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

The Hotdog web browser and browser engine

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 148 posts

Re: The Hotdog web browser and browser engine

#81

Post by heresie-dabord »

lenkite wrote: post #56
creshal wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When the specs are constantly churning in order to keep one gigantic company's browser an effective monopoly, maybe it isn't really that important to follow them so closely... The notion breaks as soon as your users want to use youtube or gmail, which for some mysterious reason keep insisting on using all these useless "standards" even though they have no benefit to the user.

This notion also breaks when user wants to use govt and financial (bank, etc) web-sites.

True, a browser is now necessary in these cases. However, my government and banks have strong incentives to make their services accessible and not break usability.

Re: The Hotdog web browser and browser engine

#82

Post by ad404b8a372f2b9 »

als0 wrote: post #74

> ketchup (html parser and DOM Tree builder) mayo (css parser and Render Tree builder) mustard (UI Toolkit, events and OpenGL) sauce (requests, cache and filesystem) bun (css layout calculator) Off topic, but I've encountered some more serious projects that used strange nouns to name their components. I've never figured out why, but it usually results in me spending more time cross-checking what each component does.…

Because it's fun and if you work regularly with the codebase it makes no difference. Organizations adopt terms that aren't strict descriptors of the things they refer to all the time, stuff like the Johnny.Decimal system, someone will refer to "form 4.54" or "being compliant with 13485" and everyone will know what it refers to even though it's a perfectly opaque name to outsiders.

Re: The Hotdog web browser and browser engine

#83

Post by pizzapill »

nzmsv wrote: post #33
surround wrote: post #16

How come entire operating systems are able to be developed on community-supported efforts (like Debian) but browsers can only be developed by monoliths like Google and Apple (and Mozilla, which has ~750 employees and makes most of its money from Google)?

Chrome is based on WebKit, which itself is descended from KHTML. That was essentially a little widget for formatting help pages in KDE and only had a handful of developers. In fact, it was chosen as the basis for WebKit because it was minimalistic clean code.

KHTML spend all of its life as a full browser engine, namely for KDE Konqueror browser. The KHTML predecessor khtmlw was a simple widget rendering lib.

Re: The Hotdog web browser and browser engine

#84

Post by pabs3 »

jan_Inkepa wrote: post #55
userbinator wrote: post #10

It's great to see yet another attempt at writing a web browser --- and I say this as someone who has been (slowly) working on one myself. The browser is far from stable, spec-compliant, or even really useful, but, I'm slowly working on bringing more features and supporting more sites. When the specs are constantly churning in order to keep one gigantic company's browser an effective monopoly, maybe it isn't really th…

> Maybe if enough of these "minimal browsers" show up, people might even realise that basic HTML and CSS is quite sufficient for a lot of things and start creating simpler, more efficient sites, thus dissolving the monopoly. I feel like some initiative to establish a super 'light' version of the html/css specs might be a very good thing...browsers are so far gone out of the hands of individual coders or even small te…

Isn't that what Google AMP was meant to be?

Re: The Hotdog web browser and browser engine

#86

Post by warpech »

jmercouris wrote: post #67
astrange wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a modern version of lynx/links using an engine like WebKit? I always thought this would be useful but must admit I never got around to writing it.

It depends by what you mean. Do you mean Command line accessible version? If so, there are several that work in terminals. Do you mean text only? If so, there are several browsers that can do this for you :-)

Care to provide some working examples? Many that can be found on Google appear to be working prototypes that are not actually usable.

Re: The Hotdog web browser and browser engine

#87

Post by speedgoose »

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #54
speedgoose wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can disable JavaScript by default for some time and then look at the list of websites and apps where you enabled it again. It has been a very frustrating experience to me.

Your frustrating experience was before you disabled javascript or after?

After. Almost everything is broken. Keeping JavaScript enabled with a privacy/ads blocker is better for me.

Re: The Hotdog web browser and browser engine

#88

Post by michalstanko »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #64
Ygg2 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure those sites break in Edge and Brave as well...

They break them on purpose so people will switch to Chrome. And the worst part is, there's no evidence (yet?) that there's malice behind it. Maybe we'll get a whistleblower at some point, but that'll only happen when their income no longer covers buying off their conscience.

What exactly is broken in Firefox on YouTube or Gmail? I'm not a heavy Firefox user, but when I try it every once in a while, I've never noticed anything broken on any of the Google's sites, even Maps and Docs worked just fine - but then, maybe I wasn't trying out some advanced features.

Re: The Hotdog web browser and browser engine

#90

Post by yakubin »

Ygg2 wrote: post #71
scaladev wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do they only break for users in the United States? I've been using Firefox exclusively since about 2.0, and I've never had any of the Google projects break for me. Not once. Yet this seems to be a pretty common problem around here.

I'm from Europe and on one occasion Youtube was broken on Firefox but not on Chrome. It was fixed in the day or two.

In my experience, YouTube in-video links (those that e.g. show thumbnails of videos and are pointed at by vloggers with their fingers) have been broken in Firefox for years. Not that I complain, I've always been annoyed by those. I think it took me 2 years to realize that after seeing vloggers point at invisible things. I had to double-check in Chrome. (I just assumed that they forgot to add the links when editing.)
Post reply on HN