>internet is weighed down with javascript and tracking so even just puretext can take ages to render because of all the stuff on top of it
Come home, white man.
>>53845099
Ehhh, mysticBBS. Fucking horrible software, as anyone who used my BBS knows.
>>53845099
Can't be, unless you have a really old PC. I rarely see such badly written websites that pile on the visual transitions that it's barely usable.
>>53845099
>what is ublock.
>>53845099
>he doesn't use NoScript
>>53846611
>Idiot
>>53845099
>What is NoScript
>>53846793
>use noscript
>nothing loads
>just big announcement that you need javascript
>allow main domain to execute
>nothing loads
>experiment to get the site actually working again
This is not the way it was meant to be.
>>53846876
It's better than the way it is with no JS blocker
>>53846876
Just click 'allow all on this page' on pages you trust.
>>53846916
>implying you can trust anything these days
Javascript web developer here.
>>53845099
If you actually run the chrome developer tools you can see what's slowing the page down, it's more likely that some faggot thought it'd be a good idea to have a massive fucking useless picture or video on the page. Its hard to put so much Javascript on a page that it'll outweigh the average image.
>>53846793
>>53846795
>noscript
There are plenty of reasons to build a web application so that its not 100% dependent on Javascript for rendering, accessibility and page load times are good reasons. Catering for noscript babies like you isn't one of those reasons.
>>53846876
>This is not the way it was meant to be.
Javascript and AJAX is probably the main reason we haven't stopped using the web by now in favour of some better thought out system. Microsoft had given up on the browser after Netscape folded and were developing .NET, but someone discovered that browsers had XMLHttpRequest and invented AJAX in 2005, so the web transformed from a document retrieval system designed with no security in mind, to an application delivery system which is now basically moving all of our money around and running our economy.
I hope the Seif Project works out and we can just replace the web altogether with Javascript over TCP.
>>53847129
Which is why we have NoScript to disable your shitty code. :^)
Can't stop us.
>>53847129
>>53846449
Your thoughts are respectfully requested
>>53847129
Yes, let's make it so that all the web pages execute code on your machine. I really like this idea!
>>53847129
>There are plenty of reasons to build a web application so that its not 100% dependent on Javascript for rendering, accessibility and page load times are good reasons. Catering for noscript babies like you isn't one of those reasons.
How fucking retarded are you?
>>53847186
I don't really care whether you choose to disable an essential part of your browser's functionality. Just don't complain when nothing works right.
>>53847187
I don't think you're going to kill clickbait headlines with a browser plugin, but good luck sempai.
>>53847205
What are you talking about? Javascript runs inside a secure sandbox in your browser. That's why we've been trying to kill Flash and Java applets, because in order to run them you need a shitty vulnerable plugin to run shit. Javascript running in the browser has no access to anything on your computer.
>>53847280
>Just don't complain when nothing works right.
I'm not.
>>53847247
Not retarded enough to spend time thinking about how to cater for the tiny minority of /g/tards who use noscript. For the same reason I don't think about whether or not my page will work on Netscape Navigator 4.
>>53847129
>someone discovered that browsers had XMLHttpRequest and invented AJAX in 2005,
I worked at a startup in 2002, writing a GPS navigation system for PocketPC. We used a Flash frontend that communicated with a C++ backend (local). We were using XMLHttpRequest. I've hardly done any web-oriented projects (ancient ColdFusion work, a little PHP later), but I find it *amazing* that it took so long for XMLHttpRequest to be widely exploited, and that it took on the trendy name "AJAX".
Then again, I'm also amazed how long it took for JSON to come about after years of obsession with bloated (and almost always poorly written) XML.
>>53847129
>Its hard to put so much Javascript on a page that it'll outweigh the average image.
Clearly you've never seen how many domains some sites pull from.
>>53847344
I like how SOAP stands for Simple Object Access Protocol, and its convoluted fucking bullshit compared to JSON.
>>53847280
>Just don't complain when nothing works right.
When "not working right" is the page not consuming a huge amount of system resources to render, in comparison what it's actually rendering, then I'll be happy with a site being broken.
>>53847420
>>53847386
Some sites are shit and are made by morons, that's not Javascript's fault. You can produce a shitty bloated unusable page using just by HTML and CSS too.
>>53847413
It's like the whole tech world went insane for about five years. I mean, maybe SOAP was "simpler" (to some people) than COM, but the XML obsession was wildly out of hand.
