[HN Gopher] Kristall - a browser without support for CSS/JS/WASM...
___________________________________________________________________
Kristall - a browser without support for CSS/JS/WASM or graphical
websites
Author : tsujp
Score : 277 points
Date : 2023-01-12 07:50 UTC (15 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (kristall.random-projects.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (kristall.random-projects.net)
| tete wrote:
| Not a fan of Gemini for various reason, but this browser seems
| like a really cool project. And browsing the other projects, like
| LoLa. They seem really cool too. And I really love the style of
| the whole website. Nicely done!
| [deleted]
| dig1 wrote:
| lynx, links, eww (from Emacs) and edbrowse [1] entered the chat
| ;) Especially edbrowse, which I find weirdly powerful.
|
| [1] https://edbrowse.org/
| toastal wrote:
| No elinks or w3m?
| anthk wrote:
| Edbrowse does HTML+JS, Email, IRC, File Managing and it's an
| SQL client too. And a text editor.
| ianpurton wrote:
| What's the problem that this fixes?
| rollcat wrote:
| Distraction-free access to information. Like reading a book.
| kevinyew wrote:
| There is nothing about HTML/CSS/JS that prevents simplicity.
| It is purely how it has been used and abused. You can also
| disable JS and use user agent stylesheets in any modern web
| browser.
| rollcat wrote:
| You can read a book on your tablet / laptop, or even watch
| a movie adaptation; or you can read a book on dead trees.
| Some people would like to recreate certain aspects of the
| "dead tree" experience without actually killing trees.
| Psychoshy_bc1q wrote:
| use a dedicated ebook reader.
| rollcat wrote:
| So isn't this kind of project very similar in scope to an
| ebook reader app? It just focuses on browsing hypertext
| media, rather than a pdf/epub.
|
| I still don't understand why it's utility is being
| questioned, when the entire category clearly has a user
| base.
| tolciho wrote:
| Where is the button to enable JavaScript? For reasons of
| simplicity, resource use, and security JavaScript should be
| disabled by default. But there ain't that button, it's
| complicated.
|
| Where is the security? Chrome last I checked had eight
| actively exploited zero-days last year, which is laughably
| bad compared to the other operating system I use. Perhaps
| if the modern web was simpler, a browser would be easier to
| implement, and more time could be spent on making it not a
| raging security dumpster fire? But it ain't, it's
| complicated.
|
| How does one even setup user agent stylesheets? What could
| that be but yet more complexity? Meanwhile, I'll use w3m
| and amfora and if it's a broken page that mandates Flash,
| JavaScript, whatever, I most likely won't bother launching
| a "heavyweight champion" browser. The CPU fans will last
| longer that way.
| jamil7 wrote:
| > There is nothing about HTML/CSS/JS that prevents
| simplicity
|
| You're right, there isn't yet here we are. Where I need to
| download and run a React program every time I want to read
| an article.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| It would be great if React could be built directly into
| browsers, but it would greatly curtail the current
| flexibility of server-vended React. The project is able
| to evolve quite quickly unshackled from a w3c process and
| the pulse of major browser updates.
|
| (IIUC, there was a proposal in Firefox decades ago to
| make the engine into several flexible modules and a page
| could declare which modules it depended upon, then the
| browser would either cache them and use them for multiple
| sites or already have them builtin. You'd get the best of
| both worlds: rich and expressive pages without the
| frequently-paid cost of poly-filling the gap between how
| the developer wants the render engine to work and the
| actual implementation of the render engine.
|
| Sadly, I suspect the actual complexity to implement would
| have made for a worse overall situation than what we have
| now).
| jamil7 wrote:
| I haven't done any professional web stuff in a few years,
| wasn't this kind of the idea of web components? As you
| said, The React team can move a lot faster than w3c and
| each browser vendor.
| _def wrote:
| While it doesn't prevent simplicity, it allows and enables
| distracting complexity. Also a lot of sites just break if
| you disable js.
| [deleted]
| cpsns wrote:
| Why must it fix a problem?
| [deleted]
| danShumway wrote:
| I have nitpicks and criticisms about Gemini, and it's not a
| protocol that I use very often (if at all), but I also don't see
| the harm in it. It seems to have a pretty strong grasp of what
| its goals are and (minor criticisms aside) it does a decent job
| of accomplishing those goals. Nowadays I tend to compare Gemini
| more to things like Pico-8 or Markdown rather than think of it as
| a web competitor -- and as a result I've started to develop a lot
| more respect for the project. It's not designed to replace the
| web or revolutionize how people share content, it's designed to
| be a useful medium for the community that uses it.
|
| All that to say, I'm not sure I understand the criticism I'm
| seeing here. A Lynx-like browser with proper graphical mouse
| support and a couple of extras built in is a fine project. And
| support for Gemini/Markdown gives the browser a clear use-case
| beyond HTML that means it'll be practically useful for some
| people; it's not just an experiment in failing to render most
| websites because it doesn't support CSS, there's a category of
| content that you know will work, and a community of people making
| that content.
|
| That's assuming it works well, but if it does -- I don't know,
| seems like a cool project? It's good to have more Gemini clients.
| Shared404 wrote:
| > Nowadays I tend to compare Gemini more to things like Pico-8
| or Markdown rather than think of it as a web competitor
|
| That's also how Gemini thinks of itself. I'm a fan personally,
| I'm all for projects that just go and do their own thing and do
| it well.
| leidenfrost wrote:
| I think of Gemini less like a competitor to the web but more as
| ham radio.
|
| Radio amateurs can communicate through the internet with their
| phones and it would be faster, simpler and easier. But radio
| gives them both the nostalgia feeling and a niche community to
| belong.
|
| Gemini is kinda like that.
| danShumway wrote:
| I don't use Pico-8, and I find its limitations frustrating; I
| am never going to make a game in Pico-8. But I do use stuff
| like Jummbox when I compose music, for basically the same
| exact reasons other devs use Pico-8 for games, and I love
| Jummbox's limitations for music composition.
|
| Limitations are a way of fostering community (ham radio
| enthusiasts all kind of get to know local operators, Jummbox
| makes sharing song sources in a digestible way super-easy).
| Limitations also allow you to not care about complications
| that would be barriers to building things -- I don't want to
| set up a VST before I start writing music.
