So apparently, /g/ is developing a web browser given the recent fuckery with Chrome and Firefox. They've got a thread up for it.
boards.4chan.org
I am not a Holla Forumsfag, but I figured you guys might be interested in it or want to contribute. That's all. Carry on.
You did well, user.
Every major tech-related chan has a thread about it.
I take it reddit integration is a priority 1 feature.
I have a feeling this will be abandoned soon. Yes rendering basic HTML is not so difficult of a task, but add CSS and JS and you won't finish your project in the current century. Wouldn't it be better to start with fully featured engine and strip out unneeded clutter? Lightweight GUI + a way to write extensions is all you need.
I imagine they've made an amazing logo
literally cuckchan
>(((recaptcha)))
gno
Will it support like reading pages and shit without waiting 10 minutes to unfreeze the browser? AFAIK only Links has such advanced functionality
Just contribute to qutebrowser.
Did the /g/ cucks finally became self aware?
Also, why are there no web browsers that work with a new layout formatting language? Some research shows that there have been some efforts in that direction, but even Google doesn't seem that passionate about it. But then, when you already technically control most of the internet as the normalfag knows it, giving them the ability to split the internet would actually damage your ability to maintain that iron grip. I would think that creating a new formatting language and a browser engine to go with it would be something the chans would go in for, as that would be a fantastic way to lock out normalfags (e.g. summerfags).
The post was made on the 25th, so that's yesterday more or less. Once again, I really just posted 'cause I figured some Holla Forumsfags might want to contribute or find it interesting. I included a cute girl's eyes in case this was a faux paux.
Well hello there NSA-kun. How are you today?
Yes all is right until you realize that Chrome codebase is larger than that of: CryEngine 2, Unreal Engine 3, Photoshop CS6 and Curiosity rover. Firefox takes bloat to the next level surpassing software of Boeing 787. This is why web is fucked. Rendering text on screen requires more fucking code than to render realistic 3D environments, fly a plane or drive a rover on mars.
Let's be realistic here even if we have 100s of NEETs working on this project it would never able to cover all required standards in reasonable time frame. We will only get something similar to Dillo. And without supporting all the standards, what is the point?
I would rather see them spend time developing alternative to web, extend gopher or create something completely new. Writing browser from almost scratch seems like a waste of time. But then again I could be wrong and developing browser is not as complex as I think it is.
Even if you somehow make web browser that follows standards it does not change fact that big companies control W3C. DRM is already in HTML5, who knows what is next anti-user 'feature' that they will push into standards.
Mind explaining how GPLv3 is the oy vey license?
The bottleneck is in the rendering engine. Give it a try, it may surprise you.
This project will succeed. Only a kike can come to imageboards and start a successful project, and that's exactly what's happening.
Whether it'll be good or just another sneaky snake is another story.
Denpa onna was 6 years ago
what did they mean by this?
Marxists bullshit.
That's not an explanation at all. It doesn't even resemble an argument.
Holla Forums get out reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
>>>/g/
>>>/oven/
Like this user said your post isn't even an argument.
This is so poor that I won't even bother than a copy/paste to respond to you.
The GPLv2 grants you and everyone else the capability/freedom to:
So the license is pretty good you can do whatever you want.
You can read, modify and share the source code legally and people have to do the same under a very simple condition, which is if you sell or share a binary you have to share the source code...until 2005-2006
In the 2000s the Tivo corporation found a legal loophole in the GPLv2.
That loophole is very simple, Tivo can't stop people from reading, modifying or sharing the code but they can stop people from executing it.
Tivo simply added a hash verification to their hardware.
Thus if you uploaded a modified version of your GPL software then it couldn't execute.
AKA: a DRM to hardware level.
And after this comes the GPLv3.
V3 gives to people the same freedom has before +:
This freedom is to especially combat Tivoization.
This very big problem is something that Torvalds didn't want to acknowledge and he's ok that companies don't let their customers own the hardware they buy.
But of course this is a simplification of what the GPLv3 does but it's accurate.
So what are the rules of the GPLv3
If you sell or share a binary to someone you have to share the source code.
If you publish a binary to the public you have to share the source to the public.
You cannot restrict how someone wants to execute the software.
Of course the GPLv3 can't stop developers from being piece of trash.
