It tales a critical mass of like minded people.
That is not really the point here. The actual question is more about stopping the evolution of hardware and software deprecation, like creating a minimum system that is never updated.
Comment on Why can't we have a static vintage web?
Lumidaub@feddit.org 18 hours ago
You can. What makes you think you can’t?
The thing is that there’s no demand, not least because there’s no direct interaction between users. People yell bloody murder if a game doesn’t have some sort of multiplayer component and static content is single player internet.
j4k3@piefed.world 15 hours ago
bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works 9 hours ago
Permacomputing
100 rabbits.
Lumidaub@feddit.org 14 hours ago
Huh? I don’t understand, are you saying you can’t gave static websites on today’s hard/software? I’m so confused.
bryndos@fedia.io 15 hours ago
Oh right , i forget; this is not "no disingenuous questions". Hard to tell sometimes.
You want a decent webpage AND attention / clicks?
Your problem is not the coding of the webpage. pebkac.
j4k3@piefed.world 15 hours ago
[deleted]blarghly@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
Ad homenim attacks just make you look more wrong.
bryndos@fedia.io 15 hours ago
haha yeah, i i was actually so pissed that i "walked into a tree" last night.
Still a wee bit merry. pebpat
rodneylives@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
Demand? What?
You can just have a site that says things. You might just get a trickle of readers, and that’s okay. Not everything has to try to rule the world. You can contribute this little part of it, that might amuse or inform some people, and not pile up yet more value to a terrible corporation like Wordpress, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit or (while I’m ranting) Fandom.
Plain HTML doesn’t break. You don’t need to update frameworks. It won’t make the user’s browser consume a ton of their RAM. Even if your image hosting goes down, the text will still be there. The biggest problems with HTML are external. Google giving attention to Reddit over your site, or de-prioritizing it if it’s not “responsive to mobile,” and web browsers choosing not to reveal by default what terrible resource hogs big sites can be. Check about:processes (on Firefox at least) some time, I’ve seen Youtube, Facebook and Twitter consume over a gigabyte of memory by themselves, apiece. (Nota bene, Mastodon consumes a lot too.)
It’s okay to be small. That was what the World Wide Web was envisioned as, its motto: Let’s Share What We Know.
blarghly@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
I mean, this is all true. But these web sites which mostly work fine and are fine with small audiences already exist - and yet OP is here, on Lemmy. Apparently the demand actually doesn’t exist - ie, OP is choosing not to visit these sites because they find them less enticing than sites with js.
Lumidaub@feddit.org 11 hours ago
I don’t disagree.