Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ōryōki Web Browser

oryoki.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 181 posts

Re: Ōryōki Web Browser

#61

Post by jerf »

coderdude wrote: post #56
vertex-four wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of those are WebKit-based, which was Chromium's rendering engine until recently. The rest of Chromium is primarily UI and network code, along with their sandboxing system and extensions - WebKit's "ports" have their own implementation of said network code tying into the framework that they're porting to (GTK+ or Qt, usually), and all three browsers you list use the WebKitGTK+ port. uzbl, the one I've used the mos…

Do you know of any independent rendering engines? That's something I'd truly be interested in seeing. It seems like a herculean task to undertake. Edit: Thanks very much for the links. This will be a lot of fun testing out. Just responding here to avoid triggering the anti-flamewar protection.

Well, you know how long you've been hearing about Servo, and how it still, to a first approximation, can't render the web? Yeah, they're also bringing up Rust next to it, but... yeah, that's how long it takes.

It wasn't easy ten years ago, and a modern browser is at least an order of magnitude more complicated (WebGL, more complicated CSS, JS support, heck I'm not even really counting JS JIT here...).

Re: Ōryōki Web Browser

#62

Post by vertex-four »

coderdude wrote: post #56
vertex-four wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of those are WebKit-based, which was Chromium's rendering engine until recently. The rest of Chromium is primarily UI and network code, along with their sandboxing system and extensions - WebKit's "ports" have their own implementation of said network code tying into the framework that they're porting to (GTK+ or Qt, usually), and all three browsers you list use the WebKitGTK+ port. uzbl, the one I've used the mos…

Do you know of any independent rendering engines? That's something I'd truly be interested in seeing. It seems like a herculean task to undertake. Edit: Thanks very much for the links. This will be a lot of fun testing out. Just responding here to avoid triggering the anti-flamewar protection.

Depends on what you mean by independent. If you just mean not any of the big three and their derivatives, you've got Servo[0], although that's still a herculean effort with direct support from Mozilla in terms of paying people to work on it. On the other end of the spectrum, you've got things like Dillo[1], which don't support much modern HTML/CSS/scripting, but do seem to get on by with far less effort.

[0] https://servo.org/ [1] http://www.dillo.org/

Re: Ōryōki Web Browser

#63

Post by evv »

coderdude wrote: post #56
vertex-four wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of those are WebKit-based, which was Chromium's rendering engine until recently. The rest of Chromium is primarily UI and network code, along with their sandboxing system and extensions - WebKit's "ports" have their own implementation of said network code tying into the framework that they're porting to (GTK+ or Qt, usually), and all three browsers you list use the WebKitGTK+ port. uzbl, the one I've used the mos…

Do you know of any independent rendering engines? That's something I'd truly be interested in seeing. It seems like a herculean task to undertake. Edit: Thanks very much for the links. This will be a lot of fun testing out. Just responding here to avoid triggering the anti-flamewar protection.

Microsoft uses its own EdgeHTML in the new "Edge" IE

Re: Ōryōki Web Browser

#64

Post by kornholi »

temp wrote: post #34
dmit wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RAM is meant to be consumed. If your browser is using 50MB of RAM and has to swap every background tab to disk then you're not utilizing the resources of your computer, and getting a crappy user experience as a bonus.

>If your browser is using 50MB of RAM If only that were a relevant remark. The tab with the linked Oryoki web page alone is using 250 megabytes for me. And a second tab of the same page is using an additional 230 megabytes. Somehow I don't think that that's well utilized RAM for the ~350 kilobytes of web content. This page uses 200 megabytes as a tab, and HN isn't exactly a heavy page.

Seriously. I remember having 10s of tabs open in Firefox on an XP machine with 256MB RAM total, and it performed relatively well.

At first I was going to blame all of the garbage from rockstar brogrammers, but even the simple HN comment page tab is using 264MB of RAM on macOS. The browser itself uses an additional 208MB according to Chrome's task manager, not counting all of the extensions. Where is it all going? There's 10 lines of JS on this page and a tiny amount of CSS. Has Chrome become that bloated?

