Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Orange Forum – Web 1.0 style forum written in Go

goodoldweb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 178 posts

Re: Show HN: Orange Forum – Web 1.0 style forum written in Go

#51

Post by wybiral »

ktta wrote: post #44
tptacek wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The math/random point is well taken. The hex.EncodeToString() point is a nit. Generate 128 bits of randomness, and then encode it however you'd like. The track record of people trying to get "generate random numbers in the alphanumeric range" isn't great; it's an opportunity to reintroduce bias. Start with a random token of sufficient size, then encode. The Argon2 vs. bcrypt thing is unhelpful. It does not matter wha…

Where do you think Argon2 should be present before it is considered to have good library support? AFAIK, it is in libsodium, debian, ubuntu, and other distros. And I think one can also make mistakes with scrypt when choosing parameters which Colin himself acknowledged. So isn't it time to go ahead with Argon2?

This project is in Go and Argon2 isn't a part of the standard crypto (https://golang.org/pkg/crypto/#pkg-subdirectories) or additional crypto (https://godoc.org/golang.org/x/crypto) libraries.

There are a few 3rd party implementations... But is it more secure to use a lesser known 3rd party package to have Argon2 support or is it more secure to use the more widely adopted bcrypt package supported by the Go dev community?

Re: Show HN: Orange Forum – Web 1.0 style forum written in Go

#52

Post by candiodari »

The irony is that because of the lean structure behind the server, this forum actually responds faster than most webfora that do use AJAX/SPA.

Funny given that the whole purpose of AJAX/SPA was to reduce response time. That's it's reason for existing.

Turns out it just complicates things ...

Re: Show HN: Orange Forum – Web 1.0 style forum written in Go

#54

Post by xyzzy_plugh »

weberc2 wrote: post #24
binaryapparatus wrote: post #5

Works beautifully with w3m which has become my main site test lately. Another great example is HN itself. If it doesn't work well with w3m something is wrong with the site philosophy or execution.

> If it doesn't work well with w3m something is wrong with the site philosophy or execution. Point of clarification: "wrong" according to your moral philosophy about web sites, even if it's one I happen to share.

What's the other sort of wrong?

Re: Show HN: Orange Forum – Web 1.0 style forum written in Go

#55

Post by erikpukinskis »

CM30 wrote: post #30
mseebach wrote: post #26

Ok, sorry, bitter old man coming through: this is Web 2.0, not 1.0. For all the buzzwords, Web 2.0 was defined by the dynamic interactive solicitation of user input as opposed to Web 1.0 being just static HTML. I don't think we've coined a good catchphrase for fat applications implemented in tons of Javascript with only lightweight AJAX calls to the backend. And then, of course, there's Web 0.1: https://thedailywtf.c…

Nah, this is as 1.0 as you can get, assuming you're not asking for completely unstyled text. Forum scripts with this sort of simplicity were around for decades, with UBB being created in 1996 (and having significantly more features than this software), and basic scripts like WWWBoard dating back to 1995 or earlier. It was AJAX and processing data via JavaScript that was a web 2.0 thing (for the most part), not just s…

Nope. Flickr was the quintessential Web 2.0 app, and it wasn't very JavaScript heavy at the start. Web 2.0 was fundamentally about user-generated content.

Re: Show HN: Orange Forum – Web 1.0 style forum written in Go

#56

Post by erikpukinskis »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #31
mseebach wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia disagrees. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0

Yeah I was looking at that too. The definition is kind of nonsensical. Slashdot met that definition in 1997 but nobody was calling it that at the time. Web 2.0 became a very popular buzzword with Digg, Flickr etc. Or at least that's how I remember it, the author is not "wrong" for referring to it by a very popular definition. Also see: http://www.paulgraham.com/web20.html I think everyone would agree that democracy a…

You're wrong. Neither Digg nor Flickr had anything to do with AJAX. You're thinking of the "Web App" era precipitated by Google Maps. That's a whole 'nother thing.

"Web 2.0" and "crowdsourcing" were more or less one in the same.

Maybe people (including Graham) have been trying to revise "Web 2.0" to include more things, to simplify the taxonomy. But when Web 2.0 first started being discussed, it wasn't about JavaScript, it was just about interactivity, specifically writeability.

Re: Show HN: Orange Forum – Web 1.0 style forum written in Go

#57

Post by devmunchies »

in the demo when a response is massive it takes a long time to load. example: https://groups.goodoldweb.com/topics?id=33

It needs to limit entries to a certain number of characters where you can click a "see all" button to see the rest of the long entry.

Re: Show HN: Orange Forum – Web 1.0 style forum written in Go

#59

Post by KajMagnus »

Can I ask what (if any) are your future plans with this? And what's the reason you decided to create it? (only to showcase web 1.0 style forums, or ... other reasons too?)

For example are you planning to provide hosting?

Continue developing the open source version and add features like spam protection? Google and FB login?

Re: Show HN: Orange Forum – Web 1.0 style forum written in Go

#60

Post by sitkack »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #28
mseebach wrote: post #26

Ok, sorry, bitter old man coming through: this is Web 2.0, not 1.0. For all the buzzwords, Web 2.0 was defined by the dynamic interactive solicitation of user input as opposed to Web 1.0 being just static HTML. I don't think we've coined a good catchphrase for fat applications implemented in tons of Javascript with only lightweight AJAX calls to the backend. And then, of course, there's Web 0.1: https://thedailywtf.c…

"Web 2.0" came around about 2004ish with Digg and other sites using AJAX. Or at least static content was not the defining factor. There were plenty of forums around in the late 90s with dynamic content.

Web 2.0 is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XMLHttpRequest and JS did meaningful work on the client.
Post reply on HN