Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #79567 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Diego Garcia <dg@linux.rocks> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-12-20 11:41 +0000 |
| Last post | 2025-12-27 18:22 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 100 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
The Web (HTML) Sux Diego Garcia <dg@linux.rocks> - 2025-12-20 11:41 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Diego Garcia <dg@linux.rocks> - 2025-12-20 15:13 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-12-20 16:24 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Diego Garcia <dg@linux.rocks> - 2025-12-20 16:33 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-12-20 19:47 +0100
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2025-12-20 17:20 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 <jmj@energokod.gda.pl> - 2025-12-20 21:10 +0100
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 <jmj@energokod.gda.pl> - 2025-12-20 21:35 +0100
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 <jmj@energokod.gda.pl> - 2025-12-20 21:49 +0100
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-12-20 20:45 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-21 02:04 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-21 02:08 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-21 02:03 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-21 11:27 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-21 13:52 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-21 18:17 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-21 22:42 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-22 01:50 -0500
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-12-22 08:14 +1000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-12-22 13:58 -0800
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-22 22:27 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-12-22 14:43 -0800
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-22 23:12 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-12-22 15:37 -0800
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-22 23:45 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-12-23 01:50 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-23 02:20 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-12-23 09:59 -0800
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-23 20:38 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-12-23 13:41 -0800
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-23 21:45 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-12-23 14:19 -0800
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-24 12:45 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-26 12:15 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-12-27 07:56 +1000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-12-29 19:06 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-29 19:54 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-12-29 18:57 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-12-23 22:48 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-12-23 15:23 -0800
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-12-23 23:40 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-24 12:59 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-24 19:08 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-24 12:58 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-23 23:51 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-12-24 00:49 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-24 12:50 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-12-29 19:10 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-12-29 18:09 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-12-23 21:18 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux kouya <kouyaheika@canithesis.org> - 2025-12-24 06:25 -0600
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-24 19:11 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux kouya <kouyaheika@canithesis.org> - 2025-12-24 20:01 -0600
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-25 03:18 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux kouya <kouyaheika@canithesis.org> - 2025-12-24 21:34 -0600
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-25 03:49 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux kouya <kouyaheika@canithesis.org> - 2025-12-24 22:01 -0600
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-25 04:52 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux kouya <kouyaheika@canithesis.org> - 2025-12-24 23:07 -0600
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2025-12-25 12:33 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2025-12-25 12:30 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-26 11:45 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-12-29 19:16 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-12-29 19:14 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-25 03:30 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-12-25 21:05 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-25 22:11 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-26 11:55 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-12-26 18:12 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-26 18:45 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-26 19:23 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-26 21:09 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-25 22:38 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-26 07:13 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-26 08:35 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-26 11:50 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-12-26 14:43 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-12-27 08:29 +1000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-27 04:05 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-27 09:46 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-27 13:10 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-27 23:35 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-27 09:58 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-27 23:41 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-27 13:04 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-27 13:04 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-27 23:24 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-12-28 14:46 +0100
