TR Forums

On the other hand, if you don't keep your browser updated you're begging for an outside attacker to own your computer. I sympathize with the idea that sites should degrade gracefully and occasionally use ELinks in an xterm, but that battle was lost over a decade ago.

That's the part that drives me especially insane with browsers (and now, Windows). They use a rapid development/deployment model (and must because of security) but also use it to constantly introduce features (aka bugs).

I wish more software took an approach like what Debian (and many other Linux distros, I'm sure) where they strive for a stable release, and only modify it explicitly for security changes, while holding a feature lock until $nextbigversion.

I know Chrome adopted the rapidly ascending version number strategy to combat all the retardedly designed websites that 'require browser version x' (as opposed to explicit feature checking), but there has to be a better middle ground.

Firefox ESR is a thing.

Meh, if you guys wanna use old stuff that's fine by me. Just don't complain when stuff doesn't work right.

DancinJack wrote:

Meh, if you guys wanna use old stuff that's fine by me. Just don't complain when stuff doesn't work right.

More recruits for the botnet army.

SuperSpy wrote:

Glorious wrote:

Well I'm pretty sure they spun off the Alibaba stake as part of that whole thing, so honestly I have no idea what on earth Yahoo really has that is worth much of anything.

Tons of people still use Yahoo mail.


For some reason.

Because I set it up when we moved our Fantasy Football league to Yahoo, and it has all my records attached to it.
Which, come to think of it, should actually be an incentive to get away from that account.

meerkt wrote:

I'm very much not a fan of this sorta-SaaS mindset that's trendy now, where browsers (and OSes) are in constant flux and users are expected be passively auto-updated without a say.

People wouldn't update their software manually, and everything either got pwned or didn't support modern standards. Or both.

The lack of updates/upgrades hurt web development badly. Instead of implementing a wide range of features, having time to test usability, and delivering an excellent web app... guess what? Developers spent man-years of labor coding the same feature 6 different ways so it would work with mutually-incompatible rendering methods in various versions of Netscape, IE, etc.

So this is what we get now. As annoying as it is, it's an improvement. People who cling too hard to old things were part of the problem, and that part has been eliminated. No tears shed.

It doesn't matter how awful Imgur is as a social cesspit, as long as they continue to allow direct-linking to free image uploads that don't die off into dead links within a few months.

If anything, be thankful that the prepubescent user-base are continuing to load advert after advert on their malware-infected phones, lured ever onwards by the softcore, barely-even-porn (interspersed with childish memes*), just so that you can use it free of charge for the foreseeable future.


* I love me some memes, but Imgur memes are worse than Reddit memes, and I've already stooped so low that I accept SA memes as valid.

meerkt wrote:

I don't see that interface. Does it come up without being logged in? (I can't test with an account because registration fails.)

Only the social features and organizing your images require a login.
After uploading there's a menu there with an option to 'get share links' and gives you the bbcode, markdown or html embed codes.

Here's you can see I am very obviously not logged in:


And everything is functional:


How old is your browser? Are you using a script blocker?

Anyway, browser compatibility was just one issue (BTW, non-direct image page no longer shows properly without JS).

jihadjoe wrote:

After uploading there's a menu there with an option to 'get share links' and gives you the bbcode, markdown or html embed codes.

Your shots are the same as mine. What's not available is what DancingJack showed, with the multiple thumbnail options.
It's nice to have but not crucial. Adding a last filename letter manually isn't a big problem, though I don't remember all of the thumbnail formats offhand:

*s = small square
*b = big square

*t = small
*m = medium
*l = large
*h = huge

*g = large(r) PNG?
*r = lower quality full size?

Good luck using the internet in 2018 without using any JS.

Using a browser in which you can toggle it dynamically, without page reload, makes it very possible.

meerkt wrote:

Using a browser in which you can toggle it dynamically, without page reload, makes it very possible.

That's not "not using JS" though. You're just picking when you want to use it. That's all fine by me, you can do as you please, but you just won't likely find me doing that.

Possible but still really annoying.

Not as annoying as using the web without being able to toggle it.

I'm surprised it's not implemented in Vivaldi. Hopefully V8 isn't an obstacle.

If you want NoScript, you know where to find it.