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

151–160 of 285 posts

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

#151

Post by vetinari »

kevincox wrote: post #55
zinekeller wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and presumably on other OSs Nope, it only happens when something outside changed Firefox's files (in this case when Ubuntu swapped files because dpkg updated Firefox). This never happens* in Windows and macOS (it might nag, but you can definitely dismiss it). It seems that johnchristopher has a suggestion to disable auto-updates on a specific application in Debian and Ubuntu (haven't tested it though): https://news…

This is exactly right. And this happens because it needs to load libraries or exec subprocesses that aren't compatible between versions. Since the matching version of the file has been replaced with a newer one it doesn't really have a choice, it is unable to launch the new tab. The nice message is a better alternative than crashing. This also doesn't occur on NixOS because the new version is in a different direcotry…

> This also doesn't occur on NixOS because the new version is in a different direcotry and the old version is kept until it is garbage collected.

Also with flatpak; you are using the old version until you close it. Then it will be garbage collected. On the next launch, you will be running a new version from different root.

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

#152

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

The Phoenix browser was the best I've ever used. From v0.1 to v0.5 it continually shrank in size, as improvements were just on speed, size, and the user experience. At v0.5 it was six-and-a-half megabytes. But by 0.6 it was getting bigger again. It already had enough of an HTML engine to render 95% of the web... but people just wanted more and more and more features, and refused to put them anywhere other than in the browser, defeating the point of the whole project.

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

#153

Post by olalonde »

nine_k wrote: post #105
olalonde wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is not a "bad" thing, but it's not what the Average Joe wants , it's more what the Average Joe is incited to do. More clicking (on ads directly, or on "engaging content" that shows more ads) is what the business owners want from an Average Joe. But "people do it == people directly desire it" is a manifestly wrong metric. When something is in short supply in a store, people will line up to secure the chance to bu…

> This is not a "bad" thing, but it's not what the Average Joe wants, it's more what the Average Joe is incited to do. More clicking (on ads directly, or on "engaging content" that shows more ads) is what the business owners want from an Average Joe.

This is a bit of a philosophical question.

Are there things we want that weren't somehow influenced by society (e.g. family, peers, advertisements, culture, etc.)? I'd argue very few things, aside from the basic biological needs. By corollary, almost everything we want is the result of external influence.

> But "people do it == people directly desire it" is a manifestly wrong metric. When something is in short supply in a store, people will line up to secure the chance to buy it. But Apple would be insane to think that people lining up to buy a newest Macbook on the day or release want lining up, and that more lining up is what they'd enjoy. People tolerate lining up to get what they desire. Equally, people tolerate more clicking in order to get what they desire, and what they'd likely prefer to obtain with one click.

If you measured line up times at Apple stores, you would almost certainly find out that its effect (of longer line ups) is a decrease in revenue (and therefore not something people want). If your point was that metrics can be misinterpreted and misused, I absolutely agree with you.

My question was specifically about the revenue/engagement metrics commonly used for software. To me they seem like reasonable proxies that you are building software people want.

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

#154

Post by jussij »

For anyone who was actually around at that time you need to remember Windows was Windows 95 and that meant a badly behaved application generally required a reboot.

From what I remember of that time, Windows Explorer seemed a little faster, but most importantly it also seemed to require fewer reboots.

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

#155

Post by exodust »

somecommit wrote: post #85

Need some max-width to whatever the average screen was back in 1999. True story, I re-uploaded a website that I wrote in 1999, only now I discover that my header was never centered, if was just floating left. It's the only thing that look off, everything else is working perfectly. HMTL/CSS/JS is really a stable stack for the computer field.

800 pixels was common screen width in 99. Even then it was not considered good practice design-wise to allow text to run the full width like it did in the mid 90s! No max-width, it had to be constrained with tables.

Yep agree it's a stable stack. I have a few archived sites I made in the 90s that work fine in today's browser, rollover JS buttons and all. My disdain for IE is visible in code. I was a Netscape guy for sure!

  if(navigator.appVersion.indexOf("MSIE 3")== -1) {
    imageObjectSupported = true; // this line only executes in browsers that
    support  Javascript 1.1 except of course for IE3, which thinks it supports
    Javascript 1.1, but doesn't.
  }

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

#157

Post by queuebert »

jussij wrote: post #154

For anyone who was actually around at that time you need to remember Windows was Windows 95 and that meant a badly behaved application generally required a reboot. From what I remember of that time, Windows Explorer seemed a little faster, but most importantly it also seemed to require fewer reboots.

That's not my memory of it. Windows 95 introduced the Task Manager, which obviated some of that. Maybe I was lucky in having well-behaved applications.

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

#158

Post by doubled112 »

tannhaeuser wrote: post #58
badsectoracula wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah that is annoying, though personally i find browsers as the one category of software where i think this is fine, mainly because of security updates (it sucks that they tend to come with UI updates but at least on Firefox so far the main UI is fairly customizable and have made my own) but also because they are online software anyway .

Does a browser really have to be so complex that it warrants updates more often than the very sites that are being browsed? Contrast this with the design of idk MP3: a relatively simple and ultra-stable decoder app with a large variety of backend pipelines that can create MP3s. That's how the web pre-JS, pre-CSS was like. Or, with a perspective from information theory: downloading hundreds and hundreds of megabytes a…

Even your simple example, MP3 decoders, that do one thing, have had code execution exploits and other security issues over the years. WinAMP had CVEs for it.

All software will have bugs. I want my fixes fast and often to an environment where I run untrusted code from that many places.

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

#159

Post by queuebert »

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.

This is like all the anti-vegan humor. There must be a mental condition in which someone proselytizing is interpreted as a personal attack.

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

#160

Post by danjoredd »

ecmascript wrote: post #140
NotYourLawyer wrote: post #3

My modern version of this is browsing with JavaScript disabled. Most of the sites that don’t work weren’t worth my time anyway.

Wow. I wonder how you use stuff like instant messaging, music streaming and so forward. Do you also skip all browser based desktop apps because you hate Javascript so much? Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

No need to get upset at the guy. Its their choice to use Javascript in the way they want, rather than let any site that wants it use it. Most websites with articles don't need Javascript, and only use it to push ads/paywall articles. If there is a webapp that they want to use, they can always whitelist it.

As for music streaming and instant messaging, not everyone has/needs Discord, Slack, Teams, or anything like that. If you absolutely need it for work, just whitelist it. No problemo. And, not everyone streams music. I barely used Spotify myself until I got an office job and needed something to fill the boredom.

The issue isn't about stopping Javascript as a whole. The issue is about permissions management. Not every site needs it, so not every site should have it. If you need it to work for a webapp, just enable it.

Post reply on HN