Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #133528 > unrolled thread

"A Forth OS In 46 Bytes"

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" Alexis <flexibeast@gmail.com> - 2025-05-27 22:33 +1000
    Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2025-05-27 18:45 +0000
      Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" minforth@gmx.net (minforth) - 2025-05-27 20:28 +0000
    Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> - 2025-05-28 11:15 +1000
      Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2025-05-28 04:02 +0000
        Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-05-28 07:56 -0700
        Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> - 2025-05-29 13:57 +1000
          Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-05-29 06:47 +0000
            Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2025-05-29 00:22 -0700
              Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-05-29 08:24 +0000
                Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2025-05-29 13:02 +0200
                Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2025-05-31 00:04 -0700
                  Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-05-31 10:15 +0000
                  Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2025-05-31 13:58 +0200
              Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" anthk <anthk@openbsd.home> - 2025-06-03 11:31 +0000
                Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2025-06-03 04:39 -0700
                  Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" anthk <anthk@openbsd.home> - 2025-06-06 12:00 +0000
                    Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2025-06-06 17:02 -0700
                      Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" anthk <anthk@openbsd.home> - 2025-06-08 19:41 +0000
                        Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" zbigniew2011@gmail.com (LIT) - 2025-06-08 20:41 +0000
                          Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-06-08 22:26 +0000
                            Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" zbigniew2011@gmail.com (LIT) - 2025-06-08 22:58 +0000
                              Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-06-09 06:27 +0000
                                Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2025-06-09 12:52 +0200
                                  Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-06-09 15:52 +0000
                                    Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> - 2025-06-10 11:31 +1000
                                  Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2025-06-10 14:03 -0700
                        Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2025-06-10 14:09 -0700
                          non-mainstream web (browsers) Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-08-09 14:05 +0000
                            Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) Doc O'Leary ,   <droleary.usenet@2023.impossiblystupid.com> - 2025-08-09 19:53 +0000
                              Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 08:53 -0700
                                Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) Doc O'Leary ,   <droleary.usenet@2023.impossiblystupid.com> - 2025-08-11 21:51 +0000
                                  Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 14:57 -0700
                                    Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) Doc O'Leary ,   <droleary.usenet@2023.impossiblystupid.com> - 2025-08-13 18:43 +0000
                                      Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 12:14 -0700
                                        Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2025-08-13 12:48 -0700
                                          standards Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-08-24 09:30 +0000
                                            Re: standards sjack@dontemail.me (sjack) - 2025-08-24 16:05 +0000
                                        Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) Doc O'Leary ,   <droleary.usenet@2023.impossiblystupid.com> - 2025-08-15 15:14 +0000
                                          Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-15 09:03 -0700
                                            Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) Doc O'Leary ,   <droleary.usenet@2023.impossiblystupid.com> - 2025-08-16 23:36 +0000
                                              Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-17 07:09 +0000
                                              Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-18 10:45 -0700
                                                Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-18 23:25 +0000
                                                  Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-19 08:14 -0700
                                                Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) Doc O'Leary ,   <droleary.usenet@2023.impossiblystupid.com> - 2025-08-19 21:58 +0000
                                                  Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-20 00:39 +0000
                                                    Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) Doc O'Leary ,   <droleary.usenet@2023.impossiblystupid.com> - 2025-08-25 03:24 +0000
                                                Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) "B. Pym" <Nobody447095@here-nor-there.org> - 2025-08-24 14:42 +0000
                                                  Re: non-mainstream web (browsers) albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2025-08-24 19:41 +0200
                      Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" anthk <anthk@openbsd.home> - 2025-06-08 19:41 +0000
                Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" zbigniew2011@gmail.com (LIT) - 2025-06-03 12:07 +0000
                  Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" anthk <anthk@openbsd.home> - 2025-06-06 12:00 +0000
                    Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" zbigniew2011@gmail.com (LIT) - 2025-06-06 13:21 +0000
                      Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-06-06 07:54 -0700
                        Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" anthk <anthk@openbsd.home> - 2025-06-07 12:47 +0000
                        Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" anthk <anthk@openbsd.home> - 2025-06-07 12:47 +0000
                          Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-06-09 08:20 -0700
                  Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" sjack@dontemail.me (sjack) - 2025-06-06 14:37 +0000
                    Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> - 2025-06-07 00:55 +1000
                    Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" zbigniew2011@gmail.com (LIT) - 2025-06-06 18:13 +0000
              Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-07 20:31 +0000
            Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2025-05-29 08:32 +0042
              Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2025-05-29 01:12 -0700
            Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> - 2025-05-29 20:09 +1000
            Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" sjack@dontemail.me (sjack) - 2025-05-29 13:50 +0000
              Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> - 2025-05-30 12:51 +1000
      Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" Anthk NM <anthk@disroot.org> - 2025-12-12 10:43 +0000
        Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" minforth <minforth@gmx.net> - 2025-12-12 15:05 +0100
          Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-12-22 11:59 +0000
            Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-12-22 14:29 +0000
          Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2026-01-06 22:39 +0000
    Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes" "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-06-04 17:48 +0100

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#134130 — Re: non-mainstream web (browsers)

For your reference, records indicate that 
John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm not dictating what anyone else should use, or even what they should
> specifically work to support.

But you are.  You just *think* you’re being sly about it by pretending 
that it’s the oh-so-evil people running web sites that are making it hard 
for the oh-so-good people making their 8 billion different choices.  
Sorry, no, you’re just trying to reframe “the other” as the dictator so 
*you* can be the dictator of what a *true* web site should be.

> As far as citing authority, I'll hand the mic over
> to Tim Berners-Lee, a.k.a. The Guy Who Invented The Web:
> 
> "Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on
> a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web,
> when you had very little chance of reading a document written on
> another computer, another word processor, or another network."

I sure hope that was something he naively said back in the 1990s, because 
it’s disingenuous bordering on signs of senility if it is more recent.  I 
ask you to think about that quote critically.  It’s basically saying he 
got everything *perfect* on Version 1.0 (technically, HTML 2.0/HTTP 1.0).  
That nothing was interoperable before he came along with the one, true 
“document”.

Yeah, propriety data formats do suck, but there were plenty of open 
formats that existed before the web tried to make them all vanish in a 
puff of HTML.  I’ll still take a common CSV file over trying to tease 
some data out of a page with an embedded <table>, and countless other 
not-invented-here choices that got us to where the web is today.

You can not like change all you like, but rapid change is pretty much 
the hallmark of our technological world.  Like I said, the real 
complaint to level against that change is not that the web isn’t just 
HTML any longer, but that shoving everything into HTML was ever a good 
idea in the first place.  I take non-mainstream browsers seriously 
when they approach the modern web from *that* perspective.

-- 
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#134131 — Re: non-mainstream web (browsers)

On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 23:36:57 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary , wrote:

> For your reference, records indicate that John Ames
> <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> As far as citing authority, I'll hand the mic over to Tim Berners-Lee,
>> a.k.a. The Guy Who Invented The Web:
>> 
>> "Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on
>> a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web,
>> when you had very little chance of reading a document written on
>> another computer, another word processor, or another network."
> 
> I sure hope that was something he naively said back in the 1990s,
> because it’s disingenuous bordering on signs of senility if it is more
> recent.  I ask you to think about that quote critically.  It’s basically
> saying he got everything *perfect* on Version 1.0 (technically, HTML
> 2.0/HTTP 1.0).

He was saying no such thing.

> That nothing was interoperable before he came along with
> the one, true “document”.

Considering he invented the WWW, yes it is fair to say nothing was 
“interoperable” because nothing *existed* along these lines before him.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#134132 — Re: non-mainstream web (browsers)

On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 23:36:57 -0000 (UTC)
Doc O'Leary ,   <droleary.usenet@2023.impossiblystupid.com> wrote:

> > I'm not dictating what anyone else should use, or even what they
> > should specifically work to support.  
> 
> But you are.  You just *think* you’re being sly about it by
> pretending that it’s the oh-so-evil people running web sites that are
> making it hard for the oh-so-good people making their 8 billion
> different choices. Sorry, no, you’re just trying to reframe “the
> other” as the dictator so *you* can be the dictator of what a *true*
> web site should be.

I will clarify for the sake of being clear, though I doubt it'll keep
you from firing back with another "no u" - I'm *not* demanding that
anybody specifically work to support Browser XYZ. What I *do* expect out
of Web designers is some bare minimum of thought put into designing
with an eye towards graceful degradation, which (while never perfect)
has been possible since the beginning and remains so today.