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-29 03:48 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-26 11:36 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-12-26 08:42 -0800
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-26 19:21 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-26 21:10 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-24 11:43 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-24 11:41 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-24 11:37 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-12-26 08:38 -0800
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-21 02:06 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-21 02:55 +0000
Re: The Web (HTML) Sux Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-12-27 18:22 +0000
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-27 13:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10iolrl$3f97e$11@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #79904 |
On 27/12/2025 09:46, Richard Kettlewell wrote: > rbowman <bowman@montana.com> writes: >> Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>> That's fine, you want to write an application in a web browser, you can >>> do that. I won't use it because I think it's a wasteful and fragile >>> approach, but I'll find/write a native program instead. >> >> Real world scenario: The legacy system consisted of several Motif based >> GUIs, plus many backend daemons. For updates or bug fixes the GUIs have to >> be copied to several workstations in the dispatch center. >> >> It doesn't end there. In today's world every police car, fire engine, and >> ambulance has a laptop running applications. For bug fixes or updates with >> native programs you have to cycle each of those laptops through the shop, >> potentially a couple of hundred updates. >> >> Enter the web app. It runs in the browser, and is distributed from a >> central server. Update or make a bug fix on the server, all the client >> apps are automatically updated. >> >> Which is more resource intensive, has the most downtime, and has the >> potential for outdated native programs? > > I don’t really disagree with the thrust of the argument, but: if you > have to return to base for upgrades, that’s a fact about the specific > applications and/or operating system. Remote and automatic upgrades have > widely used for decades now. > I see it more as the death of proprietary applications clients in favour of fairly standard browsers. The emergency services no longer rely on e.g. VHF radio but use smartphones instead. Aircraft no longer carry navigators, but use GPS instead etc etc. And many crashes could have been avoided if we had had such back in the 1970s... We all admit JavaScript is utter shit on a par with PHP, but the fact is its there and it can be coaxed into life. If needed. Commercial websites are there to sell product. As such pretty pictures are more important than functionality. Respond by using more functional websites to buy product. -- “It is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since...it is futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into, we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive every criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a power-directed system of thought.” Sir Roger Scruton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-27 23:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mrb8qsFeoclU8@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #79904 |
On Sat, 27 Dec 2025 09:46:21 +0000, Richard Kettlewell wrote: > I don’t really disagree with the thrust of the argument, but: if you > have to return to base for upgrades, that’s a fact about the specific > applications and/or operating system. Remote and automatic upgrades have > widely used for decades now. Part of that is historical. Having a high speed connection is relatively recent for emergency services. Workflows get established and change very slowly. After 9/11 it was realized that it would be good if agencies could communicate with each other. Progress is being made...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-27 09:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10ioak7$3ae14$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #79894 |
On 2025-12-27, rbowman wrote: > On 27 Dec 2025 08:29:46 +1000, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > >> That's fine, you want to write an application in a web browser, you can >> do that. I won't use it because I think it's a wasteful and fragile >> approach, but I'll find/write a native program instead. > > Real world scenario: The legacy system consisted of several Motif based > GUIs, plus many backend daemons. For updates or bug fixes the GUIs have to > be copied to several workstations in the dispatch center. > > It doesn't end there. In today's world every police car, fire engine, and > ambulance has a laptop running applications. For bug fixes or updates with > native programs you have to cycle each of those laptops through the shop, > potentially a couple of hundred updates. > > Enter the web app. It runs in the browser, and is distributed from a > central server. Update or make a bug fix on the server, all the client > apps are automatically updated. > > Which is more resource intensive, has the most downtime, and has the > potential for outdated native programs? This still leaves the browser and the system to be updated. And HTTP(S) caching. I think the most sensible approach here could actually be the purpose-specific non-web-application with versioning, so that several versions can be run in parallel. -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-27 23:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mrb95fFeoclU9@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #79906 |
