|
|
|
|
|
by WalterGR
2882 days ago
|
|
> In my mind, this is a good thing. Browsers should do one thing well. ... As a *nix guy for three decades, I simply cannot escape the "do one thing well" paradigm. As with every tool, what counts as that “one thing” is entirely subjective, in the eye of the beholder, highly personal, often arbitrary. Why should Firefox support tabs? Shouldn’t my window manager do that? Why does a browser keep track of history when my operating environment should keep track of a history of things I’ve seen recently - documents, files, URLs? It’s the exact same debate about whether programs should do any of the things that can be handled by tmux / GNU screen / readline / whatever. For you, the “one thing” browsers should do maps exactly to what you think counts as “one thing.” To others, that might include Firefox’s RSS support, and leave out something you consider essential, calling it “bloat” and against the spirit of Unix. |
|
You're close to enlightenment. ;)
There should be a renderer, there should be a network engine, there should be a persistent storage, a secret storage keyring, a history tracker, etc - and they all should be small separate programs, talking common protocols, easily replaceable.
Non-interoperable giant monoliths are why we can't have nice things anymore and have to stick with whatever large companies can provide us at their own discretion. Because it's incredibly hard to patch that behemoth and even less so to maintain the patchset. That would be possible again if there'd be a plethora of small programs, each doing its own single thing and not trying to be everything and a kitchen sink.