WebExtensions

[ghost]

Please allow WebExtensions to be installed, thank you

[textbrowser]

Please provide documentation.

[ghost]

http://developer.mozilla.org/Add-ons/WebExtensions

[textbrowser]

Qt must provide some interface. Please research if such an interface exists.

[textbrowser]

Must as in should if extensions are to be supported.

[anarchotaoist]

Please allow WebExtensions to be installed, thank you

This would be so fantastic!
I love the look and feel of this browser in Kubuntu!
If it had extension support I could make it my default!
Unfortunately I cannot live without Bitwarden, SimpleLogin, Play to Kodi, QOwnNotes,
Many people do not want to use a Chromium base and are sick of Mozilla's politics. There is a real need for this browser as a daily driver!
Is it possible to crowdsource a feature/bug bounty to fund an addons enhancement?
Thanks devs!
ps. Sorry if this is the wrong forum. I could not find a discussion forum.

[textbrowser]

https://github.com/textbrowser/dooble/discussions

[textbrowser]

Dooble does not have developers. It has a developer. :)

[anarchotaoist]

Dooble does not have developers. It has a developer. :)

Wow! Much respect!

[CommonLoon102]

Many people do not want to use a Chromium base and are sick of Mozilla's politics. There is a real need for this browser as a daily driver!

@anarchotaoist I have bad news for you, Dooble is just Chromium as well. See here yourself:
https://doc.qt.io/Qt-5/qtwebengine-overview.html

If you want to stay away from Chromium and Firefox (Gecko), the only option left for you is WebKit. For Linux, the only WebKit based browser is Gnome Web (package name: epiphany-browser).
https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Web/

surf is using WebKit too, but it is unusable as a "daily driver": https://surf.suckless.org/
And there is NetSurf, but it is basically completely useless for almost every modern webpage: http://www.netsurf-browser.org/about/

[textbrowser]

I think you be exaggerating.

Let's clarify the state of WebKit in Qt. It's totally deprecated. There are/were some people maintaining a loose port with current upstream developments. However, Qt has abandoned it. Dooble 1.x was using it. Legacy WebKit is poor.

Dooble is not Chrome. Dooble does not communicate with Google servers. To say that Dooble is just Chromium is really odd. Dooble requires MS Visual Studio on Windows for building. Is it a Windows product now too? There are numerous tools to test network traffic when using Dooble. Try them and then submit a ticket if Dooble uses inappropriate servers or makes ghostly connections or summons Google sprites.

https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qtwebengine-overview.html

"Note: Qt WebEngine is based on Chromium, but does not contain or use any services or add-ons that might be part of the Chrome browser that is built and delivered by Google. You can find more detailed information about the differences between Chromium and Chrome in this overview that is part of the documentation in the Chromium Project upstream source tree."

[textbrowser]

[textbrowser]

So the next logical step would be to make it fingerprint-less such that it doesn't become too unique. This is possible but not easy because JS is mandatory everywhere. Dooble does this without extensions.

[textbrowser]

FF with six privacy extensions.

[textbrowser]

It's very easy to generalize software.

[CommonLoon102]

I have never said that Dooble is Chrome or that Dooble is using Google. I said that Dooble is just Chromium. Because it is Chromium. The heart of a web browser is its "engine" (or in other words its HTML/CSS renderer and JavaScript interpreter). Dooble is Chromium. Dooble is not (Google) Chrome. I know what is the difference between Chrome and Chromium. And I think you know it too.

There are dozens of other browsers built on top of Chromium. Dooble is just one of them. @anarchotaoist was specifically against Chromium. He doesn't want to use Chromium. He thought that by using Dooble, he is not using Chromium, but he does.

I don't know how the fingerprinting comes into the picture or why you have mentioned it. You install an extension or a font and you will have a different fingerprint. Or just resize your browser window. Actually, via Audio API and WebGL you don't even have to do anything, as the fingerprinting scripts will generate a unique fingerprint based on your computer's performance. If you want to have a non-unique fingerprint, then you use Tor Browser.

If you wanted to prove that Dooble is a different browser than Google Chrome by showing that it has a unique fingerprint, then I don't even know what to say here. I can use Google Chrome and have a unique fingerprint, actually almost everybody have.

