Ironically, it loads as fast as a 1999 web page on dialup.
1999.io: Blogging like it's 1999
101–110 of 113 posts
Re: 1999.io: Blogging like it's 1999
#102> Please sign on to Twitter to access your stuff.
Re: 1999.io: Blogging like it's 1999
#103When I was blogging in 1999 it involved appending each new blog entry to the top of the html page which went in the content frame. And I don't think I'd heard of "blogging" yet.
That was how I did it, too. Monthly, I'd archive posts, to allow archive perusal by months. I wasn't tied to any particular software. I got hosting with friends who set up their own blogs at their own domains. All of us were in or just out of high school, no real plans for the future, lots of free time to post and talk over AIM/MSN.
In retrospect it was primitive, and it worked. There was a huge scene around all this - everyone had their blogs, and those with an eye for colour and design were doing cutting-edge presetation in idiosyncratic ways. I really miss this when taken against today's single-page, "FOL.IO IS A PLATFORM FOR MANAGING WORMS" type of web.
mc's online journal was what drew me into all of this. It's been offline for probably 20 years now, but it was deeply personal and intense, and wonderfully written.
Re: 1999.io: Blogging like it's 1999
#104I don't know if this is some type of cynical irony, but calling your software "blogging like it's 1999" whilst using a .io domain creates many feelings for me.
Should have been a .nu domain!
Re: 1999.io: Blogging like it's 1999
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
..and the fact that no one called it blogging in 1999.
http://essaysfromexodus.scripting.com/whatIsScriptingNews "My name is Dave Winer. Scripting News is my weblog, started on April 1, 1997. It's the longest continuously running weblog on the Internet."
Sure, that's when the term was coined, but no one talked about having blogs in 1999. Words I did hear it called back then are "personal website", "finger", or "zine".
Re: 1999.io: Blogging like it's 1999
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh my god. Frames. The horror... We used to append content into a single page because the alternatives were A) independent post files and a cgi script to concatenate them dynamically on each view, or B) re-create the static page from individual post files. Since using a database was totally overkill, and static + individual posts wasted precious megabytes, and a new dynamic process per page load was way too CPU-inten…
Methinks you are selling older computers short. I ran my blog (up through 2005, maybe to 2006) on a 50MHz 486 with 32?MB RAM (maybe 64MB? It's been a decade) and a gig hard drive. That same server was also my email server. Then again, I wrote my own blogging engine in C [1] (and still use it). [1] https://github.com/spc476/mod_blog
Sure, you could do plenty with old 486's. But not hosting thousands of weblogs generating dynamic content. Not without load shooting up to 100, anyway. For a paltry few visitors, not so bad, but the more users and higher the traffic the worse it'd get.
I should add that I completely forgot (has it been that long?) about the hacks we'd use to speed up dynamic content. Since there were no competent threading models for PHP and Perl at the time, we would use either FastCGI, or mod_php or mod_perl. The former would allow you to build app servers to handle multiple requests without terminating, to speed up initialization and share/cache memory. The latter would embed a PHP or Perl interpreter in the Apache process, eliminating lots of overhead, enabling better communication, and of course allowing you to prefork multiple Apache processes and execute scripts as soon as a request came in, and optionally stay resident in memory. But that's just execution speed; if you're reading from flat-files and spitting them out one by one, that's still a very i/o-bound operation and eats up more CPU than necessary.
And ultimately, very few web hosts allowed using mod_perl or mod_php, and no weblog maintainer ever wrote FastCGI (nor were the servers configured for it). So everything was forked at run-time, leading to very slow page loads for any CGI script - unless you ran your own server, of course. It wasn't until later that LAMP development became more common and people started putting the kitchen sink into MySQL and PHP.
Re: 1999.io: Blogging like it's 1999
#107In 1999, I could view a simple page containing nothing but text without requiring me to download, compile and execute a massive wad of code in a huge bloated VM with a JIT. There's no need for any javascript there, try having a web page.
I don't know where you were in 1999, but where I was in 1999 IE4's DHTML was all the rage among the elite wannabe high school web developers. Early explorations into XMLHttpRequest (via this awesome ActiveX technology, wow) and DHTML Components (which perhaps unsurprisingly don't seem all that different from today's Web Components under the surface).
(I'm only remembering some of this because I recently dug up some of my actual circa 1999 website work.)
Re: 1999.io: Blogging like it's 1999
#108This amuses me, partly because I recently uploaded some backup archives of my actual 1999 websites and blogs to GitHub.
http://blog.worldmaker.net/2016/06/07/portrait-web-developer...
The web in 1999 was a very different place, and not a lot of it survives in even the Internet Wayback Machine (web.archive.org).
Re: 1999.io: Blogging like it's 1999
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you mean the SpaceJam website? http://www.warnerbros.com/archive/spacejam/movie/jam.htm I go here every now and then. Not sure why.
I see "frozen in time" Omniture (Adobe) analytics tags, but no Google.
Strange, I remember it being there just a few months ago when someone posted it.
Re: 1999.io: Blogging like it's 1999
#110In 1999, I could view a simple page containing nothing but text without requiring me to download, compile and execute a massive wad of code in a huge bloated VM with a JIT. There's no need for any javascript there, try having a web page.
I don't know where you were in 1999, but where I was in 1999 IE4's DHTML was all the rage among the elite wannabe high school web developers. Early explorations into XMLHttpRequest (via this awesome ActiveX technology, wow) and DHTML Components (which perhaps unsurprisingly don't seem all that different from today's Web Components under the surface). (I'm only remembering some of this because I recently dug up some o…
I was on the same web you were. The one where doc ozone was a bizarre novelty and well over 99.999% of text based sites had no javascript at all, much less being entirely created from javascript.