When I use the text-only browser I choose, the ordering of thoughts is quite different. When people use browsers written by web advertising-supported organisations, then the "organisation of thoughts" is going to revolve around advertising (requisite tracking and personal data/metadata collection) and how to integrate it into the browser. Someone once called it "an ordering of one's thoughts". In every case of a non HTML-reading/saving or Sure, we can take each of those individual programs and integrate them into a single program, and still call it a "browser" but why would anyone want to do that.^2 What is that concept in programming called "separation of concerns". I do not try to live inside a single pogram. When I want to listen to audio or watch video, I do not try to listen or watch using this browser. ![]() I have separate compilers and interpeters for that. When I want to run programs I do not do that using this browser. This browser is all I really need.^1 I read HTML then decide if I want to download or save something. The program has various settings for cache size, character set and so forth. It displays HTML tables beautifully in textmode. This browser allows me to "browse" hypertext. It compiles in under a minute on a low-end computer. ![]() It is 5.7M of C code, including graphics stuff I do not utilise. The browser I use as a "daily driver" is a 1.3M static binary. It all depends on who defines what a "browser" is and what it can do. "Browsers should be simple enough to be implemented by a single person in a week." Who knows where the web standards will go when there will only be Google backed browsers: Apart from that, we basically have just a bunch of browsers that are all similar to Chromium.Įssentially, Chrome will have probably lived long enough to kill IE by becoming the next IE. Personally, i think that we're past the peak of Firefox and are currently in the midst of it fading away, which i expect will come to its conclusion in the following decade. However, that's not to say that we even have many viable alternatives to Firefox either. Rather than take such statements at face value, here's an example of one such instance that probably hurts its credibility: Īlso, they're not exactly a world apart from Google in some respects either, for example: vs (though i guess the amount of projects also illustrates the difference in their sizes) ![]() While firefox may be a better choice than the other two, that's not saying much and Mozilla is very sleazy.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |