I've been thinking

I've been thinking,
if even big corps can't create a good browser how is it possible for anyone to make a good browser?
Are good browsers literally impossible by now?

Other urls found in this thread:

boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/205059/mansions-madness-second-edition
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

The same can be said for all software ever made really

Fiber showed promise. It was going to be modular. Just about everything would be a plugin.

Too bad it was vaporware.

define a good browser

posting my gf's desktop

Dumb browser-tan poster. The flaw in your logic is assuming that big corps *want* to create a good browser.


Fuck off.

You need to think a little more like a corporation.

- How would my corporation benefit from making a good browser?

If you find a good answer that starts with Yes for that question, you might be able to save us all.

Fake and gay. It's your desktop.

Is that an SJW or anti-SJW comic? I can't tell. It certainly cares a lot, so can't be sitting on the fence, but it looks as if it was.

kinda neither?

its showing that people who are going to troll dont give a fuck about your "highground" or how correct you are, they're still going to troll.

however it does imply anti-sjw by showing how poorly sjws react.

Pooh, that's not honey! You're eating Capitalist Ideology!

is that a pepe?

I don't know guys...chrome-tan is the cutest in that picture. Should i use chrome???

You need a financial incentive to survive.
Any piece of good open source software out there (that isn't a trivial, small utility) got there with donations and commits from companies that use such software (e.g., Google making contributions to Linux kernel).

I have no problem with this, a good web browser could be kept under development via Patreon-like donations.

Why do you people keep insisting liberal faggots are left wing?
That "me generation" shit, that identity politics thing, that's all right wing.
"Need a financial incentive" maybe you do, you lazy amoral piece of shit.

Nice try.
If you're not paid, you only develop features you care about. Everybody is like this, you, me, anybody else. If doing something is a chore, you have to get paid.

Whatever it is that makes you a living (assuming you work), would you do that for free?

fuck off ledditor

i've not heard that name for years

...

...

I'd use it but images are buggy on st.

Oldest browser still developed. What are you gonna do now?

You are the problem. You do not want to pay the cost of software development so you rely on others who will pay the cost. If you want to fix the problem, start hiring programmers to write your browser for you.

...

m8, even if qute is a lot better than the usual suspects, it's still a Qt/Python/Webkit(or Webengine) abomination.

I guess the problem he's describing is that why are we so worried with making huge bloated browser programs when a simple web1.0 design philosophy for websites would avoid the unnecessary bloat. I would pay money for a good browser if it existed, but it doesn't. I don't know if its not financially feasible to do so, as in not enough people would pay for a browser, but the problem the OP described is real.

...B..but muh communist morality means other people should do it for free! Why do they want money for doing what I want them to? Greedy bastards!

It's funny that they've trained you like a fucking dog.
Instead of having a private owner of a mine, who is maximizing profit and minimizing liability, so he can give people just enough to eat and work in the mine, people would mine because they need the materials for a project.
So, say the metal makes planes and space rockets. Instead of those things being something the miner has to save up for, or possibly never ever have access to, we all give equal time to the mine, instead of a bunch of us working ourselves to death to keep rich men out of the mines.
This isn't working for free though, everyone gives some time to it, and so everyone gets full access to the planes and rockets. Conditions of mine work improve, because we aren't maximizing profit, we are getting metal for actual uses. We aren't inventing uses for the material to keep the owner rich.
That's the whole thing. You don't need a market and you don't need money.
Everyone works equally, everyone uses the products equally.
No man camps on land or resources in order to extract rent or control goods so that he can extract as much money as possible for them.

Capitalism is a complete wank. You struggle for scraps and can't even see how far you are from the top of the pyramid scheme.

No one works for free. In fact, they'd get a lot more out of their surplus value and have a lot more time for other things if they weren't terrified of homelessness and starvation in a world full of land and resources.
We wouldn't be throwing out food by the ton because it didn't sell for the price the owner wanted out of it. It would feed people instead.

That's the problem with you idiots, you're so steeped in the ideology you actually think money is anything but a shackle.

...

The web changes too much to be able to develop anything to compete with it. Eventually you either shit all over your source trying to keep up with a new feature, or every thing breaks because you can't catch up fast enough.

You could, however, develop a browser that targeted a specific set of features, like the features required to browse an image board.

It's all about the apps now. If it wasn't for 3rd worlders the web versions of everything would hace died in an instant.

What's wrong with Qutebrowser? I've been using it for over a year. It faithfully displays most websites no problem and comes with a built-in ad blocker. Its minimalist interface doesn't take up any screen space, and it's completely keyboard driven. I even got my girlfriend to use it instead of Pale Moon.

You can get simple web 1.0 websites today. Disable CSS styling and disable javascript to get back the websites of yesteryear.

Big corps have interests (usually maximum profit). Making a browser and actively develop security patches for it costs too much money for your average Joe. Unless you find a philanthropist that's fed enough with current browsers and who's willing to back a group of devs then yes, good browsers will stay unreachable.


your gf is cute, what breed is her?

The lack of basic noscript like functionality is the biggest issue though, as it completely negates any advantages from how light weight the browser is when you're forced to run tons of bloated javascript.

That doesn't really work, because you often just get a lot of blank space and other questionable formatting. Almost nobody tests their site without CSS+JS, so it mostly just looks like crap instead of a comfy old school website.
Just look at the front page of 8ch for an example. All these categories (tags) and stuff vertically spread out, instead of arranged more cleanly on a wrapped line. And speaking of tags, every time I follow one of those it just says "this script has been disabled". Mind you, most Web 2.0 sites don't look nearly as good as this without JS+CSS. Quite of a lot of them simply don't work at all. Try boardgamegeek in Links, for a laugh. Here's an example:
boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/205059/mansions-madness-second-edition
(yeah those links don't do jack shit)
I used to browse that site and ebay a lot via Links 10+ years ago. Used to even buy stuff on ebay that way. Now they're completely broken, and I don't even visit them anymore. Anyway ebay went to hell for other reasons too.

There's nothing wrong with CSS styling. It's just part of HTML that was split up for maintenance reasons and whatnot.

The reason big corps "can't" create a good browser is that it's just not their aim. As proven by the terrible, normie-centered decisions google and mozilla made over the years.

==V I V A L D I==

>>>Holla Forums

Back to your delusional hugspace, shoo, shoo!

Please go back to fucking reddit

...

...

I use keybinds to start mpv + yiutube-dl to play videos. That's about all I need my browser to do besides display html.

Also, CSS allows websites to use less javascript. With CSS you can get some basic interaction like menus or things that show when you hover mouse on them.

So you might as well be using Links in graphical mode then.

I wasn't satisfied with how Links displays web pages. Qutebrowser is often indistinguishable from Firefox or Chrome.

I use links -g. It doesn't display some sites that work without JS (bugs.gentoo.org fails, for example).
links doesn't even support CSS.

If you really want CSS that bad, there's Dillo.

It's ded. Anyway, I also want a comfy interface (keyboard-driven proper mailcap file, etc...) so I'll switch to qute. Webkitgtk is a nono since GTK3 is now a hard dep.

Dillo isn't dead, there's just very few people contributing, so it goes slowly. Anyway it uses Fltk, and you can configure the key bindings in ~/.dillo/keysrc file.

because nobody develops for Dillo or Netsurf

wheres the repo? can only find old shit that is not maintained

But you can redtext a spoiler, faggot

Firefox before they decided to become a Chrome clone.

This.

Has Holla Forums ever done a poll on what browser they use?

That's not a yes/no question.
If that was the joke then I am retarded.

You're right about two things, the question is not a yes or a no question and you are a retard.

kek