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

Bunny fonts – privacy respecting drop-in replacement for Google Fonts

fonts.bunny.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 346 posts

Re: Bunny fonts – privacy respecting drop-in replacement for Google Fonts

#251

Post by kube-system »

fritigern wrote: post #248
kube-system wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has nothing to do with internet privacy.

Of course it does. A country like America that has been murdering people in many wars around the world without hesitation is unlikely to take my privacy seriously. They don't respect my right to live, do you think they will respect my right to privacy?

Germany is widely regarded as having the best privacy laws in the world, and they participate in NATO conflicts.

Several countries in SE-Asia have been at peace for much longer and will happily man-in-the-middle your internet traffic at the whim of their unchecked government powers [e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Vietnam].

A country's participation in war and their effective protections for privacy are not strongly correlated, demonstrably so.

Re: Bunny fonts – privacy respecting drop-in replacement for Google Fonts

#252

Post by [deleted] »

fritigern wrote: post #160
DocTomoe wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... for the American government or any government, especially our own, for that matter. Some just have a better track record at being bound by the rules they give themselves than others.

When it comes to privacy and human rights, America's record is one of the worst in the world.

[deleted]

Re: Bunny fonts – privacy respecting drop-in replacement for Google Fonts

#253

Post by colejohnson66 »

vorticalbox wrote: post #215
jokethrowaway wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only reason is to escape regulatory fines for something 99% of the world doesn't give a shit about. Not using fonts is not always an option

> Not using fonts is not always an option Do you have an example where doing something in an external font is not possible in one that's built into the browser?

Sure, not all sites need them custom fonts; I hate when I’m reading a page and it reflows because the font changed, but there’s legitimate uses for fonts. Case in point: icon fonts that work using the “private use area” in Unicode.

Re: Bunny fonts – privacy respecting drop-in replacement for Google Fonts

#254

Post by SquareWheel »

modeless wrote: post #176
heretogetout wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the font is already in your browser cache (which it might be if they're hosting it on a common CDN) web pages should load with the correct font right away instead of either loading blank areas or a default fallback font before switching to the correct font, causing jank. The best solution here is to use standard fonts that are available in all browsers, of course.

Sorry, not since cache partitioning. https://developer.chrome.com/blog/http-cache-partitioning/ Privacy killed the shared cache.

And it's such a niche privacy issue too. I would gladly take a shared cache over cache isolation. Especially for something used on as many sites as Google Fonts is.

Re: Bunny fonts – privacy respecting drop-in replacement for Google Fonts

#256

Post by tokinonagare »

hsjdbdksjsj wrote: post #46
hannob wrote: post #31

I find it really strange where some privacy debates have gone wrong, and this is a perfect example. It's basically a form of "don't trust them, better trust us, also we're in a country with better privacy laws". Which is an imperfect solution at best, and given that I have no idea who bunny.net is it's a questionable one at best. If you embed a font hosted somewhere else you expose some of your user data to them. Now…

you won't believe this, but as the end user you can solve this in your life once and for all, and also improve your life! something rare for online annoyances nowadays. any decent browser, i mostly use firefox, have a checkbox in the font screen that prevents sites from changing the page font. i set all sites to user Ubuntu Mono. always. all the time. everywhere. the only downside are sites that use winding-like font…

> the only downside

Ubuntu Mono coverage is only 1200 glyphs as per its website, that's very very few.

Re: Bunny fonts – privacy respecting drop-in replacement for Google Fonts

#257

Post by rmbyrro »

hannob wrote: post #31

I find it really strange where some privacy debates have gone wrong, and this is a perfect example. It's basically a form of "don't trust them, better trust us, also we're in a country with better privacy laws". Which is an imperfect solution at best, and given that I have no idea who bunny.net is it's a questionable one at best. If you embed a font hosted somewhere else you expose some of your user data to them. Now…

Can someone point out a good reason for not downloading the font files and serving them directly from your CDN or servers, without any calls to third-parties in your HTML?

Re: Bunny fonts – privacy respecting drop-in replacement for Google Fonts

#258

Post by kevincox »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #112
_fat_santa wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a question about system fonts. Whenever I declare system fonts I always use: `serif`, `sans-serif`, or `monospaced` rather than the actual fonts like: ``` font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, avenir next, avenir, segoe ui, helvetica neue, helvetica, Cantarell, Ubuntu, roboto, noto, arial, sans-serif; ``` Am I doing it wrong by declaring it just like `font-family: sans-serif`?

The system font stacks are trying to target the fonts that the operating system uses by default (e.g., using San Francisco as the sans serif font on a Mac). If you just use "serif", "sans-serif", and "monospaced", you're targeting the fonts that the browser uses by default, which probably aren't the same fonts. So, you're "doing it wrong" in the sense that you're not actually doing the same thing, but you're not wron…

Browsers "fixed" the problem by adding system-ui, ui-sans-serif and ui-serif.

I guess displaying an ugly font was important for backwards compatibility so instead of fixing millions of existing wrbsites they created new keywords that you need to opt into.

Re: Bunny fonts – privacy respecting drop-in replacement for Google Fonts

#259

Post by zinekeller »

chrismorgan wrote: post #250
zerocrates wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most actual versions of this kind of thing out in the wild have Roboto; what's your reasoning for wanting to exclude it? "Inferior"?

Superfluous: it’s there for Android, but I believe that sans-serif will normally resolve to that anyway. (I’m not certain about that, and can’t confirm it as I don’t have ready access to Chrome on Android but I got the impression some years ago that Chrome on Android uses the system font, which is Roboto. But even apart from that, the general idea is “stop specifying specific fonts and let the browser do its thing an…

looks at Samsung and Chinese manufacturers having their own house fonts

... and now you know why Roboto is explicitly included - because sans-serif won't necessarily resolve to Roboto on an Android device.

Re: Bunny fonts – privacy respecting drop-in replacement for Google Fonts

#260

Post by lolinder »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #201
jokethrowaway wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only reason is to escape regulatory fines for something 99% of the world doesn't give a shit about. Not using fonts is not always an option

> Not using fonts is not always an option The silliness of this is that someone is going through the effort to set up hosting for a website but hosting the fonts is just too difficult and has to be delegated to a third party. The laziness of webdevs never fails to astound.

I don't think it's laziness. My conscious brain knows that it's anachronistic, but I still have the instinct to use a CDN for the shared caching between sites. Obviously, browser privacy changes mean that isn't a valid reason any more, but for me the instinct is still there.
Post reply on HN