I remember reading in Dr Dobbs, or some similar publications, a write-in question asking how to convert their Oracle database to XML. They thought XML was the hot new way to store information, thus their database should be converted to it. Blew my mind.
>>53847280
>Javascript running in the browser has no access to anything on your computer.
Well, technically it does, doesn't it? Isn't there some facility for local storage nowadays?
It's sandboxed, but there's always the possibility of an exploitable bug.
Oh, man, remember the ActiveX days? A wonderfully concise solution from the naive days of the early Internet.
>>53847129
It's often not the amount of JS, but more what people do with it, doing all sorts of stupid DOM acrobatics and messing with scrolling and animating crap etc etc.
JS doesn't bother me when it's adding light interactivity, but it should stop there.
>>53847326
I never asked you to cater to me or anything like that. I suggested NoScript to help negate the shittiness your kind has contributed to the fucking web.
>>53847763
Before HTML there was SGML, which was very fucking convoluted. The SGML community didn't like what Tim Berners-Lee did with HTML... so they got into the W3C and tried to push XML and XHTML, which was a big pile of fucking bullshit that everybody hated.
>>53848379
fugg. I meant you >>53847730
>>53847763
>Well, technically it does, doesn't it? Isn't there some facility for local storage nowadays?
You're referring to localstorage and things like serviceworker.
You can have storage inside of a sandbox, but Javascript can't start rifling through your filesystem.
>It's sandboxed, but there's always the possibility of an exploitable bug.
You're more likely to fuck up your computer by downloading some shitty program and executing it yourself than a browser allowing Javascript to do anything to your computer.
Gopher > http.
>>53847129
Would it be feasible to split the web into static and dynamic things and have different protocols specifically developed for those different purposes?
>>53849024
pure text internet > graphical internet
And this isn't me being a luddite or anything, it's just that text seems to be the obvious method of transferring information quickly and cleanly.
>>53849104
I don't see why not, in terms of mechanics it's just a switch.
The difficult part is that there's nothing to say that people will use the efficient static internet over the slow dynamic one.
I think that's my issue with the internet, as it now is, this is totally out of our hands. If suddenly it was decided that all websites would put such a load on the computer that you'd use over 4GB of RAM, then I have to buy a new computer. I know that's an extreme example, but the internet has gotten a lot fatter over a very short period of time.
I suppose, at the end of the day, this is all an ethical dilemma, not a technical one.
>bbs
>good
So some one can sperg out and ruin everything?
Pic related.
>>53848379
>XML and XHTML, which was a big pile of fucking bullshit that everybody hated.
ya, because convoluted DOM parsers from hell are so great.
I sure love how it's basically impossible to make a browser at all because you gotta handle this broken HTML non dtd bullshit.
fuck off shitter and fuck HTML
>>53848379
>XHTML, which was a big pile of fucking bullshit that everybody hated.
I liked XHTML. It was like HTML, but consistent.
Whichever idiot thought it was fine to have standalone tags (e.g. <p>) with no closure should be shot.
>>53848458
>You're more likely to
I'm not talking about likely. I'm talking about possibility. The claim was:
>Javascript running in the browser has no access to anything on your computer.
Which is false. It's also false that Javascript local storage is infallible.
>>53849128
>>53849215
I agree, browsing the web hogs the majority of my system resources on a computer which is fast by most standards. It's infuriating that these asshats try and invent ever more creatively backwards and inefficient ways to skirt the protocols that are designed to allow us to view text quickly and efficiently over the internet, all so they can push their own half arsed ideas about how text should be viewed over the internet and unfortunately javascript is the tool that allows them to do just that.
Personally I wan't to blame the browser wars and microsoft for fucking up the web. If only people had worked together on rendering standards rather than deliberately fucking the protocols to mess with the competition. That and modern pasty faggots who insist on "innovation", that problems can never be considered solved and that their take on a solution, however inconvenient, is valid.
>>53847763
not so sure about "secure" sandbox - check out rowhammer.js
>>53847205
technically aren't all webpages code that executes on your machine? they tell your browser how to render the content.
>>53846876
>Seif Project
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHRXPlq9XNw
>make the web more secure by building a better JS random number generator which will ACTIVELY COLLECT ENTROPY DATA FROM YOUR MICROPHONE AND CAMERA
>>53847129
writing lightweight and simple websites that utilize AJAX is possible, but most JS devs slap 2mb of jquery on their shitty "responsive" flat design site which slows everything to a crawl.
