This is very cool. I hope one day someone creates a basic DOM for this with good CSS support and then we'd have the mini-electron. I hope that a very limited subset of the features of a browser (no downloads, tabs, networking, security contexts and everything else which would be irrelevant for desktop apps) can be implemented with few orders of magnitude less lines of code.
In fact I am looking on something like XS7 for my Sciter (https://sciter.com) to provide ability to run <script type=text/javascript>.
Sciter is an implementation of HTML(~5)/CSS(~3) and DOM/layout/rendering. As for now it has its own JS alike script and VM and is contained in single DLL < 5mb all together.
So "yes", mini-electron is feasible and exists already I would say.
I found it too hard to start writing something with TIScript, maybe if there was some step-by-step tutorial it could be easier.
> So "yes", mini-electron is feasible and exists already I would say.
I believe you could became big player in "web to desktop" market if only sciter had JS & DOM support. That would give you access to existing code and make sciter almost drop in replacement for nw.js or electron.
Have you considered opening up the source code for Sciter? You can easily get a significant amount of apps just due to the size and still maintain "paid and supported" version.
There's a lot of web browser security features which are only relevant when the code is untrusted, when assets are fetched over http/https instead of bundled locally, etc.
GP is likely overestimating how much "bloat" could actually be dropped but your comment is uninformed.
That's... somewhat hardcore for most applications.
Also it's also not what most people mean by "untrusted". From a low level hardware standpoint though... assuming user-land code isn't trustworthy IS a good guideline.
Purposefully misunderstanding what people write in an effort to be a smartass is a sure-fire way of creating security issues.
No, "ALL" code is not untrusted. There's varying degrees of trust. I'd encourage you to stop trying to win the argument through platitudes and do some research instead, but I'm not sure you're interested.
The funny thing is, many people there believe that Turkey is one of the most advanced economies. The propaganda machine is amazingly successful. The person you are replying to has access to all the information to see how wrong those arguments are, yet simply ignores everything. I said funny but I mean more like a tragicomedy.
Not true actually. There are many different forms of Islam. The Islam most people are familiar with today is the crappy one Saudi Arabia has been pushing. With Western oil money ironically.
I think they are feeling betrayed by Mozilla, and that they are saying language like "We all love the web" and "Internet for people" inspires feelings.
Out of literally all the software vendors I know, including the one I'm working for, Mozilla is the one I'd have least expected to allow such a thing. I'm very surprised (Negatively, needless to say)
Mozilla has been going downhill very fast since Brendan Eich was removed as CEO. There was some controversy at the time and it made sense why he was removed, but it seems clear now that Mozilla took the wrong choice in removing him as it seems he was keeping the ship on course. Now it is floundering from numerous sides.
I think Mozilla should look into getting him back before they all end up losing their jobs.
Why? They allowed proprietary extensions (e.g. Flash) from the start. I don't like it, but I don't see how it represents a loss of their way. Mozilla was never GNU.
Big difference between an extension and being integrated into the browser. It's directly analogous to the difference between your OS being closed source and your OS being able to run closed source programs. The former is a liability; the latter is an ability that you grant to users to use the system the way they want.
I don't like EME either, but not implementing it would've killed any chance of regaining users: "Oh look, Firefox Quantum looks awesome, I should try it. ... Never mind, it doesn't play Netflix".
Implemeting it, but disabling it by default was a good choice. People will have to consciously click "I accept DRM" to use it, which might get them to read more about what it is and ultimately raise awareness about how terrible it is.
Yea, but they lost me today. EME annoyed me, and I took note of it, but I didn't leave over it. But now I feel like Looking Glass is the straw that broke the camel's back.
The world doesn't need another browser that sacrifices principles for market share. Chrome, IE, and Safari are perfectly good browsers for that. What I wanted was a browser (and software in general) that promotes security, privacy, open standards, and open source. You can accuse me of misinterpreting the situation, but that's what I thought Firefox was 10 years ago. It's not what Firefox is today. It's turned into just another organization that's optimizing for the continuation of the organization over it's own founding principles.
I was concerned for a minute. Then I remembered that this is the browser vendor that constantly spouts it's privacy bonafides yet on a monthly basis "partners" with companies like Pocket to install unwanted addons and functionality and has Google Analytics on their settings pages.
The acquisition was two years after the integration. The referenced comment says nothing about tracking being removed, only referencing a "special deal" whatever that means.
You are trying to muddy the waters here. Even if I were to accept your (wrong) explanations, they still don't jive with the image Mozilla is trying to project.
Staying bitter for two years is one thing, but it took me a few minutes to refresh actual details about what happened. The initial integration raised privacy concerns but mainly by being unclear. Since then things have steadily improved, like Pocket updating their privacy policy. https://venturebeat.com/2015/06/09/mozilla-responds-to-firef... There was a long discussion on the Mozilla Governance board that clarified a lot of things, including the legal department affirming that users were not automatically bound by Pocket's ToS. https://lwn.net/Articles/650869/ And eventually they bought Pocket. So while Mozilla isn't perfect, privacy is a real priority for them, and when they do mess up, they put a lot of time and effort into mitigation.
I don't think there is a basis for discussion here if you can't acknowledge that the mere installation of 3rd party addons & use of GA is a breach of trust.
I made a prototype using .NET Core MVC + Entity Framework + Npgsql + Autofac (Probably better IoC containers available out there but I'm used to Autofac open to suggestions btw).
It was very easy to develop, test and deploy. Npgsql has support for most of the postgres features (except complex types but that's planned).
I deployed everything on Ubuntu servers and runs like a champ. (I'm saying prototype and it is indeed, but it has 100-something users across the globe testing their workflows continuously and it has a lot of CPU-intensive stuff which is child's play with .NET to manage asynchronously. A production app would have two orders of magnitude more users but I think I'll be able to get away with a single server if it comes to that).
There are countless other benefits to having HTTPS (such as ensuring the end-to-end integrity of the communication so stuff can't be injected in the document). It's not meant only for private information.
Not using https means that your ISP, your mobile carrier, or your airport network provider can modify the information being presented to you. This is not a hypothetical, it happens all the time (though usually just to inject ads).
It's not about whether the provider wants the information to be public, it's about whether the provider wants the information to arrive intact.
My point is, you can write any kind of app with almost any kind of server-side tech. If you don't like the culture, you may be right, but please be explicit about it.
