/tech/ - Technology

101010

Posting mode: Reply

Check to confirm you're not a robot
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Password
Drawing x size canvas
File(s)

Remember to follow the rules

Max file size: 350.00 MB

Max files: 5

Max message length: 4096

Manage Board | Moderate Thread

Return | Catalog | Bottom

Expand All Images


(55.00 KB 550x439 irony.png)
WWW alternatives Anonymous 09/19/2017 (Tue) 19:57:00 [Preview] No. 11206
With W3C now folding to DRM and the web already being crushed under the weight of JS I think we need a discussion.

What are some alternatives to the web? I remember GNUNET implements something like websites. Basically I think we should ditch web browsers all together. BBS? Gopher?


Anonymous 09/19/2017 (Tue) 20:36:54 [Preview] No. 11207 del
If used with Tor, IPFS seems promissing.
But, if we "restart" the internet, I think we should go to the way of distributed meshnet. In this case, I don't know any project that still alive doing this. My hope is that, one day, someone will ressurect Netsukuku with current best-practices on crypto and formal methods, but I don't think it will happen.


Anonymous 09/19/2017 (Tue) 23:34:20 [Preview] No. 11209 del
>>11206
misunderstands the consequences of the W3C's endorsement of EME, and

>>11207
misunderstands the difference between the web and the internet

The objections of the EFF and security people and pretty much everyone who isn't a corporate shill to EME are understandable and quite reasonable. Their dislike of EME being implemented in browsers is also quite correct. BTW, EME is *already* implemented in every major browser.

But you people are acting like this is going to be the end of the web or something. Here are some facts that you can take along with your Zyprexa:

1. People hosting websites will not have to use DRM. Endchan, for example, will continue to chug along as always, unless odilitime decided to implement DRM to access some Endchan content.
2. Browsers that will never implement EME (links, lynx, eww) will continue to work as they always have with non-DRMed content on the web.

If you look at e.g. the editors behind the EME recommendation, you'll see who's pushing it:

https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/REC-encrypted-media-20170918/

One is from Google, one is from Netflix, and two are from Microsoft. Why?

Because EME is all about getting video content to fucking normies on Windows from Netflix and Youtube.

They want it as a replacement to Adobe Flash and Microsoft Silverlight, which is how Netflix, Hulu, et al. manage their DRM now.

I get that Doctorow and the EFF and the security people hate the idea of DRM capabilities being moved from proprietary, closed-source plugins (Flash and Silverlight) to proprietary, closed-source blobs being run in otherwise open sores browsers, but for most people, this will change nothing.

Fucking normies run Flash and Silverlight now so they can watch Netflix. They'll run browsers with HTML5 EME-enabled DRM to do the same thing. Most of them will have no idea and will never know the difference.

Most of the paranoiacs on this board (like me) refuse to run Flash or Silverlight now. And I'll refuse to run HTML5 EME-enabled DRM in my browser, or just run a browser that doesn't implement it at all.

It's correct to object to the W3C recommendation of EME, because it's bad for a supposedly open standards organization to officially endorse an infrastructure that permits closed-source DRM to be run on open platforms.

But this is going to change nothing about the web for the vast majority of people. And if you do decide you want to start watching Netflix, the only thing that will change is that instead of Netflix bending you over and reaming out your cornhole with Microsoft Silverlight, they'll be bending you over and reaming out your cornhole with some other closed-source DRM scheme.

Plus ça change.


Anonymous 09/20/2017 (Wed) 00:32:51 [Preview] No. 11210 del
>11209
>Netflix, Microsoft and Youtube
These are not the only problem. Youtube is not just for "normies". There's lots of good content on youtube.
As you said, most people will not give a shit about DRM, so most of the content will still be posted on youtube. If youtube-dl stops working then where we will get videos? Other platforms will probably adopt DRM too, such as Vimeo.

