Message-ID: <689fd2e9@news.ausics.net> From: not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) Subject: Re: Web compatibility in FLOSS websites Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc References: <107kmkc$fjp8$1@dont-email.me> <689e5392@news.ausics.net> <107n0uq$11pib$2@dont-email.me> User-Agent: tin/2.6.5-20250707 ("Helmsdale") (Linux/2.4.31 (i586)) NNTP-Posting-Host: news.ausics.net Date: 16 Aug 2025 10:38:01 +1000 Organization: Ausics - https://newsgroups.ausics.net Lines: 49 X-Complaints: abuse@ausics.net Path: csiph.com!news.bbs.nz!news.ausics.net!not-for-mail Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:71299 Nuno Silva wrote: > On 2025-08-15, Carlos E. R. wrote: >> On 2025-08-15 10:35, rbowman wrote: >>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 23:38:22 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote: >>>> On 2025-08-14 23:22, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>> https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/members >>>>> (buggy Javascript required, and that made Firefox fill up all my PC's >>>>> RAM and freeze, so I had to kill it. Just to display some company >>>>> logos. Huff! I wouldn't choose Linux as my OS based on that website!) >>>>> >>>> The page loads fine here. >>> >>> It did load in Brave and only took 1.4 of the 8 cores to do so. I didn't >>> note the RAM usage. >> >> In Ffx I looked at "about:processes" and it only went up when moving >> the "cursor" up/dn, ie, when displaying a new section of it, as >> expected. > > Still, working fine in one browser (or a few) but not in others can't be > the new normal for FLOSS websites. > > This is the same free software world that was constantly hit by vendor > lock-in and proprietary stuff from MICROS~1, this is the same free > software world where some sites would only work in IE in the late 90s, > early 2000s and left out free software users. > > It still strikes me as unbelievable that it's now acceptable for free > software entities to have websites that require new hardware and require > features only implemented in a few browsers. Exactly, and to do what here? Displaying headings and company logos! HTML was designed from the start to do that perfectly well. Requiring Javascript is pure willful over-complication for the sake of it, and in so doing introduced a bug where there needn't be one. The code to do all that is in the browser, it's in all major browsers from the 1990s even, I shouldn't be facing bugs with that in 2025 just because someone wanted to do it "their way" with Javascript instead! This is exactly why, when faced with such empty JS-required pages in Dillo, I'm better off just moving on and browsing other websites rather than conceding (as people keep telling me I should do) and loading them Firefox, where they're free to lock up my whole system. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#