If for example a developer doesn't document his code then the software under GPLv3 isn't going to for him to do that.
Same thing if a developer inserts malware in it.
So them comes the compatibility with the GPLv3
Basically here are the major used licenses that are compatible or not compatible with it:
-MIT:compatible
-BSD:Compatible
-MPLv2: Compatible
-APACHEv2:Compatible
-X11:Compatible
-GPLv2:Not compatible
-GPLv2+*:Compatible
-Proprietary license: Not compatible
-GPLv3: Compatible
These licenses represent 80+% of the licenses used in the free/libre/open source world.
Here's a more complete list about that:
gnu.org
*GPLv2+:compatible because the v2+ means that if the software under "v2+" is used in a software under GPLv3 the GPLv3 license is applied over the "v2" and if the license of the software is under GPLv2 then the "v2+" applies the GPLv2 license.
An example of that is the drivers in the linux kernel a lot of them are under the GPLv2+ license meanwhile the linux kernel is under GPLv2.
If these drivers under GPLv2+ are transferred in the HURD microkernel they will be under GPLv3 because the HURD is under GPLv3.
Extension:
So what's the difference with other licenses like the MIT or MPL ?
In the free software world we can divide licenses into two sides.
One is called Copyleft and the other is Permissive.
gnu.org
Copyleft license are GPL or MLP etc...
Permissive are MIT, BSD APACHE etc...
So what's the difference ?
Well copyleft licenses tend to simply give freedom to the users in general, while Permissive licenses can grant developers or corporation the possibility to restrict users.
For example Minix3 is a microkernel under BSD and it infects every single Intel CPU based boards in the world and you can't change it.
So the problem with permissive licenses is that they can restrict people from doing what they want.
But GPLv3 is the only know license that protects against the tivoization loophole.
A microkernel has a limited number of drivers within in by design. Chances are, the GPL2+ drivers that are found in Linux won't be integrated into Hurd's microkernel but as a Hurd server program that exists outside of the microkernel. This means that it can very well stay as GPL2+ depending on the distributor of that Hurd driver fork.
...
How come the very permissive MIT or BSD are compatible but GPLv2 isn't?
I have found that one shouldn't blame polacks for their misconceptions on the gpl as they zero in on the fact that Stallman is genetically jewish (Which would normally mean exactly what pol takes it as meaning) and end up forgetting that he is so incredibly autistic that even (((they))) don't include him in (((their))) plans or count him as one of (((their))) own.
All in all the gpl is an attempt to break the shit-chain that is copyright.It does have limitations compared to other licenses and those licenses should be used if they prove to be better for the project in said case.
While applying this logic please note that jewery is never good for any project,ever.
One of the requirements of GPLv2 is that distributors are not allowed to apply additional restrictions on top of what is required by the GPLv2. GPLv3 has a number of additional restrictions; these make it strictly incompatible with GPLv2. Using the "or later version" option of GPLv2 means that distributors can choose to redistribute the "GPLv2 or later" software as "GPLv3" or "GPLv3 or later".
They've had a thread up for it for the past 8 years. Where's the fucking product.
It'd be nice if these faggots would just contribute to an already existing webbrowser.
I.E palemoon or qutebrowser
I have an idea but it probably won't work. Use linux as the kernel, write a gui on top of it in a decent application language, integrate some sort of distributed hash table into the OS(no one uses these things for networking because muh defaults), then web apps would be no different then system applications. Why do we need web apps? Microsoft was more correct than the web people were in the 90s. Native apps > web apps. The problem back then was Microsoft. And my solution is probably still easier to implement than a brand new web browser.
...
the fuck is all this about licenses? I really don't give a fuck about what license the browser is, just give me something that fucking works. there is a market for this. everything popular such as internet explorer, safari, jewgle chrome, firecocks and it's 5000 forks are complete dog shit, and will straight up crash without 10 plugins to remove ads and shit (and said plugins slow down and fuck up the browser even more).
It's adorably naive, like a child trying to jump to the moon.
Building a modern smalltalk or lisp system is more viable than a new browser.
No thanks
Not disagreeing with your conclusion, but this bit is part of the problem with modern browsers. They're bloated as absolute fuck.
How are they bloated? Is it because of all the javascript api's? Can the code base be shrunk?
Because the amount of stuff expected of them by the unfathomably huge standards is obscene. The web was made by layering shit on top of shit.
What we need is a do-over - discard everything but webgl, javascript, web assembly, web sockets, and a couple other native interface APIs. That's what will happen naturally anyway - the old stuff will become deprecated.
The main thing stopping this today might surprise you: font rendering. It's impossible to get the quality and performance rendering fonts through webgl that we easily get in 2D.
or... fork old Firefox again .
gj
...
At that point just use/contribute to Pale Moon.
The people on /g/ are complete morons.
They won't use chrome because google botnet but spend all day filling in google captcha botnets with their raw IPs.
What I listed is a tiny sliver of what a browser has to support today.
And a very good name.
KYS. The web should be for documents, period.
wtf
Also, iirc firefox is open source. Why not contribute to that one and make it good? Or to some other open source browser.
Hoe much performance do you need rendering fonts anyway? You'll have what, a few thousand characters on the screen at a time.
Agreed, but people are going to shoehorn in crap on top of the web until the end of time. We need separate standards for video, audio, and other application data over the internet with standard ways to access it. This is never going to happen in the current environment where multiple operating systems are competing on all platforms. The Windows/Everything else and Android/IOS ecosystems on the two main hardware platforms have stifled development. Don't even get me started on all crap running on set-top boxes and consoles. For all these devices the web is the only avenue to display content on them with the assurance that it'll just work most of the time. So all the shit got tossed on top and there you go, Web 3.0. Normalfags don't know any better, hell they think they're living in the future.
I wish'd /g/ would disappear.
99% of threads are about
Now imagine a trash community like that builds a browser.
They'll make a logo and drop the project.
You strike me as naive and uninitiated, so I'll go easy here. One, FF is huge. "Contributing" would mean ripping things out, not adding them and even then, you can't guarantee that you got all the cancer. Mozilla would never allow people to start ripping sit out, anyways. People have tried forking it uncountable times, but it never survives for long. We need a new start.
Fonts are so hard to render well that professional 3D graphics engineers usually say fuck it and use bitmaps.
Microsoft has had 20 years of screen fonts that look like LSD and cataracts because that's what wins speed benchmarks.
Apple can't figure out subpixel rendering or hinting at all so they just made everyone buy hidpi screens instead and treat every output surface like a dumb printer.
Phone OSes all do that too because the shitty qualcomm/imgtec/arm GPUs can't fucking render a rectangle to spec, never mind component alpha compositing of vector shapes.
Freetype has only figured out how the optimum way to do gamma correction and subpixel rendering in the last 12 months and it's going almost entirely unused because all the retarded arch ricers are telling everyone to use that audiophile-tier infinality shit.
The only person in the world who knew how to draw text on a screen properly was the AGG library's author, who is now dead, and that code is too slow for any kind of realtime use.
TTF was a mistake
TTF was the result of Apple's QuickDraw GX (as with many '90s Apple projects) dying and being broken up for parts by various companies (primarily Adobe, MS, & Apple). The complete GX system basically solved all of these problems decades ago (except for subpixel rendering, which of course wasn't doable on CRTs, and is hardly a text-specific feature).
not even gonna click that.
The problem is the techniques that work with 2D drawing don't work with 3D card APIs for various reasons. Most 3D programs that need fonts use texture atlases which is a really restrictive and shit way of solving the problem, but that wouldn't work for the wide range of fonts, sizes, and glyphs that can be on the screen simultaneously on a desktop. One approach people are looking into is if the fonts can be triangulated and rendered as 3D then the subpixel stuff done via shader. It would take a ridiculously huge amount of horsepower but it might work. It's one of those things that shouldn't be a hard problem but is.
The web should die, and we should go back to a world of 1 need, 1 application.
YouTube and related? Just have 1 (one) application that handles searching, streaming and commenting and you're golden. Fast as hell, no need to download tons of JS, lightweight.
Bulletin boards, imageboards, Leddit and forums? There should be a standard protocol (or maybe two or three for different forum types), so that you can use 1 (one) application that supports registering, posting and searching.
Pretty much what is being done on mobile phones where web browsing is even worse than on your computer, just without the Java and botnet layer of cruft.
How about you kys
What's not to like?