But, again, that's not the major issue I see. People can start to use DRM to lock the whole website. For example, if your adblocker is blocking some piece of javascript, it will automatically block the entire website. This will destroy adblockers and everyone will be forced to see nasty ads. Not too long for google adopt it, then the entire web will not work anymore without javascript. Think about it.


Anonymous 09/20/2017 (Wed) 01:44:16 [Preview] No. 11211 del
>>11210
>Youtube is not just for "normies".
kek

>If youtube-dl stops working then where we will get videos? Other platforms will probably adopt DRM too, such as Vimeo.
It's unlikely that platforms like Youtube and Vimeo will employ DRM for every video. Uploaders will probably be given the ability to enable or disable it for their accounts or for each of their videos.

VEVO, for example, will probably have it enabled on all of their videos, because they don't want you downloading them. They want you to have to watch them on Youtube to see their ads.

But VEVO is normie shit.

>People can start to use DRM to lock the whole website.
They can do that now. The W3C's recommendation changes nothing in that regard.

>For example, if your adblocker is blocking some piece of javascript, it will automatically block the entire website.
That happens now. Patreon won't load for me so I can see how many betas have been suckered into subsidizing the lifestyle of this month's SJW fail whale. archive.is doesn't work for me because of their Cloudflare settings, which require js. I've run into this dozens of times because I don't run js. Maybe hundreds.

In other words, the W3C's recommendation changes nothing in this regard.

>Not too long for google adopt it, then the entire web will not work anymore without javascript.
They can do that now. And certainly, numerous large, popular parts of the web already do not work without javascript.

The W3C's recommendation on EME changes nothing in this regard.

>Think about it.
I have. Either you have not, or you do not understand what's happening.

The W3C's recommendation essentially that DRM functionality (which is currently implemented in plugins like Flash and Silverlight that 99% of people already have installed) be enabled in browsers via EME (which is already implemented in all major browsers).

Websites have been able to implement DRM for a long time. This changes nothing in that regard.

It will make the major browsers less secure, however.


Anonymous 09/20/2017 (Wed) 09:37:15 [Preview] No. 11213 del
>>11210
He's a troll, ignore him.

The problem is that the web is being shat on in many different ways. To focus on any single issue makes it appear like a solvable problem and misses the point. It's the implication of all those issues that raises the need to find real alternatives now.

Cucked browser developers.
Bloated browsers.
Pro censorship domain registrars.
Pro censorship hosters.
Web unbrowsable with ads.
Web blocks ad blockers.
Some sites still rely on flash (though not many thanks to Apple)
Sites written almost entirely in javascript.
New coin mining javascript.
Javascript that reveals your identity.
Cookies that reveal your identity.
Huge user monitoring platforms with embedded site elements from facebook and google.
Search engines that suppress results and comply to government filtering demands.
AI systems that adjust search engine results to target brainwashing specifically at your browsing profile.
Big data being used to monitor populations and even target advertise and price adjust.
Proprietary DRM in the fucking browser that in the future might become mandatory for most sites.

Let's say we have a scenario where we make our own site with hookers and blackjack free from all that where free speech reigns. The burden on the servers is tremendous to fulfil our needs because we must rely on this site alone or at least what we can provide ourselves. And then the site comes under attack. The domain gets confiscated, companies refuse to process our digital transactions and we go through every one available. That was 8chan and the only reason it didn't die is because it was taken over by pig fucker who then closed the source development and banned the free speech. Who's to say he will fucking care about not implementing DRM? So we come here, but how is this place any safer? What has fucking changed? Nothing.
Look at stormfront news, forced to use an onion. What's to say they don't get fucked the same as those pedos a few years back. Site forces javascript, the script utilises (((mozilla))) browser zero day (I wonder how that got in there), users get exposed and shamed.

That's just the shit I came up with off the top of my head and I'm not very bright nor did I get much sleep. These are all problems created by the web, there are surely many other problems we could all come up with. Why not simply move to something where we don't have these problems? Laziness and greed. The lazy will continue to spout bullshit excuses about why it's not worth leaving to keep as many people in this misery with them so they aren't left behind. The greedy will have something to gain from keeping users on the web and will put as much doubt on new ideas as possible to discourage their development.

