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

451–460 of 487 posts

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

#451

Post by scarface74 »

FireBeyond wrote: post #450
scarface74 wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which would be no different to a macOS app hard coding a check for 10.3 and not working if you have anything newer. Neither says that the app _couldn't_ run, just that a badly thought gate prevents it.

Whether the app could run or not is irrelevant if the app doesn’t run. There must be enough apps that don’t run that MS thought to call it out.

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

#452

Post by bangboombang »

cptskippy wrote: post #406
scarface74 wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if Apple kept “25 years” of backwards compatibility, should they have been better off bundling a 68K and PPC emulator? Why stop there? They should have kept compatibility with the Apple //e and also bundled a 68K emulator? Someone else was complaining that they didn’t keep FireWire. Should modern Macs come with ADB ports?

I have a Windows 10 PC with a PCI (not express) slot that I installed a Firewire card in last year to use 15 year old software still available from Sony's website to rip a stack of Digital8 home movies.

I tackled that project about two years ago. Asked around and a friend had an old laptop with FW port, so I installed Ubuntu on it and copied all my old Video8 and Digital8 Tapes.

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

#453

Post by cptskippy »

scarface74 wrote: post #381
dahauns wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds to me more like the ported programs were short lived - and IMO, in that they are not entirely wrong. Sure, Carbon and Rosetta certainly were no mean feat, and the drastic PPC/x86 break is something Microsoft never really had to deal with (heh, the biggest problem trying to run a PPC/MIPS/Alpha based NT application today is actually finding one :) ). But Apple never went to the same lengths as Microsoft regardi…

Carbon was declared obsolete in 2012 but wasn’t discontinued until 2019. Porting from PPC to x86 was relatively easy. But you’re also forgetting about the first transition - from 68K to PPC. Can you run the PPC version of any Windows NT apps?

PPC to x86 possibly the smoothest transition I've seen in my lifetime, for most it was just a recompile, and I'm convinced it was only as smooth as it was because of the shit show transition to OS X.

Apple announced it's plans to move to OS X in 1997 and that they'd ship an emulator, Blue Box, to run classic apps. That was met with a resounding "no" from the community.

Carbon was never suppose to exist, the Classic APIs were not memory safe, don't support thread, and had a lot of other issues. Apple wanted a clean break in the form of Cocoa but the community said no. So Apple came up with Carbon, which was sort of a port of Classic APIs to OS X, but because the two operating systems were so different it wasn't anywhere close to a 1:1 copy and required developers to port to it.

Since it's inception, Apple wanted Carbon dead, it required them to rewrite core parts of OpenStep in C and they had to maintain them alongside their Obj-C equivalents. It took them 12 years to get to the point where they felt comfortable killing it off and almost 20 years before they actually could.

> Can you run the PPC version of any Windows NT apps?

Developing for PPC was much like targeting x86 and PPC on a OS X. It was mostly a recompile unless the App used assembly. You can't run the PPC version of an NT app on modern hardware just as you can't run the PPC version of an OSX app on MacOS.

The difference thought is that PPC on NT never took off so there's something like 4 or 5 Apps for NT versus the thousands or hundreds of thousands for OSX.

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

#454

Post by thomasz »

scarface74 wrote: post #435
int_19h wrote: post #424

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.

If app developers explicitly prevent their code from running on future platforms, this is hardly the fault of the platform.

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

#455

Post by cptskippy »

scarface74 wrote: post #451
FireBeyond wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which would be no different to a macOS app hard coding a check for 10.3 and not working if you have anything newer. Neither says that the app _couldn't_ run, just that a badly thought gate prevents it.

Whether the app could run or not is irrelevant if the app doesn’t run. There must be enough apps that don’t run that MS thought to call it out.

> There must be enough apps that don’t run that MS thought to call it out.

The callout exists because Microsoft takes a different approach to support from Apple. Microsoft provides support material for all of it's legacy and deprecated software, as well as the ability to download and install them. So it's important to identify and track incompatibilities between them.

When Apple moves the past is whitewashed over and when support stops they forget it ever happened.

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

#456

Post by cptskippy »

scarface74 wrote: post #385
jsgo wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've only heard complaints from Silverlight and Windows Phone/Mobile developers anecdotally. From a web perspective (and my experience), .NET Framework 2/4 -> Core is actually not a big changeover outside of the views (probably better if you switched to MVC). The Windows Phone apps I built are dead now, but that isn't a matter of APIs no longer being supported, but an entire platform going under. As a macOS user, I h…

The entire ASP.Net Core and Entity Framework architecture was changed and is not compatible. Not to mention all of the legacy third party .Net Framework only third party packages that don’t work. Microsoft also completely abandoned Windows CE/Compact Framework while there were plenty of companies that had deployed thousands of $1200-$2000 ruggedized devices for field services work.

> The entire ASP.Net Core and Entity Framework architecture was changed and is not compatible.

There's been a lot of confusion, due in no small part to Microsoft's branding and communication, but what you said is not at all accurate if not intentionally misleading.

What's been know as .NET for the last 20 years is now called ".NET Framework", this is not unlike how OS X is now called MacOS retroactively. ".NET Core" is an entirely new framework that just happened to be compatible with ".NET Framework" but as time goes on the two have diverged.

> Not to mention all of the legacy third party .Net Framework only third party packages that don’t work.

".NET Framework" and ".NET Core" are similar to Cocoa and Cocoa Touch in the sense that you can write code that will compile under both AND you can write code for either that will be incompatible with the other. In fact I maintain a half dozen packages that are compatible with both.

> Microsoft also completely abandoned Windows CE/Compact Framework while there were plenty of companies that had deployed thousands of $1200-$2000 ruggedized devices for field services work.

Microsoft didn't "abandoned" Windows CE, it stopped development for it 6 years ago as it was largely dead and Microsoft offers many pathways off of Windows CE. The CF actually runs on platforms other than CE intentionally such that any apps written for the CF will just work elsewhere. AND they still support CE and CF to this day, they just don't maintain or develop new versions of them.

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

#457

Post by ta999999171 »

StavrosK wrote: post #441
ta999999171 wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(In Greece, to be clear)

That is a vile and noxious rumor. My mirrors have never been touched in the twenty years I've been driving.

Good to know! Will scratch that from my list of stereotypes, haha - be well, man.

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

#458

Post by StavrosK »

ta999999171 wrote: post #457
StavrosK wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a vile and noxious rumor. My mirrors have never been touched in the twenty years I've been driving.

Good to know! Will scratch that from my list of stereotypes, haha - be well, man.

You too! It's interesting, though, my friend who now lives in the US always remarks on how, in the US, you can just drive mindlessly on autopilot, whereas here you need to be paying 100% attention at all times due to people always swerving in and out of stuff.

I hate driving here.

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

#459

Post by giantrobot »

jimhi wrote: post #411
giantrobot wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Wow, TIL that "36%" is most. Your own quote tells you that their measurements are only sites they scan and can determine the CMS used. As I said, WordPress is extremely popular in the SEO spam community and powers thousands of dead blogs, but it's a far cry from powering "most of the web".

None of that is material to the original point that thousands upon thousands of unpatched WordPress sites might work but also deliver tons of malware. WordPress' popularity is problematic because it has had a d will keep having serious security problems. WordPress exploits are entirely automated and performed constantly by zombie networks.

Post reply on HN