Is it good?

nothing? but you can customize CSS on other sites too with greasemonkey

>tfw never knew about it until now
Tell me more user

GM_addStyle(myCSS) is a thin wrapper over adding a CSS element to the page. eg github.com/qutebrowser/qutebrowser/blob/master/qutebrowser/javascript/greasemonkey_wrapper.js#L96

Thank you user

Attached: unknown.png (1104x695, 620K)

It has a really old version of greasemonkey so 4chanX behaves retarded

I found myself using it a lot lately because user experience is quite nice. Nevertheless, it is still in alpha state and can't be considered to be a reliable browser.

>because of no extensions CSS userstyles are out of the question
it has support for custom CSS now since they implemented per domain settings
literally just put your CSS in some folder and that's it

I didn't know about it, I thought it still only had global CSS. Thanks for letting me know user

3854 isn't merged yet

It's an independent implementation so if it is wrong you should open an issue, or complain on irc.

idk what you're referring to but they implemented per domain settings like half a year ago and what I stated was possible since then
you can also disable javascript per domain now, add your own per domain userscripts and whatnot

It's an issue number you monkey, per domain settings doesn't suddenly make all settings work per domain. You can't add per domain stylesheets or userscripts. You can add a greasemonkey script that injects CSS based on window.location but that has nothing to do with per domain settings.

>You can't add per domain stylesheets or userscripts
you can

>because of the adblock being mediocre at best, Jow Forums will give you malware AIDS, blocking the malware domains kills the CSS

Jow Forums-X helps.

There were some improvements in the current git master (there should be a release soon).

>Nevertheless, it is still in alpha state and can't be considered to be a reliable browser.

Why so?

How can I be sure that Jow Forums-X blocks out the malware shitcoin miners? I'm paranoid that it still connects.

Proofs? Show your configuration

I don't have qutebrowser installed on this machine nor am I gonna wait for it to compile just to show you something you'd know if you just checked the github yourself you lazy nigger

there are quite a few anons using 4chanX with qutebrowser

66438757
grep -B 4 supports_pattern qutebrowser/config/configdata.yml
Are you braindead?

You can't and it doesn't claim to.

You could always double-check with e.g. mitmproxy.

qutebrowser dev here

You can use GreaseMonkey scripts (also sometimes called userscripts) which work per-domain, but the content.user_stylesheets setting can't be set per-domain yet. However, there's some work on that (which isn't quite ready yet): github.com/qutebrowser/qutebrowser/pull/3854

>the content.user_stylesheets setting can't be set per-domain yet
huh, I assumed it was possible since the implementation of per-domain settings, but I haven't tried it or made sure since don't care about custom CSS

That's because you are stupid and can't read.

no, it's because I don't care about custom CSS

Whatever

Will extensions ever be possible? Or is it completely dependent on QtWebEngine?

Ever? Plausibly but it isn't planned and there is noone working on webextensions. I'm not sure it would be possible given the qt api. On the other hand they is a webengine patch set on gerrit.

Basically what says. A Python extension API is planned and coming somewhen this year though. Also see github.com/qutebrowser/qutebrowser/issues/30

>but it isn't planned
That's pretty unfortunate. Nothing against the built-in adblocker but uBlock Origin does more than just adblocking and is a must have extension for me. Browsing Jow Forums on qutebrowser right now feels unsafe to me because of the ads that probably have some malware. I use Jow Forums-X on it but I'm still paranoid because it doesn't claim to block out the ads. Nonetheless I still think that the current progress is impressive.

Only Firefox has an api to filter out dom elements before they are rendered, and it's not much used. If you think the chromium web extension api is going to improve your safety in any way I encourage you to use your brain for a moment.

The built-in adblocker can (and should!) be significantly improved even without support for WebExtensions.

interesting

I wish I could use it, but I still rely too much on some Firefox extensions before I can make the switch:
CanvasBlocker
DecentralEyes
HTTPS Everywhere
NoScript
Privacy Badger
Self-Destructing COokies
uBlock Origin
uMatrix

Until then I'll have to stick to Firefox 56.

>copying an image with transparency will replace the transparent pixels with black pixels. YMMV, as I've heard that some anons don't have this problem (if anyone has a fix please let me know)
I also have this problem. If I copy the image it loses transparency completely. Is this a QtWebEngine issue?

I'd like to add that it only does this inside the browser itself. Pasting the image in GIMP doesn't lose the transparency.

Attached: Screenshot_20180621_191859.png (1852x755, 126K)

If adblock doesn't work can't you use some desktop equivalent of dns66 to block them instead? (idk if such a program even exists just saying)

It's already got the equivalent of a DNS based blocker. To get better it would have to take into account the source URL and the full requested URL.

bump