7 ms·

Their website needs Javascript to load. Ugh. I hope that's not an indicator for the rest of their philosophy.

by toothbrush 12y ago

pselbert 12y ago
The entire browser is built on JS/React. I'm pretty sure that is an indicator of the rest of their philosophy.
iLoch 12y ago
It's 2015 man, get off lynx..
- 0942v8653 12y ago
  I agree, w3m is much better. More modern. lynx sometimes has trouble making connections on my machine. Sent from my w3m
  - LukeShu 12y ago
    Have you compared w3m to "links" (links2 on Debian/Ubuntu)? links is my preferred TTY browser, but it seems to be neglected by most users.
    - demiol 12y ago
      I compared. w3m is better than links2, elinks better than w3m.
      - TeMPOraL 12y ago
        And what do you think about eww, the new browser embedded in Emacs 24? I personally like it.
emodendroket 12y ago
I don't understand why there are still people persisting in disabling JavaScript when the vast majority of Web sites today have significant functionality degradation or just plain won't work without it.
- valvar 12y ago
  If it needs JavaScript to display properly, then it's probably not worth my time. Anyone concerned with privacy and/or security should use noscript.
  - emodendroket 12y ago
    Nobody in their right mind is going to practically double the amount of work they do on a project to support people disabling JavaScript (a tiny minority who also knows how to undo this change if they are so inclined) unless they are absolutely huge. In any case, there are other ways to track you without the use of scripts.
- Amezarak 12y ago
  > I don't understand why there are still people persisting in disabling JavaScript when the vast majority of Web sites today have significant functionality degradation or just plain won't work without it. Install NoScript and browse for a couple days. Permanently whitelist what you have to on sites you frequent and trust. You'll find that pages load light-years faster, browser hangs/crashes are non-existent, annoying advertisements are a thing of the past, and actually, most web sites work fine without Javascript. Even though some of these websites have literally dozens (I suspect sometimes even hundreds: they sometimes chain each other and the full list takes up my entire screen and scrolls for a while) of scripts from different domains. And then you get used to this web, and all of a sudden there's you run across what should be just a plain-text article - not a web application - and you discover that you have to enable Javascript just to see any text and it feels a little absurd. This is definitely the exception, and not the rule. My whitelist, after years of browsing, is pretty small.
- marssaxman 12y ago
  The vast majority of web sites are crap. I'd really rather default disable javascript and opt-in if I decide I want to allow their code to run on my machine.

Their website needs Javascript to load. Ugh. I hope that's not an indicator for the rest of their philosophy.

pselbert 12y ago

The entire browser is built on JS/React. I'm pretty sure that is an indicator of the rest of their philosophy.

iLoch 12y ago

It's 2015 man, get off lynx..

0942v8653 12y ago
I agree, w3m is much better. More modern. lynx sometimes has trouble making connections on my machine. Sent from my w3m
- LukeShu 12y ago
  Have you compared w3m to "links" (links2 on Debian/Ubuntu)? links is my preferred TTY browser, but it seems to be neglected by most users.
  - demiol 12y ago
    I compared. w3m is better than links2, elinks better than w3m.
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      And what do you think about eww, the new browser embedded in Emacs 24? I personally like it.

emodendroket 12y ago

I don't understand why there are still people persisting in disabling JavaScript when the vast majority of Web sites today have significant functionality degradation or just plain won't work without it.

valvar 12y ago
If it needs JavaScript to display properly, then it's probably not worth my time. Anyone concerned with privacy and/or security should use noscript.
- emodendroket 12y ago
  Nobody in their right mind is going to practically double the amount of work they do on a project to support people disabling JavaScript (a tiny minority who also knows how to undo this change if they are so inclined) unless they are absolutely huge. In any case, there are other ways to track you without the use of scripts.
Amezarak 12y ago
> I don't understand why there are still people persisting in disabling JavaScript when the vast majority of Web sites today have significant functionality degradation or just plain won't work without it. Install NoScript and browse for a couple days. Permanently whitelist what you have to on sites you frequent and trust. You'll find that pages load light-years faster, browser hangs/crashes are non-existent, annoying advertisements are a thing of the past, and actually, most web sites work fine without Javascript. Even though some of these websites have literally dozens (I suspect sometimes even hundreds: they sometimes chain each other and the full list takes up my entire screen and scrolls for a while) of scripts from different domains. And then you get used to this web, and all of a sudden there's you run across what should be just a plain-text article - not a web application - and you discover that you have to enable Javascript just to see any text and it feels a little absurd. This is definitely the exception, and not the rule. My whitelist, after years of browsing, is pretty small.
marssaxman 12y ago
The vast majority of web sites are crap. I'd really rather default disable javascript and opt-in if I decide I want to allow their code to run on my machine.