On Sat, 27 Dec 2025 09:58:31 +0000, Nuno Silva wrote: > On 2025-12-27, rbowman wrote: > >> On 27 Dec 2025 08:29:46 +1000, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >> >>> That's fine, you want to write an application in a web browser, you >>> can do that. I won't use it because I think it's a wasteful and >>> fragile approach, but I'll find/write a native program instead. >> >> Real world scenario: The legacy system consisted of several Motif based >> GUIs, plus many backend daemons. For updates or bug fixes the GUIs have >> to be copied to several workstations in the dispatch center. >> >> It doesn't end there. In today's world every police car, fire engine, >> and ambulance has a laptop running applications. For bug fixes or >> updates with native programs you have to cycle each of those laptops >> through the shop, potentially a couple of hundred updates. >> >> Enter the web app. It runs in the browser, and is distributed from a >> central server. Update or make a bug fix on the server, all the client >> apps are automatically updated. >> >> Which is more resource intensive, has the most downtime, and has the >> potential for outdated native programs? > > This still leaves the browser and the system to be updated. And HTTP(S) > caching. > > I think the most sensible approach here could actually be the > purpose-specific non-web-application with versioning, so that several > versions can be run in parallel. Feel free to implement that in your industry. I don't mean that to be sarcastic but it would be bucking the trend. Public safety did back off from 'the cloud' a bit when the problems became apparent but in most sectors SaaS is the trend.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-27 13:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10iolgv$3f97e$10@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #79894 |
On 27/12/2025 04:05, rbowman wrote: > On 27 Dec 2025 08:29:46 +1000, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > >> That's fine, you want to write an application in a web browser, you can >> do that. I won't use it because I think it's a wasteful and fragile >> approach, but I'll find/write a native program instead. > > Real world scenario: The legacy system consisted of several Motif based > GUIs, plus many backend daemons. For updates or bug fixes the GUIs have to > be copied to several workstations in the dispatch center. > > It doesn't end there. In today's world every police car, fire engine, and > ambulance has a laptop running applications. For bug fixes or updates with > native programs you have to cycle each of those laptops through the shop, > potentially a couple of hundred updates. > > Enter the web app. It runs in the browser, and is distributed from a > central server. Update or make a bug fix on the server, all the client > apps are automatically updated. > > Which is more resource intensive, has the most downtime, and has the > potential for outdated native programs? +10001 -- “It is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since...it is futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into, we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive every criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a power-directed system of thought.” Sir Roger Scruton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-27 13:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10iolg1$3f97e$9@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #79888 |
On 26/12/2025 22:29, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:13:02 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 25/12/2025 22:38, rbowman wrote: >>>> For our web application no day and no way would static pages assembled >>>> server side get the job done. >>> >>> Indeed. >>> >>> The natural way to set up configuration is to enter data and/or move >>> controls and switches, and not have a submit button at all. >>> >>> And it's nice to have a clock ticking the seconds away in the corner, or >>> pages that automatically update... >>> >>> Easy with JavaScript, Impossible without... >> >> The web app had to accurately represent a system in flux with minimal lag. >> CFSes (call for service) are created, updated as the dispatcher gets >> additional information, adds comments, person, or vehicle information. In >> a busy system they may field 1000 calls a day. In addition the resource >> units (police, emt, and fire) are changing statuses as they are assigned >> to a call, arrive on scene, and so forth. Since they are equipped with >> GPSs, their location has to be shown on the map. >> >> Mean time, while displaying and updating all this information, the app has >> to remain responsive as the dispatcher enters information, which is >> propagated to other dispatch stations or supervisor displays. > > That's fine, you want to write an application in a web browser, you > can do that. I won't use it because I think it's a wasteful and > fragile approach, but I'll find/write a native program instead. > For every possible network connected client? Lets see. An I-phone one, and android one - several android ones - a windows one, a MAX OSX one, a Linux one, and a BSD one, and maintain all of those.... ...or piggy back of a ubiquitous smart client called 'a browser'...? ...snip... > Granted plain HTML forms on web forums can eat posts too, but at > least everything's under control before you press the submit > button. It's turning everything on the Web into an application > that's the problem, and occasionally it's enough of one that I > figure out the API calls (the Firefox debugging tools can be handy > for plucking out undocumented APIs, if the damn page loads properly > in Firefox to begin with) and write something myself to process > them outside the browser without Javascript. > Or simply fix the javaScript so it actually works... -- "What do you think about Gay Marriage?" "I don't." "Don't what?" "Think about Gay Marriage."