File: KILL HTML5.swf-(159 KB, 720x480, Other)
[_] Screw HTML5 Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)00:56:54 No.

  my first attempt at flash

Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)01:52:40 No.

  >>3272928
  there is nothing wrong with html5

>> [_] fuck the new internet 08/16/17(Wed)01:53:12 No.

  Iamawebdevworkingforoneofthebiggesttelecomcompaniesingermanistanandwhenwehadtoswitch
  fromflashtohtml5shitwentonfire.NowIunderstandtheideabehindflash.htmlisgarbage,it'sth
  ebiggestmessintheworld.Nonofmycoworkersunderstandsjavascript,andevenIgetstuckwithjav
  ascript,cssandhtmlforhoursduetobugsandillogicalproblemsandhavingtocodefor4differents
  hitbrowsers.ifhumanityevergetserasedfromthisplanetbysomealienrace,wedeserveditforcre
  atingagarbagecalledhtml/css.Manthatissomeseriousbullshit.Whendevelopersstartmakingso
  methingfortheretardedmainstream,becausetheyaretoolazytolearnrealcoding,eventhoughtit
  'ssupersimple,itbecomesamess.Evenworseisthatbigcompaniesthinktheyareimportant.Google
  chromeisoneshitbrowser...fuckgoogle.Andsafariiscompletlybrokenit'sinsanethatbrowserw
  aseveryreleased.Trypausinganelementwithmultipleanimationsinarow
  and then unpause it. The animations gets FUCKED ecause apple is retarded and cant code. Also fuck
  steve jobs. That fucking liar. Making up shit about flash, because flash made it easy to make fun
  programs, cutting out from the shit appstore from shit apple. At least he is no more...

>> [_] fuck the new internet 08/16/17(Wed)01:56:47 No.

  >>3272934
  says someone who never had to use html5

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)02:21:07 No.

  >>3272936
  what's wrong with html5?

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)02:45:17 No.

  >>3272935
  the internet will change for better or for worse that is a fact. I hate the new internet just as
  much as you, but there is no point in getting upset over it. Media conveyor was a thing some time
  ago and it died because people stopped using it and flash took over and so now here we are now
  media conveyor is unheard of and most of thos who know that media conveyor was know thanks to
  this https://archive.org/details/SouthParkHalloweenSpecialNeverSeenBefore if adobe would not pull
  the plug it would just rot away like media conveyor did. we are seeing what happened to media
  conveyor happen to flash and one day security vulnerabilities will come out about html5 and html5
  will go the way of flash. don't get upset just grab a bag of popcorn and see what happens

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)02:47:11 No.

  >>3272936
  html5 has a big learning curve but that doesn't mean it is bad

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)03:20:58 No.

  >>3272935
  THIS, A THOUSAND TIMES THIS!
  This is what I keep telling you sheeple, but nobody seems to get it.
  Feels bad man

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)03:25:28 No.

  HTML5 is crap, HTML4.1 was crap, HTTP 2.0 is unrepentant shit. Properly done flash is far more
  transparent than properly done modern HTML, it's generally more portable, and absolutely more
  extensible and powerful. Javascript is the worst thing to ever happen to the internet, and the
  IEEE and W3C bandwaggoning on google's shitty in-house spec only makes browsers and the standard
  even worse.

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)03:27:58 No.

  But Flash is so incredibly insecure (according to Google), even though you could remotely disable
  it without any issue, unlike with that bloated piece of shit html5!

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)03:34:32 No.

  >>3272958
  >(according to Google)
  DING!
  There's your bias.

  True it is insecure, but so is everything else under the sun. Adobe is just knuckling under the
  pressure and using "muh standards" as an excuse to finally drop the piece of shit they made out
  of flash... which ironically is STILL the best option.

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)03:38:52 No.

  >>3272960
  Couldn't the Flash format be continued open source, even without any real updates? There are
  plenty of software that replaces Flash Studio already.

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)03:42:08 No.

  >>3272960
  >>(according to Google)
  >DING!
  >There's your bias.
  ...Why?

  It's not like Google gets paid royalties for people writing JavaScript. The reason companies like
  Mozilla and Google are upset about Flash vulnerabilities is because Flash really is incredibly
  insecure. Due to Flash Player's black-box nature it's virtually impossible to make a safe browser
  that can play Flash content.

  >>3272965
  >Couldn't the Flash format be continued open source, even without any real updates?
  From what I understand, it's the lack of open interpreters that's the major issue, not the spec
  itself.

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)03:45:58 No.

  >>3272967
  Except nobody in the entire universe except for browser developers gives a single fuck about
  vulnerability related to flash. And there is the simplest solution in the entire world to any
  security issue that might arise from Flash: Just keep it on a fucking strict play only if allowed
  basis.

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)03:50:02 No.

  >>3272948
  wow so flash is even better than html5 in the effort needed in learning it?

  something tells me that in 2040 someone who has never even heard of flash before discovers it and
  makes a reddit thread (or whatever people are using by then) titled "great technology abandoned
  during early days of internet"

  it will be full of people saying stuff like "wtf, it was so much better, why did people give up
  on it?" and "eh, why did they take a step backwards?"

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)03:53:39 No.

  >>3272968
  >Except nobody in the entire universe except for browser developers gives a single fuck about
  vulnerability related to flash.
  Well yeah. Adobe ought to care, but they clearly don't and never will. Users don't know or care
  about who's software is broken, they just see that browsing porn sites gives them viruses and
  blame their browser.
  That leaves the job of trying to limit the amount of damage Flash can do to the browser
  developers, who have almost no control of the situation. Maybe if we lived in some alternate
  reality, where Flash became a widely-implemented open standard for online content then moving
  from Flash to JS would be daft. But we don't.

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)03:56:12 No.

  >>3272967
  The thing you need to understand about internet megacorps is that they all try to mold the
  internet in their own image. This is why all the major browsers, major OS's, and major
  stakeholders like Google all have a vested interest in killing off whatever doesn't fit their
  agenda.
  >Due to Flash Player's black-box nature it's virtually impossible to make a safe browser that can
  play Flash content
  Not the browser-maker's problem. It's the plugin-maker's problem and the consumer's risk. All a
  browser has to do is provide access to one of two plugins that work universally well (NPAPI or
  PPAPI) This already exists, and because of the selfish, globalist view of these providers, it is
  being taken away to make space for some other utopian ideal.

  >>3272965
  >Couldn't the Flash format be continued open source, even without any real updates? There are
  plenty of software that replaces Flash Studio already.
  AGAIN...
  LET ME REPEAT YET AGAIN...
  ONCE MORE...

  Flash is not going away, Adobe is still maintaining Flash core and Actionscript, implemented
  through AIR, Builder, and Animate.
  What's going away is the ability to view flash natively in major browsers, as they are
  deprecating the plugin architecture, by agreement with all the Powers That Be.

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)03:56:23 No.

  >>3272970
  It's just Adobe's handling of it that fucked them straight out of the industry. What a bunch of
  fucks.
  Guess they don't care about Flash now that Toon Boom and similar are around and that they still
  get mad jewbux from Photoshop.

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:01:47 No.

  >>3272967
  cookies are incredibly insecure as well, according to many sources. we keep going over and over
  on this but people don't listen.

  i mean some people even think a simple redirect from a flash file to a download with virus means
  that the flash itself is a vulnerability.
  >flash makes a popup and derpy browser 1.01 download a virus
  >gah evil flash (when in reality it was the browser that was bad)

  it's just like the staff over at newgrounds said:
  >2. Flash as a security threat was kind of a meme. Yes, Flash had vulnerabilities that needed to
  be patched and it was a bummer that it was a closed system. However your OS and your web browser
  also have vulnerabilities that get patched, as does all software. It became a popular thing to
  complain about but the reality is most people were getting their viruses and malware somewhere
  other than through an SWF file.

