Its funny seeing some of my loathed desktop UIs are on the list - not knowing the rest enough.
To me this put websites everywhere thing feels like wearing Halloween costumes everywhere. I mean everywhere, from office through jogging to funeral. Also to bed.
This isn't HTTP Basic Auth, though: these days git with the right Credential Managers (and Git for Windows comes with a good one built in) support OAuth Access Tokens obtained with full OAuth login flows including 2FA authentication. It's theoretically no worse than SSH PKI, and in terms of practicality is often better because it is easier and more convenient. (For the users, it is clearly more complex that "install openssh" to implement if you are trying to build a git host that supports OAuth Access Token auth.)
I don't have any experience with Tower, other than having heard the name. From their feature description, I can say that Fork does not have multi-user or team management functionality, if that's important for your use case.
I'd recommend giving it a trial run. For me it ticks all boxes for personal and professional use, I'm very happy with it. The managing of a large number of repos could be better, but I do OK with a single "hub" folder to keep all repos, with nested folders and symlinks.
This took me back to one morning early in my career, where I arrived at work following an Easter weekend still heavily under the influence of ecstasy. I hid under my desk from the boss, with Prodigy playing from Winamp into my headphones.
Taxi straight from party to the office. I didn't realize until I was sitting at my desk how fucked I was
Thanks for including it in your list! You’ve done a great job collecting so many of them. We have a Discord with a few people interested in this type of thing. You can find a link in the Webamp readme if you are interested
I (author of Webamp) worked with the internet archive to archive ~50k Winamp skins. The collection even features Webamp integration is you can try them out in the browser. https://archive.org/details/winampskins
I always preferred Geiss, but either way, I wish such visualisation capabilities were built in to Spotify... Or is there a suitable in_xxx plugin for Winamp that will let me use its visualisations with Spotify?
I'm using a Macross Plus Winamp skin for QMMP as I write this, so it was funny to read your comment...I got so sick of iTunes that a few years ago I went back to the old way. I wrote some scripts to select & generate playlists and bound the scripts to keyboard shortcuts like Ctrl+Super+Media Keys. QMMP has been really solid.
I'm endlessly impressed at how good Synology's DSM interface is. The experience is so incredibly seamless in all the important ways. And it's not just a gimmick—all of the benefits of draggable, resizable windows are there: you can drag files between folders, you can open multiple settings windows at the same time, and so on.
I didn't want to use mine as 'just a NAS' and was hoping the Linux+ssh they ship would allow that, but it hasn't gone as I had in mind. Certain things I wanted require jumping through weird extra hoops, and system decisions I don't particularly agree with are just imposed. The toolchain generally seems quite dated, the kernel is from 2017 (v4.4.59+) and to me their proprietary package format (.spk) seems pointless given we already had apt-get/etc. I saw back in December they deprecated DDSM, also DSM7 was delayed, still not out and that was before Corona so who knows now.
If you wanted the option to spin down your disks, sorry, it's evidently impossible b/c Synology requires you to use their partition layout which dumps their OS partition onto all your data disks.
My needs are low write/high read & I would have preferred installing the OS on a dedicated SSD. In fact I paid extra for a '+' Syno with SSD slots, but whoops, too bad the slots can't be used for a bootable OS because there's no BIOS. So something, probably log file appends for services I don't care about are why my data disks spinning 24/7. Maybe that's good for Syno's support costs but it's not great for me.
Why not install Ubuntu you might ask? Sorry, not possible == no BIOS.
I know plenty of people love their Synos -- if it works for you, great. Just one guy's opinion. If you need a NAS for 'just' file serving then you might well be OK.
But if you want to do anything beyond the surface, I suggest looking elsewhere.
If you're not prepared to do everything the "Synology" way (most of which is perfectly fine) then a Synology isn't for you.
I personally am very happy with my Synology doing mostly file serving, and I use docker to run as much custom packages as I can. It's not completely seamless but it works well for me. And I really value many parts of the Synology hardware and software.
So, here is something not so glowing then. I've got two of them, both 12 bay versions, an older one and a newer one. The old one would handle drives larger during the initial configuration than it would handle during a rebuild and this bit me quite hard.
Eventually I fixed it by using an old 36 bay chassis running linux to do the rebuild but it should not have taken that, if I had been stuck on the Synology setup it would have caused loss of the array.
The experience with Synology up to that point was good enough that I did in fact buy the newer and larger model, but even there there were rough edges, for instance that the model as listed could not handle all the drives it was supposed to work with without upgrading with outrageously overpriced memory.
So, after many years as a Synology customer that's my experience, I would still recommend them but I would definitely ask if the buyer is planning on maxing out their kit and if they do to ensure 100% compatibility between the parts before committing their data to it.
If the idea of adding more to your duties as a recreational sysadmin doesn't excite you, a Synology is fantastic. And there's quite an extensive array of app packages you can run on them with nice interfaces.
However if you're looking at doing more than basic storage, you might want to look at something like FreeNAS, Proxmox or Unraid. I've no experience with any of these but if you're wanting to do a lot of app containers for stuff like databases, media servers, home automation, Unifi Controller, download managers etc, these might make more sense.
