3 ms·

IMO this feels like a somewhat random brainstorm about how to keep an older vision of the web. For example, why focus on behind-the-scenes dev process? What % o

IMO this feels like a somewhat random brainstorm about how to keep an older vision of the web. For example, why focus on behind-the-scenes dev process? What % of indie sites die due to dev build process? Very hard to know and Jeff doesn't provide any edge on insight over this problem. Without knowing that, focusing on things like whether to use git (???) and whether you compress your site... seems confusing. > And how should your version control that file? Should you use git? Shove them in an 'old/' folder? Well I like the simple approach of naming old files with the date they are retired, like index.20191213.html. Anyways, this appears to be a pitch for a project: https://irchiver.com https://irchiver.com

danuker 5y ago
The Irchiver project has great ideas ("seeing is keeping"). Does anyone know a similar tool for Linux or a browser extension?
- lazyjeff 5y ago
  irchiver author here. So I investigated for a long time whether a browser extension is possible for automatically screenshotting a page. It turns out it's not because of the limitations of browser extensions themselves, and from the way WebExtensions are going, it will never be. I've only found a way to do this on Windows right now (since Windows 8.1) due to an undocumented flag that lets you capture images from the browser even with hardware acceleration on (which is the default). Though I trust Microsoft to maintain backwards compatibility even for undocumented features indefinitely.
lazyjeff 5y ago
It's a fair critique. But I think the maintenance and dependencies for a website are the main reason a lot of them die off (basically, the owner giving up on it because the cost to keep it up is higher than the value it provides the owner). Intentionally killing a website seems rare to me otherwise. > whether you compress your site It's actually a comment against minimizing the html/css content, which makes it unreadable and adds an extra step in your toolchain (another point of failure). > Anyways, this appears to be a pitch for a project I did add that link recently as it's related, but I wrote this Designed to Last article 2 years before irchiver. See the previous discussion at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21840140 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21840140

danuker 5y ago

The Irchiver project has great ideas ("seeing is keeping"). Does anyone know a similar tool for Linux or a browser extension?

lazyjeff 5y ago
irchiver author here. So I investigated for a long time whether a browser extension is possible for automatically screenshotting a page. It turns out it's not because of the limitations of browser extensions themselves, and from the way WebExtensions are going, it will never be. I've only found a way to do this on Windows right now (since Windows 8.1) due to an undocumented flag that lets you capture images from the browser even with hardware acceleration on (which is the default). Though I trust Microsoft to maintain backwards compatibility even for undocumented features indefinitely.

lazyjeff 5y ago

It's a fair critique. But I think the maintenance and dependencies for a website are the main reason a lot of them die off (basically, the owner giving up on it because the cost to keep it up is higher than the value it provides the owner). Intentionally killing a website seems rare to me otherwise. > whether you compress your site It's actually a comment against minimizing the html/css content, which makes it unreadable and adds an extra step in your toolchain (another point of failure). > Anyways, this appears to be a pitch for a project I did add that link recently as it's related, but I wrote this Designed to Last article 2 years before irchiver. See the previous discussion at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21840140 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21840140