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-27 23:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mrb85hFeoclU7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #79913 |
On Sat, 27 Dec 2025 13:04:01 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > For every possible network connected client? > Lets see. An I-phone one, and android one - several android ones - a > windows one, a MAX OSX one, a Linux one, and a BSD one, and maintain all > of those.... > > ...or piggy back of a ubiquitous smart client called 'a browser'...? Precisely. We developed an Android app and the plan was to also port it to the iPhone. Dealing with Apple was such a pain in the ass the iPhone version was dropped. The web client only needed a browser, any browser, although Safari was marginal. No installation required. In public safety and other industries not having to install applications is a plus. Back when IE completely sucked they were even reluctant to install Firefox.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-28 14:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <fuo72mxcj1.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #79936 |
On 2025-12-28 00:24, rbowman wrote: > On Sat, 27 Dec 2025 13:04:01 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> For every possible network connected client? >> Lets see. An I-phone one, and android one - several android ones - a >> windows one, a MAX OSX one, a Linux one, and a BSD one, and maintain all >> of those.... >> >> ...or piggy back of a ubiquitous smart client called 'a browser'...? > > Precisely. We developed an Android app and the plan was to also port it to > the iPhone. Dealing with Apple was such a pain in the ass the iPhone > version was dropped. The web client only needed a browser, any browser, > although Safari was marginal. No installation required. In public safety > and other industries not having to install applications is a plus. Back > when IE completely sucked they were even reluctant to install Firefox. Even in the 90's I used Netscape, not the Windows thing. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-29 03:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mrec00Ftqk8U15@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #79959 |
On Sun, 28 Dec 2025 14:46:23 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: > Even in the 90's I used Netscape, not the Windows thing. With Windows 3.1 there wasn't much of a choice other than lynx. It amazes me that with all the millions they've dropped into it Microsoft has never written a decent browser. Even Edge 1.0 sucked until they gave up and forked chromium. That must have hurt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-26 11:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10ils0m$2kcl3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #79805 |
On 2025-12-24, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 06:25:18 -0600, kouya wrote: > >> Am I supposed to be content with horrible design choices? > > You could always design your own, and show us how it’s done. > > Anybody can criticize what experts do, not anybody can actually do > better. These days, most of the time, it isn't about *experts*, but about 1) Frameworks depending on features that are either syntax-breaking or for which no fallback is used. These are then used by third-parties breaking a bunch of sites all at once, even without these parties themselves being aware of this brokenness. 2) People learning to do web sites this way and who are not even aware you can do things differently, let alone serve content without scripting (which reportedly is starting to be a trend; I haven't seen it myself yet, but I can imagine it happening...). When some widely used framework adds backwards-incompatible code, there can be a sizeable user base deploying that and breaking websites. Take, for instance, Mastodon upstream, which started relying in stuff like dynamic imports. Mastodon, at least in version 4, never cared about being compatible, or at least never appeared to care, it seems most of it is "let's make a TSNFKAT clone", but at least it used to work in more browsers than it does now. Whether it still works depends on whether a given instance is using the newest branches of 4.*. (Yes, I'm aware one thing is their official web UI and the other is the service itself. No, stating that doesn't make that specific web UI magically work.) -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-26 08:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <20251226084234.00004fb0@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #79805 |
On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 19:11:25 -0000 (UTC) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > > Am I supposed to be content with horrible design choices? > > You could always design your own, and show us how it’s done. > > Anybody can criticize what experts do, not anybody can actually do > better. Many of us *do*, in fact - but having our own particular corners of the Web designed in a relatively clean and sane manner does nothing to help with the parts of it we have no control over.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-26 19:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10imn7p$2sgbl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #79871 |
