A little later, but I have a key chain from a dealership that has their website advertised on it, they didn't have a domain name so it's advertised as http://123.123.123.123/web.htm
The line mode [1] made me pause. Not because you can do anything too useful (most of the cool links are dead, or telnet) but because it seems like a really cool place to explore, learn, and hack.
No ads, no random tits, nobody trying to convert you to their politics, trying to scam you, or telling you to kill yourself. Just people sharing interesting things.
Really makes me excited for the internet until I close the tab.
When this was first created, how did people usually navigate back to the previous page? I notice there are no "previous" or "home" links here. Was there a "back" button/key, or would you have to edit the URL directly?
Edit: Answered my own question I think. If you choose the option to browse "using the line-mode browser simulator", you can literally type in "Back" to go back.
This site has a way to experience as it once was. I’m on mobile now, but from what I remember when I tried it, each link opened up a new document window. So the idea of going back wasn’t relevant. You’d simply close the window.
So far, I like this line-mode browser simulator much more than what is commonly available for the command line (lynx or links2). Does any one know of a modern implementation of it? (Where links are numbered instead of the user having to navigate around the document).
We used telnet. There were no graphics per se. Before www the "interactive" internet was gopher and wais and co.
Navigation was moving a cursor around to highlight points of interest, some of which would be links to further stuff or controls to do something like go back or forwards.
Install lynx or links2 (ie text mode browsers) and you'll get the idea.
The vaguely graphic efforts with browsable content that you might recognise before www were the likes of Compuserve. That got you a sort of forum style interface.
It's quite hard to explain just how fast things have moved over the last 40 odd years (I'm 1970 to date - 55). I should also point out that my granddad saw rather a lot of change from 1901 to 1989. To be honest the last 15 odd years are even madder than the previous 25 and that's just my own personal recollection.
It’s impressive how quickly the WWW became mainstream, given how few people had internet access back then. Bitcoin is now 16 years old but compared to the WWW in 2008 is hardly used on a daily basis.
Has anyone been able to recover the original source code? The README here: https://info.cern.ch/hypertext/README.html mentions a src/ directory under the same location but it 404's to me.
Would love to see the source for the original httpd.
Though you can browse and download the latest version 3.0A (1996), there is a directory where they have older versions, but its a bunch of files mixed up with different versions. https://www.w3.org/Daemon/old/
Ugh, memories. I'm so old my first web browser was Mosaic and I think I saw this. I used a provider called Texas MetroNet that served up dial-up PPP connections for $45 a month on a speedy 28.8K baud modem. Days of wonder, I tell ya.
New days of wonder seem to be ahead, though. That said, there's about 100X more angst involved these days.
The then-CFO had a cute anecdote about the day he realized he could turn handshake sounds OFF on the receiving modems (switchboard was in his first office).
The original NextStep design's simplicity and colour scheme appeals to me.
I hope someone will write a "skin"/theme for Ladybird (whose August alpha release we are keenly awaiting) that looks like that before I'll have to do it myself...
Ted Nelson's dream since early `60s: all the world literature in one publicly accessible global online system (analogy: you can today get a telephone link from anywhere to anywhere, so why not from any text to any other?). Every reference to a text will lead to royalties being paid automatically to the author. Autodesk, (the makers of AutoCAD) will produce a product "real soon now". Includes the use of full versioning (claimed to be horrifyingly complex), "hot links" (called transclusions) and zippered texts (eg. parallel texts like for translations or annotations.)
The sad part is, how infinitely more functional these simple, static HTML documents are, compared to much of the shit that floods the "modern" web.
Ofc these pages cannot replace SPAs. That's not the point. The point is: Much of the web isn't SPAs. And much of what is SPAs shouldn't be SPAs. Much of the web is displaying static, or semi-static information. Hell, much of the web is still text.
But somehow, the world accepted that displaying 4KB of text somehow has to require transmitting 32MiB of data, much of it arbitrary code that has no earthly business eating my CPU cycles, as the new normal. Somehow everyone accepts that text-only informational pages need to abuse the scroll-event, or display giant hero-banners. Somehow, having a chatbot-popup on a restaurants menu-page is a must (because ofc I wanna talk to some fuckin LLM wrapper about the fries they sell!!!), but a goddamn page denoting the places address and telephone number is nowhere to be found.
