[Freedos-user] HTTPS and
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. 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 Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user --- Internet Rex 2.29 * Origin: capcity2.synchro.net - 502/875-8938 (1:2320/105.99) --- * BgNet 1.0b12 = CCO * KY/US * 502/875-8938 * capcity2.synchro.net --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux ListGate 1.3 * Capitol City Online - Frankfort, KY - telnet://capitolcityonline.net -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] HTTPS and DOS browsers
> 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 < jasse...@vivointernetdiscada.com.br> 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 > Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user > -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] HTTPS and DOS browsers
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$h for Flash). On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 11:07 AM, dos386 wrote: >> On 21 July Eric Auer said: >> indeed I am trying to motivate people to use TLS/SSL > > This (and without HeartBleed's, MD5-certificates, crippled 40-bit keys,...) > definitely makes sense when hunting around big bucks or sensitive > personal data ... however obligatory HTTPS for things like BUGzilla's > and user or developer forums isn't that sane. > >> I don't recall ever seeing an MNG file, and if I were Mozilla, I >> wouldn't bother to add support for something no one actually >> used, even if it produced *no* bloat. > > 10 + 5 = 2 ;-) > >> More to the point, who *needed* it? > > - people using AGIF and being happy with it > - people using AGIF but being concerned about its technical issues > (256 colors etc) > - people using AGIF but being concerned about its legal issues > - people using Flu$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 keyword > > The new 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 > Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] HTTPS and DOS browsers
> 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 keyword The new 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 Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] HTTPS and DOS browsers
> On Aug 1, 2016, at 5:24 AM, dmccunney wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 3:41 AM, dos386 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 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 i
Re: [Freedos-user] HTTPS and DOS browsers
On 8/1/2016 2:14 PM, TJ Edmister wrote: > On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 05:24:30 -0400, dmccunney > 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 Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] HTTPS and DOS browsers
On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 05:24:30 -0400, dmccunney 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 > Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] HTTPS and DOS browsers
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 3:41 AM, dos386 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 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 Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] HTTPS and DOS browsers
> > 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 Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] HTTPS and DOS browsers
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 Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] HTTPS and DOS browsers
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 1:00 PM, dos386 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 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, an
Re: [Freedos-user] HTTPS and DOS browsers
> 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 Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] HTTPS and DOS browsers
> > 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 Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] HTTPS and DOS browsers
>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 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 On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 7:33 PM, dmccunney wrote: > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 9:21 PM, Thomas Mueller > 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 > Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net > 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 Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] HTTPS and DOS browsers
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 9:21 PM, Thomas Mueller 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 Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] HTTPS and DOS browsers
> 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 Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user