Top
Best
New

Posted by joshuablais 13 hours ago

Using the internet like it's 1999(joshblais.com)
165 points | 102 comments
anilakar 17 minutes ago|
We should also also embrace offline mode more. Disable all network connections until you make a conscious choice to go online. Heck, make a Windows 3.1-esque GUI for it and call it Trombone Winsock just for fun.

If any program complains it needs network connectivity for offline features, it goes into the Recycle Bin.

dannyw 8 minutes ago|
Offline mode, and self-hostable apps. I'm very happy with my self-hosted and open source apps; e.g. photo library, media centres, etc; the convenience of cloud, but my cloud that I fully control.
stra1ghtarrow90 3 hours ago||
part of the problem is that most people don't own a pc or personal laptop - they use their phone and apps. None of my friends (35 years +) use laptops other than for work and openly say how much they have regressed technically. Some of these guys grew up with the internet in the early 00's and would be setting up switches for lan partys, using torrents and usenxt, limewire etc. These days they can barely open up microsoft word - but on instagram/twitter they're all over it. Sad really. I would always reach for my laptop first before my phone and I tend to very rarely visit social media sites (other than reddit) on laptop/desktop. I use glance - https://github.com/glanceapp/glance to parse my rss feeds - it's pretty good.
xg15 1 hour ago||
Yeah, I don't think the true scale of the "war on general computation" is apparent for many technical people: It's good to think about alternative distribution models for the internet, better use of protocols, etc - but a large and growing number of users literally don't have (administrative) control over their client devices anymore.

The "cognitive control" of tech companies is underpinned by a much more concrete technical control of the devices.

jjbinx007 3 hours ago|||
I always find it strange when people refer to twitter and YouTube etc as apps rather than websites.
9dev 3 hours ago||
That's what they are by now, though. The websites of social media sites are crippled and bug-ridden - try using Instagram in a browser, for example. They want to coerce you into using their apps, because that gives them better tracking opportunities.
ben_w 2 minutes ago||
Sometimes. YouTube (and Google Maps, and old.reddit.com but not default reddit) I find to be better on the website than the app.
jakedata 13 hours ago||
Just go to fark.com, a lingering glimmer of light from before the dead web. They are still aggregating human curated news and hosting reasonably civil discussions.

Then buy a Totalfark subscription so they don't need to bend over backwards to show more ads just to keep the lights on. See ya there!

zugi 11 hours ago||
Fark is farking great! Though its old-school HTML doesn't flow so well on mobile.

Can we get the best of 1999 with the best of 2026? Probably not...

rglover 11 hours ago|||
Just a stylesheet away.
jakedata 11 hours ago|||
m.fark.com looks pretty good on my phone.
ranger_danger 10 hours ago||
I would like to relive my fark memories but I only get endless captcha loops on it now :(
bergie 5 hours ago||
Now, I think the author would consider it "solutionism", but the other day I spent a bunch of time browsing Reticulum's NomadNet sites (using the Columba mobile app).

And while aesthetically it was more early 90s than 1999, it filled me not only with nostalgia, but also with some optimism for the future of the Internet. Something I haven't felt in a while...

spankibalt 1 hour ago||
Having used the internet in 1999, it's mostly cookie cutter stuff mixed with some intellectually lazy generalizations, especially of specialist use cases.

You gotta love the subtle religious hooks leading to Christian apologetics elsewhere on the site; back in '99, and especially these days, that stuff was often enough more overt. But maybe renaming the piece to Using the internet like a Born-Again Worshipper is both more honest and accurate. ;)

GaryBluto 12 hours ago||
I'm not opposed to the message but it perplexes me the amount of people who bemoan the loss of the "old web" and then use a web page comprised of massive modern frameworks to deliver said message.
NetOpWibby 7 hours ago|
People clamoring for the old web are almost never talking about slow speeds or XHTML, they're talking about the FEELING of being on the web.
tptacek 10 hours ago||
This is going to come off glib, but I don't think you can believe any of this having actually used the Internet of 1999. As is so often the case, there are lots of real annoyances and offenses behind the sentiment, but still, the Internet of 2026 is vastly better than that of 1999. The amount of things you're just one quick search away from right now would break the brains of a 1999 netizen. We were still required to buy paper books for all sorts of routine knowledge work tasks.
chromacity 10 hours ago|
Dunno. The internet was definitely smaller, but it was also largely uncorrupted, so you could literally just email a random university professor or an industry expert and get answers to dumb questions.

