Years from now, do we still want to be using .safenet?
2 Likes
I hope this is not the only reason for switching to .safenet
2 Likes
This is the wrong mentality. Old school browsers should adapt to SAFE not the other way around. The whole point of creating a SAFE only browser is to build a browser that is compatible with SAFE, not a browser that is compatible with the old internet.
5 Likes
Are you sure that a plugin does not have enough playroom to implement the functionality that logging in needs? What specifically is the functionality that is missing?
Login is not necessary to surf SAFE: sites.
1 Like
As I noted above, there was a few things that got me thinking about it, but it was centered around trying to increase adoption and consistency of use.
Thatās the question. Itās certainly looking like I misjudged the feeling around safenet. But itās a useful conversation to have. (I should probably not have updated the OP until this discussion was had, so apologies for that. It was by no means intended as a āfinalā switch. Just an update on where I was leaning after the QnA.)
This isnāt quite the point I was trying to make. I think we should be aiming SAFEr Browser to be a userās main browser (for clearnet or SAFE). Switching back and forth might be a pain and a barrier to adoption. And the more common features there, the more accessible it would be.
But yeh, this could be putting the cart before the horse. Itās clear thereās a lot of passion for safe:. Adding in useful browser functionality can always be done at a later date.
5 Likes
There are real usability issues with long winding TLDās .safenet or .itslong or .gothere ,
apart from artificially reducing ours due to conformisms that are conceptually obsolete .
Imagine the typing on a virtual keyboard in a smartphone or tablet device for long TLDās
Imagine humans being rightfully a bit lazy & preferring really short 2-3-4 letters long ones .
Imagine how full links look on small devices , taking into account sections and subdomains .
It is not too far off to address with efficient solutions a real simplification by pondering
on safe: and even sf: to state the protocol and hook it up with a browser solution ; maybe
followed by a browser reĀ·evolution and also with a bit of daring foresight to further integrations ,
some full RUST based OS + Browser Suites & Flavours . Itās blissful to look deep into the future ,
we can prepare the fundamentals of which the SAFE protocol is the essential first part . Can we ?
2 Likes
Did i say it was?
What i would like to see is a plugin for current browsers which implemented the functionality of both the launcher and the demo app (and then some).
If sf: instead of safe: to reduce the characters to type, why not s:? Is that already taken?
On some systems a letter followed by : is designating storage drives ,
e.g. in Windows , A: & B: are floppy drives , C: is usually the first harddrive etc. ā¦
To avoid going with something that will most likely create confusion on
such systems , it is maybe still possible to take up a non-confusing 2-3-4
letter namespace like sf: , or sfn: , or safe:
1 Like
Iām not saying it is necessary, but that the plan was plugin plus launcher. Itās about designing the best overall user experience with an eye on adoption and features/function (security and performance). Iām not sure weāve got the sweet spot yet, if there is one 
I donāt see a big downside to using safe:
We wouldnāt get a chrome plugin or brave fork. Anything else?
Do we need these things to grow the network?
I think people who care about their security would be just as likely to download a safe specific browser as a plugin for chrome.
I am not familiar with the brave browser, but the argument was it has more features than beaker. I donāt think we need to offer the perfect solution at this time. It is important that we offer the most solid secure solution that is easy to use. We are still at alpha stage. If you enjoy your current browser experience more, just how difficult is it to use two browsers anyway?
I think it is more important for us to distinguish this network as something SECURE and DIFFERENT.
Integration with current popular mainstream products should be a secondary concern. I understand the desire for mass adoption but it will come in time if we can implement our core values and design the network and software as efficiently as possible. We shouldnāt expect and donāt need 50+% adoption in the next couple years.
I think safe: will leave a big impression in peopleās mind if itās the first thing people see for every site they visit. Itās bold and sends an instant message.
Safety/Security is the priority here!
It could really become a symbol for the network and be utilized for brand recognition. Itās simple but effective.
safe:
Just making this some other .extension on the end of some long url is so weak! Please donāt do that!
5 Likes
If a SAFE browser is bundled with the launcher/gateway then adoption would not be an issue. Do you know why Internet explorer was so popular in the early days? Because, it came bundled with Windows.
2 Likes
Youāre right I didnāt think of that.
If I type s:dir in the Chrome search bar on Windows, that becomes file:///S:/dir
2 Likes
SAFE: is short enough.
1 Like
This is huuuuuuge,
and true!! Imagine when something like SAFEx exists, and everyone has truly free markets!!
Who would want to use eBay etc with all its fees??? Not me!!!
So people (other browsers) should and WILL evolve around us,
NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!!
4 Likes
I agree. We need to start somewhere, and āsafe:ā seems like a nice statement and distinction.
Also, the browser will only be the first. I donāt think we should try to make a full-fledged browser with all the blingbling to get the attention of the masses. Theres a lot of people working on browsers out there, letās just give them a good example - sleak and safe.
Even if we wanted the browser to deliver a novel experience surfing the swebs (another stupid word that will be popular soon ;)), safe:reddit.forum or safe:discuss.reddit would be a start, right? Theres so much that could significantly alter the experience exploring the safenet, but we canāt possibly know right from the start. Focusing too much on it defeats the purpose, imho.
tldr: +1 for āsafe:ā; focus on a sleak and safe browser as a first example.
take care
5 Likes
imperative ā¦
2 Likes
I think youāre onto something cool,
but I donāt think we should ākillā /stop the Launcher.
Let us have both!
I always wanted a launcher integration into the browser, because some will prefer that, and others wonāt. Cater to everyone.
If there are multiple ways to access SAFE, then more people will end up SAFE 
1 Like
@happybeing is not suggesting eliminating the launcher but instead changing the name.
1 Like