Sorry, I didn't mean to go on so long, I just need a coffee.


Anonymous 09/21/2017 (Thu) 02:52:28 [Preview] No. 11223 del
Honestly, what's there to discuss?
OP and repliers are just as screwed as everyone is: Banks, Governments, Employers, ISPs, and everyone will welcome this change. Accept it.

I'm more surprised /tech/ isn't taking 300% advantage of this change. What's honestly wrong with using other's people's computer for your own usage?


Anonymous 09/21/2017 (Thu) 03:16:25 [Preview] No. 11224 del
>>11223
Yeah, let me just take all your credit info, your address, and your dick pictures. We're truly heading towards the future!


Anonymous 09/21/2017 (Thu) 03:29:42 [Preview] No. 11225 del
(705.36 KB 738x780 147260794070.gif)
>>11223
What a bunch of fucking nonsense. Bank DRM? For what? And what do ISPs have to do with the W3C's recommendation about EME for the web? Do you think the I in ISP stands for web?


Anonymous 09/21/2017 (Thu) 03:57:35 [Preview] No. 11226 del
new browser?


Anonymous 09/21/2017 (Thu) 04:30:18 [Preview] No. 11227 del
>>11226
Good idea. I'll make the logo and set up the Github with a list of features.


Anonymous 09/21/2017 (Thu) 05:12:26 [Preview] No. 11228 del
>>11224 Perfect idea! Let's make git repo now!
>>11225 DRM, the best form of banking security! You thought Javascript was for malware?!?
>ISPs have to do with the W3C's recommendation about EME for the web?
Your mind is too small: Why wouldn't monopolistic ISPs take advantage of embedding malware of your browsing habits for their sustainability?!? I assume they already report your internet usage to "advertising" agencies "anonymously" [1]. So why do you care if they use your browser for unremovable advertising?!?

[1]https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/04/04/isps-can-now-collect-and-sell-your-data-what-know-internet-privacy/100015356/


Anonymous 09/21/2017 (Thu) 06:52:42 [Preview] No. 11231 del
>>11228

>Why wouldn't monopolistic ISPs take advantage of embedding malware of your browsing habits for their sustainability?!?

This sentence is incoherent. "Embedding malware of your browsing habits"? You sound like you have Tourette's. Fucking word salad.

You have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Every major browser--Chrome, Firefox, IE, Edge, and Safari--has EME, and has had it since 2016. You don't seem to understand the difference between the internet and the web, between EME, DRM, and javascript, and how these various technologies actually work.


Anonymous 09/21/2017 (Thu) 07:08:50 [Preview] No. 11232 del
>>11231
Not the same guy, but please explain to us what you mean by internet and web difference.


Anonymous 09/21/2017 (Thu) 07:55:06 [Preview] No. 11234 del
>>11231
LOL, I'm not OP, but my assessment about your mind being small is completely correct.

EME is exactly what every host provider would need to properly execute anything under the sun on a web browser. It only takes the right motivation to completely control an entire computer down to the firmware/UEFI. CCleaner/Avast malware is just one recent example of many more to come. It's your lack of imagination that I criticized, not that EME will not be used for totalitarian control by every conceivable potential.
Whether support or execution by major browsers is or isn't featured in their sample for EME inclusion should be discussed at the current state of affairs, but what are we going to do when every facet of society conforms to only requiring this client using EME be the one to communicate and work with

I mean, not too long ago everyone was required to install Flash, Java, Silverlight, Adobe reader, insert your pile of crap to submit X shit. Why do you assume companies will not attempt to control their consumers like governments already do?

If my words are too big for your little mind to comprehend:
How will you gain employment if your employer requires to use their specific EME browser to submit your application, so that they can submit their mandated W2 form on the mandated .gov site using the mandated browser with EME, so that you can afford to pay your ISP that requires their browser with EME to submit your down payment you received at your private bank that requires access with their browser having EME?