|
| So my feeling on Gemini has shifted from being a curmudgeon
| about honestly kind of really nitpicky, shallow stuff like
| the ability to mark-up inline language transitions -- into
| realizing that when you step away from thinking of the
| project as some kind of attack on the web then yeah, it
| actually makes a _ton of sense_ to build a small community
| around a very limited format that forces everyone in that
| community to be standardized in how they share with each
| other, keeps the community a little bit niche so that the
| people in it are a bit more friendly and personable, and
| forces its participants to focus pretty much only on what
| they 're writing and nothing else.
| GnarfGnarf wrote:
| Radio Amateurs will be indispensable when the next CME
| (Corona Mass Ejection) annihilates our grid and the Internet.
|
| Look up "Carrington Event".
| canadianfella wrote:
| [dead]
| cpsns wrote:
| I don't think I've ever seen HN react so negatively to a project,
| but I think that has to do with the image people have of what a
| "browser" is.
|
| Kristall isn't very useful for HTTP even though it supports the
| protocol. That said its goal is the "small internet" and very
| basic sites on HTTP will work, which is is inline with that goal.
| Some have complained even Google search doesn't work, but Google
| search doesn't fall under the umbrella of "small internet".
|
| When it comes to Gopher and Gemini it's far more useful, but only
| a small community of people use either in 2023 so that's not
| going to appeal to most people here, even though that's the
| primary use case of the project.
| danShumway wrote:
| I wonder if it's a time-zone thing with when the link was
| posted.
|
| I think I remember reacting myself at least somewhat negatively
| to Gemini first time I heard about it, so on some level I
| understand how someone's initial reaction could be hostile --
| but I also feel like "limited tools producing tight-knit
| communities and specific community-tailored content" is right
| up HN's alley, and I am also surprised to see so many people
| questioning why this should exist.
|
| "It doesn't work for the majority of the web."
|
| So? I assume the project isn't lying, it does actually support
| HTML. I just don't see how it's a bad thing to have a
| lightweight browser that handles static HTML; I don't think
| anyone is advocating that anybody uninstall Firefox over this.
|
| ----
|
| I'll kind of go a step further here and give a mildly hot take:
| nobody should be doing normal browsing on an indie browser in
| the first place; I consider that a likely security/privacy
| risk. The vast majority of indie browsers do not have full-
| featured uBlock Origin support, they don't have the browser
| hardening features that something like Firefox ships with by
| default.
|
| So on some level I feel like "can I use this to read CNN" is
| not necessarily a great metric to use for an indie project,
| because if you're reading CNN it should probably be in Firefox
| with uBlock Origin installed (or something comparable, but I
| typically advocate that Firefox and its derivatives have better
| tracking protection than other mainstream browsers).
|
| In contrast, if something loads in this browser, what is your
| security risk? Limited MITM attacks and network analysis? I
| don't feel the same aversion I feel to most indie web browsers
| when I think about someone reading a limited number of indie
| web articles in this thing or building projects around it.
| amelius wrote:
| I think the problem is that they are trying to sell a radio as
| if it were a TV.
| residualmind wrote:
| They're "selling" a TV as a TV when the world has switched to
| using full-blown mind-control shopping malls as TVs.
| afavour wrote:
| IMO the better comparison is selling a 9" black and white
| TV with only an OTA antenna as input as a TV in 2023:
| technically correct, wildly out of whack with customer
| expectations.
| cpsns wrote:
| It's a project that offers support via IRC, the average
| internet customer/consumer is not the target user base.
| vanderZwan wrote:
| Given that customer expectations of TVs now include being
| normalized to TVs getting slower with updates that cannot
| be avoided without jumping through hoops, sometimes even
| bricked, and occasionally even showing ads because the
| company you bought it from decided they needed to extract
| more wealth from you, that is pretty spot on. But perhaps
| not how many people think it is.
| phoebos wrote:
| Except, of course, that they're not selling anything.
| pipeline_peak wrote:
| He means sell as in persuade people to use
| phoebos wrote:
| Which they're also not trying to do. It's just a cool
| project, shared for those that want to use it.
| cpsns wrote:
| Exactly this, someone shared a project they thought was
| cool and that they thought others might find cool as
| well.
|
| The hostility displayed towards an open source project in
| this submission is completely excessive just because it
| doesn't meet the requirements of many/most users. I'd
| feel awful if I were the creator of it and read the
| comments here, which are being extremely harsh about what
| is otherwise a very nice little project.
|
| Personally I find it very useful, but I'm the type of
| person who would.
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| I use a text-only browser, i.e., an HTML reader than can make
| HTTP requests, with no support for CSS, JS, WASM, etc. and I
| access the entire web with it. For Gopher and Gemini I find I
| do not need a browser.
|
| These projects do not have to appeal to large numbrs of people.
| The goal need not be large audiences for advertising.
|
| I have no idea how many people use the same browser I do, that
| has not mattered IME and TBH I really do not care. Although I
| have seen on the project website that a number of companies
| made donations to sponsor certain features, and the company
| names and amounts are listed on the website. Those companies
| must have found the program useful.
|
| Methinks there are just so many folks who have bet their entire
| livelihood and career on the asymmetry that the web has
| enabled, where its users are generally powerless and control
| nothing on their computers. Anything that could give control to
| users is perceived as a threat. This is highly dysfunctional,
| IMHO.
|
| Even when such things have nothing to do with whatever
| commercial endeavors these folks are engaged in. I use HTTP
| every day via small programs I can edit and compile and
| therefore control. Everything works. I can do "industrial
| strength" web search without ever opening a browser. I find it
| hard to imagine these techniques would not be useful to others.
|
| The internet needs need more projects like Gemini and Kristall.
|
| Check out the arguments Google tries to make about its position
| as the "default browser" in this court filing from earlier this
| week. The company pays hundreds of millions of dollars to
| various parties in order to be the "default" search engine, its
| CEO himself was engaged in setting up such "payola"
| arrangements for Google prior to becoming CEO, but one would
| never guess that from the assertions Google is making here.
|
| https://ia802501.us.archive.org/21/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.22...
|
| What if these operatings systems were, by default, set to cycle
| through a list of search engine choices, randomly selecting one
| each time a search is submitted, until the user chooses one as
| the default. Over time, the user might become familiar with a
| variety of search engines. She could then make a more informed
| choice about which one to set as her "default". Instead, what
| we see in this motion is one "tech" company arguing that other
| "tech" companies think it is superior. Who cares what "tech"
| companies think. What do users think.