  i also liked the point about flash ads...
  >1. Flash was never the reason for bad advertising on the web, bad ad companies were. Most ads
  are now using HTML5 and the irony is they are larger files and often consume more resources than
  Flash did. We also have new problems, for example Flash-based ads were never able to steal focus
  from your browser and force the page to scroll back to the ad. HTML5 ads that do that have been
  cropping up on NG this past year and we have to chase them down. We’re also seeing more ads that
  do forced page redirects.

  there were more security vulnerabilities discovered in both MacOS and Windows than in flash any
  year.

  i think the real reason google wanted flash gone was because they didnt own it themselves and the
  reason adobe want it gone now is because they failed to make it profitable.

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:04:11 No.

  (((html5)))

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:06:43 No.

  >>3272976
  Like I said. Flash had a separate process or some kind of wrapper on every browser. If some
  horrible flash ad was bothering you, all you had to do was just disable it.
  You can't disable HTML5. At all. It is inherently less secure than flash, and much worse to
  contain to boot.

  And yeah, HTML5 basically belongs to Google. It's the same reason why Apple keeps trying to force
  retarded standards on their own industry - because they can get royalties, or at least have
  complete control over their own standard. And Google wants to have control over fucking
  everything.

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:07:28 No.

  >>3272967
  >...Why?
  >It's not like Google gets paid royalties for people writing JavaScript
  Because it's part of the spec that google doesn't control, the W3C and IETF have just taken
  google's browser specific bullshit and made it the standard despite them being fucking backwards
  trash, anything that google doesn't control is considered harmful to their core despite usually
  being better designed and more powerful and more extensible.

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:09:38 No.

  >>3272976
  I was never a big fan of Newgrounds, but they really hit the nail on the head with those comments.

  >cookies are incredibly insecure as well, according to many sources. we keep going over and over
  on this but people don't listen.
  Does anybody even know about Flash cookies (LSOs or 'supercookies')? Look it up. Then get Better
  Privacy plugin to manage them.THEN GET BUTTHURT, because browsers are methodically removing
  plugin support.

  We have bigger monsters to worry about than simply the loss of native Flash support.
  Browsers will soon become the biggest failware in all of internet history.
  We're making negative progress here.

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:13:18 No.

  >>3272978
  >You can't disable HTML5. At all. It is inherently less secure than flash, and much worse to
  contain to boot.
  You just cracked another part of the megacorp code.
  Now advertisers can just get in your face with no hope of you using a blocker.
  Also, ever notice you simply cannot right-click to grab an image, or if you can, on say... a GIF-
  all you get is one frame, not the whole thing?

  It's all about control, all about molding the internet to what THEY want.
  "Open Standards" are only an illusion of plebian control, but teh implementation nightmare they
  introduce only serves the Masters.

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:14:31 No.

  >>3272981
  Those old encrypted SOL object cookies?

  >>3272976
  What's worse is that they had a chance to remove cookies entirely, but the money for the IETF
  comes from those advertising and tracking companies, we could have a standard without these
  security risks that are built in intentionally to harm users but google and friends don't
  actually want that.

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:19:41 No.

  >>3272986
  >Those old encrypted SOL object cookies?
  No, this:
  https://www.google.com/search?q=lso+flash+cookies

  >but the money for the IETF
  If you ever want to know the reason for something happening,
  ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY TRAIL

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:20:50 No.

  >>3272978
  >And Google wants to have control over fucking everything.
  I remember when I decided to try out Google Chrome one day. Hit CTRL+Shift+DEL to clear my
  browsing history and what do I see?

  "Some settings that may reflect browsing habits will not be cleared."

  Google admits it right there plain as day that they spy on you. More than usual I mean, that the
  browser is doing something you do not know about in the background.

  I really don't understand how Chrome can be the most used browser today, it isn't a good idea to
  feed the giant more when they are already a giant.

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:24:10 No.