The ignorant ask "why", the intelligent ask "when?"

Call me when Mark Zuckerberg is president!

>>11232
Not the person you are responding to, obv., but: The internet at large host many many types of traffics, protocols, networks, and NIC responses. However, the web, is a theoretical idea that we have yet to achieve. The thing we are using right now, this very moment is a HTTPd server we are submitting HTTP POST near Nevada that all of us have to connect to to be able to read what we posted to. HTTP is a subset of many many TCP/IP protocols ISPs deal with at large with cables and routers they have to maintain and pass packets around. The idea that TCP would have achieved some sort of web to locate resources anywhere in the planet has not yet been achieved, because what we have right now is hierarchy addressing of top domain queries to the remote IP address we connect to to post messages to. Are there alternatives to the HTTP "web"? Plenty. Do they affect the fact many browsers adopted a stupid standard to incorporate into their HTTPclients? No, not really. But now it's going to be many times more easier to inject whatever the fuck anyone wants into these vulnerable clients.

If you need an analogy, and you are like OP, Think of it like cars and traffic laws. The traffic in the internet is relatively the same and expanding forever. Right now, the major manufacturers of cars had decided to leave a huge remote access vulnerability forever on their cars and future models they "sell". We may have many more car crashes here and there, but that doesn't affect cyclists, trains, and pedestrians using the same traffic.

What most stupid respondents are saying is to build a new shiny car model that doesn't have this remote vulnerability. But again, not many people will do business with those secure cars, esp. governments. ISPs and maligned people will have no trouble abusing those sets of cars, and you will be forced to used them, one way or another.

The real discussion /tech/ should be talking is: how many more ways can we take advantage of the fact all these "cars" are so vulnerable!
I mean, car manufacturers don't care what we think, why should we?


Anonymous 09/21/2017 (Thu) 08:34:47 [Preview] No. 11235 del
>>11231
>word salad
Hahahaha, never heard that before, so perfect.


OP 09/21/2017 (Thu) 09:08:34 [Preview] No. 11237 del
>>11232
Was that meant to be a capitalised "YOU" or are you just unaware of what the internet or the web is?

>>11234
>and you are like OP
>but that doesn't affect cyclists
>What most stupid respondents are saying is to build a new shiny car model
Your metaphor could be better defined but message received. To try and use your metaphor: The "cars" can only drive on the roads. I'm saying we become "cyclists" and get off the roads.

That said, the idea that we can keep our own little corner of the web clean, safe and free browser compliant (which I assume you are saying) is naive. For reasons stated here >>11213 the web and because of that in part the internet is now compromised as a safe platform. Even non web applications like IRC rely on domain name servers and the web to communicate the address to users. If the web does become hostile we can only hope it's at such a slow transition that we can easily adapt. Alternatively we can start discussing technologies now.


Anonymous 09/21/2017 (Thu) 13:44:09 [Preview] No. 11238 del
>>11237
>become "cyclists" and get off the roads
Now you're purposely being ignorant of both human behavior and progression. The cyclists expression here is using cURL or ed browser to "display" a httpd "site". I'm sure even /g/ wants to be able to at the least display video and sound, no? By aeroplanes, I mean better clients like seamonkey and flexget.


Anonymous 09/22/2017 (Fri) 01:20:48 [Preview] No. 11245 del
>>11234
Banks, websites, governments, etc. could have been requiring DRM for years in order to access and interact with their content. Flash and Silverlight make DRM possible. EME has been implemented in various browsers for years, and in all major browsers since 2016. Every single site on the web could have required users to use DRM to access their content for years now.

Yet they haven't, and have no reason to do so for most content. Again, you do not understand what DRM is, apparently.

Were you freaking out about your bank potentially requiring DRM 7 years ago, even though they could have done so at any time? No. Because you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

You're freaking out about it now, because you read about the W3C recommendation a couple days ago on reddit and now, all of a sudden, you think the sky's falling.


