Which systems does the Linux DEB package support? Which OSes are supported?

[Rezzy-dev]

Hi, I'm trying to run the dpkg installed browser on a Debian 9 system, and I received this:

./Dooble: /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libm.so.6: version GLIBC_2.27 not found (required by /opt/dooble/Lib/libQt6WebEngineCore.so.6) ./Dooble: /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6: version GLIBC_2.28 not found (required by /opt/dooble/Lib/libQt6WebEngineCore.so.6) ./Dooble: /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libz.so.1: version ZLIB_1.2.9 not found (required by /opt/dooble/Lib/libQt6Gui.so.6) ./Dooble: /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libm.so.6: version GLIBC_2.27 not found (required by /opt/dooble/Lib/libQt6Gui.so.6) ./Dooble: /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6: version GLIBC_2.25 not found (required by /opt/dooble/Lib/libQt6Core.so.6) ./Dooble: /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6: version GLIBC_2.28 not found (required by /opt/dooble/Lib/libQt6Core.so.6) ./Dooble: /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libstdc++.so.6: version CXXABI_1.3.11 not found (required by /opt/dooble/Lib/libQt6Core.so.6)

The browser did not launch.

The documentation currently lacks which systems the browser supports. Is Debian 9 supported? Because from the looks of it this doesn't seem to be the case. I can't upgrade glibc without messing up the rest of the system.

[Rezzy-dev]

Ten years ago the things that are thrust upon us when we visit a main commercial website would have been unthinkable -- only seeable on malware sites!!

[textbrowser]

Yup. There are other tools too. Free VPNs. Improved firewalls. The Internet is owned by capitalism. :)

[Rezzy-dev]

So yeah, Dooble needs to be neat, clean, easy to use, and allow the user precise control over how things are rendered, what web pages are allowed to do in their viewport/browser. So that it can act as a filter through that mess to finding what the information that the user is actually looking for.

After all, that's the vision by which you started Dooble: a scientific yet simple to use browser -- one that allows you to have full control, and yet is simple to use. Am I right?

[textbrowser]

Also free of vendors. Qt is the only dependency.

[Rezzy-dev]

What I'd love to see, actually, is a browser that works for the user instead of the capitalists. So instead of complicating things for the user in terms of blocking features of websites, it should actually work for us -- tricking websites into thinking we're not blocking, and yet stripping all that nonsense away and saving our eyes/mind -- so we don't have to deal with it. ;)

[Rezzy-dev]

Currenlty what Firefox does is exactly the opposite: it makes it hard for the user, and easy for the capitalist. (And there's a reason for that: despite being open, Mozilla is still financed by capitalist ventures/supporters.) Things need to be the other way around. Power back to the user! A software that works for us. An Internet that serves us.

[Rezzy-dev]

Do you know what I mean? :)

[textbrowser]

Will not happen in the US until the Internet is guaranteed. It's far too owned.

[Rezzy-dev]

Take ad-blockers, for instance. A browser could render that content for us in a separate area, off-screen -- making the website think we're watching their ads when we're not, and allowing us to access the content we need to access online safely.

[textbrowser]

Interesting.

[Rezzy-dev]

Whatever is rendered in that separated, quarantined area gets destroyed. We have that power with our own software! Or at least I believe so! We can take control back over the web if we control how we render the web.

[textbrowser]

On some sites Dooble does not trigger an ad-blocking alert whereas Firefox does.

[textbrowser]

That area is nebulous.

[Rezzy-dev]

Yep, and this applies not only to ad-blocking. You have a FOSS web engine, and a FOSS browser -- you have the power to control how anything is rendered!

[Rezzy-dev]

Which means you have control over how the web is presented to you.

[Rezzy-dev]

I've been waiting for such a project for years -- for someone to make this move, to start a new FOSS, open browser that gives control over the web not to the capitalist corporations, but back to the user.

[textbrowser]

But for now, sleep!

There are browsers: Qute, Otter, Falkon. There is one on Debian: Moon?

[Rezzy-dev]

The Internet was started for the users, and it should stay that way. Back then we had control. We lost it.

