>>105 but gopherfAG, Lynx exists

unix hater kun desu >unbloat the internet by adding yet another underpowered piece of crap protocol, on top of some ill defined notion of text (which will break the moment you use any configuration other than OP, lol), with 9000 vulns the neckbeard creators cannot even perceive

>>174 This. The reason the web is shit now is because WWW is a garbage protocol for what people want to use the Internet for. You get bloated garbage when developers have to build the stuff people want with inadequate tools.

>>179 Lolno, WWW is perfectly fine: the internet is bloated because webdevs can get away with it, because ads and tracking are profitable, and because Google comes up with new and exciting ways to bloat things up to prevent anyone else from developing a functional browser.

>>179 dont you mean http?

>>179 >www >protocol

>>179 >>761 Nowadays even many normal client/server applications use http and rest because it's easy and formulaic to implement it this way.

>>761 >>775 >no arguments

>>1015 Could you stop spamming Wikipedia? Thanks.

>>105 When IE11 is dead, so many libs will unburden themselves of so many extra bytes.

Ok, OP. What is it you're trying to do? Invent some obscure protocol nobody's gonna use anyway?

>>1230 Imagine being this new to the internet. protip: gopher predates http

Has there been any progress on this project as of late?

A little off-topic but not totally off topic, but the amount of bloat on websites is really insane now. I wanted to buy a perfume and lotion set for one of my aunts as a gift, so she gave me a coupon from a popular retailer that could only be used online and not in store. I went on the retailers site, and holy crap that thing was hell. It took like a whole two minute (or more) just to load the webpage. Next thing you know, prompts about sales, deals, and privacy notices are all bombarding my screen. I clicked out of all of those annoying things and the site is still extremely slow and bloated. I'm trying to scroll down the catalog to get the specific perfume set she wanted, and it's taking forever, since you can not manually search specific scents in a search box, because there is none. How are normalfags okay with this? Site interfaces try to be oh so 'minimalist' now with their souless looking webpages and their soulless looking logos, and yet, modern websites today are the most bloated things I've ever seen. It takes over 10 minutes just to find the things you want.

>>2690 >How are normalfags okay with this? They're not, but also they are. You see, a normalfag visiting an absolutely shitty website will stumble around and maybe give up out of frustration. Fry's went out of business this week and every comment section I've seen has mentioned "their site was garbage". To a degree, it's just lost sales as users buy from Amazon or some other site where it's easier. On the other hand, they're so tech illiterate that nothing about the site is any more confusing than other sites, so it all evens out. If navigating Google is daunting, then is a dense website any more confusing? No, you're terminally retarded and even Google's idiot-proofing can't save you. It's all the same. Ergo, they hate it deep down but can't actually understand why, and they also find other sites annoying. It's just a little more aggravating than the others, but they will use it. With enough perseverance they will get what they want. They just accept this is how the internet is and if they want to buy their stupid bullshit then they have to put up with it. It's easier than putting on pants and driving to a store with worse selection at twice the price. It's not like the executives commissioning a new site actually know what makes it good. They just want marketing buzzwords and SEO. If the clickthrough rates are good, they assume it's a job well done. Even if no merchandise moves. Plus, it's not like issuing coupons or gift cards costs them anything. Not unless you buy. So it's your problem, not theirs. Keep in mind, these executives still put retail first, but can't even figure that out. They know digital is eating their lunch. So they do stuff like "online-only coupon" to get people to their online store. They want to compete. But they can't. They don't even know what game they're playing.

>>2690 Have you tried using uMatrix? It often makes site bearable once you nuke everything that's not completely necessary.

>>2690 It really is insane how horrible most websites are. Try looking up recipes for anything, and you will be assaulted by some of the worst web design imaginable. The amount of fucking advertisements, popups, autoplaying videos, and how long it takes to load elements with all that javascript is fucking ludicrous. Internet speeds are a magnitude faster than they were in the 90s and yet if someone from the 90's traveled forward in time, they'd barely notice a difference. It's like with hardware, the hardware has improved so much but the software has gotten so bloated and unoptimized because priority has been placed all on bells and whistles and useless eye candy that computers hardly seem better than they were 20 years ago.

>>2695 have you tried cumshooting you incel no one want you stupid ugly sites with only word picture and button that do is what make site good smooth scroll and menu that float on side scripting with tree layer where you can open a site within another site from menu item that is how it was meant to be, autoplay and scroll text = perfection you stupid virgin

Quick curiosity, how much of this really came to pass: https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-051-a-call-for-help/

>>2691 >>2713 I think it's also people with really fast internet never really notice. And they probably also have more money and spend more at those sites.

>>2713 >muh recipe sites <i'm luke smithing so hard right now recipe sites are for neet virgins who don't have a wife to cook for them, or cucks whose wife can't cook and instead brings home leftovers from her date with tyrone. true chads marry into a long and honored tradition of cooking passed down through generations of proper upbringing, not looking up on websites back to based.cooking for you i guess

>>105 >Link for normies: >https://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=85198 Well thank you for introducing me to pouet.net, anon

>>2690 >but the amount of bloat on websites is really insane now. Totally agree. I really miss the days before web 2.0. Every once in a while I find a website that never transitioned to the new bloated standard, then about the time I get really comfortable with it the announce their new awful website and a little piece of me dies. On a side note, I was surprised that nobody cracked any jokes about the lotion and perfume actually being for you :)

>>2690 When webdevs realized they could use javascript to make your computer display their websites any way they wanted without using up their own server resources, efficiency went out the fucking window. Webdevs treat your PC the way the government treats your tax money. "NOT USING 100% OF THE RESOURCES IS WASTEFUL!" Then people get used to websites looking "nice" and having lots of "features" and that creates demand to make even more bloat. Everywhere. It's AIDS.

>>6656 >It's AIDS. Amen to that

>>2713 >>2690 Yeah, I'm fine with adds but I'm not okay with them eating up over 90000 Nigabytes of RAM just to look up new stir fry recipe. Imagine if websites just made one small banner to display various adds that changes every time you refresh the website and was just merely a JPG or PNG rather than something your afraid to click. That would be much nicer. That or maybe just do what Jewoogle does/used? to do before they became cancer, I dunno been a while since I've used their search engine but there's a reason everyone ditched Yahoo. At this point half the internet is unusable without at least 64 Gigs of RAM. Imagine how bad those sites will be when they realize they can try and shove some crypto miners on their cooking recipe websites...