Re: HTTPS and DOS browsers

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: HTTPS and DOS browsers

Thomas Mueller
> On 21 July Eric Auer said:

> > indeed I am trying to motivate people to use TLS/SSL ;-)
> > There must be SOME browsers for DOS which can handle it!

>  You talk as if you know for sure there is one.
>  Is this the case ?

>  I did look at Mikulas' Links before Rugxulo
> mentioned it in this discussion. The full version
> is one of those programs that will not expand,
> even less run in a 486 with 16 MB RAM. The "lite"
> version has no https support at all.

>  Regards

>  JAS

I have run Links, both graphical and text-only, in Linux and FreeBSD, even NetBSD with X, also have run Links with graphics in DOS, but that was years back.

I used Doug Kaufman's DOS port of Lynx for online commerce but not banking, and not recently.  I imagine that would be very difficlut or impossible now with web interfaces becoming more complex.

I use mostly Mozilla Firefox or Seamonkey.  There are other graphical browsers, such as Qupzilla, Midori and Netsurf, but I am not aware of any attempt to port any of these browsers to DOS.

Tom


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What NetFlow Analyzer can do for you? Monitors network bandwidth and traffic
patterns at an interface-level. Reveals which users, apps, and protocols are
consuming the most bandwidth. Provides multi-vendor support for NetFlow,
J-Flow, sFlow and other flows. Make informed decisions using capacity planning
reports.http://sdm.link/zohodev2dev
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: HTTPS and DOS browsers

dmccunney
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 9:21 PM, Thomas Mueller <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I use mostly Mozilla Firefox or Seamonkey.  There are other graphical browsers, such as Qupzilla, Midori and Netsurf, but I am not aware of any attempt to port any of these browsers to DOS.

I use Firefox as my production browser, and have SeaMonkey about as
well.  I also have current Qupzilla and Midori, and looked at Netsurf.

I don't believe it's *possible* to port any of them to DOS.  They are
too big, require too much RAM, and require underlying OS features DOS
simply doesn't have and will never get.

Want to browse the web with support for current standards?  Use a
browser under Windows or a flavor of *nix.  (I'm in Firefox under
Ubuntu Linux at the moment, using the same profile I use under
Windows, and behaviour and performance are almost identical.)

> Tom
______
Dennis
https://plus.google.com/u/0/105128793974319004519

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What NetFlow Analyzer can do for you? Monitors network bandwidth and traffic
patterns at an interface-level. Reveals which users, apps, and protocols are
consuming the most bandwidth. Provides multi-vendor support for NetFlow,
J-Flow, sFlow and other flows. Make informed decisions using capacity planning
reports.http://sdm.link/zohodev2dev
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: HTTPS and DOS browsers

Dan Schmidt
>You talk as if you know for sure there is one.
>Is this the case ?

I use two that do SSL/TLS quite adequately:

Links2

lynx also does ssl, but this version takes some work to get going:

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 7:33 PM, dmccunney <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 9:21 PM, Thomas Mueller <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I use mostly Mozilla Firefox or Seamonkey.  There are other graphical browsers, such as Qupzilla, Midori and Netsurf, but I am not aware of any attempt to port any of these browsers to DOS.

I use Firefox as my production browser, and have SeaMonkey about as
well.  I also have current Qupzilla and Midori, and looked at Netsurf.

I don't believe it's *possible* to port any of them to DOS.  They are
too big, require too much RAM, and require underlying OS features DOS
simply doesn't have and will never get.

Want to browse the web with support for current standards?  Use a
browser under Windows or a flavor of *nix.  (I'm in Firefox under
Ubuntu Linux at the moment, using the same profile I use under
Windows, and behaviour and performance are almost identical.)

