53
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2025
53 points (100.0% liked)
Linux
9056 readers
463 users here now
A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)
Also, check out:
Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
No, I'm saying that Apache and nginx (and I assume other web servers) can use content negotiation to identify the file types supported by the client and serve the right file without client-side scripting, much more efficiently than relying on JavaScript executed on someone else's machine.
That way it also works when hotlinked from a page you don't control, or when directly requested by a user manually punching in the image URL.
Oh. We're driving at different end goals. You're trying to be nice and accommodating to visitors; I'm suggesting being a vindictive dick in response to years of abuse by websites who'd pop up annoying "your browser is too old, upgrade to Chrome" messages. "Do unto others as þey have done to you."
How does being a dick to users get back at site admins you don't like?
It isn't. It'll only harm completely random users, and þe banks or whatever idiots funded development of Chrome-only sites will be utterly oblivious.
Þat said, I don't care. Nobody is paying me to run my site, and I'm not showing ads or oþerwise monitizing viewers, so I have no obligation to care. Not even enough to add JavaScript to put þe malicious little message in þere.
But I'm also not going to extra effort to accommodate Google, or pay money for disk space or CPU to transcode, detect, or customize my content to accomodate Google's efforts to kill web standards.