Unfortunately even Google started requiring JS, which was a huge attack against small browsers and the open web.
Yep, <a href="https://html.duckduckgo.com" rel="nofollow">https://html.duckduckgo.com</a> works well in such browser though :)
The Google index is still accessible from many other "proxy search engines" that still work without JS, one example is Startpage.<p>See the nice list from Seirdy for more details on search engines: <a href="https://seirdy.one/posts/2021/03/10/search-engines-with-own-indexes/" rel="nofollow">https://seirdy.one/posts/2021/03/10/search-engines-with-own-...</a>
But does it require ES6? Javascript was quite minimal in the early days. It doesn't need a JIT, in fact I'd prefer it not to be.
Google at this point kind of controls the www. Now, strictly speaking that statement is not true, but it now feels as if Google sits in so many areas that are important for the www; chrome is just the most obvious one.
I use dillo a lot, congratulations!<p>With these age verification laws and depending upon what Firefox does, dillo could very well be the go-to browser on Linux and BSD. If these laws hit us and Firefox adds logic to verify one's age, I will be 100% dillo.
Understandable but I think the age sniffing laws are much more profound. It's fascinating to see how quickly all countries succumb to them right now.<p>People may not believe it right now, but I think anonymously browsing the www will be a thing of the past in some years. People should see the concomitant attacks on VPNs - this is all concerted, not "isolated accidents". We need to make the flow of money obvious - I am fed up of being controlled by lobbyists.
It’s a shame that in my case trying to use Dillo here (HN) keeps returning 429, something that doesn’t happen with "full‑size" browsers (JS?).
There are no special rules against modern browsers. Can you reproduce it systematically?, if so, any chances you can paste the HTTP headers?<p>In any case, apart from our cgit instance we have mirrors in Codeberg and SourceHut:<p>- <a href="https://git.dillo-browser.org/dillo/" rel="nofollow">https://git.dillo-browser.org/dillo/</a><p>- <a href="https://codeberg.org/dillo/dillo" rel="nofollow">https://codeberg.org/dillo/dillo</a><p>- <a href="https://git.sr.ht/~dillo/dillo" rel="nofollow">https://git.sr.ht/~dillo/dillo</a>
dilloc began before the 3.3.0 release, in some previous git commits and it was amazing.<p>It's pretty easy to write a redirect menu item calling a script similar to a plumber/xdg-open
replacing the JS url's with non JS ones, a la Libredirect under Firefox/Chromium.
i totally misread the title of this post. What is wrong with me?
that's cool!
[dead]
Am I the only one who has to giggle when reading that name?<p>I know people have somewhat related thoughts about the image editor called GIMP.
They missed a great opportunity to name the "Control via UNIX socket" section "Teledillonics".
> Am I the only one who has to giggle when reading that name?<p>Oh, I know exactly what you’re talking about. I too am reminded of Tom Bombadil’s song from <i>The Fellowship of the Ring</i> every time Dillo is mentioned.<p><pre><code> Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo!
Ring a dong! hop along! fal lal the willow!
Tom Bom, jolly Tom, Tom Bombadillo!</code></pre>
Yeah, I was going to say the same thing, kind of an unfortunate name. Why? It makes you think of a DILD*. Then you have to remind yourself, they probably mean armadillo.