> Tom
______
Dennis
https://plus.google.com/u/0/105128793974319004519

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What NetFlow Analyzer can do for you? Monitors network bandwidth and traffic
patterns at an interface-level. Reveals which users, apps, and protocols are
consuming the most bandwidth. Provides multi-vendor support for NetFlow,
J-Flow, sFlow and other flows. Make informed decisions using capacity planning
reports.http://sdm.link/zohodev2dev
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What NetFlow Analyzer can do for you? Monitors network bandwidth and traffic
patterns at an interface-level. Reveals which users, apps, and protocols are
consuming the most bandwidth. Provides multi-vendor support for NetFlow,
J-Flow, sFlow and other flows. Make informed decisions using capacity planning
reports.http://sdm.link/zohodev2dev
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: HTTPS and DOS browsers

dos386
> > There must be SOME browsers for DOS which can handle it!
>  You talk as if you know for sure there is one.
> Is this the case ?

Links (well ... 2.13 works after minimal tests, but not tested on
80386 with < 16 MiO RAM)

DOSLYNX (HTTPS works, but has some other flaws, hopefully needs less
RAM than LINKS)

http://www.xaver.me/drdoswiki/index.php?n=Main.Browsers

> Want to browse the web with support for current standards?  Use a
> browser under Windows or a flavor of *nix.  (I'm in Firefox

FireFox 1 -> 4 MiO
FireFox 48 -> 50 MiO

The bloat increase is just incredible :-D and sure RAM and CPU
consumption grows too

I had FireFox pretty well working on my great Pentium 1 laptop with 64 MiO RAM
some years ago ... nowadays the Internet is on the limit of usability with
Pentium 3 and 256 MiO. When are they going to drop Pentium 3 and XP?
Can I have the good old paper mail of FreeDOS lists?

Also the Opera development after version 9 is shameful ... bloat, many
new "features"
(most of them useless), the absurd JavaScript "performance" race, notoriously
bad quality of releases (the infamous NO-SCRIPT-BUG ...) ... and killing their
native engine after version 12.

The world doesn't need "fastest" JavaScript engines needing
several 100 MiO RAM, and even less Adobe Flu$h.

The "current standards" are just absurdly increasing cost for essentially same
functionality (we could use mail, post in forums, upload and download files, use
CVS/SVN/GIT, Bugzilla, online maps, timetables, ...) already 10 or 15 years
ago. The "new great user experience" means just that Internet more and
more sucks.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: HTTPS and DOS browsers

dos386
> Can I have the good old paper mail of FreeDOS lists?

I meant: Can I have the good old paper mail __address__ of FreeDOS lists?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: HTTPS and DOS browsers

dmccunney
In reply to this post by dos386
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 1:00 PM, dos386 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Want to browse the web with support for current standards?  Use a
>> browser under Windows or a flavor of *nix.  (I'm in Firefox
>
> FireFox 1 -> 4 MiO
> FireFox 48 -> 50 MiO
>
> The bloat increase is just incredible :-D and sure RAM and CPU
> consumption grows too

One man's bloat is another's feature.  I've been running Mozilla code
since it was still an internal Netscape project to build the follow on
to Netscape Communicator, and ran Netscape 6 (or tried to - way too
buggy), Netscape 7, the Mozilla Suite, and finally Firefox.

FF 1-4 do *not* support current standards, and are likely to fail in
odd ways if you try to use them now,

I find it worth while to stay current.

(My desktop is a quad code 2.4 ghz Xeon box with 8GB RAM, dual booting
Windows and Linux.  It's low end as such things go these days, but I
have the resources to throw at things like Firefox, and largely don't
*care* how much RAM is uses.  I've got various older kit I play with
for fun, but *don't* try to do actual work on it.  Hardware is cheap
and getting cheaper, so I don't have a reason to try to restrict
myself to the sort of stuff used a decade ago.)

> I had FireFox pretty well working on my great Pentium 1 laptop with 64 MiO RAM
> some years ago ... nowadays the Internet is on the limit of usability with
> Pentium 3 and 256 MiO. When are they going to drop Pentium 3 and XP?

Depending upon who *they* is, the likely answer is "They already have".

XP hasn't been supported by MS (where "support"="gets critical
patches") in years, and I doubt current browser code will successfully
compile for a P3 target.  It all wants stuff like SSE2.

> Also the Opera development after version 9 is shameful ... bloat, many
> new "features"
> (most of them useless), the absurd JavaScript "performance" race, notoriously
> bad quality of releases (the infamous NO-SCRIPT-BUG ...) ... and killing their
> native engine after version 12.