Or you can fork Chromium, do a replace all for Chromium to Chrommm, recompile, dang, you have a new browser.

[CommonLoon102]

OK, I need to say that the engine's name is "Blink", and therefore the Qt wiki should have said Blink as well instead of Chromium, but a lot of people just say Chromium for the engine as well, instead of calling it Blink.

[textbrowser]

Is a Rolls Royce sporting a Ford engine a Ford?

[CommonLoon102]

I think anarchotaoist was making a point on diversity. If Google does something to the Chromium project, or the project will be "derailed" in some way, there will be no alternatives (besides Firefox (Gecko/Servo) and WebKit). Google already tries to remove APIs from Chromium, so it won't be able to have extensions like uBlockOrigin. Adblockers hurt Google's business. Mozilla just seems to be a puppet of Google (check where they get the money from). So only Apple's WebKit remains. (Blink was forked from WebKit a long time ago by the way).

As I said, there are dozens of other web browsers based on Chromium already. If those were OK for anarchotaoist, he would have plenty of alternatives. He could just use Brave for example.

But let's see what anarchotaoist's opinion is on this. All I said is just the fact that Dooble is using Chromium as well. A fact what anarchotaoist wasn't aware of.

[CommonLoon102]

Many people do not want to use a Chromium base

use a Chromium base

Chromium base

I think he was clear.

[textbrowser]

"Note: Qt WebEngine is based on Chromium, but does not contain or use any services or add-ons that might be part of the Chrome browser that is built and delivered by Google. You can find more detailed information about the differences between Chromium and Chrome in this overview that is part of the documentation in the Chromium Project upstream source tree."

English is like kind of sometimes based on a Germanic language; so is English German?

Dooble uses WebEngine which is based (derived) on Chromium to render pages; so is it Chrome?

So like when's the browser and when's the engine? I included the pictograms to depict the 6 extensions in FF and 0 in Dooble.

Yeah, and forking an engine is like a lot of work. More work than one person can do. There are millions of operating systems, at least two popular compilers, daily upstream changes.

I would have preferred that you requested that Dooble refers to WebEngine which it does in the release notes instead of just concluding that Dooble is a Chrome.

Chilax.

[textbrowser]

https://github.com/textbrowser/dooble/blob/master/README.md

[CommonLoon102]

Here is a simple chart, showing what is derived from what.

      Google            Apple
         |                |
         |                |
         |              WebKit
         |                |
   Blink/Chromium <-------|
         |                |
         |                ˇ
         |              Safari
         ˇ
     QtWebEngine
         |
         |
         |
         ˇ
       Dooble

Once again, I have never said that Dooble is Chrome.
But Chrome is Chromium, plus the proprietary stuff added by Google.
Chrome is derived from Chromium.
QtWeb engine is derived from Chromium. But it is more like just a wrapper around it, nothing much extra added to it.
And Dooble is using this wrapper.
Dooble is Blink (Chromium).
All you do is adding some user interface over it. Plus those things what are mentioned in the readme.md.

Here is a list of all the web engines:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_browser_engines

Who is the steward for the engine used by Dooble?

Dooble is backed by Google's technology. It is not a secret or a shame. Just put things clear.
If you wouldn't have wanted to hide this fact, you would have written "Dooble is a Chromium-based web browser..." into the About section on GitHub. Instead you wrote "Dooble, the weather bug browser." what doesn't even mean anything, or does it?
Then now you have mentioned at the bottom of the readme.md that it is WebEngine (Blink->Chromium->Google). You just haven't mentioned Chromium again. Why?

[textbrowser]

You believe that the engine defines the browser. Your approaches and your conclusions are based on this belief.

I don't believe that the engine defines the browser. My approaches and my conclusions are based on this belief.

I included two links. One link describes WebEngine. That page describes Qt's adaptation of Chromium. It explicitly mentions the word based and Chromium. Perhaps for legal reasons Qt could not assign a name to WebEngine that's Chrome-like. Qt makes the explicit note that it is based on Chromium. The other page also describes Chromium. Both pages provide clear information, one favoring your rigid belief that anything from Chromium is Chromium. Two diverse articles are presented. One from Qt, another from a separate source. Both offer their own interpretations.

