441–450 of 487 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oii, what the fuck, hahahaha.... From what I've heard, you might as well smash your side mirrors off at the dealer when you buy a car, aha...so, yeah, checks out.
(In Greece, to be clear)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could use a static website generator such as Jekyll or Hugo. Then, if the tools stop working for any reason, you always have the generated HTML than you can update.
Hugo has a single static binary. So the site will always generate the same way with the same binary.
Once worked on an enormous, very popular site built by hand in Frontpage. It had millions of pageviews, made over 6 figures a month in AdSense and been updated so often and for so long that the owner didn’t actually know how many pages there were. Had to hire someone just to index it. Not bad for plain old html and css.
Ah, the old days of the web, when it was possible to make money via AdSense. Users would actually bookmark sites those days, so there was no need to throw an email signup popup in their face when the page loaded. The comments would have real people conversing, and not filled with spambots pushing fake Guccis and Air Jordans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it odd too that they did some minor releases, yet python 3 was not on the radar. End of life is correct. It is end of life since it doesn't run on current platforms. I am not sure if the latest distributions (Ubuntu, Debian, RedHat) have all removed python 2 packages. If not, it will be gone with the next major release. You're going to be in trouble to run software with no available interpreter, plus all the l…
> I am not sure if the latest distributions (Ubuntu, Debian, RedHat) have all removed python 2 packages. If not, it will be gone with the next major release Red Hat has not. Ubuntu has not in its most recent stable release. Debian "unstable" is still using Python 2, so I don't think your statement holds up. https://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=redhat https://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=ubuntu htt…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 - e…
But I wasn’t comparing to the three or four mobile-optimized sites that satisfy all that. I was referring to the more typical millions that don’t.
And yes, given how bad they are, I’d much rather have suboptimal design that I can recover from with a pinch or a double tap than one I can’t.
What would you cite as an example of a mobile site that is more usable than this one?
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…
I was able to convince the bosses to let me take on the fixing-the-site project solo, even though my job has little do with IT. I replaced it all with a static site generator I wrote in Go. No logins, no PHP, no database, nothing to exploit in the first place. Anyone in the office can update it by copying images into arbitrary subfolders in the generator's images folders, and double-clicking the update executable. It builds and uploads a fresh site in a couple of minutes with nice gallery carousels. And as a bonus it loads basically instantly on even the bargain-basement shared hosting we're on.
I do wish that IE compatibility wasn't one of the bosses' firm requirements, due to a lot of our clients not being tech people and still using IE on decade-old computers. Life would be so much simpler if I could just use CSS grids for layout. I f'ing love grids.
My personal site was posted on September 12, 1999, is still updated, and has no problems. It;s a static site that mostly uses straight HTML/CSS. There are a few scripts that generate pages, but generating HTML/CSS pretty easy. https://dwheeler.com . Geocrasher said: > I guess what I'm saying is that if you want to build a site to last 25 years without numerous redesigns, build a static HTML page. Yes. I don't get pai…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you can generalise the advice: remove as many processing steps as you can. It's not so much that you needed to guess that HTML was going to be as long-lived as it is, it's that HTML is the final product that actually loads on the users computer, and those tend to stick around for a long time (or at least be emulated). The code that lives on a backend server somewhere, not so much. For what it's worth, I don't…
Google controls the major web engine. I don't trust google to not deprecate parts of html over time because the new shiny is "better". I would rather maintain markdown generators which I can update to change the markup to whatever the latest google insists needs to work instead of rewriting all my documents. I'm currently tasked with writing a UI for a machine that has a 25 year expected lifespan before wear means it…
My personal site was posted on September 12, 1999, is still updated, and has no problems. It;s a static site that mostly uses straight HTML/CSS. There are a few scripts that generate pages, but generating HTML/CSS pretty easy. https://dwheeler.com . Geocrasher said: > I guess what I'm saying is that if you want to build a site to last 25 years without numerous redesigns, build a static HTML page. Yes. I don't get pai…
No kidding. Already, I've found some interesting articles to read. I'm taking a look at https://dwheeler.com/essays/easy-cross-platform-gui.html , which has references to XULRunner etc. which since 2009 have fallen out of favor. Would you continue to recommend those wanting to invest in (for the 80% of use cases) wxWidgets for FLOSS cross-platform GUI apps? BoaConstructor et. al look interesting. Thanks for taking th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't install .NET 1.x itself on Win10. But you can install .NET 3.5, and it can run .NET 1.x apps.
From the article “In some cases, the .NET Framework 1.1 is specifically identified as required for an app to run” By “specifically identified” it means that some applications actually hard coded a check of 1.1.