Everyone did accept that because when you needed information from a page that pulls that shit, you don't have a choice, and when you did have a choice, all the others did it too.
Nowadays people just ask ChatGPT for the information they need so they don't have to visit those awful sites anymore.
Some of the stuff we have been adding since then is GOOD though.
Some examples:
We now have to accommodate all types of user agents, and we do that very well.
We now have complex navigation menus that cannot be accessible without JavaScript, and we do that very well.
Our image elements can now have lots of attributes that add a bit of weight but improve the experience a lot.
Etc.
Also, things are improving/self-correcting. I saw a listing the other day for senior dev with really good knowledge of the vanilla stuff. The company wants to cut down on the use of their FE framework of choice.
I cannot remember seeing listings like that in 2020 or 2021.
PS.
I did not mean this reply as a counterpoint.
What I meant to say is, even if we leave aside the SPAs that should not be SPAs, we see the problem in simple document pages too. We have been adding lots of stuff there too. Some is good but some is bad.
I've come across this before, one thing I haven't realized is that in addition to an emulator of the line browser, they're also offering an emulation of the original NeXT browser WorldWideWeb:
This was in Gopher first, where you had to click a link to view a picture. Then I heard about Mosaic, where you can have pictures and text on the same page. Some problems emerged, until I learned you use <p> to separate chapters: https://timonoko.github.io/alaska/index.htm
On university campus when our student dorms got internet wired, we first got Gopher, and I remember - because it was hard to follow all these technology developments - that the web was like 'suddenly' there, and we started surfing. Everyone making the switch. Early pages were often copies of their Gopher equivalents.
> When (s)he has found an overview page which (s)he feels ought to refer to the new data, (s)he can ask the author of that document (who ought to have signed it with a link to his or her mail address) to put in a link.
> By the way, it would be easy in principle for a third party to run over these trees and make indexes of what they find. Its just that noone has done it as far as I know
In the mid 70's, I was a graduate CS student at USC's Information Sciences Institute. I remember my feeling of awe when I used Arpanet (or was it Darpanet) to log into London and do stuff there. Wow!
Ah, fond memories... First website in Poland was the homepage of the Faculty of Physics of the Warsaw University (been there at that time). It was 1993 I think, although wayback machine stores a newer snapshot (1998), but it looks the same as original page: https://web.archive.org/web/19980120060239/https://www.fuw.e...
[+] [-] dirk94018|1 month ago|reply
[+] [-] LeoPanthera|1 month ago|reply
[+] [-] LowLevelKernel|1 month ago|reply
[+] [-] Adachi91|1 month ago|reply
[+] [-] avaer|1 month ago|reply
No ads, no random tits, nobody trying to convert you to their politics, trying to scam you, or telling you to kill yourself. Just people sharing interesting things.
Really makes me excited for the internet until I close the tab.
[1] http://line-mode.cern.ch/www/hypertext/WWW/TheProject.html
[+] [-] Nition|1 month ago|reply
Edit: Answered my own question I think. If you choose the option to browse "using the line-mode browser simulator", you can literally type in "Back" to go back.
[+] [-] al_borland|1 month ago|reply
https://worldwideweb.cern.ch/
[+] [-] aldto|1 month ago|reply
So far, I like this line-mode browser simulator much more than what is commonly available for the command line (lynx or links2). Does any one know of a modern implementation of it? (Where links are numbered instead of the user having to navigate around the document).
[+] [-] gerdesj|1 month ago|reply
Navigation was moving a cursor around to highlight points of interest, some of which would be links to further stuff or controls to do something like go back or forwards.
Install lynx or links2 (ie text mode browsers) and you'll get the idea.
The vaguely graphic efforts with browsable content that you might recognise before www were the likes of Compuserve. That got you a sort of forum style interface.
It's quite hard to explain just how fast things have moved over the last 40 odd years (I'm 1970 to date - 55). I should also point out that my granddad saw rather a lot of change from 1901 to 1989. To be honest the last 15 odd years are even madder than the previous 25 and that's just my own personal recollection.
[+] [-] lukeiodev|1 month ago|reply
[+] [-] hdgvhicv|1 month ago|reply
You didn’t have cookie banners because you didn’t have cookies, because there is no need for most websites to have cookies.
