I think the main reason people are hating on this is because it's selling itself as something it's not: A smarter browser.<p>Should stick with its original goal. I think they created it as a "minimal" browser, hence the name.
Seems pretty cool, but I wonder at the claim that it will use less battery power. From the specs, it is built on Electron, and from my understanding to date, even the basic Electron framework shell is fairly resource hungry in its own right, which could impact power usage on a laptop?<p>Perhaps it could have been a better initiative to build it using native code and utilising WebKit as the rendering engine? Much like the Vivaldi browser (which I use a lot of these days)
Ignoring the general 'Electron seems a waste of resources' (with which I partially agree with) comments: Requires 'Ubuntu' or 'macOS'? I seem to know a lot of Electron based apps that run on other Linux distributions or - gasp - even Windows.<p>Clicking on the 'Download anyway' link brings up the GitHub release tab. With, among others, a file called 'Min-v1.6.3-win32-x64.zip'.
> Find anything instantly<p>Aside from fuzzy search, all of this is already possible.<p>> Effortless tab management<p>All the things in here are already possible in firefox using addons.<p>> Built-in ad blocking<p>I honestly don't care if ad-blocking is built in. It's not like it's a chore that affects my day-to-day use of a browser to install an addon <i>once</i> for adblocking.<p>> Fast and efficient<p>It literally uses the same engine as chrome so it won't be any different from it.<p>> Open-Source software<p>Like most other browsers today
Honestly, I’d say qutebrowser¹ is both smarter <i>and</i> more minimal than Min.<p>――――――<p>¹ — <a href="https://qutebrowser.org/" rel="nofollow">https://qutebrowser.org/</a>
so its basically chrome-headless with a different UI and 20% slower because it is running via an interpreted nodejs rendering that is then compiled into a binary. why not just use chrome? If you're going to use an existing browser, why not use Dillo or Lynx as the backend, which really are minimalist in terms of memory usage.
I tried this a while back, and the only thing I liked better than the mainstream browsers was that it doesn't waste space at the top of the browser and thus would theoretically be a good fit for e.g. watching something in a small window in the corner of your screen while doing work. But in practice, there is some crazy minimum window size limitation and thus it's useless for the only use case I would have for it.
Tried on a site (<a href="https://www.dn.se/" rel="nofollow">https://www.dn.se/</a>) which looked completely broken. Tried it on another (<a href="https://www.svt.se/nyheter/" rel="nofollow">https://www.svt.se/nyheter/</a>) and the browser crashed. No thanks.
I don't see what's "smarter" about it.<p>- The UI seems clumsy and is so flat that it doesn't offer any directional hinting at all.<p>- It's the same size as Firefox (160MB) despite offering significantly less features.<p>- It's resource consumption seems to be about 25% more than a fresh Firefox instance.
This is actually Inspiring me to consider making my own visions of browsing can be improved come to fruition!<p>Thanks very much for the implementation idea and the source. I'm certainly gonna play with both the product and the code.
I build a browser in your browser, so that you can browse the web browsier.<p>It sounded reasonably nice (beyond the point that Firefox is all this with a few addons), but Electron? Again?