I'm talking about basic, *basic* stuff here - things like not depending
on Javascript to load and display static page content, not hiding all
your site navigation behind a hamburger button and CSS pop-over, and
for the love of all that is good and holy *not* redirecting unfamiliar
user agents to a screw-you-for-not-using-an-Approved-Browser page.

These are *not* hard things - in fact, it usually takes more work to do
the Bad Behavior than to *not* do it. They don't require designers to
spend hours fiddling with their site design to work around Browser XYZ's
esoteric CSS support or tendency to choke on emoji glyphs or whatever;
they just require designers to *not* do things that they shouldn't be
doing anyway.

It's not dictatorial to expect that of Web designers; it is (or ought
to be) a basic qualification of the profession, in the same way that,
if you build a chair that falls apart the moment someone sits a little
too far to the left in it or clunks the occupant with a clown hammer
because they didn't do a little dance first, you're objectively a bad
furniture designer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#134133 — Re: non-mainstream web (browsers)

On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 10:45:55 -0700, John Ames wrote:

> I will clarify for the sake of being clear ...

Gee, I wonder what other reason there might be for wanting to “clarify”, 
given that it means “make clear” ...

> I'm talking about basic, *basic* stuff here - things like not depending
> on Javascript to load and display static page content ...

Funny, I did an example of that just the other day. A friend had put 
together a formatted table of data in a web page that was close to a 
megabyte in size. I knocked it down to a small fraction of that -- a bit 
over 100K -- by using JavaScript to generate the table layout from the raw 
data (which I included in the page).

I also added functions to sort the display of the data on selected 
columns. That only added about 3K to the page size.

> ... not hiding all your site navigation behind a hamburger button and
> CSS pop-over ...

Bear in mind the point of CSS is precisely to separate document structure 
from layout. If the semantics of the page can be gleaned from an 
examination of the HTML structure without regard to the styling, then what 
are you complaining about?

> It's not dictatorial to expect that of Web designers ...

Feel free to show us examples of your way of designing the Web.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#134134 — Re: non-mainstream web (browsers)

On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 23:25:22 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

> > It's not dictatorial to expect that of Web designers ...  
> 
> Feel free to show us examples of your way of designing the Web.

I'd point to Wikipedia as a very reasonable example - while it's
distinctly styled in a modern browser, the styling doesn't get in the
way of readability or usability (for the most part - not a fan of the
floating contents bar they added in recent years, but that's a fairly
minor nitpick) and it degrades very gracefully indeed; perfectly
readable in ELinks, lynx, and even w3m.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#134135 — Re: non-mainstream web (browsers)

For your reference, records indicate that 
John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:

> I will clarify for the sake of being clear, though I doubt it'll keep
> you from firing back with another "no u" - I'm *not* demanding that
> anybody specifically work to support Browser XYZ. What I *do* expect out
> of Web designers is some bare minimum of thought put into designing
> with an eye towards graceful degradation, which (while never perfect)
> has been possible since the beginning and remains so today.

NO U!  :-)

Seriously, you’re laying blame on the *wrong* people.  Web pages work/
look like they do because someone in management (and/or marketing) 
*told* the designer to make it that way.  It’s fundamentally the 
“culture” argument I’ve been making.

> I'm talking about basic, *basic* stuff here - things like not depending
> on Javascript to load and display static page content, not hiding all
> your site navigation behind a hamburger button and CSS pop-over, and
> for the love of all that is good and holy *not* redirecting unfamiliar
> user agents to a screw-you-for-not-using-an-Approved-Browser page.

All culture.  At least to a point; there is the technical angle that 
I’ve brought up: there is no “graceful” way to degrade what JavaScript 
does.  There is no alternative in the standard to replace just part 
of a page, no support for a “reference implementation” of CSS that 
would universally give you site navigation how *you* want it, no 
ethical rules of publishing that intrinsically require a request to 
get a uniform response.  Ironically, though, someone *could* build a 
browser that tried to “sandbox” the whole web through a user-centric 
interface with support for things like that (which is *kinda* what 
screen readers aim to do), and *that* would get complaints for being 
“best viewed in” dictatorial! 