Anonymous 09/22/2017 (Fri) 18:22:13 [Preview] No. 11263 del
>>11245
Found the person living off the grid


Anonymous 09/26/2017 (Tue) 16:20:10 [Preview] No. 11325 del
Backup everything is my response. EVERYTHING. Music, TV shows, Movies, Youtube channels you enjoy, software, Operating Systems, etc.

Will this only effect new web browsers BTW, or is backing up a bunch of old web browsers pretty much a waste of time at this point?


Anonymous 09/26/2017 (Tue) 16:27:42 [Preview] No. 11326 del
>>11325
Also, lets make sure we have backup P2P clients, BT clients, I2P, etc. BT/P2P is going to become a very big thing in the near future again once all the normfags realize they can't download/access/share/watch anything anymore (because of DRM) they'll likely start to ditch all those "smartphones" and "tablets" and start buying laptops and PCs again so they can go back to the good 'ol days of simple P2P.

How much you wanna bet this backfires on Silicon Vally?


Anonymous 09/26/2017 (Tue) 17:48:01 [Preview] No. 11332 del
>>11325
There's no need to backup software. You should be using open source.


Anonymous 09/26/2017 (Tue) 18:21:45 [Preview] No. 11334 del
>>11332
On the contrary I use a lot of proprietary software on my offline win XP so I can easily rip DVDs, CDs and convert my media files because I find some of that software works much better than some of the open source software out there. I'm not bashing open source, but not all of it is that great, and there is some proprietary software out there that just kicks ass and gets the job done right without any hassle.

That's the stuff you want backups of.


Anonymous 09/26/2017 (Tue) 19:10:08 [Preview] No. 11337 del
>>11206
Do some of you savvy individuals still not have a dedicated "normie" computer for running unsafe websites?

I always use a single-purpose computer to watch youtube videos and download them, and I don't use an account or post comments.


Anonymous 09/26/2017 (Tue) 19:14:54 [Preview] No. 11338 del
>>11337
I personally don't run "unsafe websites". If you want to watch some youtube video, use youtube-dl to download and run ffplay or mpv player. If you want to subscribe to an youtube channel, use a RSS client like Newsbeuter.
Just simplify. There's no need for what you call "normie computer". Route everything through Tor (do transparent proxy) and you're done.


Anonymous 09/26/2017 (Tue) 22:20:39 [Preview] No. 11344 del
(3.91 KB 460x100 ftp.png)
>>11238
On the web, I don't actually want to see video and sound. I just want text and possibly images. And definitely no javascript or similar stuff like flash, etc. It always seemed flaky and fragile to me. It also doesn't work in a text console, so it's not flexible, but rather makes you a slave of the GUI and the massive hardware needed to support that.
Today I downloaded a movie from an FTP server, using my CLI ftp client. This doesn't need much hardware at all. There are even FTP clients for 30+ year old hardware like Commodore 64 (see: Lunix). That's the difference between the old Internet and this Web 2.0 disaster. Back in the old days, it really was open to any and all systems with a TCP/IP stack or a serial connection to some kind of shell account. If you could get or write a serial comms program, your custom frankenstein hardware that you build in your garage could connect to the Internet and use ftp, telnet, mail, usenet, irc, and so on.
If we're to find similar freedom again, we have to distance ourselves from the web. It's fine to have a "lean" web browser like Lynx or similar, but those who want to escape the botnet and future clamp-down will be wise enough to start exploring other options now.
The ones who keep making forks of Firefox are largely wasting their time. That energy could instead be used in making progress into simpler, leaner, and more flexible alternatives to the web.


Anonymous 09/27/2017 (Wed) 00:18:33 [Preview] No. 11347 del
>>11344
You make some good points, but I'd recommend something like Soulseek, Tribler or Retroshare for normies like myself who desire a decentralized platform to share files and communicate with one another. Of-course this doesn't provide much of a standard "web" interface either but I do believe P2P is going to make a comeback if more and more people start getting locked out from spreading content via DRM-HTML5. I don't think everyone wants to set up their own FTP server just to share files. P2P would be a perfect alternative (at least for a while until something better is developed).


