Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #90485 > unrolled thread
| Started by | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-08-25 04:41 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-08-29 00:19 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 73 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 04:41 +0000
Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 03:15 -0400
Re: Ancient History John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-08-25 08:19 -0700
Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 19:57 +0100
Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 04:25 -0400
Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 09:33 +0100
Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 18:20 +0000
Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 21:27 +0100
Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-27 01:13 +0000
Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 03:24 -0400
Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-27 20:03 +0000
Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 23:47 -0400
Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-28 06:54 +0000
Re: Ancient History John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-08-28 09:28 -0700
Re: Ancient History Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-28 18:53 +0100
Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-28 20:58 +0000
Re: Ancient History John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-08-28 14:49 -0700
Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-29 05:41 +0000
Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-29 02:00 -0400
Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-28 12:11 +0100
Re: Ancient History "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-25 11:41 +0200
Re: Ancient History Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 11:53 +0100
Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:54 +0100
Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 19:25 +0000
Re: Ancient History "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-25 14:23 +0200
Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 03:28 -0400
Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 09:12 +0100
Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 18:26 +0000
Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 03:56 -0400
Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-27 12:00 +0100
Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-27 20:25 +0000
Re: Ancient History Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-27 21:48 +0000
Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-28 00:26 -0400
Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-28 06:59 +0000
Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-28 12:05 +0100
Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-28 21:02 +0000
Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-28 12:03 +0100
Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-28 00:06 -0400
Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-28 12:08 +0100
Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-28 12:03 +0100
Re: Ancient History Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-08-28 12:07 -0400
Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-28 21:00 +0000
Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-29 02:22 -0400
Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 18:23 +0000
Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 21:29 +0100
Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:31 +0100
Re: Ancient History Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-08-25 07:53 -0400
Re: Ancient History Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-25 18:26 +0000
Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 19:37 +0000
Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 19:16 +0000
Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 20:21 +0100
Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 04:40 +0000
Re: Ancient History The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:30 +0100
Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 02:49 -0400
Re: Ancient History "Mr. Chang Man-wai" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-08-25 20:07 +0800
Re: Ancient History Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-08-25 11:20 -0400
Re: Ancient History Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-08-25 17:44 +0000
Re: Ancient History Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-25 21:55 +0000
Re: Ancient History not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-08-27 08:59 +1000
Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-27 01:20 +0000
Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 03:38 -0400
Re: Ancient History vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2026-08-27 08:08 +0000
Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 22:13 -0400
Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-28 04:24 +0000
Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 03:21 -0400
Re: Ancient History not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-08-28 08:58 +1000
Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-28 00:36 -0400
Re: Ancient History rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-28 04:42 +0000
Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-28 02:37 -0400
