[dev]

[Ivan Vetrov]

Hi all,

A few months ago I tried to use surf as my main browser, but it turned
out to be unsuitable for me mostly because some websites are not loading
or loading too slowly using webkitgtk.

Then when I couldn't find any surf ports to other web engines, I decided
to create surf-like browser in c++ using Qt WebEngine. I'm not very
experienced at c++ programming and this was my first Qt project. There
are still many features that need to be added, including support for
configuration via command-line options, but generally, it seems to work
and I have been using it as my only browser for a few weeks. Downloads
are supported via built-in Qt WebEngine mechanism and can be viewed and
and modified with dmenu.

https://codeberg.org/uiv/surf.git

Which browser do you use? I would welcome any thoughts, suggestions or
patches.

Best,
Ivan

[Viktor Grigorov]

Hello, Ivan, 

I would recommend You browse the browsers named elinks, lynx and links, the latter being installed with the X11 (or so) package on Void Linux. The first two C, if I recall correctly. These are TTY-only and do not support JavaScript or any media files, so code base should be a tad shorter.  Additionally I suggest using the plugin named uBlock Origin. It allows connecting to first and third party sites or not, and further. 

Cheers, 
vFeb 27, 2026, 20:56 by vetro...@gmail.com:

[Philip Rhoades]

unsubscribe

[Страхиња Радић]

Дана 26/02/28 08:57PM, Viktor Grigorov написа:

> I would recommend You browse the browsers named elinks, lynx and
> links, the latter being installed with the X11 (or so) package on Void
> Linux. The first two C, if I recall correctly. These are TTY-only and
> do not support JavaScript or any media files, so code base should be a
> tad shorter.

elinks supports[1] EcmaScript (JavaScript).


>[...] Additionally I suggest using the plugin named uBlock

> Origin. It allows connecting to first and third party sites or not, and
> further. 

While allowed so far (unlike its better alternatives, like uMatrix[2],
[3]) on browsers like Mozilla Firefox, uBlock Origin is suboptimal for
blocking, mainly because it uses lists.[4]

By the way, Big Tech is aggressively advertising blatantly anti-privacy
web browsers as "privacy respecting". Most notable examples: Mozilla
Firefox[5], [6], [7], Brave[8], [9].

Ungoogled Chromium with uMatrix remains the "best" web browser so far
when it comes to privacy and stopping tracking and personal data theft.
There was a thorough analysis of "phoning home" requests on the default
installs of various browsers at [10], with updates over the years, but
that website currently seems (temporarily?) down. Summary: Ungoogled
Chromium was the only web browser with 0 (zero) "phoning home"
requests. All the others contacted dozens of URLs just when starting
up, without any URL entered or bookmark clicked.


[1]: https://github.com/rkd77/elinks/tree/master/src/js
[2]: https://digdeeper.club/articles/addons.xhtml#umatrix
[3]: https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix
[4]: https://github.com/rkd77/elinks/tree/master/src/js
[5]: https://digdeeper.club/articles/browsers.xhtml#ff
[6]: https://unixdigest.com/articles/choose-your-browser-carefully.html#firefox
[7]: https://digdeeper.club/articles/mozilla.xhtml
[8]: https://digdeeper.club/articles/browsers.xhtml#brave
[9]: https://unixdigest.com/articles/choose-your-browser-carefully.html#brave
[10]: https://sizeof.cat/post/web-browser-telemetry/

[Страхиња Радић]

Дана 26/03/01 11:06AM, Страхиња Радић написа:
> [1]: https://github.com/rkd77/elinks/tree/master/src/js
> [4]: https://github.com/rkd77/elinks/tree/master/src/js

Correction, [4] should read:

[4]: https://digdeeper.club/articles/addons.xhtml#adblockers

[NRK]

> I decided to create surf-like browser in c++ using Qt WebEngine. [...]

So it's a new project that was written from scratch with "inspiration"
from surf, but not an actual "port" of existing surf code to use Qt
WebEngine, correct?

> https://codeberg.org/uiv/surf.git

If so, then it's really weird to name this "surf". It will only cause
confusion and cause problems when packaging. I recommend picking a
different name.

- NRK

[Gimmi]

Hello,

On 01/03/2026 11:06, Страхиња Радић wrote:
> Ungoogled Chromium with uMatrix remains the "best" web browser so far
> when it comes to privacy and stopping tracking and personal data theft.

Be aware that uMatrix has been unmantained for about 4 years AFAIK ([1]).

[1]: https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix

--
Gimmi

[Страхиња Радић]

Дана 26/03/01 05:30PM, Gimmi написа:

> Be aware that uMatrix has been unmantained for about 4 years AFAIK ([1]).

That's ok in this case, because it doesn't use lists (which always need
to be up-to-date). It is "finished" in the suckless sense. It doesn't
need update bloat.

Quoting https://digdeeper.club/articles/addons.xhtml#umatrix
> UPDATE February 2022: a surprising amount of people have bothered me
> about uMatrix supposedly being "deprecated". Nothing could be further
> from the truth! Just because the developer stopped updating it doesn't
> mean anything. During this time, the web didn't change in a way that
> would inhibit uMatrix functionality. The grid still covers all the
> requests. The idea that a software needs constant updates to stay
> useful really needs to die. It is what has got us into this whole
> privacy and bloat mess in the first place. My clock or drawer have not
> needed updates for decades, why would a program?

[Gimmi]

Hello,

On 01/03/2026 19:03, Страхиња Радић wrote:
> Дана 26/03/01 05:30PM, Gimmi написа:
>> Be aware that uMatrix has been unmantained for about 4 years AFAIK ([1]).
>
> That's ok in this case, because it doesn't use lists (which always need
> to be up-to-date). It is "finished" in the suckless sense. It doesn't
> need update bloat.>
> Quoting https://digdeeper.club/articles/addons.xhtml#umatrix
>> UPDATE February 2022: a surprising amount of people have bothered me
>> about uMatrix supposedly being "deprecated". Nothing could be further
>> from the truth! Just because the developer stopped updating it doesn't
>> mean anything. During this time, the web didn't change in a way that
>> would inhibit uMatrix functionality. The grid still covers all the
>> requests.

While I agree on that for new functions (if the tool is fine as it is,
why touch it?), it is also true that if a security vulnerability is
discovered in unmaintained software it is probable that it will not be
patched. Someone can create a fork of uMatrix, but it will not be
uMatrix: good luck getting the word out!

>> The idea that a software needs constant updates to stay
>> useful really needs to die. It is what has got us into this whole
>> privacy and bloat mess in the first place. My clock or drawer have not
>> needed updates for decades, why would a program?
>

Software does not need constant updates to function: on the contrary, if
a piece of software works as intended, why bother changing it and thus
risk to introduce bugs? However, I would be much more relieved if the
uMatrix repository were never been archived, so that more people would
use it and possibly discover bugs or security vulnerabilities.

Neither the clock nor the drawer can receive remote commands because of
unintended flaws in their programming.
If uMatrix wasn't included in a browser or intended to read external
files, the fact that it is unmaintained wouldn't be a problem.

This is just my take on the issue, I am not stating that uMatrix is
vulnerable to something. On the contrary, I used it for many years and I
believe it is better than uBlock.

--
Gimmi

[Страхиња Радић]

Дана 26/03/01 06:22PM, Gimmi написа:

> While I agree on that for new functions (if the tool is fine as it is, why
> touch it?), it is also true that if a security vulnerability is discovered
> in unmaintained software it is probable that it will not be patched. Someone
> can create a fork of uMatrix, but it will not be uMatrix: good luck getting
> the word out!

[...]

> [...]However, I would be much more relieved if the uMatrix

> repository were never been archived, so that more people would use it and
> possibly discover bugs or security vulnerabilities.

I think such mistrust is unfounded. Those who care about privacy on the
web already know about uMatrix, or can easily find out about it. Those
who know about uMatrix will also know to install the "archived"
version, and only that version.

> Neither the clock nor the drawer can receive remote commands because of
> unintended flaws in their programming.

Neither can uMatrix, because it doesn't include constant "updates"
(unlike uBlock Origin and other addons reliant on remote
{black,white}lists).

> If uMatrix wasn't included in a browser or intended to read external files,
> the fact that it is unmaintained wouldn't be a problem.

It isn't "included in the browser", and the only files it reads and
writes are the local configuration files readable and writable by the
user. If those are compromised, the user has bigger issue on hand, and
not one caused by uMatrix itself.