> It's not dictatorial to expect that of Web designers; it is (or ought
> to be) a basic qualification of the profession, in the same way that,
> if you build a chair that falls apart the moment someone sits a little
> too far to the left in it or clunks the occupant with a clown hammer
> because they didn't do a little dance first, you're objectively a bad
> furniture designer.

The modern web is not designed for you, but the dictator that pays the 
team to put the site together.  If *they* use Lynx, yeah, the site 
would work well in Lynx.  If they give a damn about accessibility, 
that’s what the site will be.  Most *want* you smacked by the clown 
hammer, though . . .

-- 
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#134136 — Re: non-mainstream web (browsers)

On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 21:58:38 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary , wrote:

> There is no alternative in the standard to replace just part of a
> page ...

Sure there is. The DOM lets you do that.

> ... no support for a “reference implementation” of CSS that would
> universally give you site navigation how *you* want it ...

Browsers let you define custom overrides for site CSS, don’t they?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#134141 — Re: non-mainstream web (browsers)

For your reference, records indicate that 
Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 21:58:38 -0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary , wrote:
> 
> > There is no alternative in the standard to replace just part of a
> > page ...
> 
> Sure there is. The DOM lets you do that.

I’m not sure how “The DOM” is meaningful in the context of a browser 
without JavaScript.  Please reference where the standard mentions the 
alternative you’re suggesting.  If possible, give a URL to a reference 
implementation that works with Lynx or, if not, then some mainstream 
browser with JavaScript disabled.  Thanks.

> > ... no support for a “reference implementation” of CSS that would
> > universally give you site navigation how *you* want it ...
> 
> Browsers let you define custom overrides for site CSS, don’t they?

Only in theory; I think they’ve been twisted from the very beginning by 
the people who want “pixel perfect” pages.  I mean, take The CSS Zen 
Garden for example.  It’s a beautiful example of how a page can be 
radically re-rendered with different CSS.  But the CSS is *not universal*, 
because it can’t be applied to any other HTML page to get the same nice 
layout(s).

The shortcoming is especially obvious when you consider styles that are 
tied to the element’s `id`.  Different sites will have completely 
different or, worse, conflicting `id`s.  Nevermind that they will also 
have completely different HTML structures, especially if they’re software 
generated pages.  It’s no solution at all if I have to write custom CSS 
for *every damn site* I visit!

-- 
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#134138 — Re: non-mainstream web (browsers)

John Ames wrote:

> These are not hard things - in fact, it usually takes more work to do
> the Bad Behavior than to not do it. They don't require designers to
> spend hours fiddling with their site design to work around Browser XYZ's
> esoteric CSS support or tendency to choke on emoji glyphs or whatever;
> they just require designers to not do things that they shouldn't be
> doing anyway.

Web designers continually change web sites that don't need to
be changed. They continually add "features" that don't help
me, "features" that make it harder for me to use the web
sites.

Web designers don't make these changes because of user demand.
Web designers don't make these changes because the changes
help users.

Web designers make these changes because they help the
web designers.

If the policy of web sites was "If it ain't broke, don't fix it",
if the policy was not to make changes for the sake of change,
then most of these web designers would become unemployed.
Most of these web designers aren't productive; they are
actually destructive.  Most of them aren't needed.

However, they try to make themselves seem needed by
continually howling:

"Keep paying us! Keep paying us! Keep paying us to make
changes so that fewer and fewer people can use your web site!
Keep paying us! Keep paying us! Keep paying us so that fewer
and fewer people can use your web site!"