| O1111OOO wrote:
| > I don't think I've ever seen HN react so negatively to a
| project
|
| I thought the title was all wrong. It created false
| expectations. Too many people thought this was an HTML browser.
| I first came across Kristall when I was looking at GeminiSpace
| ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_(protocol) ) - the
| gemini protocol (a replacement for http(s)) plus GemText (a
| replacement for html).
|
| Kristall is a browser for GeminiSpace - first and foremost.
| GeminiSpace has embraced some aspects of the legacy small-web -
| specifically gopher and finger. Lots of the browsers in
| GeminiSpace support all three: GemText, Gopher and Finger.
|
| Some of these GeminiSpace specific browsers also try to support
| other types of markup languages (html, markdown) but that's not
| their primary use case.
|
| I can see that Kristall is trying to be more than a Gemini
| Browser. It can do well here if it was clear about the level of
| html it was going to support. I'd be very happy with HTML 3.2 (
| https://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Wilbur/ ) for example (mid-90s).
|
| Unfortunately, it doesn't even do 'turn of the century' HTML
| tables very well - something that the lightweight Dillo (
| https://www.dillo.org/ ) does well.
|
| As Kristall's level of html support increases; I'd love to be
| able to include it as a viable html browser (similar to Dillo
| and a bunch of other older browsers I have installed). As a
| GeminiSpace Browser, however, it is among the elite. This
| should have been its intro to HN.
| ilyt wrote:
| > Some have complained even Google search doesn't work, but
| Google search doesn't fall under the umbrella of "small
| internet".
|
| Yet it works on links, lynx and probably few other text
| browsers.
|
| Sometimes small is too small
| turtlebits wrote:
| You can't call it an internet browser if it doesn't work
| properly on 99.99% percent of existing pages. It's like calling
| telnet a browser, when it only accurately displays text/plain.
| seszett wrote:
| > _internet browser_
|
| But it's not a _small internet browser_ it 's a _small-
| internet browser_. It is made to browse the "small-
| internet", which is not the same thing as the internet.
| rchaud wrote:
| There is no definition of 'small internet', so is the UX of
| this browser dependent on pasting in URLs and see if they
| load?
| politician wrote:
| The Internet is simply a collection of IP networks.
|
| The World Wide Web is the collection of HTTP servers and "Web
| Browser" clients like Chrome, and, uh, Chrome. Also WebKit.
|
| An "Internet browser" would be something like `dig`. Though,
| maybe that's better called a "DNS browser" in this boring
| world where every app that talks to one or more remote
| servers must be called a browser.
| [deleted]
| Karunamon wrote:
| I think part of the problem is that the "small internet" isn't
| a concretely definable thing in the same way that "Gemini
| space" is. Gemini browsers are meant to browse Gemini space and
| the expectations and limitations of that are known ahead of
| time.
|
| Meanwhile, this app is meant for browsing an unknown, undefined
| limited subset of the plain old HTTP web; and when you step out
| of that sandbox (and you most definitely will inadvertently do
| so) what you are left with is a broken experience. A web
| browser that goes out of its way to not support foundational
| basics is just a shitty web browser given that my normal web
| browser can hit the same sites.
| spookie wrote:
| Peoples sense of the internet is just a corporate engulfed
| dystopia, they don't see a reason behind this because they
| haven't experienced what it could be otherwise.
| chc wrote:
| Ehh, I don't think this would support the Internet Archive
| (hardly a corporate-engulfed dystopia), or even have
| supported the shitty Sailor Moon fansite I made in 1998.
| newsolutions wrote:
| I wonder if it's possible to start with one of these small-
| internet browser projects and expand it to the extent of
| adding CSS and adding some mechanism to handle something
| like HTMX provides (without including javascript
| capabilities).
|
| I haven't fully thought this idea through, but it does seem
| like it would be a manageable way to start a non-corporate
| browser that could handle modern layouts and some degree of
| interactivity without the mess of privacy and security
| issues that javascript introduces.
| bdhcuidbebe wrote:
| Thats a cool new idea for sure, go for it!
| shadowgovt wrote:
| I mean, that's the source of the complaint though.
|
| It's 2023. If it doesn't work on google.com, it's not a browser
| that works on "The Internet" (due to conflation of terms over
| the years, people assume that "The Internet" means "The Web,"
| especially when the term "browser" is mixed in there).
|
| To be clear though, a much better user interface for retrieving
| and displaying small documents through gopher, gemini, and
| finger in addition to HTTP is pretty cool.
| nix23 wrote:
| What a sad mindset to believe google = internet ...that's
| just sad, especially for HN
| shadowgovt wrote:
| "Opening a browser and going immediately to a search
| engine" is how most users use the Internet (proxy
| statistic; google.com is the most visited web page by a
| country mile, followed immediately by YouTube, Facebook,
| and Twitter). A browser that doesn't work with the most
| popular web pages is not a "browser" for practical purposes
| of most people.
|
| ... which is fine, but I suspect the headline is throwing
| readers here off because they're equating "browser" to "web
| browser" and then the actual tool flips their bozo bit when
| it can't even properly render popular sites in a degraded
| mode. Perhaps the tool can use better branding: "A general-
| protocol Internet document browser that can also do some
| HTML," for example?
| nix23 wrote:
| It's not a browser for "most users", and with your logic
| there are just two "computers" Apple and Windows.
|
| I also have a File-browser on my system and it has
| nothing todo with html or google.
|
| >they're equating "browser" to "web browser"
|
| Yes they also also say Cloud = Google-Drive, do you
| really want to go that route?
