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

18-year-old personal website, built with Frontpage and still updated

fmboschetto.it

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 487 posts

Re: 18-year-old personal website, built with Frontpage and still updated

#411

Post by jimhi »

giantrobot wrote: post #409
jimhi wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of those exploits are from plugins. If they aren’t using those they can also change the default login url. Also Wordpress lets you export and reimport to current versions without coding. I think it’s one the best future proof platforms, most of the web still runs on it.

Many WordPress exploits are in plug-ins but there's still plenty in the base install (over multiple versions). Also suggesting that "most of the web" runs on WordPress is a bit absurd. WordPress accounts for a huge portion of spam-y SEO blogs and other outright noise on the web. It's popular no doubt but definitely not most of the web. It's popularity and porous security is a big problem as it's such a huge malware d…

"WordPress is used by 62.5% of all the websites whose content management system we know. This is 35.8% of all websites." - https://w3techs.com/technologies/details/cm-wordpress

It's okay if you hate it, but these are the stats

Re: 18-year-old personal website, built with Frontpage and still updated

#412

Post by int_19h »

scarface74 wrote: post #231
bjornjajajaja wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft has been fairly good at allowing older binaries to run on newer systems. Apple is pretty annoying in this regard. There’s a lot of software that doesn’t work on versions maybe only 5 years old. A lot of software doesn’t need to change to be honest. Microsoft word for example. Word processing: you sit down and type stuff, maybe change the font once or twice. I guess the collaborative features are nice being…

You haven’t tried to run 16 bit software on 64 bit Windows have you?

There are some third-party implementations of NTVDM that allow running 16-bit DOS and Win16 apps directly on Win64. Although DosBox is still the easiest route, and "good enough" in practice.

Re: 18-year-old personal website, built with Frontpage and still updated

#413

Post by int_19h »

scarface74 wrote: post #362
virtue3 wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_(API) "Carbon was an important part of Apple's strategy for bringing Mac OS X to market, offering a path for quick porting of existing software applications, as well as a means of shipping applications that would run on either Mac OS X or the classic Mac OS. As the market has increasingly moved to the Cocoa-based frameworks, especially after the release of iOS, the need for a port…

So, what exactly did you say they refuted anything I said? The Carbon API was 32 bit only and was supported until the latest release of MacOS. Do you realize how many deprecated end of life frameworks that Microsoft has been lugging around for decades? So should Apple have kept support for 68K software in 2019? Also, do you realize that for all intents and purposes the entire .Net Framework is deprecated and EOL exce…

And yet you can still run .NET 1.0 apps on Win10, and this isn't changing in the foreseeable future.

Hell, you can run VB6 apps on Win10 - it even ships the runtime! - and the remaining hold-outs in that developer community have been complaining about abandonment for two whole decades now.

Re: 18-year-old personal website, built with Frontpage and still updated

#414

Post by int_19h »

scarface74 wrote: post #369
kome wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but look at the code... are modern website really better? i think that FrontPage did an awesome job there.

There were all sorts of FrontPage server side extensions to IIS that you could use to support your site if I am not mistaken.

FPSE was mostly about publishing; think a proprietary version of WebDAV. So it was used by FrontPage itself, but not by the HTML produced by it.

Re: 18-year-old personal website, built with Frontpage and still updated

#415

Post by euler_angles »

ygjb wrote: post #237
scarface74 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You haven’t tried to run 16 bit software on 64 bit Windows have you?

Not to be snarky, but if there is a need to do this, it's pretty easy. If there is a real need, it is pretty trivial to do with VirtualBox or DosBox. Those applications from 20 years ago running in emulators will work far better in 20 more years than Apps from today that stop working due to remote service dependencies to force vendor lock-in. It is endlessly amusing to me that the more tightly integrated the cloud se…

When I worked for a NASA contractor doing sounding rocket telemetry, the main telemetry stack programming software was a Turbo C program from 1987-1990 (TDP502.exe on the odd chance that the maybe 50 other people on the planet who have ever used it sees this). Works just fine in DOSBox, at least to create files. Still needed an actual older PC with an ISA slot to handle the hardware that TDP knew how to control. But for configuration tasks, Windows + DOSBox + a USB 3.5" floppy drive = I could do things on an actual modern system.

So yeah, you're right, emulation saves the day in many cases. And I felt like a programmer-archaeologist using DOS to launch something into space in the 2010s...

Re: 18-year-old personal website, built with Frontpage and still updated

#416

Post by scarface74 »

int_19h wrote: post #413
scarface74 wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, what exactly did you say they refuted anything I said? The Carbon API was 32 bit only and was supported until the latest release of MacOS. Do you realize how many deprecated end of life frameworks that Microsoft has been lugging around for decades? So should Apple have kept support for 68K software in 2019? Also, do you realize that for all intents and purposes the entire .Net Framework is deprecated and EOL exce…

And yet you can still run .NET 1.0 apps on Win10, and this isn't changing in the foreseeable future. Hell, you can run VB6 apps on Win10 - it even ships the runtime! - and the remaining hold-outs in that developer community have been complaining about abandonment for two whole decades now.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/framework/install/ru...

