There still is old internet, it's just that the new overtly materialistic and competitive internet shouts at people to make money or attain power. The old nternet is still around, it's just drowned out.
I do find that a lot of people decry the end of something without actually going and finding whether the thing still exists.
That is some rose colored welding googles you're wearing there. In the late nineties we had applets, activex, pages crammed with animated gifs, and the browser wars were in full swing between SUN, Microsoft, netscape, internet explorer. And then flash rocked up.
Again, it shows how the OP railing against over-design is so subjective. A lot of sites are meant to be interesting ways of showing information, or just people expressing themselves.
People complaining about the design of websites (and writing snooty blog posts about it on usenet) happened in the nineties too, even more so when flash took over.
Is that true that most Indian families live in multigenerational compunds? It sounds more of a upper middle situation to me, where a multigenerational family has enclosed or walled in land.
I understand your point, but I'm intrigued. Could you elaborate with some kind of example why it is disappointing that people don't date their web-pages? Is this a generic problem or is it with specific web-sites only?
A recently-released project may be intriguing but something risk-averse entities (individual/organisations) might prefer to hold back on for fear of, let's call it "infant death syndrome".
An old project with no active development is generally perceived as "dead", with risks that security- or bug-fixes could remain unaddressed for long times, or that there may be current zero-day exploits possible.
An old project with a healthy activity stream counters both points: the project has exhibited staying power and addressing ongoing maintenance concerns. Even active projects might give caution (say: feature creap or enshittification), but that's beyond the scope of merely giving initial / latest activity timestamps.
NB: I've well over 30 years of professional IT experience in shops ranging from small operations to multi-billion-dollar firms. Advocating for, or against, various technologies and solutions is a large part of that role. It's also something that carries into my choices for my own personal systems.
I'd be unlikely to do much with MinC myself as I don't use MS Windows, though it fits in with a long tradition of similar tools I have used, often with fond memories, including Cygwin, David Korn's UWIN, MKS Toolkit (Mortice Kern Systems, licenced by Microsoft for early versions of WSU, precursor to WSL, I've just learned), VMWare, Xen, qemu, Virtualbox, Parallels, etc. These have different architectures but all basically address the problem of "run programs from OS X on OS Y", which turns out to be a fairly-frequently-encountered challenge. I might well recommend MinC to those with such needs.
I doubt that Microsoft would by it. From what I remeber they were working on their own framework doing a similar thing, which was originally meant to release in .NET 9 but got pushed back.
Unless they want to throw all of that away I doubt it would make much financial sense for them.
But we have seen FluentAssertions parter with tool maker recently so I guess that's not entirely unreasonable.
My unpopular opinion is that it is a long time coming. Smaller sites that do not have strong technical knowledge of security or IT maintenance are targets for bot nets and scammers to host on.
It's the same as arguing that Health and Safety regulation harms small businesses because they have to ensure the safety of their employees and customers. Or that it's not coducive to small businesses to have employment law.
Companies have had decades to switch to safe and secure online businesses, but the self-regulation never materialised.
Site owners are not going to be arrested willy nilly. All that is needed is to show that you have the administration in place to deal with complaints from the publis and enquiries from OFCOM. If you host illegal content, you have to have someone around to deal with it. If you host hate speech then you have to deal with the consequences. nobody has been prosecuted for saying the government is rubbish, but they will be for advocating physical harm on people in our society.
This will create digital management agencies that act as proxies to OFCOM, it may even create a cottage industry of remote working digital administrators.
These changes should be enbraced as opportunity, and fought when needed, but this isn't anything but law enforcement.
The conspiracy bunnies are hopping mad, citing some sort of tyrannical destruction of liberty, but it's not.
> This will create digital management agencies that act as proxies to OFCOM, it may even create a cottage industry of remote working digital administrators.
So bullshit jobs that do nothing productive but are there for "compliance". I think we have enough of that, thanks.