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Well, Apple, Windows, and various GNU/Linux distros (as
| they can also run Chrome and Firefox, i.e. two of the
| most popular apps, plug in a mouse and keyboard, do 99%
| of the "computer stuff," so they're fine). Chromebook is
| probably on the fence since you really have to beat it
| with a hammer to run Excel on it (depending on how you
| turn your head and squint, that's maybe true for Linux
| also, but you _can_ get Excel running on there if you
| really shoulder into getting your compatibility layers
| working).
|
| ... but nobody considers the Arduino a "computer" in the
| same sense they consider a Raspberry Pi a "computer"
| because it can't run general-purpose apps.
| nix23 wrote:
| Yeah let's stop here, you say people think Linux can run
| "general-purpose apps" but a raspi cant. Just stop try to
| prove your right...by moving the goalposts.
|
| Arduino is a Micro-controller, Raspberrypi is a SBC ->
| Single board computer.
|
| >>and user community that designs and manufactures
| single-board microcontrollers
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arduino
|
| >>Raspberry Pi (/paI/) is a series of small single-board
| computers (SBCs)
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raspberry_Pi
|
| And no, don't start with your "but normal people
| blabla"...because "normal" people go to wikipedia to
| learn something ;)
| shadowgovt wrote:
| No, a RasPi is a GNU/Linux platform and can run general-
| purpose apps. You misunderstood my comparison; RasPi is a
| computer.
|
| I'm saying nobody considers an Arduino a "computer" in
| the same category as a Raspberry Pi is a computer (and
| similarly, nobody should consider Kristall a web browser,
| though it is something else, which is cool).
| nix23 wrote:
| > a raspi is a GNU/Linux platform
|
| I run BSD/BSD on it and it's not a platform but a
| Computer.
|
| >nobody considers an Arduino a "computer"
|
| True, because it's a f*** Microcontroller understood?
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Yes, we're saying the same thing.
|
| And by analogy, Kristall is a "microbrowser" and I think
| HN had a bad reaction to it because the top-level
| description was "a browser."
|
| It's the Arduino of browsers.
|
| That doesn't make it bad, but this site is full of
| pedants and when you call a tool by a slightly-different
| name, you get "um-actually'd" to death.
|
| (Sometimes, you even get someone swearing at you because
| they think you don't know the difference between a
| general-purpose small computer and a microcontroller ;)
| ).
| liotier wrote:
| Restricted functionality is a security benefit - could be
| interesting in some scenarios... Not mentioned by the project's
| presentation, but there has to be an audience there.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| > Restricted functionality is a security benefit
|
| This is a common trope I hear but I'm not sure it's true any
| longer.
|
| One of the reasons Google login requires JavaScript to be
| enabled is to fix flaws in non-JS HTML that allow for
| hijacking passwords. It's why they took a much harder line on
| simple auth a few years back; too many instances of people
| being tricked into handing their Gmail account to scammers.
| ndriscoll wrote:
| What flaws allow sites to hijack passwords if pages aren't
| programmable? Are you talking about phishing, and how would
| js help?
|
| My mental model here is that the browser's password manager
| autofills a password that the user doesn't even know, and
| without scripting or dynamic resources, it's not possible
| to exfiltrate that data automatically. Without styling,
| form buttons would have a standard look so it's harder to
| trick the user into submitting something without knowing
| (c.f. the recently posted fake captcha that tricks users
| into revealing the visited state of links).
| shadowgovt wrote:
| HTML and CSS alone allow you to concoct a webpage where a
| user's input appears to be going to one place but is in
| fact going somewhere else.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framekiller
| ndriscoll wrote:
| The OP link is a browser that doesn't support CSS. Not
| supporting frames seems like it'd also solve that
| problem.
|
| Edit: also, in a modern browser, passwords are autofilled
| by the browser which knows where input is going and can't
| be tricked. You could make an argument about other
| sensitive information, but that sounds like it's the same
| as plain ol' phishing.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Agreed.
|
| Unfortunately, there's no language for querying the
| client "Do you support CSS" / "Do you support frames"
| without CSS so Google is forced to err on the side of
| caution and reject browser that don't support JS (because
| they can query that).
| jesprenj wrote:
| Webdevs are aware of flaws in their browser so that they
| have to hack up a bunch of javascript in order to safely
| login instead of cooperating with the browser developers,
| which are their employees.
|
| On the other side chromium devs need to develop
| quirks/hacks for specific sites in order to support their
| bloated javascript hacks (:
|
| I find it bizzare.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| It's not flaws in the browser; it's flaws in the design
| of HTML and CSS (i.e. "Oops nobody realized that a real
| right bastard could bend the static rendering tools to
| make this happen; well _that 's_ a problem"). I'm having
| difficulty sourcing the details right now, unfortunately;
| I believe the issue was that non-JavaScript HTML combined
| with CSS lets you frame-in the target site's login page
| but situated in such a way that the user thinks they're
| doing something else, and their clicks and keyboard input
| go into another page's content / security domain.
| Breaking this attack requires the framed-in site to be
| able to use JavaScript to detect that they were framed-in
| and break out.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framekiller
|
| It's one of those situations where "This was mis-designed
| with insufficient eye towards how right bastards could
| use it, but the cat is out of the bag. We can't change
| the spec because it'll break legitimate uses of this
| technology, so this is the best option we have." Similar
| to how images were naively scoped to be embeddable from
| any web domain and then people invented pixel bugs, but
| you can't change the security model around image loading
| without breaking vast swathes of the existing web.
| moring wrote:
| My guess would be: using CSS to place the malicious
| site's input files exactly where the framed site's input
| fields are, but "on top" (on the z axis), so the user
| actually inputs data into the malicious site.
| meindnoch wrote:
| How is this "attack" any different than simply mirroring
| the site? The URL bar shows the malicious site either
| way. If you enter your password on the malicious site,
| you're pwned. Don't need frames for that.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| > The URL bar shows the malicious site either way
|
| That's never been sufficient to keep bad actors out
| because end-users don't grok the URL bar.
|
| This attack is superior to a mirroring attack because it
| uses the target site's own UI resources, so it looks very
| legit (no need to pay someone to monitor the UI of the
| target site for changes and rework your exploit to attack
| them).
| __void wrote:
| kristall is along with geminaut and lagrange, the perfect
| triptych for wandering the small web! until recently they were
| the only ones to pass (almost) torture tests [1]! highly
| recommended
|
| [1] gemini://gemini.conman.org/test/torture/
| O1111OOO wrote:
| Completely agree - they are the top three GUI browsers running
| in GeminiSpace. Since I am seeing lots of confused comments -
| both Kristall and Lagrange are x-platform and portable. Very
| easy to take out for a spin:-)
|
| There's also JGemini (https://github.com/kevinboone/jgemini), a
| cute little 107kb jar file that's also a full GUI browser. Yes!
| 107kb:-) Also x-platform and portable (java -jar
| ./jgemini-1.0.jar). Not many features (no tabs, just multiple
| windows) but it's a good example of how quickly browsing
| solutions can be built when markup is reduced.
|
| That is... you don't need billions of dollars and a decade to
| present a viable solution in this space.