Most web designers are destructive parasites that ought to be
fired. Those that remain ought to be chained down.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#134140 — Re: non-mainstream web (browsers)

In article <108f8c9$2s3o1$1@dont-email.me>,
B. Pym <Nobody447095@here-nor-there.org> wrote:
>John Ames wrote:
>
>> These are not hard things - in fact, it usually takes more work to do
>> the Bad Behavior than to not do it. They don't require designers to
>> spend hours fiddling with their site design to work around Browser XYZ's
>> esoteric CSS support or tendency to choke on emoji glyphs or whatever;
>> they just require designers to not do things that they shouldn't be
>> doing anyway.
>
>Web designers continually change web sites that don't need to
>be changed. They continually add "features" that don't help
>me, "features" that make it harder for me to use the web
>sites.
>
>Web designers don't make these changes because of user demand.
>Web designers don't make these changes because the changes
>help users.
>
No. The web was designed to access scientific articles, valuable
peer reviewed and reliableZ. Now they want you to look every day
to see what has changed.
>Web designers make these changes because they help the
>web designers.

Web designers are the lowest in the hierarchy. Content creators
are the people who should be in charge.
<SNIP>
>Most web designers are destructive parasites that ought to be
>fired. Those that remain ought to be chained down.

Agreed.

Groetjes Albert
>
>
-- 
The Chinese government is satisfied with its military superiority over USA.
The next 5 year plan has as primary goal to advance life expectancy
over 80 years, like Western Europe.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#133631

On 2025-06-07, Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> anthk <anthk@openbsd.home> writes:
>>> You can't browse the real web that way.
>> The Dillectory has tons of alternatives.
>
> You are missing the point.  The "real web" means the web that exists in
> the real world and that was built without taking usability by
> non-bloated browsers on board.  Quite a lot of the real web simply
> doesn't work without Javascript, and heavyweight Javascript at that.
> If you want to (or have to) use those sites in your everyday life, the
> Dillectory stuff won't help.
>
> Yes, it's possible to live your life without using those sites, just as
> it's possible to live without indoor plumbing or refrigeration at home.
> But it's a lifestyle change that most people can't be expected to make
> just for the sake of continuing to use their 2006-era computer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#133576

> Your laptop with GNU/Linux/OpenBSD would be perfectly fine
> for tons of tasks:

 "For tons of tasks" - sure, but not for
browsing the WWW in the state it's today.
About ten years ago I had to give up using
my old Athlon 3200+ machine used for the
"surfing", because it turned out, that after
next "upgrade" in my bank I wasn't able to
operate my bank account (and still more and
more websites became incredibly slow, when
browsing their contents). Yes, everyone
prefer to push the burden on your machine
by using that JS (that should be banned),
instead making their server doing that by
using PHP, for example.

 I used to use Lynx for browsing the
Web, to read news etc. as long, as it was
still possible - to not even glance at all
that shiny fluff, to avoid pop-up windows
etc. - but that time is over since almost
20 years ago today. Try to use Lynx today
with any site. Maybe 5-10% of them can be
browsed such way.

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#133595

On 2025-06-03, LIT <zbigniew2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Your laptop with GNU/Linux/OpenBSD would be perfectly fine
>> for tons of tasks:
>
>  "For tons of tasks" - sure, but not for
> browsing the WWW in the state it's today.
> About ten years ago I had to give up using
> my old Athlon 3200+ machine used for the
> "surfing", because it turned out, that after
> next "upgrade" in my bank I wasn't able to
> operate my bank account (and still more and
> more websites became incredibly slow, when
> browsing their contents). Yes, everyone
> prefer to push the burden on your machine
> by using that JS (that should be banned),
> instead making their server doing that by
> using PHP, for example.
>
>  I used to use Lynx for browsing the
> Web, to read news etc. as long, as it was
> still possible - to not even glance at all
> that shiny fluff, to avoid pop-up windows
> etc. - but that time is over since almost
> 20 years ago today. Try to use Lynx today
> with any site. Maybe 5-10% of them can be
> browsed such way.
>
> --

- Lynx

Links it's better, and far more with the PSP
or the Opera Mini user agent. 

Also, I use both the DIllectory and Gopher/Gemini
sites.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#133596

> - Lynx
>
> Links it's better, and far more with the PSP
> or the Opera Mini user agent.
>
> Also, I use both the DIllectory and Gopher/Gemini
> sites.

I know Links, I know Netrik and Dillo - and not since
yesterday - but nothing below Firefox is usable
anymore within that WWW of today, unfortunately.

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#133598

On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 13:21:44 +0000
zbigniew2011@gmail.com (LIT) wrote:

> I know Links, I know Netrik and Dillo - and not since yesterday - but
> nothing below Firefox is usable anymore within that WWW of today,
> unfortunately.

