Post 1818442 by m4iler@infosec.exchange
(DIR) More posts by m4iler@infosec.exchange
(DIR) Post #1805367 by Backlash@niu.moe
2018-12-07T16:58:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@eskueroThe add-ons are amazing, too! Privacy ones especially.
(DIR) Post #1805695 by bodomit@niu.moe
2018-12-07T17:10:10Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@eskuero But google are cool and totally not becoming early 2000s Microsoft :tinking:
(DIR) Post #1818151 by tija@pl.smuglo.li
2018-12-08T00:42:44.057682Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@eskuero s/Firefox/Firefox-52/
(DIR) Post #1818233 by m4iler@infosec.exchange
2018-12-08T00:44:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@eskueroThere's still ungoogled chromium. That is the patrician choice
(DIR) Post #1818279 by m4iler@infosec.exchange
2018-12-08T00:46:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@eskueroSorry, I don't understand. What does blink mean?
(DIR) Post #1818343 by m4iler@infosec.exchange
2018-12-08T00:48:38Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@eskueroIt is still the Google stuff, I know, but Firefox and Chrome are two giants.Ungoogled has my support because it is still the chromium fingerprint my bank needs. If my bank supported Qutebrowser, I would've stayed there.
(DIR) Post #1818384 by m4iler@infosec.exchange
2018-12-08T00:50:07Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@eskueroOh, I see!That's interesting. Does Google profit from my using Blink? If so, I'd be more inclined to drop it.
(DIR) Post #1818429 by m4iler@infosec.exchange
2018-12-08T00:51:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@eskueroIndeed, but Firefox, I found, was too heavy for my setup (I run Debian on a Core2Duo, strangely enough, Chromium loads somewhat faster).
(DIR) Post #1818442 by m4iler@infosec.exchange
2018-12-08T00:51:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@eskueroI could also use qutebrowser for everything else ;-)
(DIR) Post #1818561 by bread@social.i2p.rocks
2018-12-08T00:54:48.045512Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@m4iler @eskuero the issue with everyone using blink is that web developers will only build websites to work correctly on that rendering engine. You can already see this in action with your bank requiring chrome/chromium. If enough people use a browser built on a different rendering engine websites will have to actually follow the web standards rather than just following what Google chooses.
(DIR) Post #1818676 by m4iler@infosec.exchange
2018-12-08T00:59:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bread@eskueroIndeed, that sounds reasonably worryingBut to play devil's advocate here, wouldn't a single OPEN standard be the answer to badly rendering websites?Now that I said it, I see the problem, but at the same time, I see a solution to another issue.I hereby solemnly swear that my website will be nothing but flat HTML and Markdown.
(DIR) Post #1818811 by m4iler@infosec.exchange
2018-12-08T01:04:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@eskueroIt used, author said he'd like to move to QtWebEngine. Stripped chromiumStill, what would Blink do to online life if it got standardized? It's still open and, pragmatically speaking, wouldn't it be easier to have a single rendering standard? Devs could spend more time on actual security.Damn, I feel like I'm battling against myself here. I hate google, yet I don't feel it being that bad. AOSP wasn't a bad thing and it can be seen as "monopolizing the phone market".
(DIR) Post #1818926 by bread@social.i2p.rocks
2018-12-08T01:06:48.221998Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@m4iler @eskuero We do have open standards: https://www.w3.org/standards/ The issue is that Google (via Chrome) don't always follow them. http://tonsky.me/blog/chrome-intervention/ If Google has 90% of the web using their rendering engine and they decide to change something, they effectively define a new standard, but one without input from anyone else. Web developers then have to decide if they will follow the standards and break their website for most users or bow to Google.
(DIR) Post #1818927 by m4iler@infosec.exchange
2018-12-08T01:08:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@breadOkay, now I get it. The solution would be to present a unified render solution WHICH ISN'T IN THE HANDS OF ANYONE.I want off this ride. w3m is good 'nuff.@eskuero