|
| GeminiSpace actually reminds me much of the early days of the
| web. People will complain about the limited markup. For some
| users, the additional security/privacy of the protocol and the
| reduced ' _noise_ ' makes this appealing.
|
| -----------------------------
|
| Gemini (protocol), Gemtext format:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_(protocol)
| Psychoshy_bc1q wrote:
| amfora passes _all_ torture tests.
| tommica wrote:
| For those who were wondering:
|
| Triptych definition: a set of three associated artistic,
| literary, or musical works intended to be appreciated together.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triptych
| 867-5309 wrote:
| >Crossplatform all the way
|
| excluding mobile platforms
| edf13 wrote:
| Like Lynx then?
| genjii931 wrote:
| So, basically Gopher.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| It's essentially gopher with TLS.
| anthk wrote:
| Gopher with TLS exists, it's promoted by
| gopher://bitreich.org and sacc.
|
| Gemini it's something else. It supports non 80x24 displays
| with automatic resizing and fixed-width text, among the
| images category.
| guilhas wrote:
| For me this is the future of the productive web, documents
| sharing. Forget the smart apps
|
| The only thing missing to make it perfect is XUL addons
| rossdavidh wrote:
| This is interesting, but what is really missing from the non-
| graphical (and non CSS/JS/WASM) web is a good search engine. Or,
| if there is one that returns only these kinds of results, I don't
| know it.
| nightpool wrote:
| Well, search.marginalia.nu exists, but it would be kind of hard
| to use it with this browser, since along with CSS and JS they
| apparently also don't believe in input elements.
| phoebos wrote:
| https://wiby.me
| meerita wrote:
| Like Lynx then?
| progre wrote:
| Can Lynx render Gemini markup?
| seanhunter wrote:
| Is there anything on gemini other than people talking about
| gemini? Not trying to be facetious but last time I looked I
| couldn't find anything. I'm sort of directionally sympathetic
| to their goals so I want it to be a case where there is great
| stuff there that I just didn't know how to find.
| MatthiasPortzel wrote:
| Just glancing at the Antenna feed, there are about 10 posts
| a day, and one a day about Gemini. Most content is just
| blog-post updates on computers and people's lives.
|
| Antenna is an aggregator feed for Geminispace. You can
| subscribe to it with a Gemini client that supports Atom
| feeds.
|
| => gemini://warmedal.se/~antenna/ Antenna on Geminispace
| qbasic_forever wrote:
| Even better, Lynx can speak gopher.
| Shared404 wrote:
| If the dev is reading these, just know that a lot of us here _do_
| quite like this. I'm in the "market" for a small internet browser
| these days, and this is one I very well may get good use out of.
| warinukraine wrote:
| I remember there was an ascii-only browser called Lynx (I
| think?). What happened to that?
| dusted wrote:
| What's this for only gemini? It seems to not support http, https
| or gopher even though it kinda mention them ? Also seems to just
| segfault when loading a gemini site..
| cpsns wrote:
| You have to enable gopher in its preferences, I assume the same
| is true for http.
| blackhaz wrote:
| The scrolling direction for some reason is inverted. If I grab
| the scrollbar and drag it down with a mouse, it drags up. Is this
| made for an iPad?
| noduerme wrote:
| You know when sometimes it's just the humility vs hubris with the
| way something is presented, that inclines you toward liking or
| hating it?
| ivanhoe wrote:
| Does it know any new tricks that lynx can't do?
| starwatch wrote:
| From what I can see it supports point and click via the mouse?
| I don't think lynx does. At least the few times I've used it I
| ended up using tab/cursor keys which gets a bit tedious.
| bombolo wrote:
| links and links2 support the mouse
| MatthiasPortzel wrote:
| Since it's not constrained to the terminal, it can display
| headers in a large bold font, and body text in a non-monospace
| font.
| Zurrrrr wrote:
| [flagged]
| [deleted]
| willt1979 wrote:
| Did someone forget to fill out the "why" section?
| [deleted]
| ImHereToVote wrote:
| when the "why" section is missing. The anser is "because".
| abhijeetpbodas wrote:
| Interesting that their website itself uses CSS: view-
| source:https://kristall.random-projects.net/style.css
| spookie wrote:
| Looks like that through gemini via their browser.
| [deleted]
| opan wrote:
| Appears to be packaged in both guix and nix, which is
| surprisingly not mentioned on the website.
| nickdothutton wrote:
| My kingdom for a non corporate browser.
| sylware wrote:
| Another noscript/basic (x)html browser, with some extras.
|
| good.
|
| Don't forget that fixing the web will have to be done in court
| and with aggressive and strong regulation on the long run.
| BirAdam wrote:
| If you're aiming for regulation to fix the internet, you'll
| never have a fixed internet.
| sylware wrote:
| Corruption?
| moron4hire wrote:
| I'm quite pleased with how my personal site renders in it. Other
| than my navigation menu not showing up in quite the right place
| (which is definitely on me), everything else flows very nicely.
| reneberlin wrote:
| It will need an adblocker.
| silon42 wrote:
| Personally I don't have problem with some ads, just popups and
| JS spyware/bloatware.
|
| If there is content/ads ratio problem, you just leave the site.
| [deleted]
| jug wrote:
| I think it would be more flexible to instead of Geminispace and
| developing a browser without JS support to enforce "smolnet"
| would simply be to define a HTMLite standard with a subset where
| e.g. the entire script tag or img tag is not part of it.
|
| Then you have HTMLite verifiers (probably the simplest thing to
| verify!) to ensure a site is compliant and voila you need no
| Gemini protocol, only simple HTTP/1 and you can also render it in
| anything from Firefox 1.0 to Kristall to Lynx to Chrome 100+. As
| a bonus now you would also have very mature accessibility support
| thanks to modern browsers.
|
| We already have the tools for smolnet. We don't need to enforce
| it by removing features. We just need to define what little it
| should be.
|
| Having said that, all the power to people who love tinkering this
| way instead. I just think it will be a hindrance to broader
| adoption and wasting a bit of flexibility and reach (in terms of
| both software and people).
| est wrote:
| I am ok with no CSS/JS/WASM, but no graphics? This is wrong on
| metaphysics level. Like Socrates believed, writing was not an
| effective means of communicating knowledge
| denton-scratch wrote:
| It says that one of the features is "In-browser rendering of
| text, images and video". That seems to be at odds with the
| statement that it doesn't support "graphical websites".
|
| All I can think is that it doesn't support canvas - which would
| have surprised me anyway.
| throw10920 wrote:
| The "Hacker News on Kristal" screenshot from a sibling
| comment[1] shows HN rendered without the logo in the corner -
| I believe the browser won't render _inline_ media (which is
| how many other Gemini viewers work), in which case the parent
| 's complaint applies.
|
| I think that it's kind of an anti-tool-for-thought - meant to
| be an art piece or a political statement, and _not_ a tool
| for getting work done.