Re: Ancient History not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-08-29 07:40 +1000
Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-29 02:03 -0400
Re: Ancient History Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-28 08:59 +0100
Re: Ancient History c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-29 00:19 -0400
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 04:41 +0000 |
| Subject | Ancient History |
| Message-ID | <nf4koiF5rktU44@mid.individual.net> |
In my OCD quest to rejuvenate old machines I finally dug out the tower buried under other junk out in the shed. Turns out it's a Compaq Presario 4550. It has a 233 MHz AMD K6 that was AMDs challenge to the Pentium II. It was pin compatible and could be used in a Socket 7 board. It has 48 MB of RAM (no, that's not a typo) and a 4 GB HDD. For your computing convenient, it has a 56K modem. There are 2 USB ports although I think it expects the mouse and keyboard to be plugged into the PS2 ports. Two distros that claim to run in 48 MB are Tiny Core and Slax. slax specifies text only unless you have more RAM. Tiny Core isn't very specific. I think I'll let that sleeping dog slumber on although I might see if it boots at all. Now for the real puzzle. I was a fairly decent machine in 1997 and came with Windows 95. Windows 95 claimed a minimum of 4 MB, recommended 8 MB, and if you had 16 MB or more didn't bother creating a swap file. What the flaming hell has happened to us? Even by Windows 98 24 MB was recommended. Now you can barely run a pared down Linux in 48 MB and I doubt it's a very appealing UX.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 03:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4R-dndRP7cUa3BD3nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90485 |
On 8/25/26 00:41, rbowman wrote: > In my OCD quest to rejuvenate old machines I finally dug out the tower > buried under other junk out in the shed. Turns out it's a Compaq Presario > 4550. It has a 233 MHz AMD K6 that was AMDs challenge to the Pentium II. > It was pin compatible and could be used in a Socket 7 board. It has 48 MB > of RAM (no, that's not a typo) and a 4 GB HDD. For your computing > convenient, it has a 56K modem. There are 2 USB ports although I think it > expects the mouse and keyboard to be plugged into the PS2 ports. > > Two distros that claim to run in 48 MB are Tiny Core and Slax. slax > specifies text only unless you have more RAM. Tiny Core isn't very > specific. > > I think I'll let that sleeping dog slumber on although I might see if it > boots at all. > > Now for the real puzzle. I was a fairly decent machine in 1997 and came > with Windows 95. Windows 95 claimed a minimum of 4 MB, recommended 8 MB, > and if you had 16 MB or more didn't bother creating a swap file. What the > flaming hell has happened to us? Even by Windows 98 24 MB was > recommended. Now you can barely run a pared down Linux in 48 MB and I > doubt it's a very appealing UX. Yes, there ARE a few distros customized to run on VERY old hardware. This is good. HOWEVER - is it WORTH it ??? Newer hardware, even if in the bargain-basement "refubished" bin, has a lot more speed and better chips and more RAM and such. My last desktop ... not a bad unit ... I installed the new board and an SSD and MX ... and then NEVER USED IT AGAIN. It's just sitting in the back room. Don't really have enough SPACE out front for it and, since I'm kinda stuck with wifi connections, the speed is mostly wasted. So ... bought BMax/BeeLink mini-boxes. Fast Enough, Capable Enough, pretty cheap (at least before the AI RAM-plague). They do all I need now very well. "Laptop Speed" turned out to be Good Enough. Also have a 'legacy' Core-2-Quad box with floppies and such. NEVER getting rid of that. It's not SUPER fast but better than you'd expect if you use Linux. Core-2-Quad was also the last Intel CPU that would run 8/16 code. CAN boot the old IBM CP/M-86 floppy on it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 08:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <20260825081918.00006d47@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #90498 |
On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 03:15:49 -0400 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > Yes, there ARE a few distros customized to run on VERY old hardware. > This is good. > > HOWEVER - is it WORTH it ??? > > Newer hardware, even if in the bargain-basement "refubished" bin, has > a lot more speed and better chips and more RAM and such. Depends, but a lot of newer hardware gets pretty flaky with age. Meanwhile I've got a PDP-11/73 that's north of 40 and still running as well as it ever did.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 19:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <116koi7$6rh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90539 |
On 25/08/2026 16:19, John Ames wrote: > On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 03:15:49 -0400 > c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > >> Yes, there ARE a few distros customized to run on VERY old hardware. >> This is good. >> >> HOWEVER - is it WORTH it ??? >> >> Newer hardware, even if in the bargain-basement "refubished" bin, has >> a lot more speed and better chips and more RAM and such. > > Depends, but a lot of newer hardware gets pretty flaky with age. > Meanwhile I've got a PDP-11/73 that's north of 40 and still running as > well as it ever did. > Slightly more expensive original purchase price though :-) ...and far less computing power -- Civilization exists by geological consent, subject to change without notice. – Will Durant