[Rezzy-dev]

There are browsers: Qute, Otter, Falkon. There is one on Debian: Moon?

Nothing that does this, unfortunately. They're all small visions, clones of Chrome or Firefox. :/

[Rezzy-dev]

I've been trying/using Pale Moon. It's nice, but it's still just (the old) Firefox.

[textbrowser]

Yes, that one.

[textbrowser]

Like I'm telling someone else with big dreams for another project, slow down. :)

[Rezzy-dev]

It has nice UI customisation features, but that's not what I'm talking about here, primarily. I'm talking about control over how the web is rendered and presented to us -- fighting the corporate machine, essentially, using our own independent implementation/software. Gaining back our independence, getting control back over what we want presented to us on the web and how.

Websites are just data. How that data is rendered is up to the software. ;)

[Rezzy-dev]

Like I'm telling someone else with big dreams for another project, slow down. :)

Hahhaha! NEVER! I need this desperately! XD

I'm actually about to quit using the web, because it's just become intolerable for finding any information I need to find. It's messing with my brain, training me to lose focus, to become more and more distracted. I shouldn't have to suffer that while trying to find relevant information on the web. And I can tell you most positively that I am 100% sure I am not alone! Imagine how many other people are struggling with the same problem!!

[textbrowser]

Yes, I understand the dream. It isn't a task to be completed in a weekend.

[Rezzy-dev]

Of course. ;) This is just a creative suggestion for a vision/direction for the software. :)

[Rezzy-dev]

At any rate, it's how I personally intend to use Dooble, and to develop it further. *^_^* ;)

[textbrowser]

The work is simple but it is long. Some of it is repetitive and dull. It requires many options for many views. So, it is not something that is completed in day. I prefer work without deadlines and constant ideas from users.

[Rezzy-dev]

One small step at a time. ;) And trying to keeping things intuitive -- focusing on what feels natural. ^_^

[textbrowser]

That is very subjective. So anyway! I found a glitch before bed. Have to go. We stay tuned but not too tuned.

[Rezzy-dev]

We'll see. If you find that my work fits into your original vision, we can merge things, but if not, I can start a fork we can both use. That's the beauty of open source and git repositories. ^_^

[Rezzy-dev]

I'll let you in on a little secret: what's intuitive is actually not subjective at all. People think it's subjective, but there's actually a science to it. ;) We all experience the same world in slightly different ways -- which means there are internal workings/experiences we all share in common. Because the outer world is also present in our inner world -- the same nature that exists outside of us also exists inside us and makes us work. ;)

[Rezzy-dev]

For example, almost all people will suffer the effects of losing the ability to concentrate over time when using today's web extensively. It's not a subjective matter -- it's a collective one about the way our bodies work, and what effect this new information-polluted digital environment has on our mental/cognitive functioning. So it's an intuitive experience that to a greater or lesser extent we all share.

[Rezzy-dev]

If you look for such common roots to our lives/experiences, you'll find the key areas that intuitively affect us all. These are the areas that will be most important in the design of the software -- that require the most work and attention, where the most useful features and purpose of the software will be.

So if I can start with these things, step by step, and start to filter out the noise of the web and make the web more accessible to people, then I have a great start that will be useful to a LOT of people. Each feature I add will improve upon the usability of the software extensively. And then I can worry about fine-tuning with other, more personal features later.

[Rezzy-dev]

Another one that people are widely experiencing in our society at the moment is loss of control over their own lives as corporations and governments move in and try to control us, to seize our freedoms and control what we see/consume and how.

And the Internet is one of the biggest sources for consumption of information these days.

If you can create an independent, community-developed-and-run software whose focus is to work in the interest of the user to handle the data that is the web, you create an immensely useful tool that will help people's lives, health, and productivity. That gives full control back to the user/consumer -- especially if it is simple to grasp/use, with a good/intuitive design (which makes it accessible to everyone). That gives people's lives back -- all the (digital) freedom that was taken from them!

