Live data from Hacker News

Why Prefer Textfiles? (2010)

textfiles.com

11–20 of 50 posts

Re: Why Prefer Textfiles? (2010)

#11

Unlike Word files, there is no chance of a Macro Virus in them. I sent our family lawyer some documents converted to Text by request.

Comically the use of curl | bash managed to shoehorn them in there, and there were the occasional terminal escape characters that could do funny and sometimes mischievous things.

There used to be something of a game of making specific files that would change screen colors or play songs off terminal bells, etc, tailored for specific terminals or command prompt windows. I remember a few short animated sequences using various backspaces and colors that only really worked if you could expect the text to be loaded at specific baud rates or in specific BBS software.

Re: Why Prefer Textfiles? (2010)

#13
post #5

Unlike Word files, there is no chance of a Macro Virus in them. I sent our family lawyer some documents converted to Text by request.

I've known people one-shot by pure text, like Atlas Shrugged, The Communist Manifesto, The Bible, The Qur'an, The Selfish Gene, Godel Escher and Bach, etc. Don't underestimate text.

The real version of the information hazard in Snow Crash.

Re: Why Prefer Textfiles? (2010)

#17
post #14

The poor readability of the site itself is the best case against its core point

It rather supports the site's core point, because that point is about plain text files, not HTML and CSS. Plain text is as readable as it is possible to be.

Besides, this is exactly the kind of site HN constantly laments the loss of - unique, quirky, basic and rough around the edges.

Re: Why Prefer Textfiles? (2010)

#18
post #17
post #14

The poor readability of the site itself is the best case against its core point

It rather supports the site's core point, because that point is about plain text files, not HTML and CSS. Plain text is as readable as it is possible to be. Besides, this is exactly the kind of site HN constantly laments the loss of - unique, quirky, basic and rough around the edges.

> Plain text is as readable as it is possible to be.

Which is nonsense, of course, just like this site illustrates. Trivial formatting and layout changes make it more readable.

> Besides, this is exactly the kind of site HN constantly laments

And this is exactly the beside-the-point response you sometimes encounter on HN. I'm not a representative of the collective HN, so why does it matter that some other people did some lamenting some time ago?

Re: Why Prefer Textfiles? (2010)

#19
post #8

It's always interesting to me that these plaintext sites are flagged as "insecure" and "risky" by modern browsers. I don't have a good solution, but it reminds me of [1] [1]( https://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2018/08/07/securing-sites... )

They are insecure, because your ISP can change website responses and text format doesn't protect from that. So basically browser can't guarantee that you're looking at original web server response.

Re: Why Prefer Textfiles? (2010)

#20
post #8

It's always interesting to me that these plaintext sites are flagged as "insecure" and "risky" by modern browsers. I don't have a good solution, but it reminds me of [1] [1]( https://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2018/08/07/securing-sites... )

They are insecure, because your ISP can change website responses and text format doesn't protect from that. So basically browser can't guarantee that you're looking at original web server response.

Insecure only if HTTP instead of HTTPS.

The format being text, html, video, or an executable program has nothing to do with it.

Post reply on HN