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

Kristall – a browser without support for CSS/JS/WASM or graphical websites

kristall.random-projects.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 198 posts

Re: Kristall – a browser without support for CSS/JS/WASM or graphical websites

#161

Post by chc »

spookie wrote: post #150
BizarreByte wrote: post #99

I don’t think I’ve ever seen HN react so negatively to a project, but I think that has to do with the image people have of what a “browser” is. Kristall isn’t very useful for HTTP even though it supports the protocol. That said its goal is the “small internet” and very basic sites on HTTP will work, which is is inline with that goal. Some have complained even Google search doesn’t work, but Google search doesn’t fall…

Peoples sense of the internet is just a corporate engulfed dystopia, they don't see a reason behind this because they haven't experienced what it could be otherwise.

Ehh, I don't think this would support the Internet Archive (hardly a corporate-engulfed dystopia), or even have supported the shitty Sailor Moon fansite I made in 1998.

Re: Kristall – a browser without support for CSS/JS/WASM or graphical websites

#163

Post by newsolutions »

chc wrote: post #161
spookie wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Peoples sense of the internet is just a corporate engulfed dystopia, they don't see a reason behind this because they haven't experienced what it could be otherwise.

Ehh, I don't think this would support the Internet Archive (hardly a corporate-engulfed dystopia), or even have supported the shitty Sailor Moon fansite I made in 1998.

I wonder if it's possible to start with one of these small-internet browser projects and expand it to the extent of adding CSS and adding some mechanism to handle something like HTMX provides (without including javascript capabilities).

I haven't fully thought this idea through, but it does seem like it would be a manageable way to start a non-corporate browser that could handle modern layouts and some degree of interactivity without the mess of privacy and security issues that javascript introduces.

Re: Kristall – a browser without support for CSS/JS/WASM or graphical websites

#164

Post by politician »

turtlebits wrote: post #120
BizarreByte wrote: post #99

I don’t think I’ve ever seen HN react so negatively to a project, but I think that has to do with the image people have of what a “browser” is. Kristall isn’t very useful for HTTP even though it supports the protocol. That said its goal is the “small internet” and very basic sites on HTTP will work, which is is inline with that goal. Some have complained even Google search doesn’t work, but Google search doesn’t fall…

You can't call it an internet browser if it doesn't work properly on 99.99% percent of existing pages. It's like calling telnet a browser, when it only accurately displays text/plain.

The Internet is simply a collection of IP networks.

The World Wide Web is the collection of HTTP servers and "Web Browser" clients like Chrome, and, uh, Chrome. Also WebKit.

An "Internet browser" would be something like `dig`. Though, maybe that's better called a "DNS browser" in this boring world where every app that talks to one or more remote servers must be called a browser.

Re: Kristall – a browser without support for CSS/JS/WASM or graphical websites

#165

Post by bdhcuidbebe »

newsolutions wrote: post #163
chc wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ehh, I don't think this would support the Internet Archive (hardly a corporate-engulfed dystopia), or even have supported the shitty Sailor Moon fansite I made in 1998.

I wonder if it's possible to start with one of these small-internet browser projects and expand it to the extent of adding CSS and adding some mechanism to handle something like HTMX provides (without including javascript capabilities). I haven't fully thought this idea through, but it does seem like it would be a manageable way to start a non-corporate browser that could handle modern layouts and some degree of inte…

Thats a cool new idea for sure, go for it!

Re: Kristall – a browser without support for CSS/JS/WASM or graphical websites

#166

Post by pipo234 »

mprime1 wrote: post #102
pipo234 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Love Lynx and not particularly fond about JS or responsive frameworks. But I do not understand what React or Angular could have contributed that would be incompatible counter to or otherwise could have hampered the semantic web — so far as that would have ever been a viable thing is the first place. Can you elaborate on how react and angular have destroyed the semantic web?

Not GP but heres what I think they meant. In the old days you could look at at raw non-rendered HTML and it would be so simple that you can render it in your head. With the advent of more sophisticated web frameworks like the one mentioned, that’s no longer the case. The site consists of MBs of scripts and templates that take a gigawatt to render.

+1 on the bloat, though i would primarily blame sloppy code and cheap fast pipes.