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-26 04:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ZfqcnWht_dTdPhP3nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90558 |
On 8/25/26 14:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 25/08/2026 16:19, John Ames wrote: >> On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 03:15:49 -0400 >> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >> >>> Yes, there ARE a few distros customized to run on VERY old hardware. >>> This is good. >>> >>> HOWEVER - is it WORTH it ??? >>> >>> Newer hardware, even if in the bargain-basement "refubished" bin, has >>> a lot more speed and better chips and more RAM and such. >> >> Depends, but a lot of newer hardware gets pretty flaky with age. >> Meanwhile I've got a PDP-11/73 that's north of 40 and still running as >> well as it ever did. >> > Slightly more expensive original purchase price though :-) > ...and far less computing power Grew up on the PDP-11 ... great box, and soon there was that newfangled 'C' language :-) SOME of those surely do still exist/run. They were SOLID - if in contemporary view - pretty limited. DID find some video of some guy bringing up THE original HTTP site on a PDP-11 ... from a strip of PAPER TAPE.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-26 09:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <116m8dn$e9qm$11@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90617 |
On 26/08/2026 09:25, c186282 wrote: > Grew up on the PDP-11 ... great box, and soon > there was that newfangled 'C' language 🙂 > > SOME of those surely do still exist/run. > They were SOLID - if in contemporary > view - pretty limited. > The last of them are being taken out of service in embedded/industrial applications. > DID find some video of some guy bringing up > THE original HTTP site on a PDP-11 ... from > a strip of PAPER TAPE. Well it's one way of programming a computer, though VAXen were a better choice if you didn't have a SUN... -- Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as foolish, and by the rulers as useful. (Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-26 18:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nf8p33FprcuU8@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90617 |
On Wed, 26 Aug 2026 04:25:25 -0400, c186282 wrote: > Grew up on the PDP-11 ... great box, and soon there was that > newfangled 'C' language I didn't grow up on a PDP-11 but I'm familiar with the breed. A 8048 cross assembler was ridiculously expensive so I wrote my own on CP/M.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-26 21:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <116ni8c$uguk$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90645 |
On 26/08/2026 19:20, rbowman wrote: > On Wed, 26 Aug 2026 04:25:25 -0400, c186282 wrote: > >> Grew up on the PDP-11 ... great box, and soon there was that >> newfangled 'C' language > > I didn't grow up on a PDP-11 but I'm familiar with the breed. A 8048 cross > assembler was ridiculously expensive so I wrote my own on CP/M. That's the spirit! -- Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-27 01:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nf9h8uFprcuU17@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90648 |
On Wed, 26 Aug 2026 21:27:56 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 26/08/2026 19:20, rbowman wrote: >> On Wed, 26 Aug 2026 04:25:25 -0400, c186282 wrote: >> >>> Grew up on the PDP-11 ... great box, and soon there was that >>> newfangled 'C' language >> >> I didn't grow up on a PDP-11 but I'm familiar with the breed. A 8048 >> cross assembler was ridiculously expensive so I wrote my own on CP/M. > > That's the spirit! One of my 'get to know the language' projects in Java was writing a simple assembler for the AVR MCUs. Java was utterly unsuited for that task. I'd had hopes for the Write One Run Nowhere language but as they say about hope...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-27 03:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <G6-dnT9sRIDGexL3nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90654 |
On 8/26/26 21:13, rbowman wrote: > On Wed, 26 Aug 2026 21:27:56 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> On 26/08/2026 19:20, rbowman wrote: >>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2026 04:25:25 -0400, c186282 wrote: >>> >>>> Grew up on the PDP-11 ... great box, and soon there was that >>>> newfangled 'C' language >>> >>> I didn't grow up on a PDP-11 but I'm familiar with the breed. A 8048 >>> cross assembler was ridiculously expensive so I wrote my own on CP/M. >> >> That's the spirit! > > One of my 'get to know the language' projects in Java was writing a simple > assembler for the AVR MCUs. Java was utterly unsuited for that task. I'd > had hopes for the Write One Run Nowhere language but as they say about > hope... JAVA ???!!! :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-27 20:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nfbjg5FprcuU23@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90666 |
