SAFEr Browser(s) Proposal

[whiteoutmashups]

@frabrunelle

Personally I’m not convinced that we should continue to use .safenet. I understand the argument that it would let us support more browsers (e.g. Chrome),

And we should all reallllly stop acting like we’re talking about anything other than chrome.

Chrome is the only browser that isn’t allowing custom protocols.

…why do we care about chrome so much? Baffles me. It’s just one browser.

[draw]

We probably should care less about Chrome, but it has a big market share at the moment: Browser market share

[betterthantrav]

@draw

We probably should care less about Chrome, but it has a big market share at the moment: Browser market share

Internet explorer used to have a big market share too

[betterthantrav]

@betterthantrav

.safenet was intended to be temporary. It is imperative that we stop using .safenet as soon as possible before it becomes a permanent fixture on the SAFE Network.

Important…

[Nigel]

I get that this is about adoption but it’s also about overall usibility and bending everything for the sake of one browser is being overly accommodating to google. Google sucks and that’s part of the reason I’m here and use other browsers and DuckDuckGo as my search engine. Once I learned more about Google it drove me away. Stick with what is good for the users of the network and what other browsers will allow, safe:

[Josh]

Perhaps I missed it with all of the different conversations going on but could someone please explain what the benifits of a creating a SAFE browser is if the focus is on mass adoption through existing browsers.
My understanding is foggy at best.
ie. benefits of SAFEr using .safenet over other browsers.

[rand_om]

I hope this is the answer you were looking for, Im not sure I understood it correctly. Anyways, please correct me if somethings wrong.

There’s a distinction to be made between the discussions about “safe: / .safenet” and the SAFEr browser.
Wheher we choose safe: or .safenet, there will be a browser either way, developed by @joshuef.

using safe: means that chrome can’t be used for the SAFEnet, because they dont allow other protocols (is that correct?). Almost all other browsers will be able to browse SAFEnet, one way or another (plugin/extension, small changes). Its not impossible for chrome either, but way more difficult (and not our responsibility).

It also doesnt directly affect the users’ security whether we use safe: or .safenet. Because what the developers of those 3rd party browsers do regarding sec is out of our hands.

[dirvine]

@rand_om

Its not impossible for chrome either, but way more difficult (and not our responsibility).

Nice summation, I think it is currently just not allowed in chrome and possibly unlikely to change, not sure about edge and others. Also w3c has a dim opinion on trying to create a protocol like that (see ipfs discussion on it Standard URI for ipfs and ipns protocols (Discussion) · Issue #1678 · ipfs/kubo · GitHub

I do wonder if we had http::/safe/<your address> as an additional option if it makes a difference.

None of this is expressing an opinion either way here (yip cop out), enjoying the debates though, we will see a load more of these so we need to get used to them and losing (I lose a lot and it’s not too sore )

[Josh]

I understand but my question is more… what does SAFEr bring to the table that other browsers wont. It seems all browsers are welcome so why build another.
What are the benefits?

[dirvine]

@Josh

I understand but my question is more… what does SAFEr bring to the table that other browsers wont. It seems all browsers are welcome so why build another.What are the benefits?

Mostly already secured (no plugins perhaps) and not needing configured (no proxy). Can also potentially get loaded from a button on launcher or similar and I suppose eventually forked and specialised for SAFE. Whereas plugins for each browser are maybe simpler in some ways.

TOR is interesting as they went for the .safenet style approach but also created a forked secured browser. So they did both, although I think there are plenty of tor plugins, I am not sure how many are used though or how many are really secure (i.e. mislead folk).

[happybeing]

This is maybe a stretch too far for this proposal, but the principles are relevant so I’m cross posting it to add it to this debate. If you read what follows, also keep in mind the User Experience examples given in the video by Aral Balkan (posted elsehere, where he talks about buying a Subway / Metro ticket in the USA):

Discussion: safe: or safe:// protocol versus .safenet domain

We see it differently perhaps because we’re looking at users differently. To help explain my reasoning, let’s segment users into different groups such as early adopters / tech savvy versus majority who need stuff that just works. Obvs a vast simplification, so not accurate or definitive, but useful for illustration. First group, no problem. Second group will have certain characteristics that change the balance. For them (the large majority I suggest), having a separate launcher and learning h…

[betterthantrav]

@Josh

I understand but my question is more… what does SAFEr bring to the table that other browsers wont. It seems all browsers are welcome so why build another.What are the benefits?

The point of SAFEr was to make a SAFE: only browser that just worked out of the box to visit SAFE: sites.

Edit: Imagine if the default page was to an app store where users could download apps straight from the SAFE Network.

[rand_om]

I was just wondering: How will the browser react to data from the clearnet? I saw that some of the websites on the safenet are retreiving data from “outside”, like pictures.

Personally, I would like the browser to ignore clearnet data, but have the option to allow it and also to allow to open clearnet links in a different browser.

Has this been discussed already?

[betterthantrav]

@rand_om

Personally, I would like the browser to ignore clearnet data, but have the option to allow it and also to allow to open clearnet links in a different browser.

I thought this was another reason to have a SAFE: only browser.

[rand_om]

@betterthantrav

I though this was another reason to have a SAFE: only browser.

Well, I’m not entirely sure if we also thought about data from outside. I certainly don’t want the browser to open clearnet websites, but I hadn’t really thought about other data, like the pictures I mentioned above.

[Josh]

Seems to me a browser that avoids the proxy issue and does not allow plugins is what we need.
Other browsers can fill the gap of casual usage where security is not paramount and ease of surfing both clear and safe simultaneously is desired.
Mostly it seems the SAFE: furor is heart over head.
If I’m correct in my thought process .safenet makes more sense to me.

[betterthantrav]

@Josh

If I’m correct in my thought process .safenet makes more sense to me.

Is it possible to use .safenet without a proxy?

[Josh]

In SAFEr I believe so yes.

@joshuef

Any browser implementation will still be proxyless

.safenet

Using this over safe: does not mean we have to have a proxy. This is talking about a url convention, not about removing the proxy-less nature of the browser.

[betterthantrav]

@hdastwb had a good point.

@hdastwb

This is probably beating a dead horse at this point, but safe: is definitely the technically correct answer in this case, as the SAFE Network is another way of serving sites rather than another type of domain. It’s most analogous to things like HTTPS, and no-one would ever have considered writing URLs for HTTPS sites as http://website.https instead of https://website.