3 ms·

Original author here. I have no idea how my 7 year old post made it to the front page today, but I’m happy to say that the situation is even worse than it was b

Original author here. I have no idea how my 7 year old post made it to the front page today, but I’m happy to say that the situation is even worse than it was back then. Desktop OSes are even more bloated and less under user control since then.

__d 2y ago
Was there ever any effort to address these issues that came of your original post?
6510 2y ago
An improved rant would be nice. I feel the webpage doesn't make enough effort to store the many valuable thoughts and idea the many readers have while reading it. Long ago I had a site that was technically a forum but the front page was an article rather than a table and the sections pointed to sub forums that were articles as well. The later pointed at the usual forum tables. I used the discussion/comments to improve the articles but it should really have been a wiki format. The text reminded me of the way FTP clients pop up the default text editor. Such a boring technology, no one thought anything of it. Why isn't my mail client doing this? It doesn't seem hard to make web browsers do it either. Trying to do code highlighting in a <textarea> is possibly the worse technology we have. We should really have a dedicated client for forms as well which seems to logically fold out of a database file system? The text also reminded me of Picassa the photo organizer, as soon as I had everything scanned and organized in it it felt like I couldn't use the normal file system anymore. It was such a clumsy clunker by comparison. Also hilarious was having to install Thunar because Nautilus couldn't open my big folders. I was also reminded of textpad. While Atom couldn't open files larger than 2mb the old textpad on a pentium 4 opened the 1+ TB wikipedia xml dump in 0 seconds. Editing was not sluggish, replace macros were not sluggish and saving the document worked just fine. The thought stuck with me: How the f did it just do that??? I think the first release in 1992 probably explains it. Squeezing wine from a rock was still a thing back then.

__d 2y ago

Was there ever any effort to address these issues that came of your original post?

6510 2y ago

An improved rant would be nice. I feel the webpage doesn't make enough effort to store the many valuable thoughts and idea the many readers have while reading it. Long ago I had a site that was technically a forum but the front page was an article rather than a table and the sections pointed to sub forums that were articles as well. The later pointed at the usual forum tables. I used the discussion/comments to improve the articles but it should really have been a wiki format. The text reminded me of the way FTP clients pop up the default text editor. Such a boring technology, no one thought anything of it. Why isn't my mail client doing this? It doesn't seem hard to make web browsers do it either. Trying to do code highlighting in a <textarea> is possibly the worse technology we have. We should really have a dedicated client for forms as well which seems to logically fold out of a database file system? The text also reminded me of Picassa the photo organizer, as soon as I had everything scanned and organized in it it felt like I couldn't use the normal file system anymore. It was such a clumsy clunker by comparison. Also hilarious was having to install Thunar because Nautilus couldn't open my big folders. I was also reminded of textpad. While Atom couldn't open files larger than 2mb the old textpad on a pentium 4 opened the 1+ TB wikipedia xml dump in 0 seconds. Editing was not sluggish, replace macros were not sluggish and saving the document worked just fine. The thought stuck with me: How the f did it just do that??? I think the first release in 1992 probably explains it. Squeezing wine from a rock was still a thing back then.