Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: R0b0t1 <r030t1@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Wow, the GTK3 file browser is awful!
Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 04:55:15
Message-Id: CAAD4mYjVm_r1R--OQ61S2MDOGJQNbFwq_tvt0wST8n30nB+qmw@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] Wow, the GTK3 file browser is awful! by Daniel Campbell
1 I just recently encountered this problem. Worse, large floating
2 windows don't behave well with tiling window managers like i3. I have
3 similar complaints about the change in dialog behavior. Are there GTK3
4 options to change these things?
5
6 On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 11:36 PM, Daniel Campbell <zlg@g.o> wrote:
7 > On 05/22/2017 12:40 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
8 >> On Mon, 22 May 2017 18:33:47 +0000 (UTC)
9 >> Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@×××××.com> wrote:
10 >>
11 >>> Having just recently allowed Firefox to upgrade from 45 to 52, I'm now
12 >>> hobbled with the GTK3 file browser dialog.
13 >>>
14 >>> It's horrible.
15 >>
16 >> Indeed :/. You're not alone, but what can we do about it?
17 >>
18 >> Its not like we have sufficient staff to maintain a "Firefox but with
19 >> GTK2" fork, heck, we can't even keep alsa support.
20 >>
21 >> I've gone to using other older firefox forks (palemoon) instead simply
22 >> because this march of progress doesn't seem to be delivering on that
23 >> "progress", only making the user experience more boring and generic,
24 >> and thus, more useless.
25 >>
26 >> "One size fits all, copy everyone else" is not a useful axiom to me.
27 >>
28 >> But at this rate, every browser trying to be "more like what the masses
29 >> want" will end me up having no browser that exists and works that works
30 >> how I want.
31 >>
32 >
33 > I'm in a similar camp, using Pale Moon as my primary browser. I've found
34 > the ads and constant bombardment of Javascript don't make for fun,
35 > intuitive, fast, or useful browsing. There's much one can do to combat
36 > it, but I think what needs to happen is an anti-Web 3.0 (2.0 was the
37 > Semantic Web and the self-publishing boom) browser: a browser that
38 > focuses on the "interlinked documents" Web and not the "every page is an
39 > application" Web. I think there's sufficient demand for that version of
40 > the Web to attract attention. I lack the experience to tackle it myself,
41 > or I'd have started the project already.
42 >
43 > It's possible to mold an existing browser to suit that ideal, but it
44 > requires consistent vigilance to make sure new features or new defaults
45 > don't reverse the work you put into it. It's stressful, I see why people
46 > get tired of it.
47 >
48
49 If you look at web browsers developed to work specifically with tiling
50 window managers, you might find something you like. Unfortunately most
51 seem to never be finished or suffer from security vulnerabilities of
52 one kind or another because they are generally projects undertaken by
53 one person.
54
55 > (shameless praise follows)
56 >
57 > Another alternative is the gopher protocol, which is slowly gaining a
58 > following. It doesn't fill all the same holes the Web does currently,
59 > but it could with a high quality client. Current clients are rather
60 > lacking, though lynx can be configured to work with gopher and even
61 > download images/videos to be opened by a custom program (I like piping
62 > images to feh). All lynx is really missing is the 'unofficial' gopher+,
63 > which adds a few more data types and allows direct linking to HTTP
64 > addresses.
65 >
66 > An additional benefit is Gopher -- being plain-text -- can easily be
67 > filtered and "blockers" could block specific things if textual ads
68 > become a problem. Many existing tools (like awk or sed) could be
69 > leveraged to make that happen. It's also stupid simple to put a "gopher
70 > hole" together, since it's just basic I/O. Even servers can be put
71 > together in ~100 lines of bash. It's a breath of fresh air compared to
72 > working with the Web, imo.
73 >
74 > (usual disclaimer that my views don't represent Gentoo's official views,
75 > etc)
76 >
77 > ~zlg
78 >
79
80 Sadly I think there is too much money in advertising for this to
81 change. For some evidence of this look at the recent action
82 surrounding the FCC's title II interpretation: the issue was
83 effectively decided two or three times, but monied interests kept
84 lobbying until the view could be changed.
85
86 The internet as a medium was too open and it was (and "is") too easy
87 to avoid advertising, so instead of innovating technology will be
88 drawn back in line with the old paradigms.
89
90 It is reasons such as these that make me hope for a Heaven and a Hell.
91
92 R0b0t1.