The .NET Framework 1.1 is not supported on the Windows 8, Windows 8.1, Windows Server 2012, Windows Server 2012 R2, or the Windows 10 operating systems. In some cases, the .NET Framework 1.1 is specifically identified as required for an app to run. In those cases, you should contact your independent software vendor (ISV) to have the app upgraded to run on the .NET Framework 3.5 SP1 or later version. For additional information, see Migrating from the .NET Framework 1.1.

Re: 18-year-old personal website, built with Frontpage and still updated

#417

Post by scarface74 »

criley2 wrote: post #260
scarface74 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if emulation or a VM is your go to. How is that any different than what yuh can do with older versions of MacOS?

Virtualizating Windows isn't very hard, even back to something like Windows 95. On the other hand, only OSX 10.7+ are really easy to run in a VM, and .5 and .6 only work for servers, and anything before 10.5 isn't really going to be compatible with virtualization. That's 2007, so OSX lets you virtualize back about 13 years, and Windows you can go back almost 30 years. People even have Win 3.1 running in VMware. This…

You act as if no x86 OS X software that was written before 10.7 will run on 10.7.

Re: 18-year-old personal website, built with Frontpage and still updated

#418

Post by randomdude402 »

nonamenoslogan wrote: post #297
randomdude402 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know a person who is maintaining a few sites she built in like 2005 with a version of Dreamweaver a little older than that, so never dares to upgrade the Dreamweaver version. The whole thing is terrifying and horrific to me, but they keep paying her to do the work so she's fine with it.

I actually just finished redesigning my site with static HTML using Dreamweaver 2004 on an iBook G4. Why? Why not? My little brother passed away a couple years ago and I inherited his iBook, and I have decided its going to be my personal laptop from here out even if all I use it for is VNC to one of my other computers. Plus, as mentioned above it can still run all that delicious old Mac stuff from System 7 through OS…

I cut my teeth using Dreamweaver for tripod and geocities sites way back in the last century and have fond memories of it. It was great for templating headers and footers before I discovered PHP, which I have less fond memories of, but that's another story.

With all the churn in certain areas of tech, it's easy to forget how much stays the same.

I was using Macromedia Fireworks MX from the early 2000's right through about 2013 to do graphics for sites I was building people on the side.

I used it while it got several version updates, Adobe took it over and updated it for five or six years, and then discontinued it.

Meanwhile I was still using the old version to make beer money.

I only quit using it because I finally admitted I kind of suck at graphic design. Besides, there doesn't seem to be much need for graphic design in much of the modern mobile-first, material design world anyway.

I bailed on the whole thing and have been sticking to back end at the day job these days. Things move at a slightly less hectic pace back here for me most of the time.

Re: 18-year-old personal website, built with Frontpage and still updated

#419

Post by duckmysick »

SilasX wrote: post #265
jsaldes wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you actually tried the site on a mobile device? It's impossible to read the text and navigation is hell. Wouldn't classify that as "mobile friendly".

What do you mean? It has reasonable column width so you can zoom in and out as necessary, often with a double tap. That is, it leaves it up to the client to adjust as necessary -- in contrast with the typical mobile site, which: 1) Forces a particular size/resolution, locking out zoom capabilities 2) Has a floating header with a constant size relative to your device screen, blotting out the same real estate no matter…

> so you can zoom in and out as necessary

That's the thing - it shouldn't be necessary. I don't do that on desktop browsers; why should mobile devices be any different? If the site is not legible, I set the desired zoom once and I'm done. There's no need to go back and forth.

Now, I can't do that if the elements stay mismatched on mobile. I have to zoom in and then back when I want to interact with small elements - each time. It gets old when I have to click tiny links or upvote arrows more than a few times. It's jarring and not a good user experience.

> And, of course, using the same header pixel height for portrait vs landscape, making the latter practically unusable.

The floating header issue notwithstanding (I don't like them either), this is exactly why the web designers should tailor their elements to different viewports.

> It's generally better to have a site that obeys the standards

Yes, and that also includes accessibility guidelines. Compatibility with keyboard navigation is one of them, but so is the size and spacing of the controls, links, and buttons.

Re: 18-year-old personal website, built with Frontpage and still updated

#420

Post by xattt »

scarface74 wrote: post #280
criley2 wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Virtualizating Windows isn't very hard, even back to something like Windows 95. On the other hand, only OSX 10.7+ are really easy to run in a VM, and .5 and .6 only work for servers, and anything before 10.5 isn't really going to be compatible with virtualization. That's 2007, so OSX lets you virtualize back about 13 years, and Windows you can go back almost 30 years. People even have Win 3.1 running in VMware. This…

A quick Google search for running PPC Mac software under emulation. https://www.thefreecountry.com/emulators/macintosh.shtml#pow... For the most part yes. If you want to run Mac software you need to own Mac. As far as going back 30 years. Now you’re in the Classic Mac era. There are plenty of cross platform emulators that run Mac software that old. If you want to go back 40 years. Apple // emulators are a dime a doze…

Thanks for the flashback! I remember when PearPC was announced!

I’d been wanting a Mac for several years, but had little understanding of how it worked. PearPC let me try it out and a get a glimpse of Mac OS X.

Post reply on HN