The Internet started free and open source -- which means it always had the means for us to take back control, to have that control over how and how much information/content is presented to us. The web was never meant to be controlled by governments and corporations:

SOPA and PIPA.pdf

"One of the more important things that Tim Berners-Lee did was what he didn't do. He did not say World Wide Web (TM)." ~ John Perry Barlow

[Rezzy-dev]

How data from the web is rendered and presented to us is under our control! Or at least it would be if we were to build the right software/tool for it.

A web browser can be so much more useful to the user than what Firefox and Chrome are! It has the power to process and present data from the Internet to us various ways that suit our needs best -- and to filter out everything that only serves to distract us, according to our settings/preferences. It can work for the user, making finding the relevant information online we're looking for easier, and without external bias/control (like current implementations of AI do) -- presenting the raw information that's served, and leaving the filter and control up to us. Not helping websites trick the user, but instead tricking websites in the interest of the user (and according to their personal needs/preferences set)! Helping us stay safe and meet our needs, not corporations to use and abuse us!

We need to flip the coin on this status quo -- there's no reason why browsers should serve to limit/control our lives. A good software/tool serves the interests of the user.

[Rezzy-dev]

And starting from something like the most dominant free-and-open-source engine on the market used to render the web (the Chromium engine) is actually crucial here. Because that means that the W3C and current web standards that corporations have hijacked, now, cannot be used against the project. This project needs to tap into the technologies that are used most widely on the web, but to adopt and use them in the interest of the user. The way it deals with, processes, and uses these technologies needs to be different in focus -- serving the interests of the user, and giving control directly to the user over how and what content is rendered, and how it is sorted/displayed to the user.

The browser needs to act as a useful filter for this new, noisy web -- to help the user find the information/content they seek, and only that (if that is the user's wish). So no distractions if they're not wanted. And no mandate for ads/distractions to display sought-for content. No user information given unless the user has explicitly permitted that information to be shared. If need be, the browser will serve fake/dummy information to deceive the website into thinking that information has been shared, so that the user can access the content they are there to access and shouldn't have to sell their soul to access.

The whole way the software works to render the web -- what is useful and where direct control/preference should be given to the user over the rendering/display -- needs to be rethought. Features where the browser protects and serves the needs of the user need to be implemented (such as where it keeps the user safe and tricks websites into thinking that ads have loaded and have been displayed, so that the user is allowed to access the content they seek).

(Of course this needs to be a gradual, step by step, small bite by bite, shift in focus/thinking and implementation -- not an all-at-once change.)

[Rezzy-dev]

Food for thought. ;)

[Rezzy-dev]

It's a web "browser" after all -- not simply a web page displayer/renderer. :wink: (Which means different options should be given as to how to render, display, and sort the data/information.)

Web browsers need to evolve, too, for the Web 2.0. The needs for rendering web content for the user have changed.

Web sites no longer look and function like this: https://web.archive.org/web/20040611152831/http://maxis.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20030801091830/http://www.apple.com/

(Although I wish they did.)

These days they are cluttered with rubbish -- with ads, virtual pop-ups, notifications, and all sorts of distracting information. (Like underground/malware sites used to be back in the day, and worse!)

[textbrowser]

I'll let you in on a little secret: what's intuitive is actually not subjective at all. People think it's subjective, but there's actually a science to it. ;) We all experience the same world in slightly different ways -- which means there are internal workings/experiences we all share in common. Because the outer world is also present in our inner world -- the same nature that exists outside of us also exists inside us and makes us work. ;)

It is subjective because intuition is not well-defined. For example, consider split keyboards. They are as intuitive as complete keyboards, however, becoming proficient with them is beyond intuition. It is practice. They are intuitively clear but require practice for proficiency. This analogy applies to other products and practices. To claim that software is intuitive is quite difficult. Some is familiar, but that does not imply that it is intuitive. Intuition is very personal.

[textbrowser]

For example, almost all people will suffer the effects of losing the ability to concentrate over time when using today's web extensively. It's not a subjective matter -- it's a collective one about the way our bodies work, and what effect this new information-polluted digital environment has on our mental/cognitive functioning. So it's an intuitive experience that to a greater or lesser extent we all share.

