If you're on chromium 59 or higher go to chrome://flags/#enable-font-cache-scaling and disable that option...

This is what a browser should look like.

Attached: browser.png (1023x767, 93.92K)

it's like you're trying to kill someone

My backlight is dying so I had to change it from dark grey to white.

You're not wrong.
Media links should be launched by an external program, and there should be minimal markup formatting. Images should still be rendered by the browser, with the option to disable download and rendering.
I suppose that the ability to render images could be isolated from the browser using a plugin system similar to the firefox vlc plugin.
Now, how would you do this without javascript or PHP.
You could create a dedicated static page linked to a session cookie and unique quantifier IP or login.
That's already been done with python and C a million times over.

The real question is why hasn't this been done?
The first company that produces an HTML and CSS formatting only, no CPU heavy tasks only site similar to youtube, amazon, or ebay should be able to take off, especially if their selling point is "faster than the competition with less data usage".
The side benefit is that you could serve the responses as xml or json to be rendered by an external program, such as a mobile app.

Programs running on the client's browser was a mistake. It has introduced the complexity of an OS for a job that should be no more difficult than rendering a PDF.

All your browsers can look like this today. You simply choose not to have it.

I want normalfag sites to be as heavily burdened by a mess of unoptimized javascript, just to fuel the demand for faster processors. In a lean optimized world, Intel Atom processors would be the norm, and anything exotic would cost a fortune. To be honest, exotic hardware still does cost a fortune (look into the prebuilt computers for MemeLearning), but it could be a lot, lot worse.

YouTube, amazon and ebay are already optimized to the max, also they have "apps" that store the client code locally and use even less traffic. Sometimes loading plain html page is more bandwidth-consuming than loading portions of this webpage with javascript

You're talkin' out your ass.

No, it's pure logic. There is a business case for ensuring minimized data transfer for the business when the order of network traffic is measured in gigabytes per minute.

Holy shit thanks user

on debian pretty much th only browsers worth using are firefox and chromium. firefox-esr if slow as fuck and has tons of wasted screenspace, i'm forced to use chromium. webkit is a beautiful engine. isn't lightweight but if you have 2+ gb of memory it flies

I haven't been tracking all the chromium-clones lately, are they all still terrible? Vivaldi, Brave, Opera (>_

Proprietary and terrible and mutually inclusive.

Not true. You ever use IDA? How about Eagle CAD? I would say that IDA is better than any disassembler you can find in the open source world. And Eagle CAD is hands down the best CAD solution for PCB design.

You are aware that many former Firefox users willingly migrated to Google Chrome, right?

when did this happen? opera's been around since the 90's.

2013. I wasn't precise in my wording, but once they gave up on their Presto layout engine, they used Chrome's Blink engine. A couple years back, Opera was bought out by a Chinese consortium.

whoa. news to me.

There are some diehards still clinging to the last known good version, Opera 12, but it's basically a zombie. Some of the old Opera devs have since created Vivaldi, but they seem concerned with just building a UI on top of Chrome.

Wow. If opera had released their browser free of charge in the 90's, instead of following through with it being paid software, they probably would've had a huge market share considering the fall of netscape and the vacuum left until ie filled its spot.

Opera does have a decent market share though, on phones... in shit hole countries. Their mobile browser features a compression technology (turbo mode) to shrink page sizes, by processing content through their proxies.

The problem with your arguement is that it is also youtube-'s buisness to advertise to you both in the website with popups via javascript and with ad's in the video. If you use youtube-dl to download videos and then watch them you don't have to use extra bandwidth for all that other bullshit. If you use say CNN you use large amounts of data with javascript adveritising and other bloat. But if you use 8ch you don't get javascript advertising and bloat, but the images make the webpage take longer to load anyways.

You literally just brought up an obscure, inconsequential, impertinent dichotomy to create the illusion of ethos for a haphazard comment that was more hyperbolic than some display of authority and feel no stupidity at the prospect.