[HN Gopher] NetSurf Web Browser
___________________________________________________________________
NetSurf Web Browser
Author : jszymborski
Score : 129 points
Date : 2024-01-04 06:52 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.netsurf-browser.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.netsurf-browser.org)
| tuananh wrote:
| I tried it just now and it renders very poorly some common sites
| like facebook (bad rendering) or twitter (not supported at all)
|
| docs links are mostly broken 404
|
| https://www.netsurf-browser.org/documentation/progress#Gener...
| anthk wrote:
| It doesn't support JS, head to https://m.facebook.com maybe. On
| Twitter, they used to have a JSless page, but now it's defunct.
| ainar-g wrote:
| It does have optional support for JS thru Duktape[1] Engine,
| if I recall correctly, but that engine doesn't support a lot
| of modern JS stuff, mostly being limited to ECMAScript 5.
|
| [1]: https://duktape.org/
| asystole wrote:
| It's a cool historic artifact, but I'd argue a browser
| without JS support these days is like a text editor without
| syntax highlighting.
| anthk wrote:
| If the web needs JS to work even to display non-dynamic
| content, then the web it's utterly broken.
| bee_rider wrote:
| A good number of sites are utterly broken.
|
| I remember being able to browse normal sites with
| JavaScript disabled as late as 2010, but since then I've
| had to downgrade to Firefox+noscript.
| bufio wrote:
| I can't see the downsides to a lack of JS or syntax
| highlighting.
| omaranto wrote:
| Most of the websites I interact with are either very
| interactive web apps which have no hope of working without
| JavaScript or are basically made up of text documents I
| want to read. It is shocking how much the document-style
| websites improve if you browse them _without_ JavaScript.
| People have really put a lot of crap on top of what is
| basically just a text file.
| bovermyer wrote:
| Refreshingly lightweight?
| tenebrisalietum wrote:
| or, it's like a document reader with a far lower amount and
| chance of security issues.
| password4321 wrote:
| https://mbasic.facebook.com
| iamevn wrote:
| It's really interesting to run a web browser in a framebuffer
| without any sort of display manager running [1].
|
| [1]: https://ci.netsurf-browser.org/jenkins/job/docs-
| netsurf/doxy...
| arghwhat wrote:
| Note that fbdev use deprecated because it's a really bad and
| broken kernel API.
|
| One can use KMS directly, but at that point you're just
| implementing all the logic of a display server and might as
| well just use a small kiosk-style Wayland display server
| instead.
| ranger_danger wrote:
| how is it broken?
| direwolf20 wrote:
| The Xorg fbdev driver is deprecated. If you're not Xorg but
| you want to easily put some pixels on the screen, fbdev is
| still for you.
|
| The Linux fbdev subsystem is deprecated, but the fb devices
| will be emulated with DRM because they are useful.
| ranger_danger wrote:
| is there an easy way to get a framebuffer with DRM
| without using fbdev?
| dmitrygr wrote:
| That comment assumes that nothing but Linux exists. I've
| ported netsurf to very very non-Linux environments that just
| had a framebuffer. So no "just use Wayland" is not the
| answer. (Ever)
| kristopolous wrote:
| arachne did this as well back in the day
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arachne_(web_browser)
|
| It could run in CGA, really
| nolist_policy wrote:
| I want to like NetSurf but the UI and keybindings are so
| different from every other browser.
| snvzz wrote:
| One of the few non-webkit/blink/gecko open source browsers.
|
| Dillo, Links, Ladybird, AWeb are the other ones I am aware of.
| doener wrote:
| I think NetSurf is the most popular browser in the small
| community that still uses Amiga computers.
|
| https://www.netsurf-browser.org/downloads/amiga/
| snvzz wrote:
| aweb and ibrowse are definitely more popular still.
|
| aweb works on every Amiga and is open-source, but bad support
| for current www, and quite unmaintained.
|
| ibrowse requires 68020, is reasonably fast but sadly
| proprietary. Better support for current www, but not great.
|
| netsurf has probably the best support, but is the slowest,
| needs a lot of RAM and crashes a lot in my experience. It is
| probably much better with RTG, which I do not have.
|
| Most of the time I'll just use AmiGemini. It is very fast and
| supports Gopher/Spartan/Finger besides the Gemini I find
| horribly designed and personally do not care about.
|
| (mainly use my A1200, 68030 @ 50)
| cmiller1 wrote:
| While there has been some backporting of features TO Gecko from
| it, Servo is technically an open-source non-webkit/blink/gecko
| browser engine.
| password4321 wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38847613 _Show HN:
| Resurrecting the Dillo browser_ (3 days ago)
| keepamovin wrote:
| I'm viewing YC HN now from NetSurf. It's cool. I really like it!
| :)
| factormeta wrote:
| thanks for mention it. For people who don't like using js heavy
| site, this is a very good way to just browse lite document base
| (not SPA) web site. No Brave or Ad blocker needed. And it is one
| of few browser will display google in html old format.
| not_your_vase wrote:
| I don't see adblock being mentioned on the website. I know that
| it's a convenience feature, and at home my PiHole takes care of
| it, but everywhere else nowadays adblocking is more important
| than HTML standard-compliance. (Compliance is pointless, is ads
| make the content inaccessible)
| pwdisswordfishc wrote:
| There's no point in blocking ads in no ad scripts can run in
| the first place.
| wmlive wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38234705 about netsurf's
| GNUstep variant named websurf.
| Yhippa wrote:
| Are there any good non-boated web browsers that are open sourced
| for macOS? With binaries available?
| CharlesW wrote:
| Probably nothing you haven't heard of unless you'd be happy
| compiling and using an incomplete "project" browser, like
| Ladybird. The list with pre-built binaries includes: Mozilla
| Firefox (or Waterfox), Google Chromium (or Brave), and Apple
| WebKit via Safari (so, open source engine, closed-source
| chrome) or other browsers that use WebKit (e.g. DuckDuckGo's
| Orion).
| pedrogpimenta wrote:
| Did you mean Kagi's Orion?
| CharlesW wrote:
| Thank you! Yes, I was confused -- DDG's browser is
| "DuckDuckGo for Mac", and also uses WebKit.
| thisislife2 wrote:
| PaleMoon (http://www.palemoon.org/) is a pretty decent and
| actively maintained browser with binaries available for
| multiple platform including macOS. It looks pretty nice with a
| MacOS theme (https://addons.palemoon.org/addon/xmoon/) too.
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| Safari's rendering engine is open source, but the UI isn't.
|
| https://www.webkit.org
| bee_rider wrote:
| Not having JavaScript blocks off a huge attack vector, which is
| great, but how's the track record of smaller browsers like this
| on stuff like image rendering attacks? ie,
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37478403
|
| I'd love to switch away from the over-complicated internet, but
| this sort of worry keeps me on Firefox+javascript blocker.
| flashback2199 wrote:
| It seems to have a JS engine. It also mentions "improvements to
| JavaScript handling" for 3.9. I guess it's disabled by default
| though.
| G3rn0ti wrote:
| That would be great news. Last time I checked it did not come
| with JS support.
| nateb2022 wrote:
| Indeed, it uses the Duktape engine: https://duktape.org/
| nequo wrote:
| One thing you can do is sandbox your browser with AppArmor
| and/or Firejail to limit the fallout.
| Rapzid wrote:
| > Why Choose NetSurf
|
| It's not malware, we promise.
| nurettin wrote:
| That's not FUD, I swear.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-01-06 23:01 UTC)