Anonymous 09/27/2017 (Wed) 01:03:32 [Preview] No. 11349 del
(1.83 MB 885x957 1501114121522.png)
>>11326
>all the normfags realize they can't download/access/share/watch anything anymore (because of DRM)
Normies aren't even going to notice that anything has changed. The DRM for all of the videos they watch will now be managed by EME in the browser, instead of Flash and Silverlight as it has been for years.

>they'll likely start to ditch all those "smartphones" and "tablets" and start buying laptops and PCs again so they can go back to the good 'ol days of simple P2P.
You owe me a new pair of sides. Mine are currently in orbit around the moon. DRM through EME will make it EASIER, not harder, to watch Netflix and the like on mobile devices, especially Apple. Mobile device marketshare will continue to increase.

>How much you wanna bet this backfires on Silicon Vally[sic]?
Two of the biggest backers of EME in the browser were Microsoft and Hulu, which are located in Redmond, WA and Los Angeles, respectively. So I'm not sure what Silicon Valley has to do with anything.

You morons continue to misunderstand what actually happened on September 18 when the W3C made EME a recommendation. EME is not new. DRM on the Web is really not new. Normies will continue to normie. Nothing will change.


Anonymous 09/27/2017 (Wed) 01:05:41 [Preview] No. 11350 del
>>11344
>>11347
FTP is a dead protocol, centralized, insecure and not encrypted by default.
We need something that is:
- Distributed (or at least decentralized)
- Anonymous
- End-to-end encrypted

The only thing we have now is Tahoe-LAFS or IPFS, through Tor.
As I've said on >>11207 , someone should look more on the Netsukuku approach. It's anonymous without Tor, has it's own name resolution system built-in, can work as a meshnet, layer 3 is encrypted by default, etc. It's the project that has the best ideas I've seem so far, yet no one seems to care.
Of course, I'm only talking about immediate approachs. If we are gonna enter to redesign the whole web, then we should think everything again, from scratch (for example, machines should not have a UID as much as possible and forget the OSI model, everything should be one single modular protocol, working through a wireless device).


Anonymous 09/27/2017 (Wed) 01:14:18 [Preview] No. 11352 del
>>11349
>Nothing will change.
Although it is true that some people haven't understood the changes and is spreading their fearmongering bullshit, it's not true that nothing will change.
The biggest change I think will be on platforms like youtube. I'm sure most of us here don't watch Netflix, so it's not a big deal, but conferences like Usenix, EuroBSDCon, etc, post their videos on youtube. Chaos Congress tries to post directly on their servers, but we see many things posted on youtube too.
Channels on youtube will also start to ask for money locking the videos.
There's many things that *might* change.

ps. You haven't explained the difference between the internet and web, on your conception. I asking because the definition between the two are just a social construction, there's no difference between the two.


Anonymous 09/27/2017 (Wed) 01:40:14 [Preview] No. 11353 del
>>11350
It should also leak less metadata... that's very important.


Anonymous 09/27/2017 (Wed) 01:48:08 [Preview] No. 11354 del
>>11352
>Channels on youtube will also start to ask for money locking the videos.
They have been able to do this for years, and some do.

So nothing has changed.

>ps. You haven't explained the difference between the internet and web, on your conception. I asking because the definition between the two are just a social construction, there's no difference between the two.
This is just wrong, and it is such a fundamental error that it is clear you have no business having an opinion about any of this.

*I* don't have a "conception" of the difference between the internet and the web. It's not a matter of opinion or conjecture. There is a difference, and you would do well to educate yourself about it so you do not continue to sound like an idiot.