Some search for silence. Silence for the self does not require a new browser nor a new browsing experience. There is silence in the Internet.

[textbrowser]

If you look for such common roots to our lives/experiences, you'll find the key areas that intuitively affect us all. These are the areas that will be most important in the design of the software -- that require the most work and attention, where the most useful features and purpose of the software will be.

So if I can start with these things, step by step, and start to filter out the noise of the web and make the web more accessible to people, then I have a great start that will be useful to a LOT of people. Each feature I add will improve upon the usability of the software extensively. And then I can worry about fine-tuning with other, more personal features later.

Accessibility is expensive because most non-specialized creations are made for the able-bodied. If you have difficulties with the body, the solutions are expensive. Standard software is standard. It is made for a general person. Hence the term accessible. For example, how many buttons do I need to press, how many meters do I need to travel, how many pages do I need to view in order for me to activate a function which I believe is both intuitive and popular for my needs. Software which is alive is quite difficult to produce because it requires options of everything. Take for example a browser. Navigating without a mouse requires special key combinations and sometimes correct focus; it also depends on the operating systems. It is far easier to click a link then to press the tab button, have it highlighted, and then press the space bar or the Enter key. If you error with your Tab, repeat the process.

[Rezzy-dev]

Then simplify the process -- the solution is not mind-boggling. Go by the KISS principle. What is intuitive is not that which is learned in society (here you are mistaken), but that which we all experience in life and are used to by a process of growing and as a result of our natural makeup.

Nothing says that you can't create a browser that caters to all needs (presents intuitive and detailed settings/options in the background), and yet remains KISS and simple to use on the surface, if you are talking about browser tweaks/customisability for the user to meet their needs.

But what I'm talking about, actually, is a browser that caters to most needs and yet remains simple to use and accessible to all -- without the need to personally tweak it much.

And, more importantly, offers different ways of rendering, sorting, and presenting content served from the Net. Not just a straightforward display of how HTML is styled through CSS and JavaScript, but actual browsing options for that data/content that match the user's needs (depending on their preference for how they wish to browse that particular content).

Do you understand what I mean? Options. More than just straight-out display what is pre-intended by design.

A good, simple example of this is the "reader" feature/button that Apple started and that is now implemented in many of the current web browsers, where when you enable it, you are presented only with the relevant article text and its images from that web page.

Imagine expanding this and adding new ways to browse content from the web -- so that we can avoid things we don't want rendered/displayed, and get to the information/content we're actually looking for. And doing this not only after the page has rendered, as an addon, but actually implementing it at the very rendering level of the engine/browser -- so that unwanted content doesn't even waste time and resources, is not even rendered.

Such a browser, offering such various extra ways to browse the web would be phenomenal, incredibly useful! That's what I'd call a web browser 2.0 -- the next stage in web browser development for the new web. Super fast, super flexible, super useful!

[Rezzy-dev]

For example, almost all people will suffer the effects of losing the ability to concentrate over time when using today's web extensively. It's not a subjective matter -- it's a collective one about the way our bodies work, and what effect this new information-polluted digital environment has on our mental/cognitive functioning. So it's an intuitive experience that to a greater or lesser extent we all share.

Some search for silence. Silence for the self does not require a new browser nor a new browsing experience. There is silence in the Internet.

This is debatable. There is silence in quiet, secluded corners of the web. But if you need to find actual information that's relevant to your life, you'll often find you'll be forced to drive on the noisy superhighways. To say that there is silence on the Internet ignores the very real problem that the Internet has become incredibly noisy and inaccessible to many overall.

[Rezzy-dev]

And accessibility is not expensive if you remove the barriers to accessibility. Tidy up. Remove what is inefficient and accessible only to part of humankind, and add what is accessible and efficient for most/all. There are things we can all access, and if you offer a few key intuitive options, you'll find that everyone will be able to intuitively access that content, whether they are disabled or not.

The notion that accessibility is expensive comes from ableist thinking and propaganda. From the convenience of having things your way and not wanting to include others, to change your ways so they include everyone.