Opera killed the Presto rendering engine they were using in favor of
Webkit used by Chrome.  Google later forked Webkit to produce Bling,
and Opera went along for the ride.

It made sense in various ways.  Web standards are a moving target, and
keeping the rendering engine you use updated is increasingly more
complex and expensive.  Opera decided the money and resources they had
available could be better applied elsewhere, and they could piggyback
on an open source rendering engine others also used and contributed
code to.  If I were them, I might have made the same call.

> The world doesn't need "fastest" JavaScript engines needing
> several 100 MiO RAM, and even less Adobe Flu$h.

Unfortunately, it *does*.

But assume the days of Flash are numbered.  Adobe has already dropped
support for Flash on mobile, and desktop support is bug fixes and
plugging security vulnerabilities. Adobe also has a tool in beta to
aid migration from Flash to HTML5 based code.

These days, browser devs are all moving to HTML5/CSS3 as fast as they
can.  A major reason it to make Flash go away.  The principal use for
Flash is displaying video.  But HTML5 has a <video> keyword that can
let you embed/display video without Flash.  You still need a codec to
handle the video encoding, but that will be bundled as a component of
the browser.  In general, browser development now starts with the
assumption "Plugins are bad.  The user should be able to do what they
want without requiring them."

The big step towards that came from Cisco.  The defacto standard
encoding for video these days is H_264, but it's a proprietary spec
that requires a license.  This meant IE and Chrome could display HTML5
video, because MS and Google paid for a license and could include the
codec binary, but FF could not.  FF is entirely open source, and
needed to be able to offer source  as well as binary for the codec.
Cisco paid for a license that would let them offer a reference
implementation as open source, and that's what everyone is currently
using.

Meanwhile, just about everything uses JavaScript now, and JS speed
*is* an issue.

Firefox is a good example.  It's written in C++, but the Gecko
rendering engine under the hood renders the browser itself as well as
the content you are viewing, and when you click an icon in the browser
or select a menu choice, JS is actually doing the work.  One major
architectural change to Firefox was shift to a JIT compiler that
compiled JS to native code for execution to get more speed.  Chrome
does something similar, and AFAIK so do IE/MS Edge.

> The "current standards" are just absurdly increasing cost for essentially same
> functionality (we could use mail, post in forums, upload and download files, use
> CVS/SVN/GIT, Bugzilla, online maps, timetables, ...) already 10 or 15 years
> ago. The "new great user experience" means just that Internet more and
> more sucks.

That depends upon who you are and how you like things presented,  You
are *not* representative of the mass user base, and what works for you
will not work for 99% of the rest of the world.
______
Dennis
https://plus.google.com/u/0/105128793974319004519

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: HTTPS and DOS browsers

Thomas Mueller
In reply to this post by Thomas Mueller
from Jose Antonio Senna:

>  On 26 july, Thomas Mueller said:

> > ...(I) also have run Links with graphics
> > in DOS, but that was years back.

>   Do you remember on what machine you did this ?

> > I used Doug Kaufman's DOS port of Lynx for
> > online commerce but not banking, and not recently.

>    I, too, used this port of Lynx as my main browser,
>   inclusive for e-commerce, until 2014.  During past
>   year access problems did increase a lot.

Machine where I ran Links with graphics in DOS was AMD Athlon 1400 MHz.  Hard drive was 40 GB.

I also ran Links with graphics in Linux Slackware, but only a little bit; liked Mozilla Firefox and Seamonkey much better.


Tom


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: HTTPS and DOS browsers

dos386
> > The bloat increase is just incredible :-D and sure RAM and CPU
> > consumption grows too

> One man's bloat is another's feature. I've been running Mozilla code
> since it was still an internal Netscape

COOL ... at that time they refused to add support for MNG as it
would add 10 KiO of bloat ... now we have 50 MiO bloat of the
browser + 20 MiO bloat of Flu$h instead :-D

> The big step towards that came from Cisco.  The defacto standard
> encoding for video these days is H_264, but it's a proprietary spec

There used to be a draft back in 2007 recommending Theora
for coming HTML5 ... but it was trashed after pressure of some
companies (Adobe, Banana/Apple, ...) ... and now 9 years later
we have 10 times more bloated browsers and still no usable
standard, and most video pages still rudely cry for Flu$h.

> You are *not* representative of the mass user base

well :-D

> and what works for you will not work for 99% of the rest of the world

You are wrong. The Internet used more or less to work for 99% of the
world ... the problem is that those 99% love to throw away something
that works (proverb: "change the winning team ASAP") for no reason.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: HTTPS and DOS browsers

dmccunney
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 3:41 AM, dos386 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > The bloat increase is just incredible :-D and sure RAM and CPU
>> > consumption grows too
>
>> One man's bloat is another's feature. I've been running Mozilla code
>> since it was still an internal Netscape
>
> COOL ... at that time they refused to add support for MNG as it

You mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple-image_Network_Graphics ?

> would add 10 KiO of bloat ...

More to the point, who *needed* it?

MNG is PNG with support for animation.  PNG was created to be a
graphics format unencumbered by patents.

The GIF format used LZW compression.  Terry Welch, the W in LZW,
worked for Sperry when he wrote the paper that described a version of
the Lev-Zempel compression algorithm that was simpler and easier to
implement in software. Because he worked for Sperry, they owned the
rights to his work.  Compuserve introduced the GIF format in 1987, and
used LZW as the compression algorithm.  Meanwhile, Burroughs bought
Sperry and became Unisys.  In 1994, someone at Unisys realized they
owned a patent on the compression used in GIF files and that began
going after Compuserve and other sites that used GIF for graphics to
get compensation.

PNG grew out of that mess, as developers recognized a need for a
graphics format unencumbered by patent.  But the PNG developers didn't
care for the MNG format - they thought overloading PNG to also do
animation was bad design, and something different should be done..The
whole question became moot b y 2004 when the relevant Unisys patents
had all expired expired.

I don't recall ever seeing an MNG file, and if I were Mozilla, I
wouldn't bother to add support for something no one actually used,
even if it produced *no* bloat.

> now we have 50 MiO bloat of the
> browser + 20 MiO bloat of Flu$h instead :-D

You can not install or uninstall Adobe Flash.  If you never do
anything that needs Flash, you'll never miss it.  Most folks *do*
stuff that needs Flash and that's not an option.

What sort of other stuff might you *omit* from Mozilla code to trim
bloat?  What do you consider bloat?

>> The big step towards that came from Cisco.  The defacto standard
>> encoding for video these days is H_264, but it's a proprietary spec
>
> There used to be a draft back in 2007 recommending Theora
> for coming HTML5 ... but it was trashed after pressure of some
> companies (Adobe, Banana/Apple, ...) ... and now 9 years later
> we have 10 times more bloated browsers and still no usable
> standard, and most video pages still rudely cry for Flu$h.

H_264 got the nod because it provides better compression, and video
takes bandwidth.  Google was looking at Theora as an alternative when
they decided to make Chrome fully open source.  Cisco's purchase of a
license that allowed them to offer an open source reference
implementation removed the need to do that.

We *have* a usable spec, and it's being implemented.  (There's a lot
more to HTML5 than the new <video> keyword, and not all of it is fully
defined yet, but folks are implementing the parts that are as they
can.)

I don't think "most" video pages rudely cry for flash, and video isn't
the only reason Flash is deployed.  Folks are  moving away from it as
fast as they can.  But getting rid of Flash is a complex exercise.
Adobe has a beta tool to help migrate extant Flash code to HTML5, but
it's not a simple or easy process, and doing it takes time and costs
money.  Got a site where you would really like to see Flash go away in
favor of HTML5?  Are *you* willing to pay what it will cost them to do
it?  I didn't think so.  Expect them to spend the money just to make
*you* happy?  I *hope* you don't think so.

>> You are *not* representative of the mass user base
>
> well :-D

>> and what works for you will not work for 99% of the rest of the world
>
> You are wrong. The Internet used more or less to work for 99% of the
> world ... the problem is that those 99% love to throw away something
> that works (proverb: "change the winning team ASAP") for no reason.

The Internet more or less worked for 99% of the world using the stuff
you advocate *20 years ago*.

