The Arc Browser Is Dead
Technology
88
Beiträge
53
Kommentatoren
64
Aufrufe
-
Right, thanks!
-
You can already test it out in very early alpha, but I can tell you now that it's just a portal with very basic browser controls. You'll have to build it through the Python script.
I built it through Arch already and its a working browser is about all I can really say about it. The little I tried of it works.
The instructions to build the early alpha are on the github page here.
I built it through arch
Just had to sneak that in, didn't you?
-
Yeah, I just don't trust people's recommendations of browsers.
Most of them are too stupid to realize what's going on and how they're being herded like sheep.
What's your recommendation then?
-
I built it through arch
Just had to sneak that in, didn't you?
Lol, I just mention it because I have no other experience with Ladybird. There's an Ubuntu/Debian section and a Choco for Windows. I would assume macOS uses homebrew, but I didn't read that far into it. I can only confirm that I got the Arch version working after a bit of compiling.
-
What's your recommendation then?
Don't trust it, whatever he says
-
What's your recommendation then?
Firefox.
-
Never heard of that thing, but apparently it was Apple exclusives? Deserved death then.
I'm hoping ladybug will be operational for mainstream use, before the enshittification of Firefox progresses too far.
Its not apple exclusive. I have it on both my macbook and windows computer
-
This post did not contain any content.
The Devs at the browser company said themselves that they aren't killing Arc, it's just on maintenance mode as they are working on another browser, an AI first one, which I have mixed feelings about personally.
-
Don't trust it, whatever he says
That was the joke I was setting up for
-
Firefox.
You mean the one from the company that pays out their CEO a fat $6m salary, paid for by Google bribing Mozilla to be the default search engine?
I don't trust your recommendation. Do you even realise you're being herded like sheep?
(I actually use it too, but I won't pretend they're saints. It also occasionally has trouble with some websites, but I haven't done any comprehensive testing to confirm whether it's browser-specific.)
-
You mean the one from the company that pays out their CEO a fat $6m salary, paid for by Google bribing Mozilla to be the default search engine?
I don't trust your recommendation. Do you even realise you're being herded like sheep?
(I actually use it too, but I won't pretend they're saints. It also occasionally has trouble with some websites, but I haven't done any comprehensive testing to confirm whether it's browser-specific.)
Clearly if you arnt building your own web browser from the ground up, your a sheep. This is the only logical conclusion!!1!1!
Lol, but seriously every modern browser is basically crap ran or controlled by a large company that does fucked up or less then ideal things.
-
Clearly if you arnt building your own web browser from the ground up, your a sheep. This is the only logical conclusion!!1!1!
Lol, but seriously every modern browser is basically crap ran or controlled by a large company that does fucked up or less then ideal things.
Clearly if you arnt building your own web browser from the ground up, your a sheep. This is the only logical conclusion!!1!1!
Obviously. It's the only way to be sure it has exactly the features I want and nothing else. Anyone recommending anything else has clearly been deluded to accept mediocrity. How else could they think something other than my exact tastes is decent?
Lol, but seriously every modern browser is basically crap ran or controlled by a large company that does fucked up or less then ideal things.
Yeah, it's fucked that we basically have to pick what flavour of shit we'd hate least. And once we're all settled in with our least disgusting brand, we obviously don't want to move anymore. I'm sticking with Firefox and probably will for some time to come. Adjusting to a different UI, migrating all my bookmarks and finding equivalents for my extensions is an effort.
Maybe some alternative will eventually entice me enough to overcome my reluctance to mix up my digital environment. I just hope it'll be by actually being good, rather than just "not as bad".
-
Zen also attempts to remove the telemetry that firefox has baked in.
But Zen also has features other than just vertical tabs that are really useful, like Glance.
-
Zen makes something like 84 external connections, which is around double what even Edge makes (and Microsoft has basically become a malware company).
Number of external connections means little without context of the content and what they are for.
-
This post did not contain any content.
This was the browser that required an account to even start using, it was just ridiculous.