  >>3272986
  >What's worse is that they had a chance to remove cookies entirely
  to be clear im not against cookies. they are a really important part of browsing. im just saying
  that they aren't a threat at all (they are not incredibly insecure).

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:29:31 No.

  >>3272990
  There's the thing, they're not really important, for years there have been calls to replace
  cookies with sessions using a proper socket architecture in the HTTP standard, the kind of object
  they are now is very much insecure and easy to use for tracking and malicious purposes and is
  less useful for what is supposedly the legitimate use for cookies of login sessions and
  short-term local storage. The way things are is a great security and privacy risk and the people
  responsible are on the take from the people abusing it.

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:37:48 No.

  >>3272985
  It goes line in line with the modern philosophy of web design. They are all incredibly
  anti-consumer and anti-browser. Just take Twitter for example. You need a third party fucking
  application to download anything, or dig deep enough to grab some live HTTP headers in order to
  just download a single fucking video. Pre-loaders and buffers, the whole thing stems from the
  modern browser's complete fucking inability to optimize anything or design anything well, so the
  sites have to force their own backwards bullshit on top.

  I'm pretty sure I've managed to disable HTML5 and the works on my old version of Firefox, as well
  as a slurry of supporting plugins that guts and removes all the bullshit from every modern
  website. I can't even use youtube in a browser, it's so broken and infested with HTML5 that I
  can't stand it - I just manually download every video or stream it to a normal, native video
  player - which, by the way, outclass HTML5 in performance on every mark.

  >>3272989
  There are no alternatives. To the normal, you either use Firefox or Chrome or neither and just go
  with Microsoft Fucking Edge because you don't know anything. Maybe Safari if you're a macfag. A
  normal does not know or give a shit about Palemoon or whatever, they just take whatever they get,
  and Chrome is what'll they get until the end of time or until Google fucks up enough to render it
  completely inoperable. Google needs to die.

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:38:08 No.

  >>3272992
  they are important. you can keep a bunch of stuff client-side without having to save it on the
  server. really good for user experience since it's instant (javascript cookies) and it keeps
  server requests/resources down.

  you seem to focus on session cookies, which are useful too, but not the main thing about cookies.
  letting the user keeping track of which color template to use is much better than my server
  looking up his IPs preferred setting, especially since many people change IPs or share IPs with
  many other people (could be 1 router, 100 browsers)

  that thing about security/privacy risks are just untrue, you cant access cookies from other
  domains so privacy isn't an issue (except for google of course) and i dont know how a string of
  text could be insecure.

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:41:00 No.

  >>3272947
  Well the problem is that the web goes the same way TV and Radio is now. And it's doing that
  quick. Some split between corporate and free web would be great. Wouldnt mind to have to plug two
  different cables for that into my PC. Or maybe I need to move to russia for more freedom.

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:41:35 No.

  >>3272995
  >There are no alternatives.
  You just listed a good alternative though, why wouldn't Firefox be an alternative to Chrome?

  Also daily general reminder to people that Google's name is Alphabet Inc. now (they created a new
  daughter company named Google). Proof is Alphabet's stock listing.

  Also they changed their old motto from "Don't be evil" to "Do the right thing".

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:44:02 No.

  >>3273000
  Because modern Firefox is basically just Chrome. It's as much of an alternative as a kick to the
  right bollock is to a kick to both.

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:48:25 No.

  >>3272972
  >Not the browser-maker's problem.
  It IS the browser-makers problem, because all the public pressure is on them, and Adobe will
  never do shit about security. They might not have started the fire, but it's their house that's
  burning.

  >>3272973
  >cookies are incredibly insecure as well, according to many sources
  I'm not sure what your point is.

  >Yes, Flash had vulnerabilities that needed to be patched and it was a bummer that it was a
  closed system.
  >However your OS and your web browser also have vulnerabilities that get patched, as does all
  software.
  That's basically my main point: Flash has exploits that need to be patched. Browsers have
  exploits that get patched.
  So long as Adobe is neither willing to do the job themselves, nor let other people step in, Flash
  is not a good platform.

  >i think the real reason google wanted flash gone was because they didnt own it themselves
  They don't own JS either.

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:48:33 No.

  >>3272995
  Whenever 9front's i browser becomes feature complete there will be no reason to ever again
  mention firefox or chrome.

  >>3273000
  >You just listed a good alternative though
  Palemoon still has a lot of the problems that firefox has, the gecko engine is overburdened with
  bullshit and is hacked together in much the same way that Windows is being an unholy amalgamation
  of 32bit base and tacked on barely thought out 64bit extension. They don't have the recent bad
  decisions of extension signing or EME but it would still need to be rebuilt from the ground up to
  fix it. Most "alternative" web browsers are literally just libwebkit, geko, or whatever it is
  that safari and microsoft are built on frontends that have all the same issues as they have the
  same compliance rate to the standards which are still shit.

  >>3272998
  It just takes people who care to maintain an alternative spec, create something better than
  HTTP/2.0 and HTML5, something simpler and more transparent, something like werc but more
  all-encompassing.

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:51:34 No.

  >>3273004
  >They don't own JS either.
  They developed HTML5 and HTTP2.0 and Node.js, as well as a large number of the whole groundswell
  of JS dependencies and libraries that are part of every web 3.0 bullshit site that since no one
  bothers to read would require you to rebuild an ALU in the code to make sure they haven't
  redefined what a fucking number is because Javascript is the worst fucking language that exists.

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:53:16 No.

  >>3273001
  Chrome without the spying part sounds good in my book.

  >>3273005
  >>Palemoon still has a lot of the problems that firefox has, the gecko engine is[...]
  Dude I've been using Firefox for 7 years now and while all of what you just said might be true
  none of that has ever affected me in any way. Surfing is smooth as ever and not once have I
  thought to myself "gee what a superior experience" when I see a friend using Google Chrome. When
  there's no real, actual difference in surfing with the things I would just pick the one that
  doesn't openly admit that they are spying on you and the one that doesn't further advance the
  position of the biggest player on Internet.

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:56:55 No.

  >>3273008
  >chrome without the spying part
  That's just Chromium.
  Except that's only the beginning.
  The spying part is divided into user telemetry, usage telemetry and Google's integration
  bullshit. There is a lot of it. Then there's plugin support and Google's bullshit "authorized
  plugins" that prevents you from using anything that isn't personally approved by (((them)))
  unless you do some digging. Then there's the whole problem of differing plugin support and
  retarded live plugin features that came in recently.
  Oh, and the page-less history tab is a crock of shit. I fucking hate that design. Who the fuck
  decided that having to scroll down for several minutes just to get to an older date was a better
  idea than just jumping to it with a fucking page hyperlink? Now it's fucking everywhere.

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:58:47 No.

  >>3273004
  >Browsers have exploits that get patched.
  Browsers have plenty of exploits that don't get patched or can't get patched, the codebase for
  firefox and chrome is so many levels of magnitude larger than flashplayer it is completely
  irrelevant to compare the two in terms of vendor response. If for every two lines of code in
  flash there was a security bug that will never get patched there would be ten times as many
  security bugs in firefox as it really is. Not to mention that the EME sandbox is apparently made
  of magic and can keep a separate running application from gaining any information about the
  surrounding system while giving it a key that is unique to the system, because apparently there's
  a way to reliably generate the same unique key on the same system without giving away information
  about the system.

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)05:09:11 No.

  >>3273009
  >Oh, and the page-less history tab is a crock of shit.
  I dislike these "endless scrolling" pages as well. It's especially annoying on YouTube for me if
  I want to watch a whole channel and I accidentally left-click and have to then go back and scroll
  down again and try to find my place.

  I assume they don't want you to look at old videos because their algorithms are more focused on
  newer videos and can therefore bring you more relevant ads. Endless scrolling is not only a
  time-consuming feature but it prevents you from instantly jumping to old videos, making you get
  the feeling of going back in time to "outdated" videos when scrolling down. Which further helps
  Google in keeping you watching newer videos.

