firefox that has:

I am, but I also realize my limitations. Large projects require large teams, and large teams bring with them politics and associated bullshit.

The problem is that those other people already managed to make great software by forming a meritocratic culture. Then some faggots came, infiltrated and subverted the original group to suit their agenda and destroyed the software in the process. Years of work (not only technical but also organizational) have been wrecked, and we're back at square one without a decent browser.

Even if some other project picks up the slack and gives Pozilla a run for its money (I have great hopes for Pale Moon), what's stopping it from eventually succumbing to the same kind of subversion once it starts getting popular?

This.

For optional features. You can build it blob-free if you wish.

Both of these don't seem like big problems to me but at least stay consistent when you complain about something.

Where are those ads? I don't see shit. But you can bet your house that if that happens, I will drop Vivaldi just as fast as I dropped firesucks.

have you looked at your bookmarks? Back when I used vivaldi there were a shit ton of pages I didn't know neither bookmarked

Still a shit browser though.

I guess those could be considered ads if you really stretched the definition. But I think they just added some popular websites.

To me it's pretty close to ads. I mean it's the same stretch of the definition you make when you say that Firefox includes ads in new tab.

I guess, but it's about 2 clicks to delete all of the "popular website" bookmarks.
t. vivaldi user

So what does Holla Forums think of seamonkey? I'm willing to jump ship from firefox to seamonkey. I don't really like Palemoon much right now and am waiting for it to mature better for giving it a chance.

I used to use seamonkey, and the biggest problem I had with it was the amount of memory it consumed.
Otherwise, it's fantastic if you can fight with Mozilla's addon page to get everything installed right.

palemoon fucked up by removing the dev toolbar thereby requiring a fucking extension to take a screenshot. I'm pretty pissed about it.

That's how valley culture works.

Brave's actually pretty good on the privacy front. Stats are stored client-side and the bitcoin payment amounts are also computed client-side.

My primary beef with it at the moment is that it's still not stable enough for day-to-day use (in my experience). However, it does seem like the most "progressive" semi-mainstream browser at the moment. I'm hoping it eventually integrates IPFS (when that becomes a bit more stable).

Brendan Eich did nothing wrong.

Should read the adjust company page. This should be a reminder you are a cuck if you use mobile

Same as you can easily remove the ads from new tab in firefox.

The ads are only for brand new profiles. As soon as you start clicking links for longer than 2 minutes on a brand new profile, you will generate enough of a browser history to push away the ads. I never had a brand new profile for more than 10 years and I've never seen those ads in my Firefox.

Brave is just another Konqueror/Webkit/Blink shell, like Chromium.

Mozillafags BTFO

that's what webassembly will do

daily reminder everything good is made by geeks then the faggot sjw move in to rape its glory and destroy it. meanwhile the original creators long moved on to create other good things. faggot sjw are like fungus

so...why don't we create a new browser

You mean like Netsurf? Or Chromium? Or Servo?
Don't want what Mozilla gives you? Fuck off and write the code.

The fuck is wrong with you tards

It's still available as an official extension:
addons.palemoon.org/extensions/devtools/