-
I... Think Zen offers a bit more than just vertical tabs over Firefox.
Plus, the vertical bar looks really fat compared to the top bar on Firefox, for no reason.
Yes, I am fat-shaming the vertical bar. It has no right to be that fat compared to the rest of the UI.
-
I... Think Zen offers a bit more than just vertical tabs over Firefox.
Plus, the vertical bar looks really fat compared to the top bar on Firefox, for no reason.
Yes, I am fat-shaming the vertical bar. It has no right to be that fat compared to the rest of the UI.
Hah. Well, that and a good fullscreen browser for OLED displays were my main motivations. Both of those are addressed by FF now.
Also, the vertical bar can be set to whatever width you want on both, I think. On FF (which is what I'm typing this in, so I can check) you can shrink it down so it only displays a single row of icons.
The idea is to hide it altogether when you're not using it, in any case, but you can definitely make it as skinny or skinnier than tthe top bar.
-
Hah. Well, that and a good fullscreen browser for OLED displays were my main motivations. Both of those are addressed by FF now.
Also, the vertical bar can be set to whatever width you want on both, I think. On FF (which is what I'm typing this in, so I can check) you can shrink it down so it only displays a single row of icons.
The idea is to hide it altogether when you're not using it, in any case, but you can definitely make it as skinny or skinnier than tthe top bar.
you can shrink it down so it only displays a single row of icons.
I'm aware of this, but even that single row of icons is very fat compared to the rest of the bars that exist on the browser (e.g. the window bar, the bookmarks bar, the search bar, etc). It just looks out of place.
-
you can shrink it down so it only displays a single row of icons.
I'm aware of this, but even that single row of icons is very fat compared to the rest of the bars that exist on the browser (e.g. the window bar, the bookmarks bar, the search bar, etc). It just looks out of place.
You made me count, because I could have sworn it was thinner than the top bar, but it's a bit more complicated than that. On a 4K display the single-icon vertical tabs on Firefox are 75 pixels wide. The horizontal tabs bar is a sliver narrower, at 65 pixels tall. Of course that stacks on top of the address bar, which itself is 60 pixels tall, so you end up with 125 pixels of top bar.
I don't know if I could notice the 10 px difference between the two, given that they're in different orientations and 10 pixels is 0.5% of the horizontal pixel count and 0.3% of the vertical, but human perception is weird. Like I said, I keep the bar much wider to read the titles and just... hide it when I'm not tabbing, so it's not an issue at all for me. Although I'll say that even with the wide sidebar deployed you get a pretty comfy square-ish space to work with that turns a 16:9 display to 16:10 in a satisfying way. And on ultrawide 21:9 it's a no-brainer, just like having a side-aligned taskbar (hear that, Windows 11?).
I should add that none of that changes that Firefox is... quite ugly in general. Zen is definitely sleeker at a glance, regardless of your setup.
-
You made me count, because I could have sworn it was thinner than the top bar, but it's a bit more complicated than that. On a 4K display the single-icon vertical tabs on Firefox are 75 pixels wide. The horizontal tabs bar is a sliver narrower, at 65 pixels tall. Of course that stacks on top of the address bar, which itself is 60 pixels tall, so you end up with 125 pixels of top bar.
I don't know if I could notice the 10 px difference between the two, given that they're in different orientations and 10 pixels is 0.5% of the horizontal pixel count and 0.3% of the vertical, but human perception is weird. Like I said, I keep the bar much wider to read the titles and just... hide it when I'm not tabbing, so it's not an issue at all for me. Although I'll say that even with the wide sidebar deployed you get a pretty comfy square-ish space to work with that turns a 16:9 display to 16:10 in a satisfying way. And on ultrawide 21:9 it's a no-brainer, just like having a side-aligned taskbar (hear that, Windows 11?).
I should add that none of that changes that Firefox is... quite ugly in general. Zen is definitely sleeker at a glance, regardless of your setup.
Haha, it's funny that you went that far. I think the reason why I notice it and you don't, is the 4k factor. My screen is 1920x1200 iirc.
