Loosely related to porting the Firefox engine in unusual places: here is a project that ports Firefox's Gecko rendering engine to iOS as a sideloadable app (normally Apple only allows its own WebKit rendering engine in iOS apps): https://github.com/minh-ton/reynard-browser
Show HN: Firefox in WebAssembly
91–100 of 134 posts
Re: Show HN: Firefox in WebAssembly
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
I imagine it is 25k tokens not dollars
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48927724 seems to say dollars? Although yes the phrasing could be clearer in the post
Re: Show HN: Firefox in WebAssembly
#93Loosely related to porting the Firefox engine in unusual places: here is a project that ports Firefox's Gecko rendering engine to iOS as a sideloadable app (normally Apple only allows its own WebKit rendering engine in iOS apps): https://github.com/minh-ton/reynard-browser
Re: Show HN: Firefox in WebAssembly
#94Re: Show HN: Firefox in WebAssembly
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firefox should really bundle ublock origin as-is. I install it afterwards anyway but I don't understand Mozilla here. They seem to want to stay behind Google.
In 2024, "search royalties" brought in approximately $585 million for Mozilla, largely from Google. It's not hard to see why they tread very lightly around ad blocking. It's actually impressive that ublock remains easy and painless to install as an extension.
Re: Show HN: Firefox in WebAssembly
#96Umm, that doesn't sound right. By definition, i dont think you can be end2end encrypted in a web browser, since your server controls what code is run by the web browser. Puter would fully be able to spy on you if they were so inclined because they control what wasm you load.
Re: Show HN: Firefox in WebAssembly
#97All the network traffic from that browser is routed through a server. My IP inside that browser was in India and on CloudFlare network. I don’t particularly trust Puter. Why not route traffic through my actual browser?
>Why not route traffic through my actual browser? Because you can't. Not even an Extension is able to. Browsers don't want you to bypass their content enforcement. I wish we had at least one hacker friendly browser.
I for one am happy that browsers dont let any random web page i visit port scan my internal network.
Re: Show HN: Firefox in WebAssembly
#98Browser sandboxing is now fully solved.
In mean... It kinda feels like this is legitimately true? An attacker trying to do anything on a user's machine through this would have to find a Firefox vulnerability and a vulnerability in the wasm runtime, which is such a high bar that I would actually feel remarkably safe running this thing. The only question is how performance works and whether there are any pain points using as a daily driver, but those feel li…
Re: Show HN: Firefox in WebAssembly
#99>This port cost over 25k in opus/fable tokens for debugging and JIT research > This was just a fun experiment to push the boundaries of WebAssembly I'm a huge fan of the project, but I have to ask. If spending $25k is a "fun experiment", where exactly is your threshold for serious work?
This naturally begs the question, would a human be willing to do the same thing for $25k, and how long would that take?
But the fact remains that those individuals are few. Whereas any schmuck can get Claude to do it (no offense to OP) so at this point I don't even think the money argument is worth discussing even it comes to LLM. For the majority of people a LLM is the difference between being able to do something or not being able to do it.
Re: Show HN: Firefox in WebAssembly
#100>This port cost over 25k in opus/fable tokens for debugging and JIT research > This was just a fun experiment to push the boundaries of WebAssembly I'm a huge fan of the project, but I have to ask. If spending $25k is a "fun experiment", where exactly is your threshold for serious work?