Anonymous 09/27/2017 (Wed) 01:59:12 [Preview] No. 11356 del
i2p


Anonymous 09/27/2017 (Wed) 02:24:31 [Preview] No. 11357 del
>>11354
If you know the definition why don't you just explain or point some link? What are you even doing here, if not to engage in discussion? wtf. tired.


Anonymous 09/27/2017 (Wed) 02:59:16 [Preview] No. 11360 del
>>11357
>If you know the definition why don't you just explain or point some link?
I'm not going to spoonfeed you something you can find for yourself in less than a minute on a search engine.

Stop being a lazy cunt and show some initiative.

>What are you even doing here, if not to engage in discussion?
We've already established that you're incapable of participating in this discussion.

Also, trying to educate a drooling sub-moron who, a century ago, would have been involuntarily sterilized isn't engaging in discussion. It's a (futile) act of charity. I'm not feeling charitable at the moment.


Anonymous 09/27/2017 (Wed) 03:42:08 [Preview] No. 11361 del
>>11360
>I'm not going to spoonfeed you
And I don't want you too. I want you to prove what you're saying. The difference between internet and web is just a construction. There's people that study networking have already created a model (called OSI) to explain the differences between protocols. Calling everything that is under HTTP a "web" and all the interconection between computers the "internet" is just a conjecture from nothing. Stop reading the bullshit websites you're reading, like gizmodo and phoronix.


Anonymous 09/27/2017 (Wed) 13:31:39 [Preview] No. 11365 del
>>11361
>I want you to prove what you're saying.
What the fuck are you even talking about you idiot. If a pear grows on a tree and some idiot calls the tree a pear instead of just the fruit would YOU waste your time correcting him? No one cares about the nonsense that has confused you in the first place. Five seconds it took me you dumb lazy fuck: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet
Before the article even begins, the second fucking line on the page
>Not to be confused with the World Wide Web.

Let's follow that link shall we?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web
>the Web is an information space where documents and other web resources are identified by Uniform Resource Locators (URLs), interlinked by hypertext links, and can be accessed via the Internet.

It took such a pathetically minimal amount of effort, it was actually considerably more effort just to write this post showing you how easy it was.

Good God, stop derailing the thread.


Anonymous 09/27/2017 (Wed) 13:35:01 [Preview] No. 11366 del
>>11357
>What are you even doing here, if not to engage in discussion
Not wasting everybody's time with "uuuh do my homework for me" like you are.
>I want you to prove what you're saying.
I bet you do, esteemed member of the Skeptic™ Community©®. I won't ask what you are even doing here, because I do already know, kike. I looked it up before I came here in places that are good for inseminating proof, and now I'm here where it's good to mull over what we already know. A place and time for everything.


Anonymous 09/27/2017 (Wed) 14:15:21 [Preview] No. 11367 del
>>11360
>sub-moron
Epsilon-minus semi-moron

ftfy


Anonymous 09/27/2017 (Wed) 15:40:41 [Preview] No. 11368 del
Net is used to catch fish.
Web is used to catch flies.
Are you a fish or a miserable bug?


Anonymous 09/27/2017 (Wed) 16:50:28 [Preview] No. 11369 del
>>11349
Sorry for the misinterpretation of DRM/EME, I'm still trying to wrap my mind around how this will effect the current internet.

So what you are saying is media will still be able to be viewed on popular networks - but NOT shared among other platforms without the necessary decryption keys (permissions from "ownerships")?

>>11350
I agree with pretty much everything you stated except:

>everything should be one single modular protocol, working through a wireless device

>working through a wireless device

What's wrong with wired connections? I don't think we should rule out one kind of connection over another. Why not accept both wired, wireless and mesh connections?

Correct and forgive me if I misunderstood what you were saying.

>>11356
Yes I2P is another good option. Also check out Retroshare, which is an alternative decentralized web platform for email, forums, BBS, file sharing, etc. If utilized by users properly we could create a pretty decent alternative medium from the current web.

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

Personally I would like to see something developed that would be completely decentralized and utilize I2P, DHT (bit torrent), P2P, BBS and IPFS with an option to onion route through other user networks as well. Add a built-in (standard HTML) browser to attract more users and I think we'd have a pretty resilient and popular alternative to the current web.

