Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes"

Liste des GroupesRevenir à cl forth 
Sujet : Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes"
De : sjack (at) *nospam* dontemail.me (sjack)
Groupes : comp.lang.forth
Date : 06. Jun 2025, 15:37:10
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <101uuem$2aoml$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
User-Agent : tin/2.6.4-20240224 ("Banff") (Linux/6.8.0-60-generic (x86_64))
LIT <zbigniew2011@gmail.com> wrote:
20 years ago today. Try to use Lynx today
with any site. Maybe 5-10% of them can be
browsed such way.
 
I seldom surf the web for long time now. When I do, I have JS
disabled.  For sites that don't work, fine, forget them. However, I
was surprised the last time I surfed the web as to how many sites were
now accommodating for JS being disabled. Seems corporate wants to
capture that traffic too.

Another thing, with chrome it's easy to take a peek at a
non-accommodating site by a click of button on the address bar to turn
JS on for that site only (or for all). (Not pushing chome but they
have some good features.) In the old slow web I would serf with text
browser, Bobcat? on DOS, and could push a button to bring in small gui
browser if wanted to see the site in all its glory. So, much the same.

Being retro most of web's technical offerings becomes non-applicable.
Doing business on the web, just don't. For the data junkie there's
still more available than can be consumed in several lifetimes. With
JS disabled it's one big filter to skip the dross.

I've seen much come and go (how quickly). Change is coming now,
hard and fast ready to steamroll over all resistance. The irony,
the overall aspect remains constant. I guess JJ was on to something,
Tomorrow never happens.

--
me

Date Sujet#  Auteur
27 May 25 * "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes"37Alexis
27 May 25 +* Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes"2Richard
27 May 25 i`- Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes"1minforth
28 May 25 +* Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes"33dxf
28 May 25 i`* Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes"32Richard
28 May 25 i +- Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes"1John Ames
29 May 25 i `* Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes"30dxf
29 May 25 i  `* Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes"29Anton Ertl
29 May 25 i   +* Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes"23Paul Rubin
29 May 25 i   i+* Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes"4Anton Ertl
29 May 25 i   ii+- Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes"1albert
31 May 25 i   ii`* Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes"2Paul Rubin
31 May 25 i   ii `- Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes"1Anton Ertl
3 Jun12:31 i   i`* Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes"18anthk
3 Jun12:39 i   i +* Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes"8Paul Rubin
6 Jun13:00 i   i i`* Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes"7anthk
7 Jun01:02 i   i i `* Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes"6Paul Rubin
8 Jun20:41 i   i i  +* Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes"4anthk
8 Jun21:41 i   i i  i`* Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes"3LIT
8 Jun23:26 i   i i  i `* Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes"2Anton Ertl
8 Jun23:58 i   i i  i  `- Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes"1LIT
8 Jun20:41 i   i i  `- Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes"1anthk
3 Jun13:07 i   i `* Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes"9LIT
6 Jun13:00 i   i  +* Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes"5anthk
6 Jun14:21 i   i  i`* Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes"4LIT
6 Jun15:54 i   i  i `* Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes"3John Ames
7 Jun13:47 i   i  i  +- Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes"1anthk
7 Jun13:47 i   i  i  `- Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes"1anthk
6 Jun15:37 i   i  `* Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes"3sjack
6 Jun15:55 i   i   +- Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes"1dxf
6 Jun19:13 i   i   `- Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes"1LIT
29 May 25 i   +* Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes"2yeti
29 May 25 i   i`- Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes"1Paul Rubin
29 May 25 i   +- Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes"1dxf
29 May 25 i   `* Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes"2sjack
30 May 25 i    `- Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes"1dxf
4 Jun17:48 `- Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes"1Kerr-Mudd, John

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal