this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2024
56 points (98.3% liked)

Privacy

37039 readers
1 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
all 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago (4 children)

It intentionally doesn't support JavaScript to make things faster and much less resource intensive.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ngl if you just don’t support the majority of modern browser features, it’s not hard to make a new browser.

[–] underisk@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not as hard, I agree but reimplementing just CSS sounds like a very special level of hell.

[–] Oestradiolo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 1 year ago

But…that’s just a setting on all the browsers

[–] trevor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

W. JavaScript was a mistake.

[–] folkrav@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

The stuff like Flash, Java applets and Silverlight it eventually replaced were arguably even worse. There's a legitimate need to run client-side code at times, IMHO the mistake was making it so permissive by default. Blaming the language for the bad browser security model is kind of throwing away the baby with the bathwater.

[–] underisk@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Browser permissiveness didn’t create implicit type coercion.

[–] folkrav@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Considering the community we are on, I assumed the criticism was more about the privacy problems surrounding the engine and browser security model than the quality of the language itself. If that was the intent, I mean... Yeah, its weak typing is a fucking mess.

[–] underisk@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That's fair. I just assume most people who reflexively insult JS are like that usually because they've written something in it, rather than having dealt with the many vulnerabilities and annoyances browsers have made possible with it

[–] trevor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

WASM is a better way to run code client-side, and has the benefit of not being a terribly slow, untyped mess 😌

[–] folkrav@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

It desperately needs interface types if we ever hope to make it a serious contender for general purpose web development. The IO overhead of having to interface with JS to use any web API is itself pretty slow, and is limiting a lot of usecases.

[–] kekmacska@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago

this is why i will write my blog from scratch with absolutely no JS or code execution of any kind

[–] kittykittycatboys@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

im a bit curious about the cjoice of gtk2 over 3 or 4, but im too eepy sleepy to look deeper rn ill do that later meows >w<

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

every day is furry day ~~if you're the right kind of linux dev~~

[–] tkw8@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think it’s just a place to start:

The browser is currently in Alpha stage

Planned support for systems in the near future: Linux GTK3/4…

o my goodness i didnt even see that hehe >w< it does look cool meow :3

[–] leraje@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 year ago

Great to see another brand new browser under active development!

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 4 points 1 year ago

lynx would like a word...

[–] Greg@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Mozilla failed to build a new browser from scratch. How did they manage that?

[–] warmaster@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They didn't, not yet at least. What's available right now is barely usable.

[–] Greg@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago

Thanks @warmaster!

[–] kekmacska@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

please use https at least for your own website lol

[–] Blisterexe@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] kekmacska@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

i clicked the link, boom certificate warning

[–] ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

accordimg to firefox android they use letsencrypt

[–] kekmacska@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

i use cromite, which also supports https

[–] ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Everything supports https today, I think that wasn't a question

[–] kekmacska@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago

from the browser side, yes. But not all websites are hosted on https

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Checkboxes are displayed as input boxes. Well, it's an Alpha.

Tested it with flatfox.ch "Your browser is too old" while it works even with Dillo and Links, seems a useragent-issue.