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

Why I Don't Use Netscape (1999)

complang.tuwien.ac.at

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 285 posts

Re: Why I Don't Use Netscape (1999)

#91

Post by forgotmypw17 »

exitb wrote: post #74
forgotmypw17 wrote: post #70

I still use this strategy, though these days, I primarily use Mosaic and Netscape for testing. I tend to browse without JavaScript enabled, except for places I already trust to not abuse it. And if there is anything blocking me from accessing the page, such as a modal dialog, a cookie notice, a survey, a prompt to sign up for the newsletter, I close the tab. Over time, I have found that type of rude lack of considera…

Are there any version of Mosaic that are able to handle modern HTTPS?

Still plenty of websites which run on HTTP. I know mine certainly do.

Security isn't everything, there's also accessibility to think about.

HTTPS breaks in many circumstances when it's not needed, including on current browsers.

You can also use a stripping proxy.

Bigger issues I've encountered with actually using Mosaic is that a) it does not support the Host header, so you must have a dedicated IP address, and b) it doesn't like semicolons in then Content-Type header, which most of today's servers include.

Re: Why I Don't Use Netscape (1999)

#93

Post by artogahr »

olalonde wrote: post #78
dkarl wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And companies writing the software that average people use are motivated solely by "what the average Joe wants," where "what the average Joe wants" is defined by business metrics like "how much is Joe clicking" and "how much is Joe spending."

I assume you don't believe this is a good thing? How would you measure "what the average Joe wants"?

I'm inclined to make the comment that the "average Joe" doesn't actually know what he wants, in respect to what's actually good for him in the long term.

Re: Why I Don't Use Netscape (1999)

#94

Post by nine_k »

mrtksn wrote: post #20

So the "movement" against modern browser features is not a movement and has nothing to do with these features but its simply a version of "kids these days lost their ways" thinking. A version of conservatism, I guess. "Everything was better in the good old days" and "The new generation is horrible, the humanity is doomed" kind of thoughts are probably a manifestation of fading youth.

No. It's not about anything old; it's about stripping things down to their essence.

A browser that can render text, and not much beside the text, emphasizes the text of a page, which, for many pages, is the content the user came for. Everything else is fluff.

In modern times, "Reader mode" in browsers does the same thing: removes fluff to make reading easier.

Of course it's great that now browsers support advanced features and enable amazing interactive pages like https://ciechanow.ski/internal-combustion-engine/, or just "simple" GMail. But such pages, and such highly interactive web applications, are fewer and further between than most pages that provide value by showing just static text and static images.

Re: Why I Don't Use Netscape (1999)

#95

Post by scarface74 »

badsectoracula wrote: post #13

Considering all the discussions about JavaScript and sites with primarily text requiring it, this looks like the more things change, the more they remain the same :-P. Also see Wirth's Plea for Lean Software[0] from 1995 for another "timeless" issue. I did find this bit interesting too... > Apart from this practical reason, there's a principal one: The first time I invoked Netscape, it said that it is obsolete and re…

The issue with that when it comes to browsing is that old browsers have security issues that hopefully are patched, and more secure protocol versions.

Re: Why I Don't Use Netscape (1999)

#96

Post by danielbln »

forgotmypw17 wrote: post #87
DonHopkins wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, who needs google maps anyway? Just use the Xerox PARC Map Viewer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_PARC_Map_Viewer

Google Maps is one of the sites I still whitelist, but I often reconsider this decision, and I'm ready to find a replacement. Today's Google Maps is a shadow of its original self, which did have a no-JS version, by the way. It has gradually gotten simultaneously heavier, less convenient, more annoying, and less useful, and I've just about had it. Just off the top of my head, it no longer displays zip codes, takes a l…

> it no longer displays zip codes

Strange, it does for me, everywhere where it shows an address.

Re: Why I Don't Use Netscape (1999)

#97

Post by efficax »

badsectoracula wrote: post #13

Considering all the discussions about JavaScript and sites with primarily text requiring it, this looks like the more things change, the more they remain the same :-P. Also see Wirth's Plea for Lean Software[0] from 1995 for another "timeless" issue. I did find this bit interesting too... > Apart from this practical reason, there's a principal one: The first time I invoked Netscape, it said that it is obsolete and re…

i don’t want most of my software to auto update but i certainly want the browser, which ingests untrusted data from unknown sources constantly, to get bug fix updates automatically.

Re: Why I Don't Use Netscape (1999)

#98

Post by nine_k »

Tepix wrote: post #57

Still relevant today. Sites that break with adblockers are usually shit. Why? Well probably because if the site developers themselves don't have adblockers, they are clueless.

Sites that break with ad blockers are built to show ads. They only incidentally show any content, in order to lure users to see the ads. Users with ad blockers have negative value for such sites.

Sites that are built to show content but depend on ads to sustain the operation usually show a plea to support the site in a different way (by a donation or something) if they notice that ads are blocked. I find this more honest.

Re: Why I Don't Use Netscape (1999)

#99

Post by mellavora »

tannhaeuser wrote: post #19
badsectoracula wrote: post #13

Considering all the discussions about JavaScript and sites with primarily text requiring it, this looks like the more things change, the more they remain the same :-P. Also see Wirth's Plea for Lean Software[0] from 1995 for another "timeless" issue. I did find this bit interesting too... > Apart from this practical reason, there's a principal one: The first time I invoked Netscape, it said that it is obsolete and re…

Firefox on Ubuntu (which I'm not using anymore for these and other reasons) and presumably on other OSs does exactly that: refuse to open new tabs/sites once every two weeks or so, telling me "one more thing we need to do" ie self-update. So you're loosing all your browsing context, though FF does a better job restoring it after restart than it used to, but still that's user-hostile and self-important as fuck. And th…

Firefox on Mac. I have this problem as well, even with "autoupdate" set to true. Also, if I am browsing in the middle of an auto update, it refuses to open new tabs.

And each update logs me out of my password manager

Worse, now this is happening to Thunderbird. Wasn't an issue until about a month ago. Now I need to re-install Thunderbird every few weeks because they've pushed an update.

When from my point of view, as a user, I haven't seen a new feature which I truly wanted in over 5 years, maybe more like 10.

Re: Why I Don't Use Netscape (1999)

#100

Post by Ensorceled »

alpaca128 wrote: post #35
YesThatTom2 wrote: post #14

I was at a startup from 2000-2003 where the chief scientist was a security wonk and demanded that our product worked with and without JavaScript enabled. No wonder the startup failed. Imagine trying to make a useful product with one hand tied behind your back!

I just checked, Google and Amazon still work flawlessly without JS. And many other "useful products" too. The question is, if a startup can't make a site that works without JS, are they actually focused on the product? Assuming it's not a webapp, of course.

You're making two completely different versions of your web product: one with a rich, modern experience using JavaScript and the other using vanilla get/post.

I've built several SaaS products and I can't imagine building a complicated product that supports both a JS and no JS version with a small, startup team.

Post reply on HN