I always thought that you should avoid writing unnecessary JS in your web pages, and if you had to, just keep it minimal. it's the way I've done it since 2003. these days I use AJAX and JS to improve some things, but my sites are very lightweight and run fast even on a toaster.
>>53845099<html><body>
Let's make Internet great again.
</body></html>
>>53849742
I'd say the web got fucked up when it stopped being personal.
>>53849024
>>53849128
I have a RPi2 I've made read only hooked up to a small 12v screen someone gave me, and I've been having a great time in text.
I'm actually starting to get a little bit socio-political over it. What I'm using on this Pi is perfectly capable for almost anywhere in the world with a phone line. Text is just so important because of it's small size and stable build that we really should do more to defend its usage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirth%27s_law
>>53850022
html is like a picture of a cake
javascript is the recipe to bake the cake, it has to be executed
the former is far easier and safer to handle while the latter is far more powerful
>>53850609
html is the cake itself where as javascript is a mountain of icing. Sure the icing is pretty and makes the cake look good, but too much and the cake tastes disgusting.
>>53850609
>>53850653
these are really poor analogies
>>53849273
Didn't Tom Jennings stop Fidonet from selling out?
>>53850685
It's easy to say it's not about the money when you're not picking up the tab.
The whole NPO thing was just a way for Ken K. to not go broke in a day. The lawyer shit was a bad move, but TJ didn't need to go off on one like he did. TJ was really naïve to think that something as complex as that wouldn't come up against either the law or the state eventually.
Also it was never even close to selling out, just entering a legal world rather than a hobbyists world.
But accounts are all over the place, so we'll never really know what went down.
>>53849024
>not gopher software for kindle
Would be so comfy...
>>53850301
>I'd say the web got fucked up when it stopped being personal.
>"According to Compete, a Web analytics company, the top 10 Web sites accounted for 31 percent of US pageviews in 2001, 40 percent in 2006, and about 75 percent in 2010."
I wonder what it's on now.
What alternatives are there now for people wanting to meet and talk on line that isn't ran by a company? I really don't think setting up a BBS is going to help, nor is Gopher, Usenet, IRC...They're all either dead or on life support these days. Anything heavier than that and we go in to corporate hosting again, and we're back to square one.
>>53847129
>There are plenty of reasons to build a web application so that its not 100% dependent on Javascript
im sure there are a few, but almost every site that does this are not one of those.
>>53851184
this is why we need a mesh net now
>>53851261
Wasn't this what usenet was? Or at least a simpler version of it.
>>53851291
Nah, usenet was (and is) just client-server based
>>53851421
irc is client-server too, but the servers are distributed. These protocols are old and their creators could never have imagined how they would scale or know how people would try and abuse them. We need a new killer app, distributed, secure and anonymous. I don't think client-server model is particularly bad, but for these sytems to stay distributed they need to scale to large servers badly. Bitcoin is paying the price for encouraging large server-farm type mining.
>>53851616
I think the ideal would be that servers could be anything from massive server cluster to an old laptop hooked up to the router.
>>53851616
While IRC is old it's been widely used even non techies can use it.
Problem with todays software is that it's most likely gonna be controlled by some shitty company or untrusted because it needs a shiny gui with alot of bells.
IRC is still active and yes there are alot of lurkers but back in the days there wasn't any bouncer to be on 24/7
>>53851789
>untrusted because it needs a shiny gui with alot of bells.
I think the age of caring about what normies think is over. Leave them to their app-net.
>>53851764
I think it should scale extremely badly to big server clusters, remember anyone can mine btc. To remain distributed it should run best on small, home based hardware with some kind of incentive to do so. In this way many people will host the service and it will stay out of the clutches of meggacorps who inevitably fuck everything up in the name of profit.
>>53851616
Connecting to others anonymously is pretty much impossible without intermediate servers.
>>53851886
To do such a thing would limit the capabilities of it.
I have no issue with text, but a people used to youtube and tumblr aren't going to swing by.
Maybe that's the point?
If it's too simple to sell, it's too simple to buy.
>>53851936
Making it run exclusively on GNU/Linux, for example, could make the entry barrier high enough to keep it from getting flooded
>>53851936
I'm not so sure about that, it doesn't have to replace the web yet just provide a safe heaven from the bigjobs. I still think the greatest barrier is speed. How to scale something like that with a decent response time.
>>53845099
Basically, when it comes to using JS to add a feature to your site/"app", you have to ask yourself:
Can I do this without JS?