[+] [-] retired|1 month ago|reply
[+] [-] WD-42|1 month ago|reply
Would love to see the source for the original httpd.
[+] [-] 0x00cl|1 month ago|reply
Though you can browse and download the latest version 3.0A (1996), there is a directory where they have older versions, but its a bunch of files mixed up with different versions. https://www.w3.org/Daemon/old/
[+] [-] TedDallas|1 month ago|reply
New days of wonder seem to be ahead, though. That said, there's about 100X more angst involved these days.
[+] [-] ProllyInfamous|20 days ago|reply
[+] [-] trigvi|1 month ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jll29|1 month ago|reply
I hope someone will write a "skin"/theme for Ladybird (whose August alpha release we are keenly awaiting) that looks like that before I'll have to do it myself...
[+] [-] bblb|1 month ago|reply
Ted Nelson's dream since early `60s: all the world literature in one publicly accessible global online system (analogy: you can today get a telephone link from anywhere to anywhere, so why not from any text to any other?). Every reference to a text will lead to royalties being paid automatically to the author. Autodesk, (the makers of AutoCAD) will produce a product "real soon now". Includes the use of full versioning (claimed to be horrifyingly complex), "hot links" (called transclusions) and zippered texts (eg. parallel texts like for translations or annotations.)
[+] [-] usrbinbash|1 month ago|reply
Ofc these pages cannot replace SPAs. That's not the point. The point is: Much of the web isn't SPAs. And much of what is SPAs shouldn't be SPAs. Much of the web is displaying static, or semi-static information. Hell, much of the web is still text.
But somehow, the world accepted that displaying 4KB of text somehow has to require transmitting 32MiB of data, much of it arbitrary code that has no earthly business eating my CPU cycles, as the new normal. Somehow everyone accepts that text-only informational pages need to abuse the scroll-event, or display giant hero-banners. Somehow, having a chatbot-popup on a restaurants menu-page is a must (because ofc I wanna talk to some fuckin LLM wrapper about the fries they sell!!!), but a goddamn page denoting the places address and telephone number is nowhere to be found.
https://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm
This talk was given over a decade ago, and its takeaways are as relevant today as thy were back then, and in fact maybe even more so.
[+] [-] moring|1 month ago|reply
Everyone did accept that because when you needed information from a page that pulls that shit, you don't have a choice, and when you did have a choice, all the others did it too.
Nowadays people just ask ChatGPT for the information they need so they don't have to visit those awful sites anymore.
[+] [-] demetris|1 month ago|reply
Some examples:
We now have to accommodate all types of user agents, and we do that very well.
We now have complex navigation menus that cannot be accessible without JavaScript, and we do that very well.
Our image elements can now have lots of attributes that add a bit of weight but improve the experience a lot.
Etc.
Also, things are improving/self-correcting. I saw a listing the other day for senior dev with really good knowledge of the vanilla stuff. The company wants to cut down on the use of their FE framework of choice.
I cannot remember seeing listings like that in 2020 or 2021.
PS.
I did not mean this reply as a counterpoint.
What I meant to say is, even if we leave aside the SPAs that should not be SPAs, we see the problem in simple document pages too. We have been adding lots of stuff there too. Some is good but some is bad.
[+] [-] busfahrer|1 month ago|reply
https://worldwideweb.cern.ch/
https://worldwideweb.cern.ch/browser/
[+] [-] timonoko|1 month ago|reply
[+] [-] rapnie|1 month ago|reply
[+] [-] ontouchstart|1 month ago|reply
https://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/DesignIssues/Overview.htm...
[+] [-] tempestn|1 month ago|reply
> When (s)he has found an overview page which (s)he feels ought to refer to the new data, (s)he can ask the author of that document (who ought to have signed it with a link to his or her mail address) to put in a link.
> By the way, it would be easy in principle for a third party to run over these trees and make indexes of what they find. Its just that noone has done it as far as I know
[+] [-] t1234s|1 month ago|reply
Performance: 100 Accessibility: 86 Best Practices: 92 SEO: 90
[+] [-] designerarvid|1 month ago|reply
[+] [-] retired|1 month ago|reply
[+] [-] mjcohen|1 month ago|reply
[+] [-] piokoch|1 month ago|reply