On Thu, 27 Aug 2026 03:24:55 -0400, c186282 wrote: > JAVA ???!!! I've made many mistakes in my life. I've never warmed up to C++. I used Borland's with OWL and preferred it to MFC but about the time Java was gaining steam, Borland had lost. Create GUIs with something less sucky and with cross-platform potential? Why not. Java applets were nice too, but the browsers slammed the door on that line of development. Meanwhile Eich was brewing up ECMAScript and some marketer decided Java was real cool leading to decades of confusion. At least Eich didn't use Scheme. I probably still have the DVDs someplace but Microsoft's Visual J++ was quite nice but that turned into a fight with the junkyard dogs. It was reborn, sort of, in C#, which I like. Meanwhile Java became well beyond clinically obese and cursed anything built with it like Eclipse to turtle like speeds. It's telling that IBM's skunk works Java project turned out better tools than Sun.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-27 23:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <wxednYg-UqpTmQz3nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90695 |
On 8/27/26 16:03, rbowman wrote: > On Thu, 27 Aug 2026 03:24:55 -0400, c186282 wrote: > >> JAVA ???!!! > > I've made many mistakes in my life. I've never warmed up to C++. I used > Borland's with OWL and preferred it to MFC but about the time Java was > gaining steam, Borland had lost. Create GUIs with something less sucky and > with cross-platform potential? Why not. I also don't like C++ very much. Would rather write things the old fashioned way in straight 'C'. Did kinda get used to 'object Pascal' via Delphi and later Lazarus/FPC. > Java applets were nice too, but the browsers slammed the door on that line > of development. Meanwhile Eich was brewing up ECMAScript and some marketer > decided Java was real cool leading to decades of confusion. At least Eich > didn't use Scheme. > > I probably still have the DVDs someplace but Microsoft's Visual J++ was > quite nice but that turned into a fight with the junkyard dogs. It was > reborn, sort of, in C#, which I like. > > Meanwhile Java became well beyond clinically obese and cursed anything > built with it like Eclipse to turtle like speeds. It's telling that IBM's > skunk works Java project turned out better tools than Sun. I just skipped Java and especially JS ... bad to write, slow to run, just not something I would like. Tossed all my Java/JS books when I retired.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-28 06:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nfcpktFprcuU35@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90720 |
On Thu, 27 Aug 2026 23:47:06 -0400, c186282 wrote: > I just skipped Java and especially JS ... bad to write, slow to run, > just not something I would like. Tossed all my Java/JS books when I > retired. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Node.js JavaScript was slow on IE 7 because MS never could write a browser before they adopted chromium. I've had no problem with node.js on the back end. As far as the front end, you're not going far without JS, even if its only JQuery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JQuery It's not 2000 anymore.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-28 09:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <20260828092852.000023e8@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #90732 |
On 28 Aug 2026 06:54:22 GMT rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: > As far as the front end, you're not going far without JS, even if > its only JQuery. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JQuery > > It's not 2000 anymore. I've been running FF/PaleMoon with NoScript since 2004; there are some sites that I do have to whitelist, annoyingly, but the vast majority of the sites I visit function just fine without. Graceful degradation is, evidently, not as hard as sloppy web developers like to claim it is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-28 18:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <116shub$2i8hf$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90771 |
On 2026-08-28, John Ames wrote: > On 28 Aug 2026 06:54:22 GMT > rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: > >> As far as the front end, you're not going far without JS, even if >> its only JQuery. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JQuery >> >> It's not 2000 anymore. > > I've been running FF/PaleMoon with NoScript since 2004; there are some > sites that I do have to whitelist, annoyingly, but the vast majority of > the sites I visit function just fine without. Graceful degradation is, > evidently, not as hard as sloppy web developers like to claim it is. And some ad frameworks are reportedly growing more aggressive, to the extent of possibly becoming malware. I've heard people report "AdShield" being a thing that leads to 100% CPU usage, and a growing number of sites if visited with JS enabled insist I'm ripping them off because of some "ad blocker". That's funny given that in the profile where I have JS enabled there is *no* ad blocker... And this without mentioning the endless flood of sites which insist that you have to show a cookie consent pop-up, but can't make declining easy enough. Depending on the site, it's completely readable with JS disabled, because there's no popup at all. So I guess I'm going to use NoScript more, not less. I've just installed it in Fennec (Android) this week. -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-28 20:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nfeb3gFprcuU44@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90771 |
