Show HN: Dillo 3.1.0 released after 9 years

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Performance and Design Goals

  • Dillo is praised for extreme speed and low resource use; users report ~20 tabs under 1 MB RAM and “instant” page loads.
  • Intended mainly for low-bandwidth, high-latency, and resource‑constrained systems, not for full “modern web” compatibility.
  • Many like it as a documentation browser or for simple, text‑centric sites.

JavaScript, CSS, and “Lite Web”

  • Dillo has minimal CSS support; lack of JS is the main incompatibility with modern sites.
  • Maintainers explicitly state they do not plan JS support due to performance and security concerns.
  • Some commenters brainstorm “JS‑lite” or WASM‑only approaches, but others argue that the real issue is the Web platform APIs, not the JS language itself.
  • Dillo’s minimal CSS sometimes makes pages “less broken” than in other small browsers that attempt fuller CSS.

Features, Limitations, and Roadmap

  • 3.1.0 focuses on bugfixes; many features (especially fonts and CJK coverage) are still pending.
  • HTTPS now supports OpenSSL, LibreSSL, and mbedTLS, selectable at link time.
  • Desired features include better Unicode, external media handling (audio/video via system player), and improved font handling.

Compatibility, Platforms, and Packaging

  • Runs on a wide range of OSes, including NetBSD and older hardware (e.g., netbooks, vintage laptops, even e‑readers and old phones).
  • Arch Linux: a -git AUR package existed; later, a repo package dillo appeared.
  • macOS builds can be finicky; a “dillo-plus” fork and XQuartz/ Homebrew recipe are shared as a practical path, with a suggestion for brew packages.

Plugins and Alternative Protocols

  • Plugins exist for Spartan, Gopher, Gemini, man pages, and more; some quirks/bugs are noted (e.g., Gopher URLs without selector, mandoc flag).
  • Dillo’s easy extensibility and custom protocols are highlighted as strengths.

Comparisons to Other Browsers

  • Frequently compared with Netsurf, Links, Ladybird, Carbonyl, and a TUI browser (Chawan).
  • Netsurf generally renders closer to mainstream browsers but is seen as slower/less stable; Dillo often wins on speed and robustness.
  • Ladybird is viewed as heavier and aimed at full modern web support, unlike Dillo’s minimalist scope.

HN Markup and Web Standards Discussion

  • Dillo’s CSS/HTML parsing exposed HN’s invalid markup and a CSS bug, which were quickly fixed.
  • Debate around whether sites should maintain invalid but stable markup for scrapers vs. following HTML specs and possibly user‑agent–based workarounds.

Website, Domains, and Longevity

  • Project now uses GitHub Pages due to losing control of the old dillo.org domain; this is described as a temporary but stable hosting choice.
  • Some argue for owning an independent domain pointing to GitHub to avoid long‑term namespace dependency.

Sentiment and Nostalgia

  • Strong positive nostalgia for Dillo and earlier, lighter web eras (pre‑heavy JS/CSS, fewer trackers).
  • Several users intend to retest sites against Dillo and integrate it into low‑resource or retro setups.