Just found out that you can CTRL+T in fedora's installation GUI to browse web pages in firefox, amazing!

submitted by
edited

https://programming.dev/pictrs/image/ebd4b4ae-3661-439a-8e56-a82317c16b5a.jpeg

Just found out that you can CTRL+T in fedora's installation GUI to browse web pages in firefox, amazing!
35
96

Log in to comment

Hot Top New Old

Soon you’ll be able to press control + T in GNOME or KDE and open a new chromium tab. We’re making it web browsers all the down

 reply
26
OP

Soon. I mean, there are already operating systems that run in browsers.

 reply
4

Wait till you see the web integration in windows 98!

 reply
3
edited

You may be surprised at how much of the current gnome gui is already javascript and html/css

 reply
1

Libadwaita is not chromium

 reply
1

lmao, so even anaconda is a webapp now..

https://fedoramagazine.org/anaconda-installer-redesign/

 reply
19
Here’s what they say in that article about why they turned it into a web app, for those who don’t want to look for it

Since we’d likely have to rewrite a lot of the frontend anyway, we took another approach [an approach different to keep using GTK] and have taken advantage of the modularization efforts to retool the frontend to have a web-based interface instead. The Cockpit team has been providing a web-based interface for Linux systems for managing systems for many years in the Cockpit web console, so it made sense to reuse Cockpit as a base and its web-based widget set, PatternFly, as a starting point for the next generation of Anaconda too.

By-the-way: We’re using Firefox to render the UI when you’re installing locally. (There’s no Chromium or Electron involved.)

Web-based benefits

While it’s not a native toolkit like GTK, using a web based UI does have several benefits: - It’s easier to update and maintain versus a traditional desktop application - We now use Cockpit’s testing frameworks to test Anaconda’s web UI - It’s easier to adapt to future changes - It enables more community contributions, as it “lowers the bar” for know-how, as there are many more developers familiar with web development than GTK development - We can extend it to interactively install a remote machine using Anaconda from another computer’s Web browser in the future

Huh, I wonder if developing a web app is that much easier than developing a GTK app, or a Qt app… I mean, sure, there are way more web developers than people experienced with native development toolkits, but I wonder if it isn’t a tooling problem from the part of the toolkits. I certainly don’t have any experience in any of these, so I’d love to hear other people’s thoughts.

 reply
7

Developing cross platform native apps sucks a lot no matter the tech stack. Compared to web technologies where the burden to follow the spec is the platform if they wanted to have interop with the web, the dev doesn’t have to fight the platform.

 reply
9

Yes. Browser engines are a hell of a lot more forgiving. And a lot faster to iterate with during development.

 reply
3

Have you used it? It actually is amazing.

 reply
1

i haven’t used redhat/rpm distros since centos 7.. so not really. i guess it could be fine

 reply
1

What you discovered is that today’s mediocre developers implement everything in web browsers, or web brower-like frameworks like Electron, and set them up to masquerade as normal applications, but with 100x the disk, RAM and CPU footprint.

 reply
83

My 2nd most hated trend in modern programming. (Behind AI forced into everything.)

 reply
26

I ran into a consequence of Fedora doing that. Their installer application crashes when running under an old GTX1060 with Nouveau’s nShitia drivers in live USB mode.

 reply
17

Oh is that why that happens? I just thought Nouveau drivers were incompatible with old Nvidia cards.

 reply
4

looking at you Discord. hell also looking at you vesktop, equibop, whatever “better” discord client is out there. majority are just electron web apps.

 reply
8

You see, that’s why when I need to use Discord, I just use it in the browser anyway. No need to install an app that’s just going to be a browser tab in disguise.

 reply
2

Let’s be honest, it’s the easiest. I’ve been trying to write UIs in pure rust and python recently and let me tell you, it’s a drag.

Some frameworks don’t even support writing your own components, some don’t allow reusing parts of the UI, some don’t even have proper layout engines you can modify, theming can be difficult, others dont have reactive values, most don’t have a fast dev loop (make a change, see it, repeat), and so on. I’ve even tried using game engines like Godot and Bevy.

We like complaining about Electron, but let’s be serious, as bad as it is, the other stuff is worse.

 reply
8

Writing stuff in a proper gui framework using the tools we’ve had for decades is not really that bad, it’s just not what all the tutorials are for. CSS can be an absolute pig to get things just so, or was until quite recently.

 reply
10

CSS is terrible, no doubt about it, but the problem is exactly that: native GUI frameworks haven’t changed in the way they work. Why else do you think electron became popular? Obviously there was reason for it

 reply
2

I think it became popular because you can deliver the same app to mobile and desktop platforms. And because js gave people a very easy intro to development on the web so tons of people know it.

I don’t think it became popular because it was better at making an application on a single target. I’ve never made a webapp with the equivalent of GLADE or QtCreator so I don’t know if it even exists - but those tools are very decent if you had a basic understanding of UI layout.

 reply
3

Then why can’t QT provide the same benefit of delivering cross platform developing experience? See, that is the core issue. You write FOR the platform not for yourself. In the web space, the platform writes FOR you lest they want to break compliance with the rest of the web standard. When you are writing web application, you are writing program in a standard that the platform WILL follow instead of you following whatever the platform dictates at the time of their convenience

 reply
1

Are you asking why Qt’s main target is the desktop, rather than mobile?

 reply
1

Deleted by author

 reply
2

What RT interfaces do electron apps let you use ;)

I’m confused why Qt Creator wasn’t available - is this project old enough to vote or was there some technical reason :P

 reply
1
edited

Deleted by author

 reply
1

There are some good, new things in that space though. One example is Flet which lets you write Flutter apps in Python. It’s quite fun to work with, and the same code can be deployed to multiple platforms, both desktop and mobile.

 reply
1

The Fedora installer doesn’t take much in the way of resources

 reply
1

This isn’t what you think.

The anaconda installer runs a web server that hosts React web page. The old Anaconda code is the same for the most part outside of the old GTK3 code. When you open the installer it just runs Firefox.

 reply
2

I am not web or ui dev. But I think using html/css as frontend seems kind of reasonable, no? Expressive enough, simple enough, well known

What is the problem? Too heavy to interpret?

 reply
3

Needing to run a full-fledged browser in the background in order to display your html/css frontend adds a lot more performance cost than necessary, making the app eat up far more RAM and CPU than necessary. It probably also introduces a lot more security vulnerability concerns that an otherwise simple app shouldn’t have to worry about. And then there’s the dependency chain you’re introducing – now your app needs to be updated every time the underlying browser gets an important update … and maybe needs to be tweaked/rewritten to accommodate that browser update if it changes the way the browser interacts with your app frontend.

There are plenty of other GUI frontend frameworks that are also expressive, simple, and well-known, without all of these potential problems associated with them.

 reply
7

It can be an issue when done incorrectly

In this case the Fedora web UI was developed over a long period so it was thoughtfully built.

 reply
2

The problem is that most of Lemmy is old and afraid of change. They look back on old style applications with nostalgia while completely forgetting all of the issues from that era.

 reply
1

I am thinking that: - On the one hand, people complain about bloat. Do you need to have a full browser underneat? I mean, do you even need js support for most of the UI requirements be done with just html+js + passing callbacks to the underlying language?

  • On the one hand, web frontend has proven to be so versatile. It makes moving applications from/to remote/local a bit easier, and you don’t have to learn “yet anonter script/language” just to draw buttons
 reply
1

I can understand the hate for Electron as it poorly designed.

However, I don’t see anything wrong with the Fedora installer. It runs Firefox so you aren’t really getting any additional bloat.

 reply
1

Deleted by author

 reply
1
Insert image