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34351337
| Julesman wrote:
| Because reasons. lol
| webmobdev wrote:
| A browser^, at a minimum, should support HTML + CSS (+1 if it
| supports the latest specification).
|
| _Edit_ : ^A modern browser
| trumbitta2 wrote:
| Agree. This cool project should be called "a user agent", not a
| browser.
| dusted wrote:
| It should not support CSS, just HTML, HTTP and HTTPS. The
| browser should render the document based on its semantics and
| the users preference.
| __void wrote:
| ...a browser for _what_ ? Kristall is (near) perfect, for its
| work
| [deleted]
| zokier wrote:
| If _modern_ browser should be that then Kristall is a _post-
| modern_ browser
| jamil7 wrote:
| That seems like an overly narrow definition of what a browser
| "should" be. I think there's enough choice that niche projects
| like this can exist.
| Etheryte wrote:
| By that definition, many screen reader browsers would not be
| considered browsers yet they enable the user to surf the web
| none the less.
| robin_reala wrote:
| That's not how a screen reader works. It interfaces with a
| "normal" browser's exposed accessibility tree, and generates
| speech / Braille from that.
| zinekeller wrote:
| As stated by robin_reala, that is not how screen readers
| work. At minimum they still definitely parse CSS as many
| accessibility enhancements were only introduced by CSS with
| no equivalent (or even a workaround) using pure HTML, and in
| practice will also require to have JavaScript support because
| when a website decides to be an obnoxious GPU-hungry Flutter
| application even CSS wouldn't cut it.
| hooby wrote:
| As someone who has come to prefer viewing web-pages in reader-
| mode rather than their default-layouts, I really love the idea of
| having a leaner, more minimalist web. Just pure content without
| all the bloat...
|
| How have I never heard about this before?
| galangalalgol wrote:
| I feel the same. I've often wondered how much is missing from
| servo if we just wanted a noscript browser. It would be nice if
| redox os had a rust only browser.
| hestefisk wrote:
| I feel the same. This is insanely cool if it does what it says
| on the tin. I am going to try it out.
| bawolff wrote:
| > TLS with TOFU...
|
| So also known as TLS with support for evesdropping. I doubt even
| an expert would be able to browse the web securely in that model.
| [deleted]
| __void wrote:
| > able to browse the web
|
| Yeah but this is not a browser for the web.
| snvzz wrote:
| There's more than one web out there.
|
| Gopher and HTTP used to be about as popular. Now we have
| other protocols like Spartan[0].
|
| 0. https://gemini.yesterweb.org/proxy/spartan.mozz.us/
| __void wrote:
| I am absolutely in love with how spartan solved the input
| problem (prompt line), I wish gemini would also adopt the
| same function/tag
| snvzz wrote:
| I avoided direct mention of Gemini for a reason: I am not
| a fan.
|
| Got nothing against the idea. It is about the
| implementation. I care about retro hardware and
| minimizing requirements; they don't.
|
| Spartan is cool.
| cpsns wrote:
| This has always been my real issue with Gemini. Gopher is
| useful on all computers I own and actually makes retro
| computers more useful with the services available on it.
|
| Gemini's TLS requirement prevents access by a of machines
| that could benefit from it.
| [deleted]
| napolux wrote:
| HN is the only place on the Internet where I hear about Gemini.
| Excluding Gemini itself.
|
| I'm all in for a simpler Internet, but on HTTP(S), with images
| and other media if needed
| majkinetor wrote:
| Yeah, gemini is way to simple, its unpractical.
| selfhoster11 wrote:
| Being unpractical is the point. It's unpractical to implement
| tracking, anything beyond simple ads, websites with flashy or
| distracting designs, picture-in-picture video autoplay like
| news websites often do, popups, moving banners, and RAM/CPU
| heavy client-side scripting (or any client-side scripting,
| for that matter). So your website will have to do without
| that.
|
| And that is by design. Gemini is designed to exclude those
| features, because the target audience of this protocol wants
| to browse a web where those features are impossible to
| include.
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| > but on HTTP(S),
|
| Gemini is fully encrypted
|
| It simply doesn't rely on the same chain the CIA and other
| agencies own
|
| inline images are left to the client implementation.
|
| Lagrange supports them, for example.
|
| https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/tls-tutorial.gmi
| jug wrote:
| Exactly. See my other post here -- I think a HTML subset would
| make more sense. Then these sites would run safely on both
| Kristall and Firefox for as long as they adhered to this
| simplified standard.
| [deleted]
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| I'm cross-publishing my website on gemini, basically rendering
| HTML and gemtext from a very slightly enhanced variant of
| gemtext that has some rendering hints that are stripped away.
|
| Like this page https://memex.marginalia.nu/log/ is rendered
| from this code: # Gemlog =>
| /topic/ Browse by topic => /links/aggregators.gmi
| Aggregators => /log/feed.xml Atom Feed
| This section of the memex contains what might described as a
| weblog. %%% FEED %%% LISTING
|
| (the FEED directive tells it to generate an Atom feed, and
| LISTING to inline the documents list rather than put it in the
| side-bar in the HTML version)
|
| Gemtext is _very_ close to what I want. The only thing I wish
| is that it had some rudimentary support for illustrative
| images. Not like inlined in the text, but at least centered
| figures. That would go a long way.
| smartmic wrote:
| Fully agree. I am also wondering why simplicity needs its own
| protocol here. Striving for simplicity is more a philosophical
| than a technical task.
|
| Edit: The creation of new protocols and technical solutions
| alone increases cognitive complexity. From this point of view,
| it is even counterproductive if existing solutions can enable
| the same.
| zppln wrote:
| I think perhaps having their own protocol serve to
| encapsulate the community interested in this particular form
| of simplicity.
| selfhoster11 wrote:
| That's pretty much the stated objective, in addition to
| designing the protocol in a way that freezes features at
| the outset to prevent it from becoming another Web 2.0.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| Dunno, the gemini protocol and gemtext format is like the
| internet equivalent of a 6502. It's extremely approachable to
| anyone with a basic understanding of programming. Like you
| could slap together a working client or a server in an
| afternoon, most likely.
|
| Its built-in limitations also inspires quite a lot of
| creativity.
| napolux wrote:
| That's make it just a toy
| cpsns wrote:
| It's disheartening to see so many posts like this on
| 'Hacker'News. It doesn't have to be some big, serious
| thing for people to either enjoy or find useful.
|
| Some people had an idea, went out, and made it a reality,
| built a small community around it and now we have Gemini.
|
| We should encourage such things. Projects don't need to
| change the world and they don't need to be useful to all
| people or exploitable by corporations. Building something
| because it's fun, or because you want it to exist is good
| enough.
