New post: Separatism: Redux
This commit is contained in:
parent
79f10b9224
commit
419e0f83e4
43 changed files with 343 additions and 139 deletions
|
@ -34,7 +34,7 @@
|
|||
<p>Except for <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20200131234126/https://beakerbrowser.com/install/">Beaker Browser. Because it only distributes 64-bit AppImages</a>. And you can't run it from source, either, because <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20200131234227/https://github.com/nodesource/distributions/blob/master/README.md">Node.js dropped support for 32-bit in the 10.x series</a>. And I can't use an alternative client to update the Dat mirrors of my websites, because <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20191213040841/https://docs.datproject.org/docs/dat-server"><em>those</em> are written in Node.js too</a>!</p>
|
||||
<p>There is no technical reason I can think of why Node.js can't support 32-bit anymore. The most information I've found to absolve their decision is <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20190831054244/https://github.com/nodejs/build/issues/885"><em>one</em> Github issue</a> where an incompatible CentOS dependency is cited as the reason why they can no longer support... <em>all</em> the Linux distros they used to be able to. There <em>is</em> an <a href="https://unofficial-builds.nodejs.org/">unofficial build page</a> where there appear to be 32-bit binaries, but there's little to no quality testing to ensure that the binaries actually... work.</p>
|
||||
<p>"But why can't you just update the Dat mirror when you're on a 64-bit machine?" I hear a strawman say. And the answer is twofold: executive dysfunction, and because <em>I shouldn't have to.</em></p>
|
||||
<p>Executive dysfunction is a bitch. It's hard enough to keep my focus to remember to manually copy everything over to the ZeroNet mirror every time I update something on my site or add something new. It's part of why I killed the Gopher mirror. Having to remember to go onto my ThinkPad after every time I shut down the desktop, boot <em>that</em> machine up, and then copy everything over is a bunch of undue mental strain that disincentivizes me from updating the website at all.</p>
|
||||
<p>Executive dysfunction is an asshole. It's hard enough to keep my focus to remember to manually copy everything over to the ZeroNet mirror every time I update something on my site or add something new. It's part of why I killed the Gopher mirror. Having to remember to go onto my ThinkPad after every time I shut down the desktop, boot <em>that</em> machine up, and then copy everything over is a bunch of undue mental strain that disincentivizes me from updating the website at all.</p>
|
||||
<p>And, frankly, it's quite ridiculous that my 32-bit machine is capable of fulfilling all the tasks that my 64-bit machines are, and yet it can't. It's not for <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20190619012348/http://ask-leo.com/are_64bit_pcs_more_secure_than_32bit_machines.html">security reasons</a>, as the only major non-Windows-specific difference between 32- and 64-bit security-wise I've been able to find is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_space_layout_randomization">the implementation of address space layout randomization</a>.</p>
|
||||
<p>"But what about the aging machines you decried a month ago? Isn't this the same situation, where you were left out in the cold because your machine was too old?" I hear another strawman say. And the answer to that: these two situations are <em>nothing</em> alike.</p>
|
||||
<p>In the Gopher situation, these were machines that <em>couldn't</em> participate in the modern internet. Either they couldn't handle the modern encryption ciphers, or they didn't have the resources to run anything but the most lightweight of browsers, or they simply didn't understand the concept of a protocol more advanced than plain Gopher. The experience of using one of these machines would be vastly different than using one of my own devices. Either they <em>couldn't</em> be updated, in which case there's no point in continuing support, or they could and the owners refused to for the sake of the "retro experience", in which case they're not entitled to support just for their sole enjoyment.</p>
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue