/tech/ - Technology★

As a web dev I agree.

I'm slowly but surely upgrading myself into a systems dev, but it takes some time going off-roard.

>>841583 (OP)

You should stop hating and start to love instead.

Instead of hating this web you should build one that you will love.

>>841590

how do you even get hired as sysdev when all you did before was js/php?

>>841583 (OP)

Opera 12 did a lot of what you asked for. Yet while you ask for more in your browser, another person will come along and call it bloat.

Your best bet is to use an existing engine like Webkit and add in the convenience features you require, and remove what you do not want (javascript, videos etc.)

>he doesn't want VR webpages done in 3D with descent controls for navigation

It's like, 2017, man.

>>841583 (OP)

literally me

I'm just using qutebrowser with firejail and mpv.

Animated gifs still trigger me and I'm waiting for him to implement proper content blocking.

>>841601

>all you did before was js/php

Well. I wrote my first C program when I was 9, had been writing BASIC, Lingo and OPL since I was 7. It's much easier to land a job as a webdev without official qualifications than a serious programming one (I studied languages in college).

So far I've managed to do some stuff on servers that were related to projects I was working on and the backend needed some scripting done in Bash.

I've also gotten my foot in the sysadmin world for some of my more small clients. I'm also in the process of developing two mobile apps for two different clients with a partner, which we could do in Java but we're going to do in Cordova so that we can later reuse it for a web version.

Webdev is fucking everywhere and difficult to escape. I even had a client ask me to write a backend in Node "just because" he thought you can do things with it you can't with an Apache server and PHP.

An additional problem is that there aren't many small company programming jobs outside of webdev in my country (also I work out of my own company, I don't want to wageslave for anyone), so it's going to be difficult to find my niche. I'll always have my own projects and contributing to open source ones, so it's not a big deal.

>>841600

Very good advice.

>>841609

>Opera 12

<using proprietary chinkware

You should call them documents or more specifically HTML documents instead of web pages.

>Why

>Why

>Why

Because we have to make shekels and brainwash goyim to the point where the west will simply cease to exist. Come on it's 2018 (almost) be open-minded you fucking anti-semite. The true internet 2.0 is here and you have to accept it.

>>841682

I see that question the other way around: Why the fuck would you need js for a simple image gallery?

>>841583 (OP)

>stupid fucking Xmas hat on all thumbnails

It's right there, in css:

content:url('https://i.imgur.com/PghEJhe.gif');

>mfw 8ch forces my browser to connect to third-party servers in order to fetch some stupid ass 1KB picture

nice blog post

didn't read lol kys

>>841583 (OP)

>Fuck ads

Agreed, but useless people have to make money somehow, it's not like we should put them is gaswagen or something, right? Think of the children. While cities remove advertisements from buildings and shields, web gobbles it down. Think, in future we'll have absolutely sterile grey looking architecture overlapped by your AR system's content provider ads and textures.

>Fuck interactive web pages

What else should be interactive? Downloadable exes? APP for this, APP for that? Web is a perfect solution for short-lived server interaction.

>fuck cookies

It's an easiest way of giving you an identity after you log in.

>rest in peace Java and Flash

Modern JavaScript libraries are in fact what Java, Flash and Silverlight used to be. Forced down corporate standards.

>A webpage should be exclusively text, images and solid colors

That's what Gopher is ideal for. Why don't you fuck off to Gopher instead, huh?

>Everything else should be a download

Webpages create a seamless experience, once they used to be works of art. Browser devs can't be responsible for whatever your proprietary shitty player normie installed on his computer bugs. Once there used to be "internet suites" with browser, instant messenger (IRC/XMPP or proprietary), RSS reader and email client bundled together. Nowadays people use browser for everything and a dedicated IM issued by their social "network" developers.

But in Firefox and forks it is easily configurable. Disable autodisplay, pipe everything to programs, use yourube-dl binder for youtube-like sites that obscure third-party downloads.

>Why don't all browsers have built-in wget for full page archiving?

You have a built-in wget in your os already, I assume.

>Why don't all browsers have built-in adblock and UMatrix mechanisms?

Some browser have and it leads to more privacy concerns and easier profiling of users instead.

>Why doesn't the browser tell me what the page IP is?

It tells you the hostname. IP is usually irrelevant when everything today is behind the "cloud" to protect from ddoses.