And today, if you want to learn something the right way, you probably still should buy a book (or, I guess, pirate an ebook). I don't think you can really learn much from YouTube influencers and the like.

tptacek 10 hours ago|||
I respectfully respect the premise that the choices are "paper books" or "Youtube influencers", though I'll note we didn't have Gilbert Strang's 18.06 course back in 1999 either.

I'd also note that the Internet of 1999 was loaded with spam, bursting at the seams with it, so much so that it was actually a big deal when ~30 months later Paul Graham wrote a post about Bayesian filtering.

jjulius 8 hours ago||
>Id also note that the Internet of 1999 was loaded with spam, bursting at the seams with it...

[gestures wildly at all the bots in 2026]

datadrivenangel 4 hours ago|||
You can still email people! A genuinely interesting email will probably get at least a 20% success rate
zahirbmirza 13 hours ago||
How can we solve this problem, of the current state of the internet, without reverting to the compromises of the past? This has been on my mind for a while. The layer of trash some companies have built over the internet has been ruinous.
jjulius 12 hours ago||
>How can we solve this problem, of the current state of the internet, without reverting to the compromises of the past?

In order to actually have and maintain a healthy balance of life and technology, such compromises are required.

joshuablais 13 hours ago|||
I theorize it is going back to the protocol layer. The "web" for most people is a bunch of social media frontends.
NetOpWibby 7 hours ago|||
I think the current web is sick and will never get better.

I propose building a new stack, without ICANN and friends (Verisign is raising .com prices yet again). I'm planning to build it[1] at some point, just working on other foundational stuff at the moment.

Cozy corners, webrings, and Gemini/Gopher is where I see the spirit of the old web alive and well.

---

[1]: https://dap.sh

anthk 48 minutes ago||
Yggdrasil works like that. No bitcoin, no bullshit, your own tunneled ipv6.
abraxas 12 hours ago|||
Yeah, it's quite sad where we landed. Circa 2004-2006 while the internet was mostly open and accessible I mentally grouped "the internet" into two buckets. There was the real web plus usenet plus email and then there was "facebook" with its weird garden wall and exclusive invites or some such shit. I didn't think of facebook as being "on the web" even though they used the http protocol. It was highly unusual then to have any web content behind a registration wall.

So hardly anyone considered facebook to be a part of "the web". It was its own weird duck. Twenty years later and most people only frequent this "weird" part of the internet - this limited ensemble of paid and unpaid walled gardens.

bobanrocky 7 hours ago|||
Your statement of ‘hardly anyone considered facebook part of the web’ is incorrect. Facebook became popular a bit after the Web had become quite mainstream. The idea of signing up for online services was not foreign to most of these folks. Now, AOL/Compuserve and such were more considered as non web.
hdgvhicv 12 hours ago||||
That applies to aol, msn, compuserve etc, not to Facebook which you only ever accessed via http from a browser.
abraxas 12 hours ago||
Yeah, those didn't count either. AOL and compuserve were not even available outside the USA in the late nineties. With AOL I'm quite sure nobody considered them to be a part of the web. Their pages didn't have URLs early on but AOL "keywords" instead. Compuserve also weren't using http I believe. It was some kind of commercial WAN that was pitched as a competitor to the internet, no?
zabzonk 11 hours ago||
> AOL and compuserve were not even available outside the USA in the late nineties

yes, they were, in the UK at least. speaking as a compuserve user.

hdgvhicv 2 hours ago||
Ids like 102615,1320, with pay per minute for compuserve and for the phone call

Personally I never used cix but one of the magazines (pc pro?) has columnists on it at least.

