35 comments

[ 20.8 ms ] story [ 2276 ms ] thread
Neat - I wish it showed how many entries there are for each category. I was disappointed to see a Parenting category, with nothing in it.
Sadly it's the same for Sci-Fi art. I had a link to submit, but you need to sign up and it's $20. Fair enough if they want to set some minimum barrier for the site to filter out suggestions from every Tom, Dick, and Harry (and Jane?), but I don't feel so investing in this to give them $20 to provide a suggestion.
Clearly, if you want descendent nodes, you'll be looking for the "Child" or "Leafnode" category ;-)
Kind of like the indieseek.xyz directory. Love to see it.
With the rise of these retro-looking websites, I feel it's possible again to start using a browser from the '90s. Someone should make a static-site social media platform for full compatibility.
Not so much. While a lot of these websites use classic approaches (handcrafted HTML/CSS, server-side includes, etc.) and aesthetics, the actual versions of those technologies used are often rather modern. For example, TFA looks like a page I'd have browsed in IE5 as a kid, but if you look at the markup, it's using HTML5 tags and Flexbox (which became a W3C WR in 2017), while a period site would have used an HTML table to get the same effect. Of course, you wouldn't want to do it that way nowadays, because it wouldn't be responsive or mobile-friendly.

(I don't think this detracts from such sites, to be clear; they're adopting new technologies where they provide practical benefits to the reader because many indieweb proponents are pushing it as a progressive, rather than reactionary, praxis.)

I loaded up Windows 98SE SP2 in a VM and tried to use it to browse the modern web but it was basically impossible since it only supported HTTP/1.1 websites. I was only able to find maybe 3-4 websites that still supported it and load.
> Someone should make a static-site social media platform for full compatibility.

What do you mean by that? Especially the "social" part?

This is totally doable! It can be done with static sites + rss (and optionally email).

For example, I do this with my website. I receive comments via email (with the sender’s addresses hashed). Each page/comment-list/comment has its own rss feed that people can “subscribe” to. This allows you to get notified when someone responds to a comment you left, or comments on a page. But all notifications are opt-in and require no login because your rss reader is fetching the updates.

Since I’m the moderator of my site, I subscribe to the “all-comments” feed and get notified upon every submission. I then go review the comment and then the site rebuilds. There’s no logins or sign ups. Commenting is just pushing and notifications just pulling.

example https://spenc.es/updates/posts/4513EBDF/

I plan on open sourcing the commenting aspect of this (it’s called https://r3ply.com) so this doesn’t have to be reinvented for each website, but comments are just one part of the whole system:

The web is the platform. RSS provides notifications (pull). Emailing provides a way to post (push) - and moderate - content. Links are for sharing and are always static (never change or break).

The one missing thing is like a “pending comments” cache, for when you occasionally get HN like traffic and need comments to be temporarily displayed immediately. I’m building this now but it’s really optional and would be the only thing in this system that even requires JS or SSR.

The biggest issue there is that regardless of how your old your html elements, the old browsers only supported SSL 2/3, at best, and likely nothing at all, meaning you can't connect to basically any website.
I made a twitter clone in PHP during the 00s, but sadly I don't have the code anymore... Although it should be pretty easy to replicate.
If your definition of social-media includes link aggregators, check https://brutalinks.tech. I've been working on things adjacent to that for quite a while now and I'm always looking for interested people.
This is cute, but I absolutely do not care about buying a omg.lol URL for $20/yr, and I'm not trying to be a hater because the concept is fine, but anybody who falls into this same boat should know this is explicitly "not for them"
What's the selection criteria for being listed on the directory?
The fact that it already has categories for most hobbies but absolutely nothing for cars, motorbikes, or any mechanical engineering-related topic, makes me sad. I know it's not their fault - young people simply don't care anymore.
Cool, but I'd like us to get past the idea that a site has to use Times font to be retro.

Times is really not adapted for the web and is particularly bad on low-resolution screens. How many computer terminals used Times for anything but Word processing?

Verdana was released in 1996 — is that too recent?

Argh, Yahoo is happening again!

(For the youth, this is basically what Yahoo was, originally; it was _ten years_ after Yahoo started before it had its own crawler-based search engine, though it did use various third parties after the first few years.)

Nice website. But do I need to buy a omg.lol subdomain before I can contribute links here? Why is it an omg.lol subdomain? I'm happy to buy a new domain, but not so happy about buying a subdomain. I'm not sure why I'd be paying omg.lol to contribute links to url.town? What's the connection between the two?
I just can’t stand reading serif fonts on a screen. The site is not compelling enough to power through the torture the font induces.
(comment deleted)
Pretty on the nose that the only sports category is road cycling.