>Why doesn't it tell me my external IP is?

You have to connect to some sort of server and then fetch your IP from it. It's a privacy concern, aside from Tor browser, it tells you IPs of all three nodes you are connected to including exit as it appears to be "your" IP for the webpage you visit.

>Why doesn't the browser let me override the network DNS and even filter the queries?

This is what an OS should do. If you don't have full control over OS, maybe you shouldn't change your browser settings too.

>Why can't I easily choose to block any page element that I want in my browser

In fact, you can. Right click - inspect element, delete the line from rendered page code. Easy as that.

Hats and weird themes on imageboards are usually delivered through custom CSS. If you don't already override it with your own preferred style, well pity on you.

>>841700

Because it feels like you can't do anything beyond an old static Web 1.0 page without the damned thing. I just checked a random booru, and it had no less than 16 first party scripts. And my goal with a new booru would be precisely to add more features, so God knows how much of js' functionality in boorus could be replaced by... whatever else that isn't a script.

>>841583 (OP)

>Why don't all browsers have a full page screenshot button?

Firefox has. Chrome has. What other browsers do you need? I assume, more obscure browsers have this ability too.

>Where's the button to change my user agent to whatever?

User agent is isrrlelevant if you think it's some sort of big bad way of tracking you. Today's tracking techniques use javascript to profile your hardware, which is hard to spoof, and they completely ignore UA unless it says search robot or something.

>Actually why is there a user agent even?

It's a legacy item from times when your father used to pick up on his classmate chicks. Back in the day not all broswer had same features and web devs explicitly had to state whether their website is compatible with certain browser or not, vice versa for browsers. Gecko for Netscape, IE for Internet explorer, and so on. You visit an IE-optimized website with Netscape. Bad for you, the page is all fucked up and unreadable. Today all browsers simply include all possible combinations like "Mozilla, Gecko" for backwards compatibility with old websites, and that's it. Another fraction is to assume what OS you are using to deliver you a download page for Windows of for Linux, and overall statistics comparison for something like:

OMG! 2% of Linux visitors are reported by technology-oriented website, year of the Linux Desktop has come!

>This is the webdevs fault, fuck webdevs again!

This is corporate fault, namely Microsoft's and Netcape's. They pushed different walled gardens back in 90's.

> they should be built-in

What else should be built-in? Video player shouldn't, but your "assburger_functionname" should. Nice doublethink there. Go fork yourself a new browser with cool useful features you like.

>What happens when something like Firefox 57 happens

>Jeez I just ran Pacman -Syu on my Arch and it broke the whole system because i'm a dumb faggot who does not understand concept of rolling release and bleeding edge software.

This is why people use stable distribution with old features when they don't waht to change to everything new right away. This is why ESR exists, nigger.

>Simple uses all the normie defaults and keeps UI brief while expert gives full control.

It's called browser console. Same as on your OS, "normie UI" and "full control terminal". Press F12.

>>841682

Good luck on offloading tag database searches on your server. Hope, you have money for those double-cpu Power9 servers.

>>841690

>only western sites use JS and brainwash users

>(((They))) enjoy only efficient an unobscured hypertext delivery protocols

Nice logic, mr cis ""white"" male who likes traps but traps are not gay Daquan Smith the Third. Back to your nigger containment board >>>/paul/

For those who don't like JS, but are fine with CSS, here's a nice webdev cheat sheet for CSS hacks to substitute JavaScript wherever possible:

https://github.com/you-dont-need/You-Dont-Need-Javascript

Though, css can sometimes slow the page render too.

Have a look at >>>/css/

>>841702

>8ch forces my browser to connect to third-party servers

It's not 8ch's fault, but rather /b/'s BO / mod team's fault.

>>841654

Opera 12 was the last good hWhite version. It had many of the features OP wanted... but of course, you just had to sperg.

>>841715

>>841682

Make a thread for and lets get going! /tech/ needs more projects!

I'll do the logo

>>841876

8ch is usable with JS disabled.

>>841608

>unnecessary shit like the coincidence detector

>unnecessary

nice try mossad

>>841718

>Have a look at >>>/css/

shit it breaks my browser

Browsers are really crippled compared to all other software that we commonly use. Imagine if our painting software had only the pencil function by default. Cropping, filling, drawing rectangles, circles, etc. is all an addon. That's the situation browsers are in these days. I mean, at least something like uMatrix built in should be a necessity.