bandrami 6 hours ago|||
Similarly Twitter; I signed up in I think 2007 and only used SMS for the next several years until they finally stopped it. Once I switched to the web/app version I was frankly appalled.
prawn 4 hours ago|||
A movement where some sites are only accessible by a specific browser or class of browsers, much more simplified than now? Where a site could put an agreeable browser into a no-JS, lo-fi mode?
9dev 3 hours ago||
That is pretty much the definition of Gopher
pjmorris 12 hours ago||
I feel like 'Party like it's 1999' could become the slogan for a movement. Sure, the tech was a little less convenient, but overarching control was also less hard-wired into everything.
pragma_x 10 hours ago|
It even comes pre-packaged with a theme song.
pjmorris 8 hours ago||
I confess that I had this in mind. Is it time to start running LAN parties again?
cosmicgadget 5 hours ago||
Electrical panels and air conditioning have not kept pace with graphics cards.
kombookcha 4 hours ago||
I hear you. Topless Quake LAN sweatathon, the sport of gentlemen.
vunderba 13 hours ago|
If it were 1999, most people would still be browsing the web on their US Robotics 56k modem (at best). This page is about 1 MB of assets (500kb gzip compressed if your browser supported it) , so it would have taken at least a minute just to finish loading.
b3ing 8 hours ago||
No tabbed browsing and if IE crashed it locked up Windows 95/98 with it. No 2fa, no comment spam, and Java applets that froze the browser for 10-30 seconds. No content creator bs just people making fan pages just for the heck of it before Wikipedia gobbled all that information
d3Xt3r 4 hours ago|||
Luckily, we had web accelerating proxies like OnSpeed[1] back in the day that would compress web pages (including lossy image compression) so if you were one of the poor sods still on dialup (like I was), it was a lot more bearable.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnSpeed

vunderba 4 hours ago||
Oh neat, I'd never heard of them. Almost feels like a spiritual predecessor of CDNs, serving optimized assets from existing websites via their servers.
rootusrootus 11 hours ago|||
Still pretty prevalent at that time, definitely, but DSL was definitely a thing by the time 1999 rolled around. I even had pretty fast DSL for the time -- 640 kbps.

But otherwise totally agree with the critique. Modern connection speeds have enabled a huge amount of bloat. I grew up when 1200 baud modems were the latest rage, and patience when downloading was a hard requirement.

NDlurker 11 hours ago||
I lived in rural North Dakota and had dial up until 2005. It really sucked the last couple of years.
aworks 9 hours ago||
I lived on a suburban street a mile from the Stanford campus that didn't get broadband until 2003. I would go to the local copy center to rent an hour of computer time to edit my blog.
gnabgib 8 hours ago||
Ok.. so broadband in 1996, route-able (unique) IPv4 broadband in 1997 (177.1..), route-able satellite internet in Nigeria in 2002 (it sucked when it rained). Your Stanford proximity apparently didn't help.
boudin 13 hours ago|||
Closer to 2 as it was rarelly running at full 56kb/s.

Although, being patient was part of the experience as well

Loughla 13 hours ago|||
I was a lot more careful about clicking things when it took a full minute to load. Now I know that it'll be open in less than a second and I can leave immediately if I need to, so there's WAY less thinking beforehand.
Ferret7446 10 hours ago||||
There are quite a few sites that take more than a second to load even now. Should be a war crime, but alas
drfloyd51 12 hours ago||||
When I found my first tabbed browser. Netcaptor. It changed everything. Open in new tab. Open in new tab. Open in new tab.

Go back to the first tab which has finally finished loading. Consume.

derefr 10 hours ago||
It's funny to think back, as I've just recently installed a browser extension to do the opposite (i.e. to prevent "open in new tab" tabs from doing any work until I foreground them.)

Today, my computer's memory is far more constrained than its network bandwidth. I find it very easy to accidentally open tons of tabs very quickly (esp. from the HN front page!) until suddenly the browser is swapping and everything's slowing to a crawl trying to process all those new page DOMs.

And yet, even when it doesn't choke the computer, I find no real benefit to preloading pages in the background any more. At least on my connection, the page load time after I focus a tab is almost imperceptible.

How things have changed!

msla 12 hours ago|||
Also, tabbed browsing was still a couple years off for most people, although some browsers got there earlier than others:

> In 1994, BookLink Technologies featured tabbed windows in its InternetWorks browser.[citation needed] That same year, the text editor UltraEdit also appeared with a modern multi-row tabbed interface. The tabbed interface approach was then followed by the Internet Explorer shell NetCaptor in 1997. These were followed by several others like IBrowse in 1999, and Opera in 2000 (with the release of version 4 - although an MDI interface was supported before then), MultiViews October 2000, which changed its name into MultiZilla on April 1st, 2001 (an extension for the Mozilla Application Suite[11]), Galeon in early 2001, Mozilla 0.9.5 in October 2001, Phoenix 0.1 (now Mozilla Firefox) in October 2002, Konqueror 3.1 in January 2003, and Safari in 2003. With the release of Internet Explorer 7 in 2006, all major web browsers featured a tabbed interface.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tab_%28interface%29

Also, Opera had a Multiple-Document Interface from the start, so 1995 or so. That's not "tabs" per se but multiple mini-windows inside the main window; much the same "Hey, I can have multiple things open!" deal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Opera_web_brows...