This is especially annoying when many modern "desktops" apps are just Chromium wrappers that bleed memory.

Re: Ōryōki Web Browser

#65

Post by dmit »

bduerst wrote: post #24
jhardcastle wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't you think that removing all the extensions, bookmark bars, and extraneous UI cruft will make this browser consume a lot less RAM? Seems logical to me.

You still have the duplicated processes across the different tabs to contend with. That's the real RAM killer.

How much of the overhead is actual overhead though? Operating systems know better than to store multiple identical copies of the same shared library in memory, for example. And it's not like the process-per-tab approach has no benefits - you use more RAM to get increased reliability and security in return.

Re: Ōryōki Web Browser

#66

Post by aplaice »

wz1000 wrote: post #19

For anyone interested, here are some web browsers that are actually minimalist and not just reskins of chromium: http://surf.suckless.org/ https://fanglingsu.github.io/vimb/ http://www.uzbl.org/

For anyone interested, here are some web browsers that are actually lightweight (if not html5-compliant) and not webkit-based:

http://www.dillo.org/

http://www.netsurf-browser.org/

Re: Ōryōki Web Browser

#67

Post by hk__2 »

kornholi wrote: post #64
temp wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If your browser is using 50MB of RAM If only that were a relevant remark. The tab with the linked Oryoki web page alone is using 250 megabytes for me. And a second tab of the same page is using an additional 230 megabytes. Somehow I don't think that that's well utilized RAM for the ~350 kilobytes of web content. This page uses 200 megabytes as a tab, and HN isn't exactly a heavy page.

Seriously. I remember having 10s of tabs open in Firefox on an XP machine with 256MB RAM total, and it performed relatively well. At first I was going to blame all of the garbage from rockstar brogrammers, but even the simple HN comment page tab is using 264MB of RAM on macOS. The browser itself uses an additional 208MB according to Chrome's task manager, not counting all of the extensions. Where is it all going? The…

Does it really use all that memory or does it pre-allocate it and does its own memory management inside? Not that it’s better, but that would explain why it takes so much.

Re: Ōryōki Web Browser

#68

Post by Pharaoh2 »

temp wrote: post #34
dmit wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RAM is meant to be consumed. If your browser is using 50MB of RAM and has to swap every background tab to disk then you're not utilizing the resources of your computer, and getting a crappy user experience as a bonus.

>If your browser is using 50MB of RAM If only that were a relevant remark. The tab with the linked Oryoki web page alone is using 250 megabytes for me. And a second tab of the same page is using an additional 230 megabytes. Somehow I don't think that that's well utilized RAM for the ~350 kilobytes of web content. This page uses 200 megabytes as a tab, and HN isn't exactly a heavy page.

It's not really chrome's fault. Blame it on increased screen resolution, copious amounts of available ram and a requirement to prefer using less cpu than less ram. Which also has the nice effect of using less energy.

If you have ram and it is not being used, it is completely wasted, if you have cpu cycles and it is not being used you are just saving on battery and not over heating the laptop.

Re: Ōryōki Web Browser

#70

Post by mwcampbell »

jfe wrote: post #7

This project is solving the wrong problem. It's not the interfaces of web browsers that suck, it's the gigabytes of RAM they consume.

Sometimes it's discouraging to think about how RAM requirements keep going up. The laptop I bought in 1999 had 64 MB of RAM, and that was enough for a comfortable multitasking system (dual-booting between Windows 9x and Linux with a GUI) for about two years.

Now, we have this, paraphrased from the 2012 novel _Off to Be the Wizard_ by Scott Meyer. Phillip, a time traveler from 1984, asks, "What on earth can a person do with 4 gigabytes of RAM?" Martin, from 2012, answers, "Upgrade it immediately."

Of course, things do get better over time, and some of those improvements require more RAM. Still, I wonder how much of the increases in minimum RAM requirements are actual progress, and how much are just waste. Is there even a way to answer that question? If I were to set up a machine (even a VM) running Windows 98 and Red Hat Linux 6.0 today, it probably couldn't do much on the current Internet, so I wouldn't be able to fairly evaluate how much the operating systems have actually improved.

Post reply on HN