>>841718

That's pretty impressive, but it's still abusing CSS for something it was not meant to do. At this point I would consider JavaScript to be the lesser evil. Just make sure the page still has its basic functionality preserved without JS, even if it doesn't look as fancy. Instead of a hacked-together accordion menu I'd rather just have the elements all visible.

>>841859

In all seriousness, a good starting point would be the horsefucker booru software of all places. It seems to be the one that uses the least js by a fair margin, a weird mishmash of functions cribbed from various simple scripts.

quality thread

have a bump

>>841583 (OP)

>everything should be built right into a browser

>why is my browser a 26.6GB download, a 118GB install, and why does it need 218GB of ram?

>>846859

They offload processing that doesn't give them tracking data to the client to safe money though.

We need a heavily opinionated alternative to HTML5 that allows for fully functional websites and browsers without all the ridiculous compromises we do today to give web designers full control over "user experience". Only one format for lossless images and another one for lossy images, only one format for lossy audio and only on format for lossless audio (and NO AUTOPLAY), and only one format for video. Sane layouting engine based on what titling window managers have, or a return to iframe-like/table-like layouting, if you wish. Standarized components to avoid stupid shit like the thousand different ways that exist to define buttons, or inconsistent forms (can someone explain to me why a button is an input, but a textarea isn't?). No JS, and instead a standarized way to perform most common JS functions (Ajax fetching, form validation, hide or show things, etc). And more importantly, enforced encryption.

The web is a terrible behemoth that can not be saved. After decades of crust, it is naive to think anyone else can enter the browser race. We need to start anew, and keep things minimal and functional. We need to contemplate things changing in the future, but we should do away with the idea of supporting legacy stuff; just provide fallbacks, and delrte anything not currently in use.

>>846899

You have no clue what the hell you're talking about.

>>841713

>it's not like we should put them is gaswagen or something, right?

Why not?

t. /pol/

>>846975

Even worse: he doesn't even think. "Muh 1 standard format" is an obviously retarded position which thinks keeping the software small is above all other things.

Everything is a web app now because the operating systems suck. Everything is too low level and needs a lot more code to use than it should.

Everything is becoming an operating system. UEFI is an OS. Linux is an OS. Systemd is an OS. "GNU" is an OS. X is an OS. GNOME is an OS. Firefox is an OS. JavaScript frameworks are OSes.

People seem to think high level is slow or needs more RAM, but that's because of all these bad layers underneath. We're using high level GUIs anyway, so why not get rid of the bloat underneath? The Mac and game consoles were high level on bare metal. How were they able to do graphics and sound with so little code?

>>847035

>Mac and game consoles were high level on bare metal. How were they able to do graphics and sound with so little code?

Non-existing hardware support.

>>846975

Thanks for your hot take and arguments.

>>847014

How many times have we had vulnerabilities in media format libraries? By reducing the amount of allowed formats, you reduce the amount of attack vectors. I would say that's a good tradeoff, compared to the alternative, which only gives you small bandwidth optimization if everyone knows what they are doing (and they don't). Certainly more user friendly than prohibiting all media, like anons usually recommend in these threads.

>>841600

We already had it. He's complaining about the dipshit monkeys who came along and shit it all up. I completely agree. Gas all web devs and browser devs. Let's start over.

>>846899

>>847058

>Thanks for your hot take and arguments.

Sure thing.

>fully functional websites and browsers without all the ridiculous compromises we do today to give web designers full control over "user experience".

What specifically gives web designers "full control" of UX? Layout? The styling of buttons, backgrounds, borders and such? Where is the line between fully functional sites and giving web designers "full control?" Where does a site such as 8ch fall? It has many convenient features like draggable windows that I imagine would be barred in a light version of the Web.

>Only one format for lossless images and another one for lossy images, only one format for lossy audio and only on format for lossless audio (and NO AUTOPLAY), and only one format for video.

This condition falls apart through inductive reasoning when you ask yourself this question: why not uphold this for entire operating systems? One of many answers is that while for the end user, they're mostly the same, there are many ways that different file formats make things easier in the back end. Newer video encoding formats make files more compact, but take more processing power to decode. If you lock the web into one format and one format only, then when it gets outdated, or if there is something that it sucks at (consider live action video vs 2D animation), no one can do anything about it. Having many video formats on the web would be fine because computers know how to decode them, and whoever created the video can decide the best format to encode them in based on the needs of the file and how people will use it.