Since you seem to have missed the fact, I'll be a good guy and clue
you in.  That was *then*.  This is *now*. What worked 20 years ago
*won't* work now.  The world has changed and we have to change with
it.  Standing still is *not* an option.

You might not like a lot of the changes needed, but you're stuck with
them.  The world is bigger than you are and doesn't *care* what *you*
think.
______
Dennis

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: HTTPS and DOS browsers

TJ Edmister-2
On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 05:24:30 -0400, dmccunney <[hidden email]>  
wrote:

>
> More to the point, who *needed* it?
>
> MNG is PNG with support for animation.  PNG was created to be a
> graphics format unencumbered by patents.

If GIF was patent encumbered, then it would seem that anyone who wanted  
support for animation in an unencumbered format "needed" MNG.

> PNG grew out of that mess, as developers recognized a need for a
> graphics format unencumbered by patent.  But the PNG developers didn't
> care for the MNG format - they thought overloading PNG to also do
> animation was bad design

As someone who has implemented a PNG decoder from the official spec, I had  
a good chuckle over the idea of the PNG devs shying away from something  
because of "bad design."

>
> The Internet more or less worked for 99% of the world using the stuff
> you advocate *20 years ago*.

Yes. That's what the previous poster just said.

>
> Since you seem to have missed the fact, I'll be a good guy and clue
> you in.  That was *then*.  This is *now*. What worked 20 years ago
> *won't* work now.

On the contrary. Despite deliberate efforts to break things, there is  
plenty that still works.

> The world has changed and we have to change with
> it.  Standing still is *not* an option.

Well, you can't stand still if your job security depends on making changes  
for the sake of it. Mine doesn't.

> You might not like a lot of the changes needed, but you're stuck with
> them.

I have found it's remarkably easy to not use things that I don't wish to  
use. YMMV.

> The world is bigger than you are and doesn't *care* what *you*
> think.

As spokesman for the world, maybe you can do me a favor and inform them  
that this feeling is mutual.

> ______
> Dennis
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Freedos-user mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: HTTPS and DOS browsers

Ralf Quint
On 8/1/2016 2:14 PM, TJ Edmister wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 05:24:30 -0400, dmccunney <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> More to the point, who *needed* it?
>>
>> MNG is PNG with support for animation.  PNG was created to be a
>> graphics format unencumbered by patents.
> If GIF was patent encumbered, then it would seem that anyone who wanted
> support for animation in an unencumbered format "needed" MNG.
GIF was indeed covered by several patents from Unisys, in particular the
LZW compression, which all ran out in 2004...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIF#Unisys_and_LZW_patent_enforcement