My point is, you think more about clicking a link when it'll monopolize your whole UI and you can't just stash it in a background tab or mini-window.

mdb333 13 hours ago|||
so true, re: patience

I was just thinking back the other day about BBS days and how frustrating a busy signal could be, or connection time limits, etc.

prmoustache 4 hours ago|||
I knew dial up for a little while but I was lucky to have been on broadband for a couple of years already in 1999.

This early access + a 4x SCSI CD burner made me one of the 2 official warez provider at school. I was even taking orders from parents of friends.

elevation 6 hours ago|||
We used dialup until 1996, when we got a 10mbps cable internet connection, newly available in our 20k population town. We have never had a slower service plan than that since.
flomo 5 hours ago|||
Questioning this, because I worked with a sysadmin who was in an @Home/CableLabs DOCSIS beta region at about that same time, and we all envied him of course. That was in San Jose, CA.

So what's the real story behind your piddlly little town getting bleeding edge cable internet service? (Or was it somewhere like Los Gatos?)

ButlerianJihad 5 hours ago|||
Firstly, you’ve spelled “megabits” wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_rate

Secondly, that 10 Mbps was only your downstream signaling rate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_signaling_rate

Was your upstream via analog dialup?

chairmansteve 11 hours ago|||
"This page is about 1 MB of assets".

And it could easily have been 10 KB.

vunderba 10 hours ago||
Now now. Don't be so tightfisted with the bandwidth. You know what they say, "People will hate you Steve, if you're too sting-ee!"

https://www.audioatrocities.com/games/lastalert/index.html

icedchai 12 hours ago|||
I got my first cable modem in 1998! All sites were still built for dialup, so everything was incredibly fast.
vunderba 11 hours ago|||
Nice! We were one of the first families on the block to have a 33.6 kbps modem, and were the envy of every filthy peasant who still had a 28.8 back in the day.
icedchai 10 hours ago||
My first dialup modem was 1200 baud, back in 1987! I remember it taking an hour to download a game from a local warez BBS. My first modem to establish an Internet connection (SLIP) was 9600, sometime around 1993! Time flies...
jghn 11 hours ago||||
This comment reminded me of the early days of Ultima Online. I was on a high speed campus connection with a ping time of ~5ms to my server. Given most players were on a 28.8/56k modem with ping times ~300ms, it was an amazing speed difference. I could walk, not run, faster than other people riding horses at full speed.

Needless to say, I got accused of cheating quite a bit.

t-3 12 hours ago||||
Some sites were fast. Some sites had pictures and it took long enough to load that I would sometimes make a sandwich while waiting.
icedchai 11 hours ago|||
Not with cable (3 megabits down, 128kbits up!) Almost everything was fast.
krapp 11 hours ago|||
I literally remember watching images load line by line.

I know nostalgia for the old days is de rigueur especially on HN but I definitely do not want to go back to that.

walthamstow 11 hours ago||
I told a coworker born in 2001 about this and he could not believe his ears
krapp 10 hours ago||
We dither on the shoulders of giants.
acheron 11 hours ago|||
Same! I got called “LPB” in Quake 2 a lot.
joshuablais 13 hours ago|||
and 1MB is "small" for the modern web!
vunderba 11 hours ago||
No shade! I went and checked out of curiosity, since it looks like we’re both using Astro as a static site generator.

Most of my articles are pretty media rich and weigh in between 1-2 megs. I do try to be pretty conscientious about asset compression (mozjpeg, h264 for video, etc.). I'd love to switch over to AV1 but I've heard compatibility on older devices is spotty.

alex1138 12 hours ago||
Yeah, but you know something? Flash worked damn near perfectly even on potato connections
vunderba 11 hours ago||
I know flash had its downsides - but messing around with Macromedia Flash to make stupid little animations back in the day was so fun.

Plus Silverlight made Flash seem like a dream.

More comments...