Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #275533 > unrolled thread

Re: Firefox alternatives?

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Firefox alternatives? Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk> - 2024-12-11 23:20 +0100
    Re: Firefox alternatives? Bret Busby <bret@busby.net> - 2024-12-11 23:50 +0100
      Re: Firefox alternatives? Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> - 2024-12-12 17:00 +0100
        Re: Firefox alternatives? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-12-12 18:40 +0100
      Re: Firefox alternatives? "Roy J. Tellason, Sr." <roy@rtellason.com> - 2024-12-12 19:20 +0100
    Re: Firefox alternatives? Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-12-12 00:10 +0100
      Re: Firefox alternatives? Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk> - 2024-12-12 10:30 +0100

#275533 — Re: Firefox alternatives?

I see similar behaviour (using EXWM in Emacs as my window manager).  I
don't have a solution beyond what I do: kill and restart Firefox
periodically.

Alternative browsers either don't cater to all the needs or are just as
bad (or worse, especially in terms of tracking etc.).

However, what depresses me is the number of responses suggesting
increasing memory etc.  It's a sad state of affairs we have reached
where simple web browsing (and it *should* be simple) requires such
significant resources.  Even banking should not lead to lag in window
management.

-- 
Eric S Fraga via gnus (Emacs 31.0.50 2024-07-16) on Debian 12.0

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#275535

On 12/12/24 06:14, Eric S Fraga wrote:

<snip>

> However, what depresses me is the number of responses suggesting
> increasing memory etc.  It's a sad state of affairs we have reached
> where simple web browsing (and it *should* be simple) requires such
> significant resources.  Even banking should not lead to lag in window
> management.
> 
I believe that the problem, and, the reason that the Internet (on top of 
which, runs, or, hobbles along, the World Wide Web, hobbled by the web 
applications), is the malignant use of javascript client-side processing.

If the web application developers more properly used server-side 
processing (and, even the sinister javascript has provision for 
server-side processing), the World Wide Web, and, under it, the 
Internet, would operate like they should, racing along, instead of 
operating like a pair of decrepit cripples, like they are, crippled by 
the client-side processing.

..
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
(UTC+0800)
..............

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#275586

Hi,

On 12/12/24 10:16 am, Van Snyder wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-12-12 at 06:42 +0800, Bret Busby wrote:
>> I believe that the problem, and, the reason that the Internet (on top of
>> which, runs, or, hobbles along, the World Wide Web, hobbled by the web
>> applications), is the malignant use of javascript client-side processing.
> 
> Shortly after it first arrived, javascript (as opposed to java) was described as "the world's best virus construction kit."

Yeah, I'm not so sure that is right, but I often referred to JAVA as "Just Another Vulnerability Announcement" ....
fortunately now JAVA on the client end is not near as common as it used to be and, if I'm not mistaken, is not even an
option with a modern browser.  The server side argument doesn't help, it's all the junk and poor programming of the website
that is the real problem.

Shitty developers of websites, all it takes is one or two poorly coded websites and it can screw up your whole experience.
Find the culprit pages / sites if you can and avoid them as much as possible.

JavaScript need not be that bad, but the web developers at fault are the ones that SHOULD NOT HAVE jobs!

A.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#275589

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 02:52:30AM +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 12/12/24 10:16 am, Van Snyder wrote:
> > On Thu, 2024-12-12 at 06:42 +0800, Bret Busby wrote:
> >> I believe that the problem, and, the reason that the Internet (on top of
> >> which, runs, or, hobbles along, the World Wide Web, hobbled by the web
> >> applications), is the malignant use of javascript client-side processing.
> > 
> > Shortly after it first arrived, javascript (as opposed to java) was described as "the world's best virus construction kit."

[...]

> JavaScript need not be that bad, but the web developers at fault are the ones that SHOULD NOT HAVE jobs!

It's not the devels. It's their bosses. And the bosses's customers.
And.

You don't get paid for even *counting* the number of npm packages
which get wrapped into your so-called front-end. Let alone to
understand what they purport to do. Let alone to understand what
they *actually do*.

That's how those funny vulnerabilities like event-stream [1] happen.

Cheers

[1] https://lwn.net/Articles/773121/
-- 
t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#275594

On Wednesday 11 December 2024 05:42:41 pm Bret Busby wrote:
> On 12/12/24 06:14, Eric S Fraga wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > However, what depresses me is the number of responses suggesting
> > increasing memory etc.  It's a sad state of affairs we have reached
> > where simple web browsing (and it *should* be simple) requires such
> > significant resources.  Even banking should not lead to lag in window
> > management.
> > 
> I believe that the problem, and, the reason that the Internet (on top of 
> which, runs, or, hobbles along, the World Wide Web, hobbled by the web 
> applications), is the malignant use of javascript client-side processing.
> 
> If the web application developers more properly used server-side 
> processing (and, even the sinister javascript has provision for 
> server-side processing), the World Wide Web, and, under it, the 
> Internet, would operate like they should, racing along, instead of 
> operating like a pair of decrepit cripples, like they are, crippled by 
> the client-side processing.

Agreed.  I run a very sparse website (rtellason.com) and use almost no javascript whatsoever...

-- 
Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and
ablest -- form of life in this section of space,  a critter that can
be killed but can't be tamed.  --Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters"
-
Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James 
M Dakin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#275539

On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 22:14:20 +0000, Eric S Fraga wrote:
> However, what depresses me is the number of responses suggesting
> increasing memory etc.  It's a sad state of affairs we have reached
> where simple web browsing (and it *should* be simple) requires such
> significant resources.

Sure, but there's nothing we can do about that.  Thus, we can only
recommend workarounds that are within our power.

> Even banking should not lead to lag in window
> management.

Banking and government web sites are the *worst* offenders.  They make
extremely heavy use of all the bad practices they can find.  And you
can't just say "I won't use this web site", because it's your *bank*
or your *government*.

(Yes, in theory, you could find a different bank, but the other bank's
web site is just going to be the same.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#275565

Response below/inline for email Greg Wooledge wrote:
> (original email sent 11 Dec 2024 at 18:04)
> 
> Sure, but there's nothing we can do about that.  Thus, we can only
> recommend workarounds that are within our power.

Oh, indeed.  I wasn't attempting to shoot the messengers, just the state
of affairs.  We do what we must.

-- 
Eric S Fraga via gnus (Emacs 31.0.50 2024-07-16) on Debian 12.0

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web