>Sane layouting engine based on what titling window managers have,

Tiling window managers don't have a layouting engine. Well, one could argue they do, but it's not nearly as sophisticated as even pure HTML without CSS. Pure HTML is a very good model for web page contents because that's what it was made for.

>or a return to iframe-like/table-like layouting, if you wish.

What does that accomplish exactly? That's the crap that makes a web page difficult to use and hard to look at. Doing that is the same problem CSS3 has caused -- but worse.

>Standarized components to avoid stupid shit like the thousand different ways that exist to define buttons, or inconsistent forms (can someone explain to me why a button is an input, but a textarea isn't?)

That's what HTML is. A system of standard components to avoid stupid shit so that people don't make drop-down menus in CSS and JavaScript.

There are two types of buttons, <input> and <button>. The former is for text; the latter is for more complicated content like images or rich text. (You can't put HTML in an input's "value" attribute).

<textarea> is a field special enough to get its very own tag because the contents of a textarea can contain line breaks and often contain a lot of content. It would be bad to put so much content -- especially line breaks -- all in a "value" attribute, so we are blessed by Tim Berners-Lee to be able to put it inside <textarea> tags.

>No JS, and instead a standarized way to perform most common JS functions (Ajax fetching, form validation, hide or show things, etc).

Wouldn't it be nice to have a scripting language to put all of these functions under one roof and allow them to interact with each other? And if you're validating forms with JS, you're doing something wrong. Most web browsers allow you to disable JavaScript features that could be harmful to the end user.

>And more importantly, enforced encryption.

You can't enforce encryption. You can enforce that the other end of an encrypted connection isn't willingly leaking all of the information you're giving. HTTPS currently already allows for SSL anyways. If sites aren't using SSL now, there's not much you can do, and there's not much reason to do something in the first place.

>but we should do away with the idea of supporting legacy stuff; just provide fallbacks, and delrte anything not currently in use.

There are plenty of websites you can visit right now that haven't been changed in a decade. Are you saying a standard should just make it complicated to visit sites that don't fit the current, constantly-changing standard?

>>847202

>>Only one format for lossless images and another one for lossy images, only one format for lossy audio and only on format for lossless audio (and NO AUTOPLAY), and only one format for video.

t. MPEG-LA

>>847151

>let's start all over

have you heard of urbit

>>847202

>What specifically gives web designers "full control" of UX? Layout? The styling of buttons, backgrounds, borders and such? Where is the line between fully functional sites and giving web designers "full control?" Where does a site such as 8ch fall? It has many convenient features like draggable windows that I imagine would be barred in a light version of the Web.

A combination of CSS and JS is what gives web designers the ability to make websites non-functional messes in the name of user experience and brand recognizability. I think the epitome of banality in modern web design is caroussels, but CSS3 is full of crust you wonder why the fuck was put in there in the first place. Why the fuck would you ever want to tilt a component, for example?

Also, draggable windows are bloat. I mean, it's nice we have them, but they are not needed, specially considering many custom CSS anchor the reply box to the right side of the viewport, because Futaba-like imageboards love to waste horizontal space by making post boxes occupy 100% width.

>why not uphold this for entire operating systems?

The main difference is you usually can choose what goes inside your filesystem and what doesn't, whereas the browser simply autoloads media and you are fucked if you happen to stumble upon a funny user who posted a 1x1 8MB transparent png.

>If you lock the web into one format and one format only, then when it gets outdated

I wasn't clear enough with my last paragraph, but the idea is to ditch legacy stuff the moment it gets outclassed, or at best keep just one legacy format at once to make the transition smoother. You may argue that this is insanity because you will make old websites stop displaying images/videos/audio, but you can always make the browser fall back into displaying a "click here to download" placeholder.

>Wouldn't it be nice to have a scripting language to put all of these functions under one roof and allow them to interact with each other?

No.

>And if you're validating forms with JS, you're doing something wrong.

Not at all. Have you seen how shitty the pure HTML tools are? They fucking punish the user the moment he starts writing, not to mention they only allow for some basic checks. Many people agree HTML validation is simply not mature enough.

