undefined | Better HN

0 pointsIvanK_net6y ago0 comments

It makes no sense to me. You are saying, that instead a 5 kB webpage, you would load 50 MB code, which emulates a browser, just to show you the same webpage?

Every webpage pays for the traffic in some way, and everybody tries to save web traffic as much as possible (optimizing images, videos, minifying JS, CSS ...). It makes no sense to expect, that websites would turn the opposite way just for fun.

I would be very glad, if you can emulate a computer in a browser, so you can e.g. use VirtualBox or VMWare comfortably in your browser. Still, it will be sandboxed (it can not turn off your computer, or clear your hard drive, etc.).

I think the web is the most open, independent, secure and versatile platform today. And I hope it will become even better and more powerful in the future.

0 comments

EvanAnderson6y ago

Yes. I am saying that some website operators would like to load an entire browser into your client just so they can control the presentation (make sure you're not able to block their ads, control their scripts, etc).

I'm not talking about the sandboxed browser being able to "clear your hard drive", etc. I'm talking about users having no real agency when it comes to controlling the presentation of websites. (Sure, it's code running on your computer. You're free to attach a debugger to step thru native code that runs a VM that runs a nested VM that's ultimately running the code you'd actually like to influence. Let me know how that goes for you.)

Have you seen JSLinux[1]?

[1] - https://bellard.org/jslinux/

IvanK_netOP6y ago

I don't think it is necessary to make websites extremely complex, to prevent you from blocking ads.

I think blocking ads is a game you can never win. If you are able to block ads on some websites today, it is just because the site owners allow you to do so (they could easily prevent you from doing so). Ads technologies can evolve to a point when you as a human can not distinguish between ads and the rest of the content.

int_19h6y ago

It would make content control more complicated, but it can't make it impossible.

If the embedded browser uses the host's HTTP implementation, then you can filter and edit content there.

If it implements HTTP itself on top of raw sockets, then you can intercept traffic on socket level (although you'd need to MITM any SSL connection).

gmueckl6y ago

If the inner browser has its own client certificate or simply checks for a set of known server certificates, MITM won't get you anywhere. Done right, this could well be game over.

1 more reply

jononor6y ago

Instagram, Facebook, Pintrest, Youtube apps are already this thing. Tens of megabytes embedding a browser to view web content. Their traffic covers a significant portion of the entire web. All of these have a lot to gain from rendering ad blocking impossible. And for keeping people on their "platform", inside their walled garden. Right now they are shipped as native apps, which the web version will nag you about until you install it. I don't think it is so farfetched that they will try to use WebAssembly for the same.

Quarrelsome6y ago

> It makes no sense to me. You are saying, that instead a 5 kB webpage, you would load 50 MB code, which emulates a browser, just to show you the same webpage?

Have you not worked in tech long? One of my 'favourite' things about one tech stack I once worked on was that someone decided to implement a file-system inside the a database that is stored on the file system. Even better, the database itself effectively just reimplements the features of a database.

So we have a file-system storing a database that exposes a completely different database that holds a file system.

golemotron6y ago

Obligatory: https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/the-birth-and-death...

sjy6y ago

I wouldn’t be surprised if 50 MB was a more common webpage size than 5 KB these days.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse