How does this do at rendering modern websites?
Generally not great, as Dillo doesn't support Javascript and most modern sites are using it to create content. But if the site degrades well without JS it should render reasonably well.
Show HN: Resurrecting the Dillo browser
11–20 of 179 posts
Re: Show HN: Resurrecting the Dillo browser
#12Glad to see people are still stepping forward to take care of this project. Would love to see Gemini/Gopher support, though this is just a crazy idea from the comments section. I have no idea how feasible it is.
Re: Show HN: Resurrecting the Dillo browser
#13Fantastic work. I remember using Dillo in Puppy Linux from Live CDs back in the day.
What's the minimum compiler you target? Any big long term plans? Fuzzing? Moving to 'modern' build system like CMake?
Re: Show HN: Resurrecting the Dillo browser
#14Fantastic work. I remember using Dillo in Puppy Linux from Live CDs back in the day. What's the minimum compiler you target? Any big long term plans? Fuzzing? Moving to 'modern' build system like CMake?
Thanks!
> What's the minimum compiler you target?
I didn't defined any (yet), but shouldn't be too hard to add to the CI.
> Any big long term plans?
First preventing it from dying and getting removed from distros. Then it depends of how much free time I can dedicate to it, but at least maintaining it.
> Fuzzing?
I would say first adding some of the other browser tests suites. That should catch a lot of rendering issues. But yeah, fuzzing would be interesting, specially for the custom HTML and CSS parsers.
> Moving to 'modern' build system like CMake?
Yes, I had to modify the configure.ac and that was very painful, specially targeting a lot of platforms. It is also broken for cross compilation. I have to check also how is the support for cmake in other systems, so we can safely remove Automake and friends. But I didn't want to introduce any big changes before 3.1 is released.
Re: Show HN: Resurrecting the Dillo browser
#15Glad to see people are still stepping forward to take care of this project. Would love to see Gemini/Gopher support, though this is just a crazy idea from the comments section. I have no idea how feasible it is.
The Dillo+ (Dillo-Plus) project has already added Gopher and Gemini support to their port (they don't use the word fork) of Dillo:
https://github.com/crossbowerbt/dillo-plus
https://github.com/crossbowerbt/dillo-plus#gopher-and-gemini...
Edit: Newline formatting. Edit 2: Wording (port not fork).
Re: Show HN: Resurrecting the Dillo browser
#16Glad to see people are still stepping forward to take care of this project. Would love to see Gemini/Gopher support, though this is just a crazy idea from the comments section. I have no idea how feasible it is.
This is already supported via plugins, check:
https://git.scuttlebot.io/%25n7g%2BJlKZjPV6CRfSQL5YUWk%2BxYg... https://github.com/boomlinde/gemini.filter.dpi https://celehner.com/projects.html#dillo-plugins
Re: Show HN: Resurrecting the Dillo browser
#17Fantastic work. I remember using Dillo in Puppy Linux from Live CDs back in the day. What's the minimum compiler you target? Any big long term plans? Fuzzing? Moving to 'modern' build system like CMake?
Thanks! > What's the minimum compiler you target? I didn't defined any (yet), but shouldn't be too hard to add to the CI. > Any big long term plans? First preventing it from dying and getting removed from distros. Then it depends of how much free time I can dedicate to it, but at least maintaining it. > Fuzzing? I would say first adding some of the other browser tests suites. That should catch a lot of rendering issu…
I would suggest switching to Meson instead of CMake.
Re: Show HN: Resurrecting the Dillo browser
#18Will have to give this a shot on m68k Atari, it's been a long time!
Re: Show HN: Resurrecting the Dillo browser
#19Given the circumstances, I am happy to read this. I own two ~2009 netbooks with Intel Atom N270 CPUs and 1GB of RAM each - running Firefox on those is ridiculous, whereas dillo will run very well on these.
I used to use dillo on my main desktop too, for browsing documentation that wasn't too heavy on CSS - having 20 to 40 tabs open would gobble up a lot of RAM in Firefox, whereas dillo happily stayed around 100MB no matter what I threw at it. My current desktop has enough RAM this not a concern any more, but I have fond memories of using dillo on memory-deficient machines and am a current user still.
Also, the lack of a Javascript engine makes it a very secure browser. Whenever I try to open a link that I am suspicious of, I do so in dillo.
So thanks to everyone who continues to work on this, I really appreciate the work you do! Dillo is a fine piece of software that I have enjoyed using for at least 15 years now, and I hope it will be around for many years to come! <3
Re: Show HN: Resurrecting the Dillo browser
#20Hypothetically, could JavaScript support be added by using a lightweight engine, such as QuickJS?