Slashdot Mirror
Meet Uzbl — a Web Browser With the Unix Philosophy
DigDuality writes "Dieter@be over at Arch Linux forums, a release engineer for Arch Linux, got inspired by this post. The idea? To create a browser based on the Unix philosophy: 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well, programs that work well together, programs to handle text streams because that is a universal interface,' among other points. The result? A fast, low-resource browser named Uzbl, based on WebKit, which passes the Acid3 Test with a perfect score. The browser is controlled (by default) by vim-like keybindings, not too dissimilar to vimperator for Firefox. Things like URL changing, loading/saving of bookmarks, saving history, and downloads are handled through external scripts that you write (though the Uzbl software does come with some nice scripts for you to use). It fits great in a tiling window manager and plays extremely well with dmenu. The learning curve is a bit steep, but once you get used to it, it's smooth sailing. Not bad for alpha software. Though built for Arch, it has been reported to work on Ubuntu."
This is a really fun web browser to tinker with. However, I'd recommend people should use a backup browser until they get it up and functioning to their specific needs. I'm still trying to work around with the cookies scripts, myself.
http://sourcemage.org/ - Have fun
Worse is better!
I suggest NUZBL.
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
So it's not a web browser, but rather a HTML rendering widget you can use to write a web browser, or use in other programs? I think .NET has one of those based on the I.E engine...
Come as you are, do what you must, be who you will.
I'm very tempted to try it, but it has those nauseating, voodoo-like vi keybindings. What's wrong with using the sweet and pure emacs keybindings? Well, I'm going to go take a look now and see if that's configurable.
MODERATOR HINT: I'm guilty of attempted humor, not flamebait.
Caveat Utilitor
The goal isn't to gain popular market share.
I don't think they're looking for standard users, and kind of the whole point was to create a learning curve. This implies that it's targeted at powerusers and developers. With the script-integration, this could be useful for quickly churning out a limited-use kiosk with a few helper apps or something (e.g. a novelty photo booth with web integration).
Anyway, the price is right.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
The learning curve is a bit steep...
Yup, say no more - that's the Unix philosophy in spades.
#DeleteChrome
Novel ideas usually don't live on by themselves unless they become useful. The worst thing the developers did (besides the name) was create a "steep learning curve" for the common web browser. The best thing the developers could do is work with an existing product that already has market share and works great like Chrome (also based on Webkit) and make their additions to it in support of better key bindings.
That depends on whether the goal is to obtain the largest possible marketshare. If that is the goal, or if that is your sole definition of "useful," then what you say does apply. If they don't give a damn about competing head-on with the likes of IE or Firefox then what you say is completely irrelevant. What I don't understand is the (usually) unstated assumption that marketshare numbers are the only reason why anyone creates any piece of software. While it's important in terms of attracting developers and, in the case of browsers, for putting pressure on Microsoft to make IE more standards-compliant, there are many reasons why someone might write a browser and this includes reasons that wouldn't personally motivate you.
I see the same sentiment shown when some people discuss Linux as though its only purpose is to compete with Windows. They then act like Linux is a complete and utter failure if it doesn't bust up the Windows desktop monopoly. I disagree with this; Linux just "is." If it happens to displace Windows, that's great. If it doesn't, that's fine with me too. Though I have happily introduced folks to Linux who showed an interest in it, I'm not out to win converts; I just want something that works for me. There are those of us for whom Linux is a good solution, who have no dependency on any Microsoft products, and who are able to do our computing completely aloof from Microsoft, unaffected by any decision Microsoft makes. It's abundantly possible that this is intended to be a niche browser, designed for the relatively small number of users who are technically inclined and willing to tinker with something like a Web browser and its supporting scripts.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
It's pronounced "useable", I suppose?
but you could say the same about the Chrome developers
Ahem. Chrome was based on webkit which was derived from the Konqueror browser for KDE. Maybe not a huge market share but probably in the hundreds of thousands of users globally at the time.
and I guess we could say the same about Firefox..
Firefox was based on mozilla which was the open sourced version of the venerable and at one time market-dominating Netscape Navigator.
No, it doesn't matter if the browser has useful features to YOU. it matters if they are useful to someone. And apparently someone out there wanted a modular browser with vi keybindings out there bad enough to write the damn thing. If it's not for you? Don't use it.
