chriswarbo

TIL. Still,

> It does not apply to common versions of user frustration, pushback, dark creative themes, or model testing and research.

> At this point, XP and DOS are almost synonymous for me.

IIRC Windows 9x & ME were based on (MS)DOS; but 2k and XP were based on NT, which was quite different.

(Note sure what those differences actually are, since I only started programming once I'd switched to Linux...)

FYI Pi can do RPC over stdio (though of course it's a bespoke thing, rather than standardised). I use Pi every day; never used the TUI (I forgot it even had one).

I struggle to use UIs like in the image shown under "Compact Mode". I can't tell what is/isn't clickable, since there are no bevels or other visual indicators (maybe something changes on mouse-over? but that's too late to indicate that I should try mousing-over!)

Thankfully user-chrome still seems to work, so these things can be overridden (and LLMs make those overrides easier to write & maintain).

True, I was a very happy Epiphany user about 20 years ago. Konqueror is the KDE equivalent (which of course begat KHTML -> Webkit -> Blink)

I've used Linux exclusively for over 20 years. What is its "OS browser"?

> a link that looks like `ipfs://12340-9q5ui1j2;lk3rjq;ladksfj` won't scare those same people off

Why would non-technical users be looking at raw URLs? Surely links "look like" blue underlined text; or a button; or whatever?

> The only reason it’s decentralized is because blockchain and crypto was hype 10 years ago.

IPFS is not "blockchain" or "crypto"(currency).

It's much closer to git-over-bittorrent. Note that both of those things were decentralised long before "blockchain" and "crypto" existed.

The makers of IPFS also made a crypto thing called Filecoin; but that's a different project. Avoiding IPFS because of crypto is like avoiding the Web because of social media.

Deeper OS integration would be nice, but harder to roll out. I think the plan early on was to make something useful/generic/agnostic enough that a couple of big browsers would add support, then it could try becoming a Web standard.

Unfortunately that hasn't panned out; but it still feels more feasible than getting Microsoft and Apple to add it to their OS network stacks.

My personal opinion is that any notion of "incentive mechanisms" for IPFS is bullshit: whether Filecoin, or otherwise.

There is already a perfectly good incentive mechanism: if someone wants to host some data, they can; and if nobody wants to host it, it doesn't get hosted.

That's worked perfectly well for HTTP, without any shitcoin needed. The advantage of IPFS is that its URLs resolve to anybody who cares enough to host that data; so links will only 404 when nobody cares (unlike HTTP, which relies on a single point of failure).

> IPFS, Freenet, and experiments like that

> a libertarian decentralized P2P E2EE communication project

Your argument makes sense for Freenet (though I'd personally defend that project too); but not so much for IPFS.

Firstly, IPFS doesn't have any encryption (E2E or otherwise).

Also, Freenet spreads data around the network (for robustness and plausible-deniability), so the peers providing a file are not the peers which inserted it. IPFS does no such thing: if you want your content to remain available, you'd better be running an IPFS node that provides it.

Either way, it feels like a pretty bad idea to host dodgy stuff on IPFS.

IPFS is much closer to HTTP. The difference is that content is immutable, and can be re-hosted by anyone that happens to have a copy (e.g. no need for mirrors, etc.).

(Note that HTTP was invented to disseminate physics research; not CSAM)

Just checked protocol labs site and... holy shit:

> Protocol Labs is an innovation network driving breakthroughs in computing to push humanity forward. PL connects more than 750 tech startups, funds, accelerators, foundations, open source projects, service providers, and other organizations.

What happened to them? Seems like they drank their own "Web3" Fla-Vor-Aid.