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

Pulse Browser – An experimental Firefox fork

pulsebrowser.app

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 114 posts

Re: Pulse Browser – An experimental Firefox fork

#41

Post by agileAlligator »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #18
dartharva wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Hyper minimalistic UI"

I'm glad to see someone still has the courage to work on browsers - which is increasingly declared "infeasible". Well done. > We have been moving further away from privacy and towards But sorry, I literally stopped reading at that point. The only feature that people want and need from browsers, and the only reason to even glance twice at yet another Firefox fork is enhanced privacy and cast-iron control over what a b…

> adding client web application firewalls, different, customisable jailing schemes, detailed easy to understand monitoring, file monitors, inviolable fine-grained per-io-device permissions, better Tor and IPFS integration.

How many people really care or even know about these things? 1 percent of the populace?

Privacy is one aspect, sure, but it seems to me that the majority of the population simply doesn't care one way or the other. It's not a "killer app". Otherwise, everyone would be using something like Pale Moon by now.

Re: Pulse Browser – An experimental Firefox fork

#42

Post by agileAlligator »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #36
chrismonsanto wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only feature that people want and need from browsers ... is enhanced privacy and cast-iron control over what a browser is doing. ... client web application firewalls, different, customisable jailing schemes, detailed easy to understand monitoring, file monitors, inviolable fine-grained per-io-device permissions, better Tor and IPFS integration That's what you're interested in at least, I don't care about these…

Anyway, once again, well done. It seems to me that mainstream "web browsers" have become new "operating systems", but without the visbility, structure and purpose of actual operating systems.

I'll say this to anyone who will listen, we need to stop treating browsers as OS'. Whatever happened to good old desktop applications?

Re: Pulse Browser – An experimental Firefox fork

#43

Post by brigandish »

amadeuspagel wrote: post #29
brigandish wrote: post #28

Fix the terrible history page and I'll switch because it'll tell me that the dev team is prioritising the right things, existing, basic features over new, probably unwanted ones . For a laugh, check out this bug[1] for the history page, extant since Firefox 11!, that means deletion is incredibly slow and tiresome. What makes me laugh even more is that history is stored in a SQLite database, meaning that deletion shou…

Javascript? In my browser? It's more likely then you think.

Pray tell why Javascript should be involved in the deletion of history entries from a SQLite database in an app distributed as a binary that is largely written in Rust.

I know the answer, because it's UI update code. I don't fucking care about the fancy UI updates, delete the entries and get out of my way. Javascript in most websites is obnoxious enough, in a browser it had better be good or it's beyond obnoxious, much like your reply.

Re: Pulse Browser – An experimental Firefox fork

#44

Post by WithinReason »

dartharva wrote: post #4
account-5 wrote: post #2

I'm not sure what this is offering over normal Firefox other than not having to turn off telemetry, install ublock ( and the other mentioned add-ons), and making use of user.js myself? Also if you're making an issue of providing software with no telemetry then your website should probably not include cloud insights tech that: "collects web vitals from the actual devices your visitors are using".

"Hyper minimalistic UI"

Pressing F11 in Firefox is even more minimalistic

Re: Pulse Browser – An experimental Firefox fork

#45

Post by chironjit »

Hey, just wanted to say great work. I'm excited for innovation of a non-chrome engine and am gonna give it a try.

My 2 biggest beef with Firefox is website compatibility and dead tabs.

For item 1, certain sites don't work with Firefox when they do with Chrome. This can happen even in sites of industries that claim to want privacy / decentralisation / anti-monopoly. Some of these are government websites.

Sometimes, websites explicitly block non Chrome browsers too.

So if I had to request a feature, this would be it.

For the second item, I haven't been really able to pin it down. But I've seen this on both Android and Linux version. A tab sometimes goes dead, that it it doesn't refresh or basically doesn't respond when typing a new address. The solution has been to just close the tab and start a new one.

Will give it a try and provide more feedback

Re: Pulse Browser – An experimental Firefox fork

#47

Post by mahdi7d1 »

Tade0 wrote: post #32
brigandish wrote: post #28

Fix the terrible history page and I'll switch because it'll tell me that the dev team is prioritising the right things, existing, basic features over new, probably unwanted ones . For a laugh, check out this bug[1] for the history page, extant since Firefox 11!, that means deletion is incredibly slow and tiresome. What makes me laugh even more is that history is stored in a SQLite database, meaning that deletion shou…

This appears to be a case of something that I've known as "the BBBB problem" - should we optimise algorithms that will rarely be used in a way that makes computation time explode? I mean, who removes history entries by selecting thousands of them manually? Okay, this guy, but who else? I don't remember who named it like that, but the associated anecdote was about typing "BBBB" somewhere in Excel(I think it was the fu…

"who removes history entries by selecting thousands of them manually? Okay, this guy, but who else?" Me too. When I read the first guy's comment I was like "Goddam it's not just me"

Re: Pulse Browser – An experimental Firefox fork

#48

Post by brigandish »

Tade0 wrote: post #32
brigandish wrote: post #28

Fix the terrible history page and I'll switch because it'll tell me that the dev team is prioritising the right things, existing, basic features over new, probably unwanted ones . For a laugh, check out this bug[1] for the history page, extant since Firefox 11!, that means deletion is incredibly slow and tiresome. What makes me laugh even more is that history is stored in a SQLite database, meaning that deletion shou…

This appears to be a case of something that I've known as "the BBBB problem" - should we optimise algorithms that will rarely be used in a way that makes computation time explode? I mean, who removes history entries by selecting thousands of them manually? Okay, this guy, but who else? I don't remember who named it like that, but the associated anecdote was about typing "BBBB" somewhere in Excel(I think it was the fu…

I use the example as the opposite of a canary in a coalmine, a good omen, some way to divine good attitude and thus, good things to come. If I wanted to point to areas where Mozilla have clearly wasted effort that would be easy enough, the comments and submissions to HN are littered with them. The point is that there are basic functions in the browser that are ignored while these other - shall we call them debacles, because that's what they tend to end up as - are released and pilloried or ignored.

Hence, to see something like this be fixed would be a sign that developer time is going into the core product. It could be anything else more fundamental than whatever I've seen announced by Mozilla lately.

Re: Pulse Browser – An experimental Firefox fork

#49

Post by brigandish »

dareiff wrote: post #30
brigandish wrote: post #28

Fix the terrible history page and I'll switch because it'll tell me that the dev team is prioritising the right things, existing, basic features over new, probably unwanted ones . For a laugh, check out this bug[1] for the history page, extant since Firefox 11!, that means deletion is incredibly slow and tiresome. What makes me laugh even more is that history is stored in a SQLite database, meaning that deletion shou…

Oddly enough, selective history deleting is absolutely awful in Safari (16.*?) as well.

Like bookmarks, history is an underrated and under-served feature.
Post reply on HN