Does this actually contribute something that my core user base actually need?
The answer to the latter question is pretty much always no.
>>53851936
I see the perfect beast being the menu-driven navigation of Gopher, with the user interactivity of BBS, and the spread of Usenet.
Or forums linked by webring. With some element of quoting present. I've got this image of a conversation on an article, with the text being in its own 'window' during the whole conversation.
Couldn't even begin to imagine the infrastructure for such a system, but this is what I see. Also something that encourages long posts rather than the twitter character limit. Also you're not allowed to use your real name.
>>53851971
I don't think response time is an issue with the modern infrastructure already set up. All this hypothetical idea does is use TCP/IP the way BBS used the phone lines.
>>53851789
Downfall of IRC is more so that almost no one will allow you to host a server.
I want to make this real.
http://gonmf.github.io/fwd/
>Requirements of a web document language
>1. It should be easy to expose information to the reader: I shouldn't need a lot of formatting sugar to produce a document.
>2. There should be little assumptions on the capabilities of the reader and web browser: accessibility is extremely important, not only sensorial but also about the languages used and the way the user can navigate and manipulate a document. A document is not a piece of art for the original creator to expect control over how it is displayed. There is also an increasing trend for accessing documents with differing layouts and resolutions.
>3. The contents of a document should be kept sane. Just as you wouldn't expect a book to do something behind your back, you shouldn't expect a web document to be interactive. The activity should be in the hands, and control, of the user.
>4. A network of linked documents is by itself only as rich as the information that was codified by the hosts. Therefore the reader should have the ability to further link documents, modify, annotate and improve on the experience.
>In conclusion, this document proposes a language for writing documents oriented for the web that puts the user as the focal point of document display and use, facilitate common actions taken on documents, and overall improve the usability of the web.
>gopher://gopher.petergarner.net/0/About/about_this_server.txt
>Welcome to the RPi4 Gopher Server: this is a privately-owned system running on a Raspberry Pi Model B with a 700Mhz clock and 512Mb of memory. We use a Sandisk 16Gb SDHC as storage.
Gopher servers can run on a fucking Pi.
This is incredible.
I really feel like we're on to something here...
>>53852256
I'm not surprised, the Pi is signifigantly more powerful than even the highest end computers of the early 90's, when gopher was created.
Has this thread heard about Citadel?
>>53845099
I'm old enough to remember the invention of HTTP and the web. And I didn't like the standards all the way back then.
* As a page description language, HTML+CSS is pants on head retarded. It is bloated, inefficient shit that takes too much memory and way too many CPU cycles to parse and render. Display Fucking PostScript looks like a model of speed and efficiency by comparison.
As a point of comparison: 16-40 MHz 68030 Macs could load, render, and edit complicated, full color page layouts 26 years ago. But even a dual processor, 1.4 GHz Power Mac G4 has trouble rendering modern web pages. Simple web pages from the 1990's, with far less complicated layouts and typography, took longer to render on Power Macs then Quark files on fucking 68040 machines!
Note that this is a fundamental problem with the model. It can be made worse by a bad dev. But it's still shit even with the best web devs.
* HTTP is inefficient as fuck. I once had a situation where I was tasked with speeding up a desktop application that was retrieving images via HTTP from a server. All I did was write a small server app that accepted a single, very simple command and returned the correct image data. Loaded that up on the server and updated the desktop app to use it. Fucking ran like lightening after dumping HTTP and just using a simple protocol.
* I think my main issue with JavaScript is that it's so easy to make shit code with it. It does not encourage thoughtful construction of classes and code or analysis of memory/CPU footprint. That's kind of bitching about a positive because it's so easy to whip up some simple code for a page. But that means every script kiddie who never touched a CS or EE book can bloat a site with 20MB of imported JavaScript libraries and shit algorithms.
We should replace the web with a better system, but God only knows how that would happen with so much existing web content.
Xanadu when
>>53845099
>he doesn't browse the www with links2 -g
>>53849742
>browsing the web hogs the majority of my system resources
A million times this. Opening 6 imageboard tabs should not require idling at 10% CPU and using 500M of RAM.
>>53853033
>6 imageboard tabs
>500MB RAM
I haven't even broken 500MB yet and I've got 17 tabs open
>>53853058
what browser are you running? lynx doesn't count.
>>53853942
Opera 12.16. The funny thing is that it does far more than any other browser could dream of while also consuming less RAM