>You can't enforce encryption.

You can. That's one of the things that were in the draft of HTTP2 that eventually got shitcanned because the NSA gotta sniff that traffic. You can perfectly program the client to reject any connection that's not encrypted, and that would be the idea.

>There are plenty of websites you can visit right now that haven't been changed in a decade. Are you saying a standard should just make it complicated to visit sites that don't fit the current, constantly-changing standard?

Yes. Those websites are the reason some places have to be visited with IE anyway, so fuck them.

>>841682

It would be easier than making one that uses it, just because you'd have fewer unnecessary features to write and test. Danbooru for example works fine with scripts disabled.

>>847731

Stop making excuses. I block all scripts so those are not an issue, however many sites still break or even just display a blank page. This is 100% on you.

>>841713

>Agreed, but useless people have to make money somehow, it's not like we should put them is gaswagen or something, right?

We don't have to do anything so active. All we need to do is end the welfare state and establish vigorous norms for self defense, "fleeing felons", stand your ground, etc., and shoot them when they try to steal from the useful people.

>>841881

>he can't immediately spot them

>>841583 (OP)

amen bruddur. they should invent a browser that has a disable popup option. firefuk had this option since as long as i could remember but it never worked. normalfags don't see this because they rice their browsers with 10 addons and their shit runs even slower than if you just browsed a plain website or better yet with JS disabled

>>847731

fuck off nigger, the problem is the people. corporations that make shitty products are irrelevant, just don't use them. the problem is there are no good products because there is no demand for them. the problem is all these shit (((UX))) and (((security))) practices because the people demand solutions to non existing problems

>>848131

But Windows NT isn't based on DOS

>Outside of the U.S., there are even more people with slow connections. I recently chatted with Ben Kuhn, who spends a fair amount of time in Africa, about his internet connection

>If you think browsing on a 56k connection is bad, try a 16k connection from Ethiopia!

>Although only two really big sites were tested here, there are plenty of sites that will use 10MB or 20MB of data. If you’re reading this from the U.S., maybe you don’t care, but if you’re browsing from Mauritania, Madagascar, or Vanuatu, loading codinghorror once will cost you more than 10% of the daily per capita GNI.

https://danluu.com/web-bloat/

I was reading this and had a retarded idea: weaponized social justice

>convince SJWs that bloated websites are racist against people in africa and perpetuate systemic poverty or some bullshit like that

>big, bloated commercial websites will cater to their demands like they always do

>no more big shitty javascript pages

it's worth a try

>>841615

What was the point of tgis response?

>>849630

Next day:

>Mozilla spends 5 Billion US dollarydoos (10% Soros funding, 90% community donations) on building LTE towers in Zimbabwe and giving every Zimbabwean woman an iPhone X with unlimited data plan.

>>848746

>that wild AoE2 match where all the beaten and battered other players banded together to fight back against that one guy who kicked everybody's ass in the mid-game

>>848131

This is retarded. Nobody needs to support a half dozen cards. In DOS you just pick a video mode and you write your code for that mode, like say VGA mode 13h, or Mode X, or whatever you feel is best suited to your program. Then you list your software as VGA-compatible (or EGA compatible if you used EGA mode, etc.)

Some commercial games explicitely they supported different cards on the box and manual, but in practice this is retarded unless they specifically and carefully re-worked the graphics to take full advantage of each video card mentioned. Otherwise you end up with a "support" that's only in name, but in practice has the uglist graphics this side of Sierra's Amiga ports for their SCI engine games. Actually worse even, if you're talking about VGA->CGA conversions. Try playing Might & Magic III in CGA. I dare ya to actually play through the game this way. You won't even make it through the first town quests before wanting to smash your monitor.

Sometimes they actually do it right, like Lucasfilm did with The Secret of Monkey Island that has very good EGA and VGA releases, but it was obviously not the result of just converting the VGA art through a dumb filtere. Some artists actually put a lot of time and effort into it. But this is the exception, and most games that advertise support for multiple cards are just lying in order to sell more products and don't care about the user's experience.

>>848746

Windows (and Linux, etc.) just made things more complicated, stupidly. Because it's made by morons who like complicated designs with tons of abstractions. Terry Davis is maybe the only one who got it right recently: one line of code gets you graphics on the screen.

