Dillo, a multi-platform graphical web browser
github.com445 points by nazgulsenpai 5 days ago
445 points by nazgulsenpai 5 days ago
Maintainer here.
We are currently in the process of moving Dillo away from GitHub:
- New website (nginx): https://dillo-browser.org/
- Repositories (C, cgit): https://git.dillo-browser.org/
- Bug tracker (C, buggy): https://bug.dillo-browser.org/
They should survive HN hug.
The CI runs on git hooks and outputs the logs to the web (private for now).
All services are very simple and work without JS, so Dillo can be developed fully within Dillo itself.
During this testing period I will continue to sync the GitHub git repository, but in the future I will probably mark it as archived.
See also:
The website doesn’t display correctly when I increase the browser’s font size, and it doesn’t work in reader mode. :(
I have poor eyesight, so I can’t read the content.
Huh? For me it works fine? Are you sure you are on https://dillo-browser.org/ ?
I have the same problem, and yeah, that's the site. Tapping the button to increase the font size just zooms the page in so now I have to scroll horizontally to read the content. Something on the page is preventing natural reflowing, I could probably figure out what if I was on my desktop. My hunch is it's the row of images.
It is because of this:
.main {
margin: 2em auto;
width: 50em;
}
This also causes problems, when you resize your browser window.
Haven't got the chance to play around with it, but looks fun. And maybe something cool to use to repackage into an alternative Tor/I2P browser for hidden websites.
What's holding back CSS and HTML support (at their specific versions) and is there interest of expanding that support in full, but lacking resources?
Can you say more about why you're moving away from GitHub?
Many reasons, in no particular order:
- It is extremely slow and resource intensive. Opening any link/page takes at least 3 seconds on my fastest computer, but the content is mostly text with images.
- It cannot be used without JS (it used to be at least readable, now only the issue description loads). I want the bug tracker to be readable from Dillo itself. There are several CLI options but those are no better than just storing the issues as files and using my editor.
- It forces users to create an account to interact and it doesn't interoperate with other forges. It is a walled garden owned by a for-profit corporation.
- You need an Internet connection to use it and a good one. Loading the main page of the dillo repo requires 3 MiB of traffic (compressed) This is more than twice the size of a release of Dillo (we use a floppy disk as limit). Loading our index of all opened issues downloads 7.6 KiB (compressed).
- Replying by email mangles the content (there is no Markdown?).
- I cannot add (built-in) dependencies across issues.
I'll probably write some post with more details when we finally consider the migration complete.
> I want the bug tracker to be readable from Dillo itself.
I’m glad you’re prioritizing this and that you consider this a reason to choose a different forge.
It's an excellent choice. Though Microsoft alone should be a sufficient answer. Many people will never interact with github projects because it requires an account with the most unethical company that ever existed.
There's companies out there whose main source of business is wetworks, as in drone strikes and so on, microsoft going for the most unethical title, I don't think its even in the ranking.
I do agree that not using it is better morally, however, given the limitations of git vs fossil, which carries the issues and wiki inside the repo itself, its not a good idea to switch to another service without guarantees that its host will be forever standing, github won't die in the next decade, but the alternatives mentioned might. even google (code) got out of the source hosting business.
But your confidence in GitHub's continued existence comes from its network effects, no? And competing services can only gain such network effects if more people use them. So to me this feels like a defeatist argument.
This is not a magical achievement, github is solvent and its business model is solid, give the same amount of users to any other service and it might collapse. Any service has to scale and the more users it has the more costs it incurs, nonprofits are a risk, the moment they run out of money, the service collapses.
If it's not a magical achievement, then surely competitors could replicate it too.
Of course you can't put a million users today in a service used by a thousand yesterday, but I don't buy the "non-profits don't scale" argument. If that were true, we wouldn't have Wikipedia either.
Replication is not enough, Competition only wins if it offers lower cost or better service (or intolerable service if free), While yes, the userbase is essential, you're still ignoring the reason why the userbase is there in the first place services before github existed and github is the one that ended up winning, competition cannot just offer a better ethical stance and its not even that, since github itself is not doing anything criminal, it's simply aligned with microsoft, so the ethical stance is "I don't like AI" and "I don't like microsoft", that is simply not enough of an offer to make the entire userbase switch. the only way you could is if github decided to throw all of its userbase like bitbucket did, and given that its name is git, I doubt they'll ever do that.