On 26/12/2025 16:42, John Ames wrote: > On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 19:11:25 -0000 (UTC) > Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > >>> Am I supposed to be content with horrible design choices? >> >> You could always design your own, and show us how it’s done. >> >> Anybody can criticize what experts do, not anybody can actually do >> better. > > Many of us *do*, in fact - but having our own particular corners of the > Web designed in a relatively clean and sane manner does nothing to help > with the parts of it we have no control over. > My bank is particularly irritating. You log in through a series of steps that go down the page, but end in 'is your credit card locked?' The button to say 'proceed' is WAY off to the right and, at any level of zoom, off screen... -- If I had all the money I've spent on drink... ..I'd spend it on drink. Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-26 21:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10imtk0$2ua5c$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #79871 |
On Fri, 26 Dec 2025 08:42:34 -0800, John Ames wrote: > On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 19:11:25 -0000 (UTC) > Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > >>> Am I supposed to be content with horrible design choices? >> >> You could always design your own, and show us how it’s done. >> >> Anybody can criticize what experts do, not anybody can actually do >> better. > > Many of us *do*, in fact - but having our own particular corners of > the Web designed in a relatively clean and sane manner does nothing > to help with the parts of it we have no control over. Somehow I don’t think that applies to most of the armchair critics here ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-24 11:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10igjla$v06c$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #79709 |
On 2025-12-22, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Mon, 22 Dec 2025 14:43:14 -0800, John Ames wrote: > >> On Mon, 22 Dec 2025 22:27:19 -0000 (UTC) >> Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >> >>> This is why browsers allow you to override site style definitions >>> with your own. >> >> Yes, but it would be very much nicer if that wasn't *necessary.* > > On the contrary. This is an integral part of the whole concept of > separating form from content. That there's often not an easy way to override rules without site-specific code is a great disadvantage. Maybe some implementation can make this easier with special handling of user styles. I find myself having to use !important a lot when doing CSS hacks. -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-24 11:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10igjhd$v06c$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #79706 |
On 2025-12-22, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Mon, 22 Dec 2025 13:58:23 -0800, John Ames wrote: > >> Whether it's things like hijacking or "papering over" links with CSS >> constructs that make it impossible to get to one page without going >> through another page first and artificially boosting page views >> thereby (looking at you, YouTube,) designing layouts that are >> completely non- functional if assumptions about DPI/resolution >> aren't met, requiring JS to display static page content, or any of a >> dozen other common abuses ... > > This is why browsers allow you to override site style definitions with > your own. How do you do that in current releases of Firefox, btw, is userContent.css still a thing there? @-moz-document got (IIRC) disabled by default there at some point, is it still present? -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-24 11:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10igj8v$v06c$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #79705 |
On 2025-12-22, John Ames wrote: > On 22 Dec 2025 08:14:15 +1000 > not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote: > >> That's perfectly reasonable in my book. I don't believe in >> specifying exact fonts, sizes, etc. via CSS. Use <small> in plain >> HTML if you want small text and the user can configure their >> browser to display it in the way that works for them. Except where >> some browser makers choose silly default behaviours for some >> elements, plain HTML (4.0 Transitional) works to the user's best >> advantage. I do most of my browsing with CSS turned off so all that >> styling nonsense is ignored. > > I do use some basic CSS for basic theming and layout, but overall I > agree that treating webpages as a medium for graphic design (not to > mention gimmicky JS navigation that all too often breaks standard > browser-navigation conventions) is wrong-headed and counterproductive, > if not outright abusive. Unfortunately, "wrong-headed, counter- > productive, and abusive" is the name of the game in this year of our > Lord 2025 :/ I feel like linking https://raw.githubusercontent.com/thepracticaldev/orly-full-res/master/breakingthebackbutton-big.png (Text description which I used in a post [1] on a platform where this problem is present (Mastodon, in the official web UI): > O'Reilly-style "Animal Book" cover, featuring a shark. On top has the > text "Ruining something the browser gave you for free".The book title > reads "Breaking the Back Button: Fragile Development Guide" (Image by > @ThePracticalDev, CC BY-NC 2.0, > https://github.com/thepracticaldev/orly-full-res ) ) [1] https://social.sdf.org/@njsg/110587665362892865 On 2025-12-22, John Ames wrote: (cont'd) > > Whether it's things like hijacking or "papering over" links with CSS > constructs that make