>>849784

>Windows (and Linux, etc.) just made things more complicated, stupidly.

Linux fucked itself by trying so hard to imitate Windows. Year after year after year the goal has been "how do we attract people from Windows" and "YEAR OF THE LINUX DESKTOP". Now look at where they are, just another overly complex behemoth like Windows. Good job, Linux. You made it.

>>849787

No it didn't. Linux does not try to attract people from Windows.

>>849810

The GNOME folks and Ubuntu explicitly do, as well as the Zorin OS folks, and of course WINE developers.

>>841615

That gif reeks of buzzfeed. You don't belong here.

>>841583 (OP)

>Why don't all browsers have built-in wget for full page archiving? Why don't all browsers have built-in adblock and UMatrix mechanisms? Why doesn't the browser tell me what the page IP is? Why doesn't it tell me my external IP is? Why doesn't the browser let me override the network DNS and even filter the queries? Why can't I easily choose to block any page element that I want in my browser, for instance that stupid fucking Xmas hat on all thumbnails in >>>/b/ right now? I should be able to right click and choose block element for it to be fucking gone for the session. Why don't all browsers have a full page screenshot button? Where's the button to change my user agent to whatever? Actually why is there a user agent even? This is the webdevs fault, fuck webdevs again!

It's obvious that we need a real browser not meant to cater to normies, web standards, and advertisers. It should automatically rip out all useful content, arrange it on the screen, block all ads, trackers, JS, font downloads, background images, and so on. I think wget is the perfect back end for this as it stands, we just need a front end program for picking out the parts of interest and displaying them in a way that's easy to use and easy on the eyes. For now this is still possible but with DRM and Web Assembly it will become much more difficult in the future.

Emacs has a browser built in, eww, and it's not superb at making every page readable you can hit R and it'll try to show just the content. Other browsers also have a reader view, it's pretty clear that people and developers want this kind of thing already, it just has to be updated to be user-friendly instead of webdev / corporation friendly.

>What happens when something like Firefox 57 happens?

Or Chrome. It's full botnet and you can't customize shit. I'll be on ESR54 forever, or hopefully somebody forks it and moves Firefox's code into a more user-friendly direction.

As always, Richard Stallman warned us.

>>849912

IIRC, it's from /tv/ around 2007 or 2008.

>>841583 (OP)

>Fuck scripts. Fuck ads. Fuck interactive web pages, fuck cookies. Fuck applets, rest in peace Java and Flash. Fuck streaming. A webpage should be exclusively text, images and solid colors.

Yes please.

>If you want to watch Youtube crap just have the browser automatically pipe the video player to the video as it downloads.

Hell if sites just started showing download links I could already do this with Icecat. Just open download would be fine at today's speeds, and if not almost every video player these days supports watching partial files.

>Why don't all browsers have built-in wget for full page archiving?

Feature bloat. Just use a separate utility like HTTrack so you don't ever have to wait for lazy faggot browser dev to re-implement the same feature for the millionth time.

>built-in adblock and UMatrix mechanisms?

Stop, I can only get so erect!

>you can just install extensions

Fuck that, extensions for core functionality is cancer. It's just a way for devs to dodge responsibility so you have to wait even longer for features to be implemented, and they suck even harder.

>>841608

Extensions are like mods and DLC these days. It was meant to be optional stuff on top of a fully-fledged, complete game. But then the devs realized they can just chop half of the game up into pieces and release as DLC, and as a bonus nobody can avoid buying it since the base game (which they've already paid for) is unplayable without. And of course once the customers are taught not to expect a complete game pre-DLC, you don't even have to finish it ever. Just dangle "we'll fix it in the next DLC!" like a carrot on a stick.

Maybe what we need isn't a new browser, but a proxy which marshalls a set of processes to extract the relevant text and data from a site, bypassing the JS bullshit completely. Then it writes a temporary HTML file which any normal browser can read with just, say, the video or text of a page, intect, with no other bullshit.

Why rewrite all this garbitch from the ground up when merely gluing together a couple things will be easier and achieve the goal, which is freedom from web hell and browser prison?

>>850552

Firefox still consumes 8GiB of ram on 3 tabs.

>>850650

That's partially because it's running three hundred megabytes of Javascript.

>>850661

https://www.dillo.org/memory.html