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

111–120 of 285 posts

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

#111

Post by Qub3d »

loloquwowndueo wrote: post #108
badsectoracula wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is also possible that stuff are getting worse though. After all i remember friends of mine who were in university raging on how bloated the web was around 2000 and i'm 99% certain they weren't middle-aged men disguised as teenagers :-P. If anything i don't remember knowing anyone above 25y back then who even cared about web stuff. After all having some people see and complain about things getting worse doesn't mea…

We always complain about bloat and slowness, then we build faster machines and networks and bigger storage, and software and content promptly expand to fill it all up and make it feel sluggish again. For a chuckle try running old software on a modern computer (fire up dos box and run WordPerfect or something) and be amazed at the speed of the thing. that is why we built a faster computer :)

We've made machines so much faster that a lot of old software is unusable because its too fast.

One of my favorite examples: Lego Island's driving mechanic is tied to frame rate, so on a modern machine tapping left or right will fling your car 90+ degrees: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CmqbccCqI0

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

#113

Post by Qub3d »

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…

DuckDuckGo uses Apple Maps, which has quietly become a solid alternative the past few years. (https://xkcd.com/2617/)

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

#114

Post by dwringer »

tbran wrote: post #110
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…

I feel like the strategy of closing sites with newsletter sign-ups, dialog, etc. is just going to waste your time. If I'm searching for something, I just want the information. Not gonna close websites till I find one that has no popups/modals!! Popup Blocker [0] and uBlock Origin for Firefox will do a pretty good job of getting rid of the junk you don't want. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/popup-block…

There are pros and cons to the approach. Information from such actively hostile sites tends to be of a lesser quality and of questionable reliability anyway IMHO.

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

#115

Post by forgotmypw17 »

tbran wrote: post #110
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…

I feel like the strategy of closing sites with newsletter sign-ups, dialog, etc. is just going to waste your time. If I'm searching for something, I just want the information. Not gonna close websites till I find one that has no popups/modals!! Popup Blocker [0] and uBlock Origin for Firefox will do a pretty good job of getting rid of the junk you don't want. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/popup-block…

It may seem that way, but I have found it to be very effective.

In my comment, I was thinking of the context of links I click to from HN.

But it also works when searching for information. When I close the tab of an unfriendly site, which, remember, likely has lower-quality information than an accessible one, I am immediately freeing myself to click the next link in the search results and get my information from an accessible site with higher-quality content.

Given the disparity of the quality of content, it is quite likely that I would have ended up at the latter site anyway.

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

#116

Post by forgotmypw17 »

imiric wrote: post #106
forgotmypw17 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Security isn't everything, there's also accessibility to think about. TLS is not just about security. It also protects the authenticity of your content, ensures privacy and even accessibility for your visitors. Without it, any node between your visitor and your server could inject content and JavaScript to do all sorts of nefarious tracking and profiling. These days there's really no excuse for using plain HTTP on…

Actually, there is a very good excuse: I want to access the content I need with the browser and configuration I currently have, and without the ability to alter it.

While the threat of MITM is technically true, thanks to being on a relatively safe networks segment, I have yet to encounter it happening in the real world, except in cases of captive portals, when I actually want it to happen.

I think it is largely an over-stated threat for most read-only applications.

The impact on accessibility, on the other hand, is real and huge.

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

#117

Post by forgotmypw17 »

Qub3d wrote: post #113
forgotmypw17 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

DuckDuckGo uses Apple Maps, which has quietly become a solid alternative the past few years. ( https://xkcd.com/2617/ )

Thanks for recommending it. It does look quite usable, other than lacking transit directions, and I plan to give it a try.

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

#118

Post by mrtksn »

badsectoracula wrote: post #38
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.

It is also possible that stuff are getting worse though. After all i remember friends of mine who were in university raging on how bloated the web was around 2000 and i'm 99% certain they weren't middle-aged men disguised as teenagers :-P. If anything i don't remember knowing anyone above 25y back then who even cared about web stuff. After all having some people see and complain about things getting worse doesn't mea…

When you look back, you can notice patterns: Something new and amazing comes out and it promises to take the humanity to a new age. At first it is fuelled by enthusiasm where believers work for free on it just to make it great and pay their bills by working for money on the old-school stuff. Their prime motivation is not profit.

Then this thing starts becoming profitable in the sense of bringing street cred and money and new kind of people rush in with their new ideas how to use this new thing. These new people don't share the same ideas with the original believers but they know how to build machinery around it to make it profitable and appeal for the masses. The new thing that was supposed to change the world becomes a concentrated and optimised version of the things before it.

The believers then become bitter purists and try to fight the new order by disowning the current technologies or methods and cater for the niche hipster elitist circles when the rest continues do their thing.

You can see it in everything, you can see it in printing press you can see it in Radio, you can see it in TV, you can see it in things that are not media: cars, clothing, shaving, coffee - everything.

Things don't become worse, they just become mainstream and that mass adoption is run not by purists but by people with no regard to the original ideals of the technology and masses love it this way and stays this way until its made obsolete by something else.

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

#119

Post by rdez6173 »

forgotmypw17 wrote: post #88
frou_dh wrote: post #40

How do you know that someone chooses to disable JavaScript in their browser? Answer: Don't worry, they'll tell you about it.

How do you know someone has cognitive impairment which makes it difficult to use JS-heavy sites and/or is using an older device which has performance issues with heavy sites? Answer: Don't worry, they just won't be able to use your site.

The same could be said about the use of images on a site.

The solution is to develop sites with accessibility in mind. Use a screen reader; experience what ALL your users will experience. Experiment with various rendering tools to emulate color blindness.

There are even more tools to performance tune your website.

This all comes down to the site author taking the time to cater to as many users as possible. It is not inherently a problem with the use of JavaScript, or dynamic elements.

So, yeah, there are a lot of shitty websites out there. Folks that choose to deliberately cripple their browser are more likely to see these shortcomings.

Post reply on HN