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

471–480 of 487 posts

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

#471

Post by cptskippy »

scarface74 wrote: post #466
cptskippy wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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"…

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. The two weren’t initially slated to diverge at all. .Net Framework and .Net Core were suppose to be separate implementations of “.Net St…

> The two weren’t initially slated to diverge at all. .Net Framework and .Net Core were suppose to be separate implementations of “.Net Standard”.

Uh... no. Hard fucking no. .NET Standard is the commonalities between Core and Framework. Core and Framework were NEVER the same or intended to be the same.

Framework is all of the legacy Windows specific Libraries for things like the File System, Active Directory, etc.

Core is intended to be platform agnostic and cross platform.

Read this, specifically Figure 5:

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/archive/msdn-magazine/2017/...

> The last version of Visual Studio that supported Compact Framework was VS 2007.

Windows Embedded Compact 2013 shipped with CF 3.9 in 2012.

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

#472

Post by dredmorbius »

derefr wrote: post #462
dredmorbius wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether or not it's intended to be a hidden source format, the fact remains that if it does not render reliably and repeatably , it's failing to do its job. Markdown's job is to be a human-readable, lightweight, unobtrusive way of communicating to software how to structure and format a document . It's one thing for a freshly-entered document to fail -- errors in markup occur and need to be corrected. It's another to…

> Markdown’s job is... communicating to software No, that’s a misunderstanding. Markdown is, as I said, a formalization of existing practice. Nobody’s supposed to be “writing Markdown” (except computers that generate it.) You’re supposed to be writing plaintext styled text the same way you always have been in plaintext text inputs. Markdown is supposed to come along and pick up the pieces and turn them into rich text…

Interesting viewpoint, though not one that persuades me.

At least not today ;-)

Human expression is ultimately ambiguous. In creating some typographic output, you've got to ultimately resolve or remove that ambiguity. Preferably in some consistent fashion.

There's an inherent tension there. And either you live with the ambiguity or you resolve it. I lean on the "deambiguate" side. Maybe that means using Markdown as a starting point and translating it ultimately to some less-ambiguous (but also less convenient) format, as I've noted.

But that means that the "authoritative source" (Markdown manuscript) is not authoritative, at least as regards formatting guidelines. Whether or not this is actually a more accurate reflection of the status quo ante in previous, print-based, typographic practice, in which an author submits a text but a typesetter translates that into a typographic projection, making interpretations where necessary to resolve ambiguities or approximate initial intent, I don't know.

Interesting from a philosophical intent/instantiation perspective though.

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

#473

Post by stjohnswarts »

TingPing wrote: post #396
smush wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

wxWidgets is a poor platform abstraction that just results in the lowest common denominator of UI.

It's fine for small apps and in-company utilities and isn't hard to use at all if you're a c++ house.

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

#475

Post by scarface74 »

dahauns wrote: post #470
scarface74 wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are complaining that you can’t run 25 year old Mac software on an x86 Mac, the only option is for Apple to ship MacOS with a 68K emulator and a PPC emulator. The first version of MacOS that ran natively on x86 came out in 2006. Yes I realize that PPC Macs came out in 1994. But they required a 68K emulator because even parts of MacOS were 68K.

>If you are complaining that you can’t run 25 year old Mac software on an x86 Mac But I ain't. I'm arguing that for vast stretches of Mac OS/OS X/macOS history, even 5 year old software has been a gamble.

There were a few breaking change epics in MacOS history.

There were three major breaking changes for MacOS.

- If you bought the x86 version of software in 2006. It would potentially work until 2019 when Apple dropped 32 support.

- If you bought the first first version of OS X PPC software in 2001, it could potentially run until July 2011 with the release of 10.7.

- If you bought a classic MacOS app, it could run from pessimistically from 1992 with the release of System 7 to 2006 with the introduction of the first x86 Macs.

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

#476

Post by SilasX »

duckmysick wrote: post #468
SilasX wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True. Zooming in shouldn’t be necessary. And mobile sites shouldn’t use floating headers or footers. And they shouldn’t hijack interface modes. And they should pick sizes that don’t feel like a straitjacket or make it seem like you’re peering at it through blinds. And they should be accessible and standards compliant. But I wasn’t comparing to the three or four mobile-optimized sites that satisfy all that. I was refe…

> What would you cite as an example of a mobile site that is more usable than this one? This one being the Italian one from the submission or the Hacker News itself? I'm assuming the Italian one. Off the top of my head, sites with good mobile version and similar structure (lots of text and links) are Wikipedia and The Guardian. One tiny nitpick are tables with multiple columns in Wikipedia articles. This is a common…

Yes, Wikipedia is one of the better ones! But even so, I still find myself switching to the desktop version whenever I need to link a specific section, or get more of the text in view, or view the article in a different language, or not lose my section when come to a page via the back button.

I checked out Guardian.co.uk (assuming that's what you meant), and yes, it is a pretty well designed site that works great on and doesn't seem to even distinguish mobile vs desktop users. But still, this is about the only mobile site I couldn't find anything wrong with. This isn't the typical 99% site.

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

#477

Post by dahauns »

scarface74 wrote: post #475
dahauns wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you are complaining that you can’t run 25 year old Mac software on an x86 Mac But I ain't. I'm arguing that for vast stretches of Mac OS/OS X/macOS history, even 5 year old software has been a gamble.

There were a few breaking change epics in MacOS history. There were three major breaking changes for MacOS. - If you bought the x86 version of software in 2006. It would potentially work until 2019 when Apple dropped 32 support. - If you bought the first first version of OS X PPC software in 2001, it could potentially run until July 2011 with the release of 10.7. - If you bought a classic MacOS app, it could run from…

Yes, we already talked about this. The keyword here is "potentially", which I'd swap with "theoretically".

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

#478

Post by tasuki »

giantrobot wrote: post #273
tasuki wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been running a WordPress blog since early 2006 with very little maintenance. I'm sure it's all outdated again, but still appears to work.

If you haven't been keeping the WP back end up to date it's not functionality that's a problem it is security. Unpatched WordPress installs account for a huge portion of malware distribution. There's a number of exploits that allow attackers to upload files to your server. So they upload malicious payloads that exploits then download to infected systems.

> If you haven't been keeping the WP back end up to date it's not functionality that's a problem it is security.

I'm aware. It got hacked in like 2007 but (I think?) never since. I run some other stuff on that box and sometimes look at the resource usage etc.

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

#479

Post by bluGill »

collinmanderson wrote: post #448
bluGill wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Is the machine connected to the network/internet? Are you planning on any software updates? I'm curious how you plan on handling https root certificate updates.

Https is something I haven't figure out. If anybody has a good answer to this please let me know.

The only thing I can come up with is http (no s!) and firewall rules that limit connections to 192.168.1.xxx - or otherwise not allowing connections from outside of the local subnet. I don't like it, but I don't have a better plan.

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

#480

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

why-oh-why wrote: post #432
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, how do the rest of you test if a field accepts or rejects html?

What field accepts or rejects html? What are you talking about?

If, say, an admin text field is supposed to have the ability to support and display HTML on an end users machine.
Post reply on HN