This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
I like the idea, and I'd love to play with it a bit, but there are a few stupid design decisions:
Why don't you just use a reasonable config by default?
There really is no excuse for this. I mean, yes, I can understand where not everyone would want that "reasonable default", but that's why it's a default.
We don't want to store anything "automagically" in the users home. Some people prefer different file/directory layouts
Uhm... ~/.uzbl? How difficult is that? And if you don't like it, rm -rf ~/.uzbl!
Or just create an example script that sets up the default config, and put it in your FAQ.
We considered the option of having a global '/etc/uzbl' which user specific ones could override but that would overcomplicate things.
I'm sorry, but even mplayer is officially friendlier than uzbl. How the fuck is it "complicated" to read one config file, then another?
Uzbl itself doesn't use much gtk stuff (only the statusbar) so we could do without gtk. But Webkit needs a widget toolkit to create widgets (think javascript popups, html forms etc). Officially, it also supports QT and wxwigdets.
So, why doesn't uzbl also support these options? I'm using KDE, so Qt makes sense.
Uzbl.run( )
command is any uzbl command as defined above
return value: a string, either empty or containing the output of the command. Very few commands return their output currently, including js, script, and print.
They obviously realize that JS runs in a single thread. So the obvious implementation here would be to use a callback, not a return value, so you don't block the entire page while you run that script.
I mean, I want to like it, but that's a number of facepalms right off the bat, so I think I'll stick with Chrome until I have time to fix them.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=98/02/24/114700
11 year old dupe article.
Hmmm... as an aside... wonder why no posts there.
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
This browser is simply a wrapper around Webkit - so things like passing Acid3 with a 100/100 score is something that it inherits by default. It's not like the developers of this project did anything in particular, other than chose to use Webkit, to make it pass Acid3 or be standards compliant in other areas...
As mentioned above, Webkit isn't the most unix-like unix software being a big, monolithic program written in C++ .
All this project does is wrap a purposely obtuse front-end around a popular, open source browser engine.
Specialist Mac support for creative pros, Melbourne
How about use it to edit a remote file over ssh, from an Android phone? Or do complex things without using the damn mouse? Or write macros in a usable macro language?
More generally, with commonly used software, some of us just don't care about the learning curve. With the tools I use daily, I don't even remember what the first hour of using them was like, because it was so many thousands of hours ago. I even find it interesting to learn about new ways of doing things, so I don't resent an hour or two of getting up to speed, even if I don't end up using the tool. I could see if I had to learn a new tool an hour before a deadline I'd be annoyed, but the simple solution to that is not to schedule your new-tool experimentation an hour before a deadline. =]
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
OK. So Vim isn't the ideal editor today -- it was designed around limitations of earlier computers and when you remove those limitations you can get rid of stuff like modality that's not really necessary when you have a mouse. So lots of people get attached to modality and hjkl navigation because they spent time learning them, just like people get attached to the emacs OS, even though neither are, today, what anyone designing a new editor would make. They are historically notable -- both were more powerful and easy to use than what came before. I don't think either is very Unixy -- they're each platforms unto themselves at this point. Whatever the first Notepad-like editor was, that introduced the basic elements we consider to be standard text-editing controls today, is definitely historically notable also, and a great achievement -- it flattened the learning curve and (mostly) shattered modality.
Vim and Emacs don't have a lot to do with this browser project, despite the red herring of vi-like keybindings. This project is an experiment about building a browser that's really part of Unix, so as far as an analogous editor goes, perhaps Plan 9's acme, which also relied on external scripts for much functionality. The point isn't to be the greatest or most impressive anything, because... really, who cares? The point is to be a useful tool within the Unix system. If a more self-contained browser is easier to use in many cases that doesn't make it useless.
The real challenge to good software is to make things as easy as possible, and make it so the complicated doesn't interfere with the simple.
When they're designed for ease of use. When they're designed for *efficiency*, however, as ViM is, the challenge is to keep the complex possible while making the simple as fast as you can. How easy it is to learn never enters into the equation.
The editor designed for *power* is Emacs, whose LISP interpreter can't be beat in that department.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.