With absolutely no disrespect intended to Dillo, it should probably be clearer that the project was mothballed for around half of the “25 years”!
25 Years of Dillo
91–100 of 100 posts
Re: 25 Years of Dillo
#92I love Dillo. But I have lately been trying Dillo+ which adds some quality of life features. Have these features been incorporated into the existing Dillo? https://github.com/crossbowerbt/dillo-plus
"A lightweight web browser based on Dillo but with many improvements, such as: support for http, https, gemini, gopher, epub..." https://dillo-browser.github.io says it has plugins for gemini and gopher. What's the rationale for dillo-plus then? 8-\
I think you have to install the plugins for the main Dillo build, right? Whereas Dillo+ builds them in?
And Dillo+ has a reader mode.
Anyway, I see Dillo links to these other projects - just curious if the development goes both ways.
Re: 25 Years of Dillo
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll grant you that in a world where a chat app like Discord is >400 Mb, this is on the smaller side, but that just goes to show how low our standards have become. But then consider for a moment that the entirety of Windows 95 is ~100 Mb installed.
> but that just goes to show how low our standards have become I totally agree. We need to do better. But I still stand with Qt being a good option. There are ways to lower Qt apps binary sizes down to 11MB[1] or 8.3MB[2]. [1] https://www.qt.io/blog/reducing-binary-size-of-qt-applicatio... [2] https://www.kdab.com/qt-quick-without-a-gpu-i-mx6-ull/
Qt hails from the era when software was routinely measured in megabytes, so it's designed with that in mind. I suspect that it's QML specifically that contributes the most bloat in this case.
Re: 25 Years of Dillo
#94I wonder, is there a good reason to use Dillo over something like Netsurf or Ladybird nowadays? They support far more of the Web (i.e. more likely to be useful) while still being lightweight.
NetSurf’s UX, at least on Linux, is worse. The engine renders more but the actual browser around it feels half baked which is not the case with Dillo. Perhaps the main RISC OS version isn’t like this. The Windows version was barely functional last I tried it, it was not even what I would call pre-alpha, it was basically just a tech demo.
Re: 25 Years of Dillo
#95Re: 25 Years of Dillo
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meh - I remember full Firefox running on Gnome 2 on FreeBSD taking 64 MB in 2008. Not quite sure where we've gone so radically wrong since then.
1. Do you mean Firefox on GTK taking 64MB? Or the whole desktop environment? 2. I'd say many of seeds of radical wrongness were already planted then, but it took them a while to sprout.
Whole system.
Re: 25 Years of Dillo
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't mean it as a "Hey GPT: format the following text neatly", rather it could learn to produce a static program that takes ugly looking pages and formats them to look professionally published. It wouldn't really be operating on text, but instead changing font size, column width, and other css type variables.
That latter thing is a much harder cat and mouse game though. Is the proposal to use the rendered output as feedback to help the LLM converge faster than the people already making de-shittified UIs? If you can't use the actual content of the page to assist the AI then that seems like a very hard problem.
It would train AI to recognize an article's text, and discard the ads. Then format the text neatly, like a newspaper used to be.
Re: 25 Years of Dillo
#98Did you know that you can run Dillo on MS-DOS? https://archive.org/details/msdos_dillodos
Dillo can be used as a very lightweight site-specific browser (SSB) like Wikipedia or HTML help files.
I am curious what was the development like between 2002 and 2007. Does anybody have a commit history for that period?
Re: 25 Years of Dillo
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
That latter thing is a much harder cat and mouse game though. Is the proposal to use the rendered output as feedback to help the LLM converge faster than the people already making de-shittified UIs? If you can't use the actual content of the page to assist the AI then that seems like a very hard problem.
It would train AI to recognize an article's text, and discard the ads. Then format the text neatly, like a newspaper used to be.
How do you deal with the text being distributed mixed in many JS files, half only being delivered over the wire after you click a button, "text" being displayed as a nested div to generate some sort of formatting (especially when the HTML for such a monstrosity doesn't fit in a single context window), ...?
Re: 25 Years of Dillo
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would train AI to recognize an article's text, and discard the ads. Then format the text neatly, like a newspaper used to be.
How do you deal with the text being distributed mixed in many JS files, half only being delivered over the wire after you click a button, "text" being displayed as a nested div to generate some sort of formatting (especially when the HTML for such a monstrosity doesn't fit in a single context window), ...?
you could just render it as if it were being shown to a person. Thats where the fuzzy logic of AI would come it. It could be trained to identify what an article looks like, based on the layout and size and other inferences (that it figures out, hence AI).
For a while now, I've thought of the idea of outsourcing this to a 3rd world sweatshop. Basically pay people to click on the scummiest ad-loaded pages all day, saving copies of just the content, and re-hosting it as, say, web 1.0 content, text and pictures, nothing more. Whether they used copy-paste, or just "save page" and then pipe it through another program, who cares. just extract the content and host it as web 1.0 that would load super fast but maybe have the same font or formatting as the original.