Quoting an anonymous Twitter user (got harrassed for these statements):

"Safari is buggy" is a valid criticism.

"Safari is behind Chrome in features" is not a valid criticism.

Never forget that the browser vendors, including Google and Apple, seized control of the web from the W3C. These few companies have too much power over the web, period.


The web has massive feature bloat. It's a privacy and security nightmare.

I personally think we should abolish JavaScript and not allow arbitrary remotely loaded code to execute on our computers.

"I want web sites to do everything a native app can do" is a suicidal mistake.


The more features that are added to the web, the less browser competition is possible! This is essential to recognize.

And Google knows it! That's the whole point.

Who can keep up with Google? Mozilla can't. Apple can't. Even Microsoft threw in the towel and adopted Chromium.


Imagine a small company trying to write their own web browser from scratch nowadays. It's just not possible! The web is so complex, there's no choice but to adopt one of the few existing browser engines: Chromium, WebKit, Gecko. That's it. The competitive landscape is bleak.


"Everyone has to adopt Chromium" is exactly Google's plan.

Who controls the dominant browser engine controls the web.


In a sense, there's no point in even having "web standards" anymore.

Web standards theoretically allow *anybody* to implement a browser engine. But if the "standards" are sufficiently huge, then practically *nobody* can implement a browser engine.


I've personally implemented software from scratch using RFC as a guide, in several different areas.

But a web browser engine? Forget it!

The "standards" now are nothing more than Chromium, WebKit, Gecko, and their individual quirks. How can there be a new engine?


The web is not "open" if nobody new can write a web browser engine. It's the illusion of openness.

8/8 Fin!

@alcinnz but sometimes I want to start a new engine. amone the existing ones I like Netsurf: it's written in C and has the most compact and robust realization, and their own renderer.
@alcinnz more problems is graphics and direct memory access that they made specially for browsers. I believe it was a deadly mistake. the most untrustworthy and buggy software has direct access to video bugffers in system. this is wrong, just wrong. and JS turns any browser into malware, factually. so the web as it is now is something evil and dangerous.

@iron_bug @alcinnz Modern GPUs (i.e. anything supporting WebGL) have enough isolation that malicious code shouldn't be able to do anything worse than a denial-of-service by causing GPU timeouts.

(But even that can kill the display server with some drivers.)

It's not like any GPU would have a vulnerability allowing modification (and possibly reading) of another process' graphics memory, right? Right?

(Hint: some do)

@alcinnz @ixn shit like "WebGL", "Webasm" (although it has nothing to do with assembler), remote running of untrusted code, DRM (I mean not the kernel feature but the proprietary crap), etc should not exist. this is a hole in security.
browser is the most unstrusted application on PC. it should be limiteb by the hardest virtual environments and have no direct access to any hardware at all.

@iron_bug @alcinnz @ixn I am still convinced WebUSB was a bad April fools joke that got posted on the wrong day, and nobody wants to admit it.

@emily @iron_bug @ixn IETF does April's Fools jokes afterall, Google likes April's Fools jokes. So why wouldn't the W3C?

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!