Depends on what you're trying to get to. Wikipedia's still perfectly
usable with ELinks, and somehow it doesn't trip Google's new "screw you
for not having JS enabled" detector. Maddeningly, gutenberg.org ruined
their search interface in the last few years, but thankfully the texts
themselves are still perfectly readable. Some forums I've been unable
to browse due to SSL restrictions, but I think that's due to using an
outdated version on an outdated distro; newer builds seem to handle it
better.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#133608

On 2025-06-06, John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 13:21:44 +0000
> zbigniew2011@gmail.com (LIT) wrote:
>
>> I know Links, I know Netrik and Dillo - and not since yesterday - but
>> nothing below Firefox is usable anymore within that WWW of today,
>> unfortunately.
>
> Depends on what you're trying to get to. Wikipedia's still perfectly
> usable with ELinks, and somehow it doesn't trip Google's new "screw you
> for not having JS enabled" detector. Maddeningly, gutenberg.org ruined
> their search interface in the last few years, but thankfully the texts
> themselves are still perfectly readable. Some forums I've been unable
> to browse due to SSL restrictions, but I think that's due to using an
> outdated version on an outdated distro; newer builds seem to handle it
> better.
>

This. Also, dillo mainline 

https://github.com/dillo-browser/dillo

has some MathML support. For TLS, no issues at all
with LibreSSL.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#133609

On 2025-06-06, John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 13:21:44 +0000
> zbigniew2011@gmail.com (LIT) wrote:
>
>> I know Links, I know Netrik and Dillo - and not since yesterday - but
>> nothing below Firefox is usable anymore within that WWW of today,
>> unfortunately.
>
> Depends on what you're trying to get to. Wikipedia's still perfectly
> usable with ELinks, and somehow it doesn't trip Google's new "screw you
> for not having JS enabled" detector. Maddeningly, gutenberg.org ruined
> their search interface in the last few years, but thankfully the texts
> themselves are still perfectly readable. Some forums I've been unable
> to browse due to SSL restrictions, but I think that's due to using an
> outdated version on an outdated distro; newer builds seem to handle it
> better.
>

I forgot, gutenberg has a gopher client:

gopher://gopher.icu/7/gutenberg

Enter the query and enjoy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#133656

On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 12:47:01 -0000 (UTC)
anthk <anthk@openbsd.home> wrote:

> I forgot, gutenberg has a gopher client:
> 
> gopher://gopher.icu/7/gutenberg
> 
> Enter the query and enjoy.

Thanks, that's really good to know :D

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#133597

LIT <zbigniew2011@gmail.com> wrote:
> 20 years ago today. Try to use Lynx today
> with any site. Maybe 5-10% of them can be
> browsed such way.
> 
I seldom surf the web for long time now. When I do, I have JS
disabled.  For sites that don't work, fine, forget them. However, I
was surprised the last time I surfed the web as to how many sites were
now accommodating for JS being disabled. Seems corporate wants to
capture that traffic too. 

Another thing, with chrome it's easy to take a peek at a
non-accommodating site by a click of button on the address bar to turn
JS on for that site only (or for all). (Not pushing chome but they
have some good features.) In the old slow web I would serf with text
browser, Bobcat? on DOS, and could push a button to bring in small gui
browser if wanted to see the site in all its glory. So, much the same.

Being retro most of web's technical offerings becomes non-applicable.
Doing business on the web, just don't. For the data junkie there's
still more available than can be consumed in several lifetimes. With
JS disabled it's one big filter to skip the dross.

I've seen much come and go (how quickly). Change is coming now,
hard and fast ready to steamroll over all resistance. The irony,
the overall aspect remains constant. I guess JJ was on to something,
Tomorrow never happens.

-- 
me

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#133599

On 7/06/2025 12:37 am, sjack wrote:
> ... 
> I've seen much come and go (how quickly). Change is coming now,
> hard and fast ready to steamroll over all resistance. The irony,
> the overall aspect remains constant. I guess JJ was on to something,
> Tomorrow never happens.

Salvation?  Funny about that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web