this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
45 points (97.9% liked)
Asklemmy
43336 readers
793 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I really just want web browsers to die, and be replaced by one of the slimmed down options like gemini, gopher, or some markdown viewer.
The web just keeps getting increasingly bloated and ad-ridden, and filled with popups. Web browsers are as complex as entire operating systems now, so only 2 orgs (google and mozilla) have the resources and expertise to build a browser, and mozilla might throw in the towel eventually, leaving the internet as one big google ad.
IE move viewing of mostly static content into these simple variants like gemini, and move dynamic things to local apps with API access.
that's a quite pessimistic stance, yes I do agree that web browsers are complexe and hard to maintain, but they can do more than viewing websites, you can play games, draw art, video chat, PDF viewing and editing, you can do a lot with just one app.. that's the beauty of Web browsers.. The problem is in the Ad business model..
The question is: should they? There is a larger philosophical divide about whether software tools should be small and purpose-built, or monolithic. Having one do-it-all tool can be convenient but also creates a huge amount of overhead and complexity.
I go back and forth myself. I love the convenience of monolithic tools, but miss the way a small, purpose-built tool can really do its job well.
One of the best cases for building a versatile tool, is accessibility to less privileged populations, for example people who can't efford to have a reliable Internet because of their shady ISPs, they need a browser that renders web content as fast as possible, and also because they can't afford to download apps due to slow internet speeds, Flatpaks could take gigabyte of HDD space and you have to update them later, which is painful in other parts of the world
Even if the user had a reliable Internet and solid hardware, maybe they're a security minded individual, and want to keep their app installs to a minimum. To them many apps are considered bloat and that's dangerous.
I think the difficulty lies in wisely choosing what features to include, before your users start asking : hey, do we really need that ? Or : who uses that ?
that's why listening to feedback is so important
That's precisely what they're saying is the issue, that the browser must be a monolith which can do all of those things, and that if each of those tasks were a dedicated application then more companies/orgs could compete.
They shouldn't be doing any of those things, html should be for simple, static content only.
For dynamic / interactive things, programmers should write programs again like they used to.