On Fri, 28 Aug 2026 09:28:52 -0700, John Ames wrote: > I've been running FF/PaleMoon with NoScript since 2004; there are some > sites that I do have to whitelist, annoyingly, but the vast majority of > the sites I visit function just fine without. Graceful degradation is, > evidently, not as hard as sloppy web developers like to claim it is. Much of the web development I've done was map based, usually with the Esri JaveScript API. https://leafletjs.com/examples/quick-start/example.html Try that site. If you view the page source the pure HTML boils down to <body> <div id="map" style="width: 600px; height: 400px;"></div> </body> Everything else is done in the <script></script> block. In lynx I get a black box except for the <title>Quick Start - Leaflet</title> block in <head></head> It would be possible to create a static map in the backend and serve it up but you can kiss interaction goodbye.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-28 14:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <20260828144926.00006711@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #90782 |
On 28 Aug 2026 20:58:24 GMT rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: > > I've been running FF/PaleMoon with NoScript since 2004; there are > > some sites that I do have to whitelist, annoyingly, but the vast > > majority of the sites I visit function just fine without. Graceful > > degradation is, evidently, not as hard as sloppy web developers > > like to claim it is. > > Much of the web development I've done was map based, usually with the > Esri JaveScript API. > > https://leafletjs.com/examples/quick-start/example.html > > Try that site. If you view the page source the pure HTML boils down > to > > <body> > <div id="map" style="width: 600px; height: 400px;"></div> > </body> > > Everything else is done in the <script></script> block. In lynx I > get a black box except for the <title>Quick Start - Leaflet</title> > block in <head></head> I'm not disputing that sites like this are out there - but my need for them is minimal at best, and Actually Zero in most cases. And when I do need one, well, that's what the whitelist function in NoScript is for. > It would be possible to create a static map in the backend and serve > it up but you can kiss interaction goodbye. This is also not really true; it may or may not be harder to do without dynamically rendering the whole thing client-side, but it's certainly possible. Google Maps functioned that way for years.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-29 05:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nff9ngFprcuU50@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90786 |
On Fri, 28 Aug 2026 14:49:26 -0700, John Ames wrote: > This is also not really true; it may or may not be harder to do without > dynamically rendering the whole thing client-side, but it's certainly > possible. Google Maps functioned that way for years. https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/javascript/overview Google Maps used a JavaScript API for as long as I can remember. I had the pleasure of talking to Google to try to determine the pricing for commercial use. The answer was up the lines of 'how much money you got?'. We used Esri's JavaScript API. https://w3techs.com/technologies/details/cp-javascript "JavaScript is used as client-side programming language by 98.9% of all the websites." https://gitnux.org/javascript-statistics/ " JavaScript is used by 98.7% of all websites as of 2023" I see that 98.x % on so many sites I'm a little suspicious. Some sites may use the <noscript/> tag to provide alternate functionality but speaking as someone who has done so web development, ain't gonna happen.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-29 02:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <xcGcnV-bb91W6A_3nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90793 |
On 8/29/26 01:41, rbowman wrote: > On Fri, 28 Aug 2026 14:49:26 -0700, John Ames wrote: > >> This is also not really true; it may or may not be harder to do without >> dynamically rendering the whole thing client-side, but it's certainly >> possible. Google Maps functioned that way for years. > https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/javascript/overview PREF the PHP approach - makes the SERVER do most of the work :-) > Google Maps used a JavaScript API for as long as I can remember. I had the > pleasure of talking to Google to try to determine the pricing for > commercial use. The answer was up the lines of 'how much money you got?'. > We used Esri's JavaScript API. No great solutions any more. Kinda SUCKS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-28 12:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <116rqdo$28guo$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90720 |
On 28/08/2026 04:47, c186282 wrote: > I just skipped Java and especially JS ... bad > to write, slow to run, just not something I > would like. Tossed all my Java/JS books when > I retired. Sadly I need JavaScript - I write a lot of web controlled stuff for my home systems It is horrible. But mostly it works Likewise PHP. -- To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web