Qt is the maintainer of the Chromium-derived engine. Google is the maintainer of Chromium. There is a relationship between the two models. If Chromium vanished, all browsers using WebEngine would not receive updates, essentially WebKit. Dooble would continue to function even if flawed.

The information is not hidden. Dooble uses WebEngine. It is called WebEngine and it is derived from Chromium. This is clear. Dooble used WebKit. It was called WebKit. That was clear.

Dooble's source is clear, its documentation, its intent, its issues, its reminders, its use of a rendering engine. You can also see some of the information in the agent string.

"Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) QtWebEngine/5.12.8 Chrome/69.0.3497.128 Safari/537.36 Dooble/2021.02.20"

You're obsessed with defining Dooble as some simple skin of Chromium. It isn't.

[textbrowser]

My obsession is to reason with obsessive people who obsessively obsess with diminishing Dooble.

Have a pleasant day.

[CommonLoon102]

OK, I think both of us made our points.
Let's see if @anarchotaoist will make his/her points as well or not, because it all started with his/her statement. I think (s)he wasn't aware that Dooble is Chromium-based, that's all.

Have a nice day you too.

[textbrowser]

I hope you are as obsessive with your arguments with other projects who suffer even the slightest of missteps. :)

[anarchotaoist]

Interesting discussion guys!
It is my understanding that all modern web browsers have forked most of their technology from KHTML. (As a Plasma user this pleases me). If a current browser then utilises a 'fork' of KHTML, such as Blink, then this is fine with me. It is using open source development based on good open source grounds. So, if Dooble, Viper. Otter or Falkon build upon that, all power to them if they acknowledge their base.
I have no issue with Dooble doing this here as it acknowledges its base - unlike the new developers of Midori who have, to put it nicely, very 'quietly' switched Midori to a 'Chromium' base.
I however was looking for a browser that did not rely on Chromium/Blink or Mozilla technology.
I mistakenly thought QTWebengine was a QT version/fork of Webkit. It appears not. This is my mistake.
re: Dooble used WebKit. It was called WebKit - perhaps I originally saw an old wiki stating this which led to some confusion on my part.

re: If Chromium vanished, all browsers using WebEngine would not receive updates, essentially WebKit. Dooble would continue to function even if flawed

• Reliance on Chromium/Blink for input on browser maintenance & development is a concern for me though. Ideally, a browser or forked base could continue in the absence of gooolag. (Could Palemoon do so in the absence of Mozilla?)
  Unfortunately there is no ideal solution it seems.
  Thanks for the discussion and clarification on points guys!

[textbrowser]

Unfortunately WebKit is dead on Qt. There is this unofficial repository: https://github.com/qtwebkit/qtwebkit.

An independent engine separate of any entity would be a monumental and expensive task.

Konqueror HTML5 results: http://html5test.com/results/search.html?query=konqueror.

[CommonLoon102]

An independent engine separate of any entity would be a monumental and expensive task.

Then just help in the development of an independent engine and implement one or two little things. You can make servo better for example: https://github.com/servo/servo

Servo is now one of the projects under the Linux Foundation.

It would be still more productive and having a larger impact in the long term than creating the 31th Chromium-based GUI. But this is only my personal opinion. If Dooble development is what you enjoy more, then do that of course.

[The-Compiler]

For Linux, the only WebKit based browser is Gnome Web

Or Eolie, or vimb, or luakit, or Otter Browser (though using QtWebKit which is rather dead), or qutebrowser with its QtWebKit backend, or probably various others I forgot about.

OK, I need to say that the engine's name is "Blink", and therefore the Qt wiki should have said Blink as well instead of Chromium, but a lot of people just say Chromium for the engine as well, instead of calling it Blink.

Blink is only the rendering engine. QtWebEngine uses much more of Chromium than just Blink, like V8 (JS engine), its network stack, etc. etc. It uses the Chromium content API - thus, "a stripped down Chromium" is much more accurate than "Blink".

[textbrowser]

Dooble 1.x is WebKit too and as such is kind of dead.

Yes, that's true. WebKit allowed the use of QNetworkAccessManager.

Qt, WebEngine, and proxies: https://wiki.qt.io/QtWebEngine/Network.

[textbrowser]

Not interested. :)