Ralf

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: HTTPS and DOS browsers

Abe Mishler
In reply to this post by dmccunney


> On Aug 1, 2016, at 5:24 AM, dmccunney <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 3:41 AM, dos386 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> The bloat increase is just incredible :-D and sure RAM and CPU
>>>> consumption grows too
>>
>>> One man's bloat is another's feature. I've been running Mozilla code
>>> since it was still an internal Netscape
>>
>> COOL ... at that time they refused to add support for MNG as it
>
> You mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple-image_Network_Graphics ?
>
>> would add 10 KiO of bloat ...
>
> More to the point, who *needed* it?
>
> MNG is PNG with support for animation.  PNG was created to be a
> graphics format unencumbered by patents.
>
> The GIF format used LZW compression.  Terry Welch, the W in LZW,
> worked for Sperry when he wrote the paper that described a version of
> the Lev-Zempel compression algorithm that was simpler and easier to
> implement in software. Because he worked for Sperry, they owned the
> rights to his work.  Compuserve introduced the GIF format in 1987, and
> used LZW as the compression algorithm.  Meanwhile, Burroughs bought
> Sperry and became Unisys.  In 1994, someone at Unisys realized they
> owned a patent on the compression used in GIF files and that began
> going after Compuserve and other sites that used GIF for graphics to
> get compensation.
>
> PNG grew out of that mess, as developers recognized a need for a
> graphics format unencumbered by patent.  But the PNG developers didn't
> care for the MNG format - they thought overloading PNG to also do
> animation was bad design, and something different should be done..The
> whole question became moot b y 2004 when the relevant Unisys patents
> had all expired expired.
>
> I don't recall ever seeing an MNG file, and if I were Mozilla, I
> wouldn't bother to add support for something no one actually used,
> even if it produced *no* bloat.
>
>> now we have 50 MiO bloat of the
>> browser + 20 MiO bloat of Flu$h instead :-D
>
> You can not install or uninstall Adobe Flash.  If you never do
> anything that needs Flash, you'll never miss it.  Most folks *do*
> stuff that needs Flash and that's not an option.
>
> What sort of other stuff might you *omit* from Mozilla code to trim
> bloat?  What do you consider bloat?
>
>>> The big step towards that came from Cisco.  The defacto standard
>>> encoding for video these days is H_264, but it's a proprietary spec
>>
>> There used to be a draft back in 2007 recommending Theora
>> for coming HTML5 ... but it was trashed after pressure of some
>> companies (Adobe, Banana/Apple, ...) ... and now 9 years later
>> we have 10 times more bloated browsers and still no usable
>> standard, and most video pages still rudely cry for Flu$h.
>
> H_264 got the nod because it provides better compression, and video
> takes bandwidth.  Google was looking at Theora as an alternative when
> they decided to make Chrome fully open source.  Cisco's purchase of a
> license that allowed them to offer an open source reference
> implementation removed the need to do that.
>
> We *have* a usable spec, and it's being implemented.  (There's a lot
> more to HTML5 than the new <video> keyword, and not all of it is fully
> defined yet, but folks are implementing the parts that are as they
> can.)
>
> I don't think "most" video pages rudely cry for flash, and video isn't
> the only reason Flash is deployed.  Folks are  moving away from it as
> fast as they can.  But getting rid of Flash is a complex exercise.
> Adobe has a beta tool to help migrate extant Flash code to HTML5, but
> it's not a simple or easy process, and doing it takes time and costs
> money.  Got a site where you would really like to see Flash go away in
> favor of HTML5?  Are *you* willing to pay what it will cost them to do
> it?  I didn't think so.  Expect them to spend the money just to make
> *you* happy?  I *hope* you don't think so.
>
>>> You are *not* representative of the mass user base
>>
>> well :-D
>
>>> and what works for you will not work for 99% of the rest of the world
>>
>> You are wrong. The Internet used more or less to work for 99% of the
>> world ... the problem is that those 99% love to throw away something
>> that works (proverb: "change the winning team ASAP") for no reason.
>
> The Internet more or less worked for 99% of the world using the stuff
> you advocate *20 years ago*.
>
> Since you seem to have missed the fact, I'll be a good guy and clue
> you in.  That was *then*.  This is *now*. What worked 20 years ago
> *won't* work now.  The world has changed and we have to change with
> it.  Standing still is *not* an option.
>
I must point out the irony in that position on a *mailing list* about Free*DOS*. Thanks for that. It was a good chuckle 8-p

This topic does point out how far away we are from _The Future_ where everyone's computer terminal magically connects to Skynet or The Oasis with equal access for all. Sometimes I yearn for simpler times too ... or sufficiently advanced technology that makes it appear simpler... Either would suffice.

> You might not like a lot of the changes needed, but you're stuck with
> them.  The world is bigger than you are and doesn't *care* what *you*
> think.
> ______
> Dennis
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Freedos-user mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: HTTPS and DOS browsers

dos386
> On 21 July Eric Auer said:
> indeed I am trying to motivate people to use TLS/SSL

This (and without HeartBleed's, MD5-certificates, crippled 40-bit keys,...)
definitely makes sense when hunting around big bucks or sensitive
personal data ... however obligatory HTTPS for things like BUGzilla's
and user or developer forums isn't that sane.

> I don't recall ever seeing an MNG file, and if I were Mozilla, I
> wouldn't bother to add support for something no one actually
> used, even if it produced *no* bloat.

10 + 5 = 2 ;-)

> More to the point, who *needed* it?

