I'm not well versed enough in the Browser Wars to say one thing or another about except this:
I like the name.
It lends it self to saying "I use the Otter browser" which is not just a great pun but the pun on 'other' defines what Otter is, the "other" browser. The web needs independent browsers. We need to get rid of the idea that websites are designed to work on any one technology. They should work on any browser that supports the standards.
They should work on any browser that supports the standards.
10-15 years ago I would agree, but now I feel I must add something to that sentence: any browser that supports the standards before they became Google-ified because it is churning the standards so much that its weapon of monopoly is effectively change --- Firefox can barely keep up, and Microsoft already surrendered.
What we really need to get rid of is the idea that websites are designed to work only on the very latest version of Google's browser or one derived from it. Text-and-images "formatted document" pages should absolutely not require JS just to show their content, and readable with a text-based browser too.
Even webapps, which are more sensitive to browser environments due to their heavy use of JS, should not stop working on an older browser just because a newer version appeared --- after all, it did work before. I really don't understand the rabid trendchasing and forced deprecation the webdev community seems to love so much. All I see are webapps getting slower and ceasing to work, namely doing almost the same thing they could be doing decades ago.
And, let's be clear, Google's ability to enact change is a result of their pervasive influence over the internet.
It took _years_ for XMLHTTPRequest to become a dominant influence on site design. Google can push new standard changes in fraction of the time because _their services demand it_.
> Even webapps, which are more sensitive to browser environments due to their heavy use of JS, should not stop working on an older browser just because a newer version appeared
10? This was a problem even before 2001, which is when Internet Explorer 6 was released which (unfortunately) quickly became the Internet. Things weren't so multi-platform back then so swaths of the Internet became inaccessible unless you were using IE6 on Windows. Things are a bit different these days with smartphones and Apple's viability, but the landscape is starting to look strangely familiar.
It will not change until dev stop developing on Chrome as their main browser. Maybe tooling could be an excuse for very large webapps, but otherwise and especially for websites (hello simple forms broken except if you use Chrome) it's definitely not.
Also it's orthogonal with JS usage, anecdotically I mainly work on JS heavy websites and don't use Chrome.
I dev in Firefox. It’s great! The tooling’s really good. It’s subtly different from Chrome and you’ll feel a twinge of friction moving, but by and large, it’s easy.
Just shut it down and restart it every couple of days because it’s memory usage isn’t as tight.
Are you using the Firefox Developer Edition[1], or just the current stable one?
Fellow web-dev here, using Firefox (the one that comes with Ubuntu) as main driver. And I'd like to know if the Developer Editiion offers any benefits over the stable one, for webdevelopment.
I do too, but what I miss is customized throttling settings (I need to optimize for fast overseas connections: high bandwidth but also high latency). Chrome (and Edge) have this.
Firefox has this too. You can do it the network tab[1] or in the Responsive Design Mode[2]. There's drop downs there where you can control how much you want to throttle
Thanks, I know these settings. One can only choose from the predefined settings. You can't customize those (as for me, to high bandwidth and high latency).
> ...its weapon of monopoly is effectively change...
Rather novel weapon. This won't work, rapid change will just leave the large base of web developers behind. Tutorials and practices based on the Old Way hang around for decades.
Google putting out a standard is only going to help them if it is (a) in demand by web devs and (b) competitive with the old way of doing things.
I don't particularly like web apps, but they are a new field and rapid change in the standards is not really a sign of monopoly.
Unfortunately, this isn't how (web?) devs work. For a whole host of reasons, devs always prefer the new thing. This is likely a combination of factors: fashion (the same general social tendencies that make fashion a thing in any other industry), youth (new people are continuously joining the profession) but probably most of all: curiosity and a desire to learn new things.
You can try and model things on the idea of rational experienced senior devs all making tech decisions based purely on hard evidence-based demonstrations of material benefit of new tech over old tech, but reality is much softer than that.
Another factor is that Google's hold over SEO allows them to drive change through SEO requirements. E.g. there's always been a lot of overlap between new tech introduced and Chrome and requirements for Google search indexing, and that stands to increase with things like Core Web Vitals,
> rapid change in the standards is not really a sign of monopoly
Your statement here seems to be just picked from the ether and not actually based on anything in reality: there's no reason rapid change cannot be associated with monopoly.
There are many differences between how Google is approaching tech and how Microsoft did in the late 90s / early 00s but the its worth noting that second E in their infamous Embrace, Extend, Extinguish strategy most certainly involves rapid change in standards. This is hardly the only example, but it's notable I didn't even have to pick a different industry to find one.
Think we're mixing up two things here: Google monopolizes the Web as a runtime with constant forward motion on the standards; no browser vendor can keep up, this is true.
However web dev practice has been driven by Facebook and its quasi-functional programming advocates for at least 5 years now (Redux/React). There's a whole generation of Web Devs that don't know that DOM Event handlers can be objects that bear the handleEvent interface because React prohibits that application for example, but that's a whole world of memory efficient async handling rather than generating throwaway functions for ever little thing
Chrome started forcing tab grouping on mobile so I've tried switching to Firefox. My bank's log in screen doesn't work and posting to Facebook Marketplace is broken. Not sure why basic functionality like that doesn't work but it does force me to keep Chrome around.
> [..] it is churning the standards so much that its weapon of monopoly is effectively change --- Firefox can barely keep up, and Microsoft already surrendered.
"any browser that supports the standards before they became Google-ified because it is churning the standards so much that its weapon of monopoly is effectively change --- Firefox can barely keep up, and Microsoft already surrendered."
Almost all if they're abusing their search monopoly to force their preferred web "standards" on the rest of us?
If I see a website that fails to display text with JS disabled I close it and never come back out of respect to blind people who also can't visit that site.
This is a common myth. The vast majority of blind and partially sighted users don't use text-based web browsers. They use normal web browsers in conjunction with screen readers; these browsers can execute Javascript normally. There is nothing inherently inaccessible about Javascript-based content.
Exactly! All big ones like NVDA, JAWS, VoiceOver, etc, are fully capable to read and interact with craziest single page application build and rendered in your browser
> The web needs independent browsers...[websites] should work on any browser
Unfortunately, independence ends with the choice between WebKit (QtWebKit) or Blink (QtWebEngine), albeit with a faithful Opera 12-like interface that's less resource hungry than Vivaldi. Otter is still in development and it shows in some rough spots and occasional crashes.
I'd love to go back to 1999 and see everyone's reaction when I tell them that almost everyone in the 2020s uses a browser derived from Konqueror, and that you have your choice of Konqueror derivatives from Apple, Google, or Microsoft. Whoever named it was more prescient than they realized.
I was referring to a choice between WebKit and Chromium/Blink in Otter, not the web in general, though the sheer resources required to keep up with the Web(R) from other players may be leading us that way (hopefully not).
For example, after switching the preferred engine in about:config, it's even possible to leave Otter in a transitional state, having one tab load a web page in WebKit, and another in Blink, in the same running application.
Last time I used a QtWebKit browser, I could get around this easily by user agent spoofing. Not sure if the experience was totally perfect, but there were no glaring problems.
Doesn't change the fact that it's been deprecated/removed upstream, though, unfortunately.
It was used by KDE for some oauth workflows, where changing the user agent string was not possible, and auth consequently impossible. They've switched to the external browser instead.
Who outside of Apple is using WebKit at this point? And how often do the tarballs drop?
> Who outside of Apple is using WebKit at this point?
Gnome/GTK, at least. The one bundled with Gnome (previously called Epiphany) still uses it. I was going to say Midori, but apparently it's recently-ish switched to Electron, which is understandable, but a little disappointing.
There are other niche browsers using WebKitGTK, but with the loss of Midori (?) and Qt's WebKit interface its definitely got a really small presence now.
> And how often do the tarballs drop?
Unlike most open source projects inside Apple, WebKit is developed basically in the open, with a dedicated website at https://webkit.org/ and an SVN repo at https://svn.webkit.org/repository/webkit/. They also link directly to the WebKitGTK project, and provide instructions for building for/on Linux (and Windows).
It's kind of a shame it's not more widely used -- I understand why most people so inclined would prefer Gecko/Firefox, but there may come a time when the only valid choices are a rendering engine backed by Google's dollars, or one by Apple's dollars. And unlike Mozilla, which is still mostly relying on Google's dollars, Apple has a vested financial interest in keeping a separate and at least adequate web stack.
Edit: Worth mentioning one problem with WebKitGTK adoption in linux has been API deprecation. I haven't done any dev work with it, but I know a lot of projects just gave up after the WebKit -> WebKit2 port, and GTK itself can be a PITA. The tooling outside Darwin/OS X is more cumbersome, too.
JavaScriptCore is easier to embed/better documented than SpiderMonkey, though (IMO). And it can even run headless, although getting it to build headless can be, uh, finicky...
It's essentially a continuation of the Mozilla Suite (formerly Netscape). However they're falling behind on Gecko integration, with the latest version still on Gecko 60 (2018) with backports.
The reality is that Mozilla doesn't focus on embedded applications of Gecko besides Firefox (even Thunderbird is sidelined these days). Projects that are essentially third-party, like SeaMonkey, really have no visibility at all. This is the reason why the Chromium Blink engine has become so widespread, especially when it's been nicely packaged up by the commercially-backed Qt project.
I don't know why there aren't more browsers based on Gecko; especially since there are quite a few people who are not exactly thrilled with the general direction Firefox has been going.
There's PaleMoon, which is a fork, and there's SeaMonkey, although the latest version is based on Firefox 60.8 (May 2018), so I guess that's more of a fork than "using the Gecko engine" too? Also the UI is a bit too 1999-esque even for my tastes.
So I guess it's just hard to re-use Gecko? Using QtWebEngine (or QtWebKit before that) is very easy. No really, it's 20 minutes and you have a basic browser. I built a basic "vim-like" browser in the style of Qutebrowser in a day with PyQt (missing a lot of UI stuff and polish, obviously) and I'm not even very experienced in Qt/PyQt (or GUI programming in general).
Yes, Firefox/Gecko is much more one thing, Mozilla apparently even had some problems with that close integration and baked-in assumptions when building the Android variants.
Splitting this out a bit more seems like it would be a good strategic choice, not just for Mozilla, but for the web in general. There are undoubtedly all sorts of technical challenges involved, but betting on only Firefox is putting all eggs in one basket.
Say what you will about Blink/Google, but the easy with which you can build a browser on top of it has spawned a plethora of browsers, ranging from Edge and Vivaldi, to all sorts of more niche ones like Otter and Qutebrowser, and many more.
Half of Vietnam is using Cốc Cốc. Yandex Browser is fairly popular in Russia, UC Browser is popular in China (or rather was, since it was banned) and some other Asian countries.
There's no reason at least some of these couldn't have been a Gecko-based browser.
Yeah, for smaller projects with only a handful of people behind them, WebKit (via WebKitGTK) or Chromium (via QtWebEngine, Electron, Chromium Embedded Framework) are pretty much the only choices there are. The only exception maybe being Pale Moon.
For browsers which are based directly on the Chromium codebase without being supported by Google, there are definitely many more resources needed - I don't see a particular reason why those couldn't be based on Firefox either. From what I see in QtWebEngine, keeping up with Chromium isn't exactly easy - IIRC they said they need about a person-month to catch up with a new Chromium release, usually with millions of changed lines.
I presume part of this is that for a long while the KDE/webkit/chrome engine was a separate, isolated thing, whereas the rendering in Firefox was not.
Not sure where Firefox/gecko is now, but pulling the rendering apart from the UI and improving it to be usable by other UIs, projects, would help get this done.
If someone says "I use Chrome" what does than mean to you?
Just curious.
Perhaps some websites do not make use of all the standards, thus browsers do not need support for all the standards for these websites to "work". For example, HN does not require a popular browser. In fact it can even be used without a browser. Why are so many "web devs" using HN but few to none of them can/will design similarly fast websites. That's a rhetorical question. (That means everyone already knows the answer.) Do "web devs" actually use the sites they design. Why would "web devs" use HN when it does not represent their own taste in websites. What does that mean.
If someone says "I use Chrome" what does than mean to you?
Just curious.
Perhaps some websites do not make use of all the standards, thus browsers do not need support for all the standards for these websites to "work". For example, HN does not require a popular browser. In fact it can even be used without a browser. Why are so many "web devs" using HN but few to none of them can/will design similarly fast and flexible websites. Do "web devs" actually use the sites they design. Why would "web devs" use HN when it does not represent their own taste in websites. What does that mean.
Web devs make the websites they are paid to make. I'm not sure why you think their output would reflect their taste rather than their employer's taste.
Exactly! In a lot of areas, we hear talk of how "the developers"[0] made this decision or that decision (e.g. mobile apps, games, web).
But in reality, most developers have very little agency over technical decisions. Sure, they're the ones actually building it and choosing the exact tools and frameworks, but they have almost 0 control of their own constraints.
Metaphorically, companies decide they only want to use nails because they're cheaper. Even if screws would be better. The conversation inevitably turns into frustration with developers' overuse of hammers.
[0]: I get that we say "developers" to also include publishers/etc, but the term often morphs back into blaming the "technical implementers" on the team.
Really disappointed by the marketing of these projects.
No information whatsoever regarding why I should both download and use the browser.
I understand that's something related to Opera revamping, but I just don't understand why such projects don't invest 5 minutes of time explaining features in plain English, and relegate everything to a niche.
What a pity.
> A browser controlled by the user, not vice-versa
> Otter Browser aims to recreate the best aspects of Opera 12 and to revive its spirit. We are focused on providing the powerful features power users want while keeping the browser fast and lightweight. We also learned from history and decided to release the browser under the GNU GPL v3.
That is nice, but it's little to go by. I used Opera once for a while, but no idea what version. What was that "spirit" of Opera 12? What are those features power users want, do I want them too?
Give me at least a screenshot and 1-2 sentences that I as the user of current Firefox or Chrome can say anything about. All I get is fast and lightweight, which seemingly 90% of software projects write somewhere on their homepage.
Nothing against this browser, it's just that there are more open source projects than I could ever try out in my free time, and if I have to take a second look to find a link to screenshots somewhere below the one to the changelog it's not too convincing. It doesn't have to, maybe I'm not the target audience, but that's my impression.
I think it's mostly because they don't really have much in terms of features to separate them from Chrome. It's almost always more a thing about just not wanting to use Google, and bundling some extension-level features into the core browser (ad block, mouse gestures, this sort of thing).
This seems actually viable. And those weekly updates let us know "It's Alive!!" not some zombie. I'm going to make an effort on using this.
I'm currently using a Firefox fork but the maintenance is a little rough and I get conflicts with upstream sometimes that are hard (for me) to resolve.
Firefox doesn't even allow me use my own custom homepage from local file when I open new tab. First tab does allow that though. Talk about consistency.
They do not fix it for years now which for me means one thing: they do not understand how basic this functionality is and if so I think this 'mainstream' has lost it's sight.
For me as long as such idiocy exists in 'mainstream' I consider it doomed.
Because if you do not fix such basic things the next question is: what else you did not fix ..
Another idiocy is that they push updates through your throat without option to stop checking for it or stopping dialog asking to update. It always appears when you do not want it to appear and breaks the flow of your work. I consider it a disrespect to a person who uses it. And again in my opinion as long as it exists I think it's doomed.
It's in the Homebrew repo, so installing is as easy as
$ brew install otter-browser
What's also interesting, is that the tab-close button is on the left of the tab, like every other macOS application. Other browsers (Chrome, Firefox) put it stubbornly on the right.
I'm all for unmonopolising the web browser but Otter seems to have major stability issues. I'm on macOS 10.15.7. Doing a DDG search consistently crashes Otter. Would liked to have given it a go but I'll stick with Firefox.
I can't find a source, but I know Brave has had upstream Google issues in the past. Unfortunately, from what I've heard, Gecko is not very developer friendly, so Google is pretty much the only option.
I feel like Mozilla's decision not to prioritize support for embedding Gecko ended up being a strategic error in the long-term. Other browsers using Blink don't add directly to Chrome's market share but having it embedded everywhere means that its quirks don't end up being perceived as Chrome-specific. If five different browsers all behave the same way and the sixth one differs, then the sixth one ends up looking like the odd one out, even if the reason the other five behave the same is that they're all sharing code.
It was no strategic error. They just took the money and told the users to FO. The strategic error was having a board of directors taking decisions about a browser.
>Is it safe to trust binaries hosted from sourceforge? Didn't they used to host modified binaries / packages with malware?
Once upon a time, yes. It was awful. Was bought many years ago and turned around, however. The guy who owns/runs it has posted here before describing the journey. He mentioned one of the primary reasons for the purchase was due to the many software projects hosted there and at risk of falling off the face of the earth, potentially causing all sorts of mayhem in the process. I respect that.
Anyhow you can go check it out. It's nice. I'm glad it's still around.
I remember there was an announcement from new management. From their Wikipedia page:
> After SourceForge was sold to BizX in 2016, DevShare was discontinued. On May 17, 2016, SourceForge announced that they were now scanning all projects for malware, and displaying warnings on projects detected to have malware.
It seems pretty similar to https://www.falkon.org/ (which is the successor of Qupzilla, i.e. a lightweight browser based on QT5+Blink, already natively integrating an ad-blocker, vertical tabs, and a lot of useful stuffs)
If I were building a new browser, priority 0 would be uBlock Origin support with a front-page guarantee it will never be neutered by any future "standards".
I like the name.
It lends it self to saying "I use the Otter browser" which is not just a great pun but the pun on 'other' defines what Otter is, the "other" browser. The web needs independent browsers. We need to get rid of the idea that websites are designed to work on any one technology. They should work on any browser that supports the standards.