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)05:35:27 No.

  whatever

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)06:45:58 No.

  >>3272996
  >that thing about security/privacy risks are just untrue, you cant access cookies from other
  domains so privacy isn't an issue (except for google of course) and i dont know how a string of
  text could be insecure.
  WHOA BABBY, you need to do your homework...
  >http://www.infosectoday.com/Articles/Cookie_Tampering.htm
  >http://thehackernews.com/2015/09/https-cookies-hacking.html
  >http://www.cookiecentral.com/bug/
  and these are just a taste of the volumes of data out there, more than you could digest in years
  of reading.
  tl;dr- cookies are shit. Don't rely on them for "a better browsing experience" if these holes
  trouble you.

  >>3273004
  >Flash is not a good platform.
  and yet it's still better than the shit being offered in its place. Ironic, huh?

  >>3273009
  >Google's bullshit "authorized plugins" that prevents you from using anything that isn't
  personally approved by (((them))) unless you do some digging.
  Even that is being crippled every version, the switches that you used to be able to flip to your
  liking are being removed every time. Same with Firefux. There's no winning with them, it's like
  trying to drain the ocean with a sieve.

  >the page-less history tab is a crock of shit
  HAHA! You reminded me of Chrome's rollout- the very first version advertised itself as "One box
  for everything" with that infuriatingly sparse and useless UI. One box for everything is like
  having a kitchen with no cabinets... all your cookware and ingredients in one big pile on the
  floor. Be grateful you have a stove, but WAIT! WE'RE REPLACING IT WITH A MICROWAVE! YAY!

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)06:51:03 No.

  >>3273032
  >are being removed every time.
  Which is why I've decided I won't ever update anything again. Firefox, Windows, even fucking
  NVidia packs in telemetry instead of any fixes or features in their updates now. No Windows
  update past WinXP has ever fixed any of my problems, or any of anyone's problems ever, and
  Firefox has only managed to introduce more buggy shit that's leaking memory all over the place no
  matter what you do. At least it fucking works.

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)07:03:50 No.

  >>3272969
  i'm gonna be there and will tell them the tales.
  i now have a life goal, thanks anon

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)07:49:39 No.

  >>3273032
  whoa babby, i bet all those things are browser related and dont have anything to do with the
  actual concept of cookies that we're talking about here

  >>3273036
  "yeah in my days we could have a 30 minute long animation in 16K at less than 5 MiB, and most of
  that was audio! randomness? sure son, we could do whatever we want in our animations, even
  include clickable links to our own homepages or let the viewer select which way the story goes."

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)08:02:05 No.

  >>3273032
  lulz at those urls. the one from 2009 of course say that "Many browsers have a flaw...", meaning
  it's browser-related. being that it's been 8 years of patches the problems should be gone.

  the 2015 article states that all browsers affected have fixed the issue. don't even get me
  started on how irrelevant the last link is - it's from 1998!

  cookies are great, just as much as flash is great. you cant point at cookies and say that there
  could be a problem in this thing, therefore it is bad and must be removed. that's the same
  argument they used for removing flash. "it could be exploited, maybe, in the future before we
  patch it."

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)10:49:29 No.

  >>3272998
  you can use tor,i2p or freenet to get away from the corporate side of the internet. the problem
  is normal people don't think like us they care more about convenience than freedom, are ignorant
  of now bad it is or just say there is nothing we can do about it

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)10:50:01 No.

  >>3273041
  The point is they are not bulletproof, and will, just like everything else, always be insecure.
  If it can be built, it can be un-built. This is the hacker's first Law.

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)16:46:49 No.

  So which is better?

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)16:49:33 No.

  >>3273119
  Give up and just use IRC and play videogames.

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)16:55:14 No.

  Screw this, I'm going back to Usenet.
  NNTP fo' life, yo.

>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)17:20:17 No.

  >>3273119
  it is like the question which is better pc or mac because it's the exact same answer, neither