On complicated scripts taking a gigawatt to render, I would like to point out that in the good old days that was all happening too — just not in your browser. Inefficient PHP and CGI scripts, massive Java frameworks. Today, still the majority of complexity and heavy lifting is kept away from our browsers. It's sobering to think that most of the gigawatts we burn on our phones, do not show up on our power bills...

Re: Kristall – a browser without support for CSS/JS/WASM or graphical websites

#167

Post by ilyt »

BizarreByte wrote: post #99

I don’t think I’ve ever seen HN react so negatively to a project, but I think that has to do with the image people have of what a “browser” is. Kristall isn’t very useful for HTTP even though it supports the protocol. That said its goal is the “small internet” and very basic sites on HTTP will work, which is is inline with that goal. Some have complained even Google search doesn’t work, but Google search doesn’t fall…

> Some have complained even Google search doesn’t work, but Google search doesn’t fall under the umbrella of “small internet”.

Yet it works on links, lynx and probably few other text browsers.

Sometimes small is too small

Re: Kristall – a browser without support for CSS/JS/WASM or graphical websites

#168

Post by cpsns »

snvzz wrote: post #98
__void wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am absolutely in love with how spartan solved the input problem (prompt line), I wish gemini would also adopt the same function/tag

I avoided direct mention of Gemini for a reason: I am not a fan. Got nothing against the idea. It is about the implementation. I care about retro hardware and minimizing requirements; they don't. Spartan is cool.

This has always been my real issue with Gemini. Gopher is useful on all computers I own and actually makes retro computers more useful with the services available on it.

Gemini’s TLS requirement prevents access by a of machines that could benefit from it.

Re: Kristall – a browser without support for CSS/JS/WASM or graphical websites

#169

Post by tucosan »

pepa65 wrote: post #87

Instant fail: does not zoom. Unusable except if the font scaling is just right for you. Lagrange (cross-platform) looks much better, and does zoom. In the terminal is nice too, I like Amfora (Golang single binary).

Useless negative comments like yours make me wish I could downvote comments on HN.

Re: Kristall – a browser without support for CSS/JS/WASM or graphical websites

#170

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

BizarreByte wrote: post #99

I don’t think I’ve ever seen HN react so negatively to a project, but I think that has to do with the image people have of what a “browser” is. Kristall isn’t very useful for HTTP even though it supports the protocol. That said its goal is the “small internet” and very basic sites on HTTP will work, which is is inline with that goal. Some have complained even Google search doesn’t work, but Google search doesn’t fall…

I use a text-only browser, i.e., an HTML reader than can make HTTP requests, with no support for CSS, JS, WASM, etc. and I access the entire web with it. For Gopher and Gemini I find I do not need a browser.

These projects do not have to appeal to large numbrs of people. The goal need not be large audiences for advertising.

I have no idea how many people use the same browser I do, that has not mattered IME and TBH I really do not care. Although I have seen on the project website that a number of companies made donations to sponsor certain features, and the company names and amounts are listed on the website. Those companies must have found the program useful.

Methinks there are just so many folks who have bet their entire livelihood and career on the asymmetry that the web has enabled, where its users are generally powerless and control nothing on their computers. Anything that could give control to users is perceived as a threat. This is highly dysfunctional, IMHO.

Even when such things have nothing to do with whatever commercial endeavors these folks are engaged in. I use HTTP every day via small programs I can edit and compile and therefore control. Everything works. I can do "industrial strength" web search without ever opening a browser. I find it hard to imagine these techniques would not be useful to others.

The internet needs need more projects like Gemini and Kristall.

Check out the arguments Google tries to make about its position as the "default browser" in this court filing from earlier this week. The company pays hundreds of millions of dollars to various parties in order to be the "default" search engine, its CEO himself was engaged in setting up such "payola" arrangements for Google prior to becoming CEO, but one would never guess that from the assertions Google is making here.

https://ia802501.us.archive.org/21/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.22...

What if these operatings systems were, by default, set to cycle through a list of search engine choices, randomly selecting one each time a search is submitted, until the user chooses one as the default. Over time, the user might become familiar with a variety of search engines. She could then make a more informed choice about which one to set as her "default". Instead, what we see in this motion is one "tech" company arguing that other "tech" companies think it is superior. Who cares what "tech" companies think. What do users think.

Post reply on HN