Now only if the EFF and other disgruntled orgs and programmers would dedicate some of their time and resources to deliver this kind of unique client we'd be set. Another important thing would be to make this client compatible with ALL current OS systems. We don't want to exclude certain groups or potential users.


Anonymous 09/27/2017 (Wed) 19:59:18 [Preview] No. 11376 del
(64.59 KB 546x700 now.jpg)
>>11365
>>11366
<get the first lines from wikipedia
<interpret it the way you want
>It't alright guys, I know what I'm doing!!!1!1!!
kids these days.
>let's give a fancy name to everything that uses HTTP and DNS, so I can use it as an argument in some imageboard, and appear as a super-intelligent guy
GTFO.


Anonymous 09/27/2017 (Wed) 20:09:31 [Preview] No. 11377 del
>>11369
>Why not accept both wired, wireless and mesh connections?
Because IBM, DXC Technology, Vanco and Atos Origin have too much power. A free internet should be made by it's own users, so no one can shutdown this internet (unless they spread Jammers through the country or remove every single hardware):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_Arab_Spring


Anonymous 09/27/2017 (Wed) 20:22:48 [Preview] No. 11378 del
>>11377
So a mesh network, right?

Simple wireless/WiFi still can be shut down easily by the government, while mesh networking would be much more difficult to shut down.

I'd go along with this idea as long as I still have physical control over my WiFi card or wireless modem. I don't like my computer being online while I'm not actually using it. I'm aware of some of the firmware backdoors the NSA have but regardless of all that it's more secure to have an intermittent connection (where you control when or not you are connected to the internet).


Anonymous 09/27/2017 (Wed) 20:35:15 [Preview] No. 11380 del
>>11378
>mesh
Yes.
>hardware backdoors
Yes, that's another problem. This could be solved with RISC-V system on chip. The wireless device could be DASH7. Could also have a simple faraday cage, so government can't find it with EM detector, if we put it on some random place.
http://heshamelmatary.blogspot.com.au/2017/06/sel4testrisc-v-unofficial-release-priv.html
http://www.lowrisc.org/


Anonymous 09/27/2017 (Wed) 23:14:12 [Preview] No. 11395 del


Anonymous 09/28/2017 (Thu) 08:48:05 [Preview] No. 11397 del
>>11377
>unless they spread Jammers through the country or remove every single hardware
They could also cut the power. In this case, the device should have a solar powered battery...


Anonymous 09/28/2017 (Thu) 10:05:35 [Preview] No. 11398 del
ardunel dongle


Anonymous 09/28/2017 (Thu) 13:39:36 [Preview] No. 11404 del
Wifi is a really bad idea for a large-scale mesh. High latencies, interference resulting in speed drops, power hog, jewish microwaves. On the other hand, all high-speed wired solutions have no libre firmware or drivers. Everything above 1Gbit or optical is fucking proprietary. But at least optical wires don't radiate shit in all directions so CIA niggers can't find them easily.


New Browser? Nope. Anonymous 04/13/2018 (Fri) 08:18:06 [Preview] No.12615 del
(16.40 KB 318x480 1477471677902.jpg)
>>11226
Well the issue is more like the standards of the web have gotten out of hand. New standards need to be spread and upheld. Imagine it like this: we could either fork existing browsers or webengines and add more functionality, like supporting FLIF and animated SVGs and other goodies they currently don't deem necessary, or we remove and replace functionality, like taking out Javascript support and only allowed for scripting using LISP dialects. But you need webpages and websites that are going to conform to that new standard, and the only way that's going to happen is if it's small fansites or homepages that can leverage an alternative search index besides Google (who is heavily biased toward big-name websites that can pay for positioning).

It's not a problem that can be solved just by introducing new web browsers. It'd be better to just support a fork that already exists.



Top | Return | Catalog | Post a reply