- people using AGIF and being happy with it
- people using AGIF but being concerned about its technical issues
(256 colors etc)
- people using AGIF but being concerned about its legal issues
- people using Flu$h for animations and being happy with it
- people using Flu$h for animations but being concerned about its
technical issues (bugged Plugin)
- people using Flu$h for animations but being concerned about its legal issues
- people who would like to use animations on the Internet but couldn't
since both AGIF and Flu$h sucked

> What sort of other stuff might you *omit* from Mozilla code to
> trim bloat?  What do you consider bloat?

Maybe cca 80% of stuff added during recent 4 years.

> H_264 got the nod because it provides better compression, and
> video takes bandwidth. Google

But the very same Google notoriously tries to prevent people from
downloading movies from its Loo-Tube. 10 times viewed -> 10 times wasted
bandwidth. Now let's assert than bandwidth is an issue. :-D

> was looking at Theora as an alternative when they decided to make Chrome

Please point me to the full test report with test materials.

> We *have* a usable spec, and it's being implemented.

We have a codec with legal problems ... when the legal problems expire
one day the codec will be deprecated ... maybe H265 or H266 will be "in"
and guess what ... have new legal problems.

> There's a lot more to HTML5 than the new <video> keyword

The new <video> keyword (together with Theora+Vorbis codecs)
was the useful part of HTML5.

> I don't think "most" video pages rudely cry for flash
> Got a site where you would really like to see Flash go away in favor of HTML5?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36961338

> Download Flash Player now
>You need to install Flash Player to play this content.

https://get.adobe.com/flashplayer

> and video isn't the only reason Flash is deployed.

The other one were animations, see above about MNG.

> Folks are moving away from it as fast as they can.

sure :-D

> But getting rid of Flash is a complex exercise.
> Are *you* willing to pay what it will cost

Definitely NO. Why? Becasue it does NOT need 1000's of
hours of work done by 1000's of state-of-the-art programmers.

Instead of the malware link "https://get.adobe.com/flashplayer" they
could just provide the download link for the movie, or embed it
using the simple HTML5 style. This would cost actually nothing.

> Since you seem to have missed the fact

oops

> I'll be a good guy

damn

> What worked 20 years ago *won't* work now.

Because of "good guy" 's like you notoriously deliberately break things.

> world is bigger than you are and doesn't *care* what *you* think

Why the hell have *you* subscribed to the *FreeDOS* list?

BTW, FireFox now includes an excellent PDF viewer. It's only
cca 100 times slower than MUPDF. ;-)

One more bad news for you:

> FF 1-4 do *not* support current standards, and are likely to fail
> in odd ways if you try to use them now

check

http://www.4p8.com/eric.brasseur/gamma_dalai_lama.html

with FireFox 48

then check with Links 2.13. Oops, you can't since you don't
have DOS ? Then check the shot I made for you:

http://www.xaver.me/drdoswiki/uploads/Main/li213gam.png

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: HTTPS and DOS browsers

Louis Santillan
dos386,

Could you please stop your excessive use of satirized names for
companies or technologies?  I know you have a point you want to make
in there somewhere but you lose me when I have to parse and substitute
your satirized names for these things (like Flu$h for Flash).