[textbrowser]

Then simplify the process -- the solution is not mind-boggling. Go by the KISS principle. What is intuitive is not that which is learned in society (here you are mistaken), but that which we all experience in life and are used to by a process of growing and as a result of our natural makeup.

Nothing says that you can't create a browser that caters to all needs (presents intuitive and detailed settings/options in the background), and yet remains KISS and simple to use on the surface, if you are talking about browser tweaks/customisability for the user to meet their needs.

But what I'm talking about, actually, is a browser that caters to most needs and yet remains simple to use and accessible to all -- without the need to personally tweak it much.

And, more importantly, offers different ways of rendering, sorting, and presenting content served from the Net. Not just a straightforward display of how HTML is styled through CSS and JavaScript, but actual browsing options for that data/content that match the user's needs (depending on their preference for how they wish to browse that particular content).

Do you understand what I mean? Options. More than just straight-out display what is pre-intended by design.

A good, simple example of this is the "reader" feature/button that Apple started and that is now implemented in many of the current web browsers, where when you enable it, you are presented only with the relevant article text and its images from that web page.

Imagine expanding this and adding new ways to browse content from the web -- so that we can avoid things we don't want rendered/displayed, and get to the information/content we're actually looking for. And doing this not only after the page has rendered, as an addon, but actually implementing it at the very rendering level of the engine/browser -- so that unwanted content doesn't even waste time and resources, is not even rendered.

Such a browser, offering such various extra ways to browse the web would be phenomenal, incredibly useful! That's what I'd call a web browser 2.0 -- the next stage in web browser development for the new web. Super fast, super flexible, super useful!

What Dooble does for me: I can block some things and not others, although I don't visit many sites. I know where all of the options are. I have a simple Favorites and floating History. I can program it to playback data in graphs. It's faster for my own custom Web server than any other except for Lynx. It has potential for more options and ways of behaving. I can browse dead Gopher sites. It's easy to build and maintain for most systems. Things are shown.

[Rezzy-dev]

Fair enough, but that's very personal and pretty small in comparison to what I'm talking about. I'm talking about an intuitive browser for the people -- that caters to everyone's needs and pushes technical innovation in terms of how we browse the web, making the web more accessible to all in the process.

[textbrowser]

And accessibility is not expensive if you remove the barriers to accessibility. Tidy up. Remove what is inefficient and accessible only to part of humankind, and add what is accessible and efficient for most/all. There are things we can all access, and if you offer a few key intuitive options, you'll find that everyone will be able to intuitively access that content, whether they are disabled or not.

The notion that accessibility is expensive comes from ableist thinking and propaganda. From the convenience of having things your way and not wanting to include others.

Visit www.apage.org, find me the article I read yesterday about qubits, and display it in Sans 11. Place the article at the top of the page. Remove widgets above and below the article. Maximize the width and increase the height by 5%. Beige background, dark crisp black glyphs. That's what MS and FB are working on, and perhaps Google.

[textbrowser]

You're not going to find such open source because it is expensive to produce. It requires hardware, voice analysis, recognition, cultural awareness, pattern recognition, translators. And probably Amazon, yes, they would be working on such things.

Everything else remains with clicks and with mice.

[Rezzy-dev]

And accessibility is not expensive if you remove the barriers to accessibility. Tidy up. Remove what is inefficient and accessible only to part of humankind, and add what is accessible and efficient for most/all. There are things we can all access, and if you offer a few key intuitive options, you'll find that everyone will be able to intuitively access that content, whether they are disabled or not. The notion that accessibility is expensive comes from ableist thinking and propaganda. From the convenience of having things your way and not wanting to include others.

Visit www.apage.org, find me the article I read yesterday about qubits, and display it in Sans 11. Place the article at the top of the page. Remove widgets above and below the article. Maximize the width and increase the height by 5%. Beige background, dark crisp black glyphs. That's what MS and FB are working on, and perhaps Google.

Again, this is not removing barriers. This is implementing extra work to cater to disabled needs instead of making content accessible to all. And it doesn't address the main problem: control over how the content is rendered and displayed is not with the user, but in the hands of corporations (who exploit, use and abuse us).