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| what's wrong with toys?
|
| Toys are way better than startups and growth and
| monetization and disruption and onlyfans to pay the
| bills.
| selfhoster11 wrote:
| You say that, but plenty of old computers were based on
| the 6502. Those were used both for play and for real
| work. Before the time of resource-heavy network
| protocols, they could even host and access BBS systems
| (for those unfamiliar, basically a precursor of the
| Internet).
|
| Gemini cannot do a lot (which is by design), but it also
| has huge capabilities. For instance, while client-side
| logic is impossible, there's nothing preventing you from
| writing a "web app" that does its logic on the server
| side. Yes, you would require page refreshes to update
| what the client sees, but with Gemini each page load is
| much, much cheaper than HTML because the response payload
| is smaller to transfer and easier to parse.
|
| Assuming that your Gemini client allows enabling inline
| images, there's absolutely no reason why you couldn't
| build a stateful web-app that is a clone of Twitter,
| Facebook or another social media site. There's no reason
| why you couldn't design a simple webmail client a la
| Gmail, or a system monitoring dashboard, or a bug
| tracker, or basically anything else that doesn't have to
| rely on complex layouts or inline video to do its job.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| Of course, that's why it's so great.
| anthk wrote:
| Unix was born to play Space War. NCurses exists because
| of Rogue. Text adventures where used a lot on text
| parsing, and video games boosted the PC industry on
| multimedia.
| napolux wrote:
| > I am also wondering why simplicity needs its own protocol
| here
|
| This "killed" Gemini from the start
| bambax wrote:
| Hacker News on Kristall: https://imgur.com/a/lhq8iCw
|
| http, https are disabled by default, they need to be enabled in
| File/Settings/Generic.
|
| I was hoping it would be a single executable but (on Windows)
| it's 56 files: 1 exe, 33 dedicated dlls, 22 translation files.
|
| Google Search does not work, it's impossible to get past the
| cookie consent page: https://imgur.com/a/daGMASS (Same thing
| happens if one tries to put the search words in the url.)
|
| DuckDuckGo doesn't display a search box either, just links about
| itself: https://imgur.com/a/UMLKiOv
|
| No search box on Bing either; it's possible to access a page like
| https://www.bing.com/search?q=hacker+news for example, but the
| SERP is wrong and says "no results" whatever the words searched :
| https://imgur.com/a/J2Y4CU6
|
| The modern web is hard to use with simple tools.
| Aeolun wrote:
| How can the search boxes disappear? Aren't they just plain
| HTML?
| ketzu wrote:
| They don't render input elements (at least that is my
| understanding of the code):
|
| https://github.com/MasterQ32/kristall/blob/6b39f24484bb0796f.
| ..
|
| The GitHub notes that they only support a reduced set of
| HTML, but not which set it is. My guess is they do not
| support any interactivity related elements.
| bambax wrote:
| Ah thanks, that explains it! So it makes for quite a
| useless browser until and if they do.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| I think (extremely) rudementary CSS support would fix many of
| these cases. You don't need to support more than the basic
| layout constraints, but you need something so sites like DDG's
| search page without Javascript can work.
|
| I believe Google will still work on very old browsers through
| something like user agent sniffing, maybe setting the UA to IE5
| will trick it into rendering HTML that might actually work
| (though the search results will probably still be useless)
| culi wrote:
| Or even just supporting user stylesheets like the original
| browsers intended
|
| Nowadays you have to install an extension just to get this
| promised feature
| arnorhs wrote:
| yeah, for me the kristall website also didnt work in kristall..
| not sure if i'm doing something wrong
|
| https://www.dropbox.com/s/xtezzcsm2qcat8a/Screenshot%202023-...
| danuker wrote:
| Does https://search.marginalia.nu/ work?
| bambax wrote:
| No, but I think I must be doing something wrong, because no
| form or input field of any kind is ever displayed on any
| website. I tried the simplest form imaginable on localhost
| and it didn't work either.
|
| Edit: as ketzu points out
| (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34351753), Kristall
| simply doesn't render form elements. Which makes it pretty
| useless ATM IMHO.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| I actually used to serve marginalia search it over gemini,
| although that feature has fallen into disrepair.
|
| But it's designed to work without CSS and scripts, I test it
| with w3m and lynx, so I hope kristall can deal with it too.
| [deleted]
| SlackingOff123 wrote:
| It seems to work a lot better on Linux. Screenshots of both the
| front page of HN and of this topic: https://imgur.com/a/Armz49a
| mik1998 wrote:
| You can probably use lite.duckduckgo.com.
| ho_schi wrote:
| Like Links[1] then?
|
| Really. I want Epiphany and Firefox to allow me turn off
| JavaScript like I can allow/disallow {Audio, Video, Webcam,
| Location, Notifications...}.
|
| The single wrong decision was following Google into that JS-Show.
| JS has it rationals, I'm using it as programmer sometimes. But JS
| was consider harmful for the reasons! Google intention was using
| JS for it's so called web-application/single-page-application to
| lure users into the cloud. And they opened the opportunity for a
| bloated web with user tracking via JS, bitcoin miners via JS,
| animating all kind of elements with JS and so on. Result? Fan
| spins up, laptop battery discharged.
|
| [1] http://links.twibright.com/
|
| PS: I bet Steve Jobs would have banned entire Electron from
| MacOS. For same reasons Flash was banned.
| Jakob wrote:
| I use uBlock origin with JavaScript disabled by default.
|
| You can set a shortcut to enable JavaScript ("Relax blocking
| mode", cmd-J for me. I don't remember whether that was the
| default.)
|
| You can persist enabled JavaScript for the current domain for
| the future.
