Web-Environment-Integrity VS nyxt

Repo has be archived - "NOTE: This proposal is no longer pursued."

https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity

[2] - https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/...

I think the best issue raised is: Why would I, as a user, want this?

https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/...

There were proposals for protecting against this in the WEI explainer under "Open Questions" https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/...

The Web Environment Integrity is yet another Google proposal for making the web worse for everyone but them.

Point me to anything which would give websites access to that information via WEI. There is nothing. I have seen nothing except FUD. Aside from that, this only attests for the device. Ad-blockers can be external. This does nothing for external ad-blockers.

Explicit non-goals for WEI:

"Enforce or interfere with browser functionality, including plugins and extensions."

https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/...

That also applies to Javascript, or being forced to use some form of an up-to-date browser. What is different with WEI?

I didn't see many people debating the actual text of the WEI explainer[0] on the HN posts about WEI, and that's probably because they were links to articles about WEI. The HN post for the explainer with the most upvotes only has 89[1], likely because most of HN treats the upvote as "I agree/like this" instead of "boost this topic for discussion".

0: https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/...

1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36785516

> If you don't want my browser to render content as it sees fit, don't serve the content over a protocol where that dynamic is inherent.

to play the devil's advocate, this is why google proposed the WEI (https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/...). Be careful what you wish for...

https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/...

I stopped reading after the explainer’s intro section. The first example is making it easier for websites to sell adds (lmao) and the other 3 are extremely questionable whether if the proposed remedy even helps. And it’s presented as a benevolent alternative to browser fingerprinting, as if we must choose between these two awful choices. It’s an absolute joke of a proposal.

If someone invents another browser, Nyxt will be ready to wrap it with Common Lisp: https://github.com/atlas-engineer/nyxt

I can't reproduce the bug report on flatpak. Bug reports should be reported at https://github.com/atlas-engineer/nyxt/issues/new/choose.

For innovative new browsers, there's Nyxt: https://nyxt.atlas.engineer/

Both are looking for funding and sponsors.

good idea. I know there are some plans for this underway.... looks like just planning phase right now. https://github.com/atlas-engineer/nyxt/issues/3095

I am not a hopeful romantic, but the EU has been investing on vendor neutral web-browsers like Nyxt [0] and the UR Browser [1] through the Horizon Europe program. I doubt that legislators (at least in the EU) will view this as a positive development, assuming EU legislators know what they are doing. On the other hand, lobbying by big tech is still very much a threat.

[0] https://nyxt.atlas.engineer/

[1] https://www.ur-browser.com/en-US

There are some keyboard centered browsers like Qutebrowser or Nyxt. For Firefox as well as for Chrome based browsers there exist several extensions to implement vim-like keybindings.

Am I correct that this is not fixed until this issue is closed (I tried building from source the 3.3.0 release and master branch but both have the exact same issue)?

Go to the website -> Download -> Download for GNU/Linux -> Get Nyxt for GNU/Linux!