technology

24078 readers

233 users here now

On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.

Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020

Rules:

1. Obviously abide by the sitewide code of conduct. Bigotry will be met with an immediate ban
2. This community is about technology. Offtopic is permitted as long as it is kept in the comment sections
3. Although this is not /c/libre, FOSS related posting is tolerated, and even welcome in the case of effort posts
4. We believe technology should be liberating. As such, avoid promoting proprietary and/or bourgeois technology
5. Explanatory posts to correct the potential mistakes a comrade made in a post of their own are allowed, as long as they remain respectful
6. No crypto (Bitcoin, NFT, etc.) speculation, unless it is purely informative and not too cringe
7. Absolutely no tech bro shit. If you have a good opinion of Silicon Valley billionaires please manifest yourself so we can ban you.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

context@hexbear.net

SexUnderSocialism@hexbear.net

gaycomputeruser@hexbear.net

Wakmrow@hexbear.net

SwitchyandWitchy@hexbear.net

The idea of lightweight browsers annoys me (hexbear.net)

submitted 1 week ago by Super_Lumalo@hexbear.net to c/technology@hexbear.net

29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

All of these recommendations for Falkon, Palemoon, Seamonkey. Honestly? None of these really make a difference to me, and Falkon actually runs like shit while not really reducing resource use!

Librewolf genuinely runs perfectly for me while taking up slightly (like 10%) more ram and vastly less cpu time. And it being a fork of Firefox, I can easily use all the addons I need (or can afford) to browse the web.

With Falkon stuff barely worked, was slow, and features were missing. With Librewolf, h264ify and a Youtube video as an embed within a tab. I can watch 720p/30fps video without issue. It baffles me on why this concept even exists, when the problem that is the modern web creates is that you really can't make a new, much less lightweight, browser or engine.

And I don't particularly care for Ladybird.

Okay but what shitbox are you running?

Thank you for asking imaginary poster in my head. Intel Atom N2600 with 1GB of DDR3 ram. It sucks. And it is testament to me just how nonsensical lightweight web browsers are, I'm sure that it's Antix that is making it all work. Also I wrote this post on this shitty netbook and it's weirdly smooth happily enough.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ChaosMaterialist@hexbear.net 26 points 1 week ago (7 children)

the problem that is the modern web creates is that you really can't make a new, much less lightweight, browser or engine.

S I G H

We made a huge mistake putting everything in the browser. It's the new OS.

[–] quarrk@hexbear.net 6 points 1 week ago (6 children)

I don’t really know anything about this stuff, so feel free to tell me if this is a thing or that it wouldn’t work:

What if a new lightweight class of browsers emerged with an intentionally reduced set of features? Then websites that believe in that principle would build toward that standard and not use features beyond it. Could be more secure and faster to load. And if the standard gained traction, it would prevent the inevitable “power creep” done by web designers who would want to use all features available to them.

There is already a trend toward tech simplification using e-ink displays and “dumb phones”, so I think it could plausibly gain popularity.

[–] beanlover@hexbear.net 6 points 1 week ago

Those front-end wrapper sites like Invidious, Nitter, Libreddit, etc, were great alternatives that from what I understood had little JS usage. I think there are definitely people making this kind of stuff still but it seems relegated to front-end alternatives mostly. I'm always happy to see these services running around. We do have diethex.net after all.

load more comments (5 replies)