it impossible to get to one page without going > through another page first and artificially boosting page views thereby > (looking at you, YouTube,) designing layouts that are completely non- > functional if assumptions about DPI/resolution aren't met, requiring JS > to display static page content, or any of a dozen other common abuses, > it's absolutely epidemic - and while I can keep my own little corner of > the Web tidy and sane, and I've seen an encouraging trend in that > direction among young hackers and hacker-adjacent blogosphere types, > there's only so far you can go without being exposed to some godawful > bletcherous monstrosity of mainstream web design. It's enough to make > you long for Gopher... Mastodon's official web UI is quite strong on these issues. It's amazing that you get more from a "page info" dialog with the metadata than from looking at a post page without Javascript. That is, they are serving the post content inside HEAD as metadata, but refuse to make it easy to load it without JS. Even if it required JS to load replies, it's already serving text and images from the post, so it'd not cost more to put it in the body... -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-26 08:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <20251226083844.000028b2@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #79776 |
On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 11:37:03 +0000 Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote: > I feel like linking > > https://raw.githubusercontent.com/thepracticaldev/orly-full-res/master/breakingthebackbutton-big.png > > (Text description which I used in a post [1] on a platform where this > problem is present (Mastodon, in the official web UI): Gah, *yes.* There are bigger offenders in terms of usability, but that one stands out for sheer unnecessary malevolence; you have to *work* to break it, which tells you a lot about the web designers who do. > Mastodon's official web UI is quite strong on these issues. It's > amazing that you get more from a "page info" dialog with the metadata > than from looking at a post page without Javascript. That is, they > are serving the post content inside HEAD as metadata, but refuse to > make it easy to load it without JS. Even if it required JS to load > replies, it's already serving text and images from the post, so it'd > not cost more to put it in the body... Profoundly aggravating - all the more coming from something developed by people who are *supposed* to be more knowledgeable than the average corporate IT drone.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-21 02:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10i7ko1$2dvlm$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #79591 |
On 20/12/2025 17:20, Lars Poulsen wrote: > On the contrary, I am NOT a web developer, and I when I put up things on > the web, I do not care about formatting: I make it as simple as I can, > in the same kind of "wall of text with a few embedded images" that was > the norm in 1995. No JavaScript, no PHP; if I need backend code, it is > a simple Perl script that generates simple, primitive HTML. I do not > even use CSS. Neither am I a web developer but I know what I want my sites to look like and do so they use HTML, CSS, supplied fonts PHP. JavaScript, AJAX ,SQL and any other thing I cant avoid *to get the result I want* And that is the main thing for me. I know what I want the end result to be, and how I get there is the shortest route that I know of. If I want to say update a database in real time without hitting a 'submit' button that is Ajax, JavaScript PHP and SQL. As soon as you are done entering the data is silently updated. To make sure the browsers all use the same font, I supply a copy of it. Everything else is fixed format CSS. It's repeatable. mostly. If I want to send someone a document I use a PDF. But that is not what my websites do. -- “Progress is precisely that which rules and regulations did not foresee,” – Ludwig von Mises
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-21 02:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10i7nj1$2esdl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #79618 |
On Sun, 21 Dec 2025 02:06:57 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > If I want to say update a database in real time without hitting a > 'submit' button that is Ajax, JavaScript PHP and SQL. PHP doesn’t do a good job with WebSockets, though.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-27 18:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pan$6e7a3$2f465686$281d577f$fa433983@linux.rocks> |
| In reply to | #79567 |
On 27 Dec 2025 12:45:03 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: > > The "binary versus text" argument is > exactly why, unlike your saying, html gives more freedom to the end user > than pdf. That's why it shouldn't be replaced by pdf. It could be > replaced by markdown or something else if you want, but not by pdf. > The intelligent world does not agree with your idiotic assessment. If one performs an Internet search for any advanced math or science topic one will discover that the majority of informational web pages are distributed as PDF file links. These smart people don't want to deal with bullshit HTML. PDF can be viewed on *any* viewport and can be scaled to billboard proportions. The same applies to other document formats such as ODF, DejaVu, or PostScript. Thus, my idea is already WIDELY PRACTICED, and no technically competent person would ever consider your asinine claims. Again, for the sake of a bumbling idiot like you, I will stress that this idea applies to INFORMATIONAL websites. Other types of websites may benefit from that ridiculous HTML circus. -- Gentoo: the only road to GNU/Linux freedom and perfection.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web