On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 11:07 AM, dos386 <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> On 21 July Eric Auer said:
>> indeed I am trying to motivate people to use TLS/SSL
>
> This (and without HeartBleed's, MD5-certificates, crippled 40-bit keys,...)
> definitely makes sense when hunting around big bucks or sensitive
> personal data ... however obligatory HTTPS for things like BUGzilla's
> and user or developer forums isn't that sane.
>
>> I don't recall ever seeing an MNG file, and if I were Mozilla, I
>> wouldn't bother to add support for something no one actually
>> used, even if it produced *no* bloat.
>
> 10 + 5 = 2 ;-)
>
>> More to the point, who *needed* it?
>
> - people using AGIF and being happy with it
> - people using AGIF but being concerned about its technical issues
> (256 colors etc)
> - people using AGIF but being concerned about its legal issues
> - people using Flu$h for animations and being happy with it
> - people using Flu$h for animations but being concerned about its
> technical issues (bugged Plugin)
> - people using Flu$h for animations but being concerned about its legal issues
> - people who would like to use animations on the Internet but couldn't
> since both AGIF and Flu$h sucked
>
>> What sort of other stuff might you *omit* from Mozilla code to
>> trim bloat?  What do you consider bloat?
>
> Maybe cca 80% of stuff added during recent 4 years.
>
>> H_264 got the nod because it provides better compression, and
>> video takes bandwidth. Google
>
> But the very same Google notoriously tries to prevent people from
> downloading movies from its Loo-Tube. 10 times viewed -> 10 times wasted
> bandwidth. Now let's assert than bandwidth is an issue. :-D
>
>> was looking at Theora as an alternative when they decided to make Chrome
>
> Please point me to the full test report with test materials.
>
>> We *have* a usable spec, and it's being implemented.
>
> We have a codec with legal problems ... when the legal problems expire
> one day the codec will be deprecated ... maybe H265 or H266 will be "in"
> and guess what ... have new legal problems.
>
>> There's a lot more to HTML5 than the new <video> keyword
>
> The new <video> keyword (together with Theora+Vorbis codecs)
> was the useful part of HTML5.
>
>> I don't think "most" video pages rudely cry for flash
>> Got a site where you would really like to see Flash go away in favor of HTML5?
>
> http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36961338
>
>> Download Flash Player now
>>You need to install Flash Player to play this content.
>
> https://get.adobe.com/flashplayer
>
>> and video isn't the only reason Flash is deployed.
>
> The other one were animations, see above about MNG.
>
>> Folks are moving away from it as fast as they can.
>
> sure :-D
>
>> But getting rid of Flash is a complex exercise.
>> Are *you* willing to pay what it will cost
>
> Definitely NO. Why? Becasue it does NOT need 1000's of
> hours of work done by 1000's of state-of-the-art programmers.
>
> Instead of the malware link "https://get.adobe.com/flashplayer" they
> could just provide the download link for the movie, or embed it
> using the simple HTML5 style. This would cost actually nothing.
>
>> Since you seem to have missed the fact
>
> oops
>
>> I'll be a good guy
>
> damn
>
>> What worked 20 years ago *won't* work now.
>
> Because of "good guy" 's like you notoriously deliberately break things.
>
>> world is bigger than you are and doesn't *care* what *you* think
>
> Why the hell have *you* subscribed to the *FreeDOS* list?
>
> BTW, FireFox now includes an excellent PDF viewer. It's only
> cca 100 times slower than MUPDF. ;-)
>
> One more bad news for you:
>
>> FF 1-4 do *not* support current standards, and are likely to fail
>> in odd ways if you try to use them now
>
> check
>
> http://www.4p8.com/eric.brasseur/gamma_dalai_lama.html
>
> with FireFox 48
>
> then check with Links 2.13. Oops, you can't since you don't
> have DOS ? Then check the shot I made for you:
>
> http://www.xaver.me/drdoswiki/uploads/Main/li213gam.png
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Freedos-user mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: HTTPS and DOS browsers

Dan Schmidt
In reply to this post by Thomas Mueller
> Under plain DOS ? On what kind of machine ?

Sry, didn't see your response.  FreeDos, Pentium, but I'm guessing it may run on less.  Get a nic card, an Ethernet to Wireless bridge, and you are good to go.  And a lot of time, especially for Lynx.  Links is slightly unstable, but easy to setup and better web page compatibility.  Lynx is notably faster, has better shorcuts (numbered links) and runs rock solid.  (Plus, access to the Gophernet) A great solution for reading news.  Can provide hints on setup if needed. 

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Jose Antonio Senna <[hidden email]> wrote:
 On 26 july, Thomas Mueller said:

> ...(I) also have run Links with graphics
> in DOS, but that was years back.

  Do you remember on what machine you did this ?

> I used Doug Kaufman's DOS port of Lynx for
> online commerce but not banking, and not recently.

   I, too, used this port of Lynx as my main browser,
  inclusive for e-commerce, until 2014.  During past
  year access problems did increase a lot.

 Dan Schmidt said:

>  I use two that do SSL/TLS quite adequately:
>  Links2
http://links.twibright.com/download.php
>  lynx also does ssl, but this version takes some work to get going:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.os.msdos.djgpp/flY264GkHV8

 Under plain DOS ? On what kind of machine ?

Thank you for your attention
  JAS



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Loading...