|
| I find that with JavaScript enabled on some 20 websites, the
| rest of the web works pretty well with the occasional cmd-J in
| case it doesn't.
|
| On mobile I haven't found a good way to do it. Brave browser
| makes it easiest to enable/disable JS on the current page,
| among the ones I tested.
| toastal wrote:
| There are annoyances. 1) many sites can't even be bothered
| with a basic noscript or it was the default message from some
| "starter" app rather than something meaningful/descriptive 2)
| basic sites like blogs are putting their image loading behind
| JavaScript for no reason (unless they or WordPress plugin
| developers aren't aware of <img loading="lazy">) 3) too many
| folks are relying on third-party CDNs and client-side parsing
| for something that should obviously had been done at build
| time like code syntax highlighting and rendering LaTeX
| (almost every 'modern' docs project fails this so our tech
| industry fails here).
| jeroenhd wrote:
| > I want Epiphany and Firefox to allow me turn off JavaScript
| like I can allow/disallow {Audio, Video, Webcam, Location,
| Notifications...}.
|
| uBlock Origin can do this, I believe. NoScript is a more
| involved solution, but it also still works. I don't know about
| Epiphany, though.
| [deleted]
| kgbcia wrote:
| I'm a fan of Lynx. React and angular have destroyed the semantic
| web.
| phpnode wrote:
| There has _never_ been a semantic web
| mdaniel wrote:
| "Never" is a tiny bit harsh, IMHO; arguably, there have been
| several of them they just (evidently?) don't offer content
| producers as much value as it offers to consumers (which
| includes search engines), and thus the incentives play out in
| exactly that way
|
| * JSON-LD markup exists in plenty of modern sites
|
| * schema.org markup exists in some
|
| * microformats.org briefly raised its head
|
| The BBC website is the biggest example I know of which has a
| lot of semantic markup/annotations. IIRC they used to
| actually have RDF attributes in a lot of the BBC Radio
| listings
| pipo234 wrote:
| Love Lynx and not particularly fond about JS or responsive
| frameworks. But I do not understand what React or Angular could
| have contributed that would be incompatible counter to or
| otherwise could have hampered the semantic web -- so far as
| that would have ever been a viable thing is the first place.
|
| Can you elaborate on how react and angular have destroyed the
| semantic web?
| mprime1 wrote:
| Not GP but heres what I think they meant.
|
| In the old days you could look at at raw non-rendered HTML
| and it would be so simple that you can render it in your
| head.
|
| With the advent of more sophisticated web frameworks like the
| one mentioned, that's no longer the case. The site consists
| of MBs of scripts and templates that take a gigawatt to
| render.
| pipo234 wrote:
| +1 on the bloat, though i would primarily blame sloppy code
| and cheap fast pipes.
|
| On complicated scripts taking a gigawatt to render, I would
| like to point out that in the good old days that _was_ all
| happening too -- just not in your browser. Inefficient PHP
| and CGI scripts, massive Java frameworks. Today, still the
| majority of complexity and heavy lifting is kept away from
| our browsers. It 's sobering to think that most of the
| gigawatts we burn on our phones, do not show up on our
| power bills...
| johnfernow wrote:
| I think that for most businesses, their sites could be
| statically generated, with iframes and embed tags for
| interactive parts like forms, and the web would become
| much faster, more pleasant to use, and have a notably
| lower carbon footprint. Making images smaller by default
| would help too.
|
| For interactive sites, if videos were limited to 480p on
| mobile and 720p on desktop unless manually changed, I
| imagine the carbon impact of data centers would drop
| considerably. For content viewed on TVs (where you
| usually sit quite a bit farther back than a monitor),
| such as Netflix or Hulu, I think they could set it to
| 480p by default and a lot of people would never bother to
| change it.
|
| Unfortunately actually calculating the carbon footprint
| of a bloated web (compared to a lite version) would be
| very difficult. As you mention, a lot of that bloat is on
| the backend. New Reddit may transfer 6x more resources
| over the network than Old Reddit, but both of them have
| to process on the back-end what links should even be
| shown for a given user, so I doubt switching to Old
| Reddit would result in 6x fewer emissions. But even if it
| only resulted in 2x fewer emissions, that'd still be a
| considerable improvement. Part of the investigation would
| require seeing how much energy is used by the data
| centers processing what to send, versus how much energy
| is used by ISPs transferring that data across networks to
| the end-users.
|
| In any case, if sites were more like Hacker News,
| Craigslist, and Wikipedia, versus New Reddit, Amazon, and
| most news sites, I feel confident that the carbon
| footprint of the Internet would go down notably. HN and
| Craigslist's designs are going to be hard sell for most
| businesses, but something like Wikipedia proves you can
| have an attractive design with low page sizes. And in the
| case for newspapers, it'd be nice if their web versions
| were more similar to their paper versions. That is tough
| with a free + ads model, but honestly I'm more likely to
| see an ad if the whole site is just text and there's a
| text ad in the middle of it (hopefully properly
| identified as such, though.)
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| I quickly moved on to Links when I was using Lynx for a while
| (some years ago) as it optionally did images and could work
| with some JavaScript. Depends on ones use case.
| every wrote:
| I have been using lynx for almost 3 decades. It is still my
| primary browser. All of my bookmarks are stored in lynx. When
| necessary, I can spawn my defined x-www-browser from inside
| lynx, as when typing this comment. The two together are quite
| functional...
| shadowgovt wrote:
| React and angular are definitely the wrong tools for the job if
| one is trying to make a semantically-parseable page. They're
| tools for human interaction, not machine interaction. It turns
| out humans care about things that HTML and CSS alone weren't
| sufficient to account for (like delaying streaming of data
| until it's actually needed, saving on bandwidth, which humans
| have to pay for).
| pepa65 wrote:
| Instant fail: does not zoom. Unusable except if the font scaling
| is just right for you.
|
| Lagrange (cross-platform) looks much better, and does zoom. In
| the terminal is nice too, I like Amfora (Golang single binary).
| tucosan wrote:
| Useless negative comments like yours make me wish I could
| downvote comments on HN.
| zamadatix wrote:
| Being it's version 0.4 I'm willing to look past a lot of things
| being fully implemented yet. Especially in this case since
| Settings -> Style lets you configure the sizing of every
| component to your liking so we know text scaling isn't just
| forgotten about or restricted. Another example is text
| selection, looks like it's marked as experimental.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-12 23:01 UTC)