I personally run a dozen docker containers on my Intel CPU Synology, but I wouldn't describe it as a seamless experience. I do 99% of the docker administration from the terminal (via ssh to the nas) and maintain it with custom shell scripts. I'm very happy with the outcome as I get the benefits of Synology (Hyper Backup being a particular highlight) and docker containers running on hardware that was running 24/7 anyway.
If there's anything more tedious to me than being a recreational sysadmin, it's being a recreational sysadmin of backups.
Hyper Backup is everything that's good about macOS Time Machine, but even more reliable and runs on my NAS. It took no time or mental effort to set up, it keeps multiple snapshots, and most importantly it has always WORKED when I've needed to recover stuff.
Synology is great. I've got a 2012 model still chugging away in my closet with no signs of stopping. I can probably count the number of times I've had to reboot it on my 2 hands. Very reliable. I just wish they would put slightly more powerful CPUs in their lineup.
But I also have a 2011 model that is still chugging away. I'd still be using it today as my main NAS except I wanted to get a second NAS to act as a physically separated, mostly cold backup. The old one is now a Hyper Backup target for the new one, and I have it on a power schedule so that it spends 99% of the time completely switched off.
I've got a 2012 two-dish model too, right now it's only used as home media server but for quite some time I was using it for work (NFS with users and all that, and iSCSI for occasional use). Setting it up was stupidly easy.
Xpenology is like a hackintosh. Once it's running you get 98% of the day-to-day experience, but not the absolute seamlessness of everything working without hacky installation steps, rough edges and questionable ethics vis a vis software licensing.
It's a heck of a lot faster when running locally on your own NAS, but it's also worth remembering that it's not just a fancy demo where all of the window content can be stuffed into a single large JS file and downloaded ahead of time. Synology's UI is actually doing real stuff, and the content of every window has to be streamed from the server on demand.
Interesting collection. Between the veritable homages (AV notification included)  and reinterpretations for various purposes (e.g., music player ), it's a fun mix!
It also reminded me of the Nielsen Norman article exploring flat design and comparing it to three-dimensional design . While it's becoming less and less possible, it would be interesting to compare the experience across different UX patterns for first-time computer users. It seems hard to separate familiarity and nostalgia from truly superior UX.
These are interesting resources, thank you. One sentence stuck out to me in :
> Early pseudo-3D GUIs and Steve-Jobs-esque skeuomorphism often produced heavy, clunky interfaces.
I think that this is an aesthetic assessment, not one that speaks to usability. And while older interfaces were aesthetically clunky, newer interfaces are functionally clunky - often hiding functionality (hamburger menu) and wasting content space in exchange for the whitespace necessary to separate elements without skeuomorphic signifiers.
I think the Hamburger was a good solution to a real problem: that mobile phones simply have less screen space (physical, if not in pixels) than desktops and laptops. The problem is that people then seem to blindly apply the solutions where they aren't needed. Too much cargo culting, not enough thought.
Early Android devices had a hardware menu button, press it, get a menu, simple and consistent. It can be related to the menu bar in desktop applications.
Android 3 and 4 broke it. Google noticed that many apps didn't know what to do with that button, and when they stopped relying on physical buttons, instead of trying to make things more consistent, they simply threw it the towel and removed the button. The hamburger menu replaced it. But unlike the physical button, it can be anywhere, or absent, or hidden behind a swipe gesture, or whatever the "UX designer" thought of.
Normally, the way you do it in a desktop app is to use the OS provided menu bar, preferably with standard labels like "File", "Edit", "View" and "Help". But in a web page, you can't do that, the menu bar is property of the browser, and because HTML never standardized menus, you take inspiration from where you can, and already messy mobile apps is the closest thing you have.
The problem is that now, people design their desktop apps like web pages, in fact, with Electron and the like, they are web pages. So every OS convention and standard widgets that help make things consistent go out of the window (pun not intended).
I think Google - which is at core a web company - couldn't consider mobile apps alone. By having an hardware button, apps and websites inevitably worked differently. Removing the button allowed for uniformity: everyone uses the hamburger.
Unfortunately, in the new post-hamburger menu Android, the options that used to be available in the hamburger menu are now even harder to find. When they're still available in the main screen, they're also less useful--you have no idea what they do until you use them (I know I can long press, but family can't).
The best app UI I've seen, FBReader, has a menu, a drawer, and an action bar, and you can move elements between all three of them through settings, and for normal reading use the UI is hidden altogether. If you want to do anything advanced, it gets more difficult though--it has nested menus, though they're well organized IMO. Another UI that I like is Perfect Viewer's tap zones--it has settings for 3, 5, 11 tap zones on screen, and you can set what happens separately for long-press, single and double tap in each zone, plus swipe the top for brightness and bottom for progress control (like dragging a scrollbar, but for ebooks); probably overkill for most people though.
Microsoft tends to use the waffle menu for switching between apps, and many of those apps will have a hamburger menu at various screen sizes. Some of those apps will also have ellipsis menus in various places, and that leads to my favorite of the silly food names for menu icons as these are often called qebab menus, especially the vertical ellipsis which is rare in text but common for menu icons so some people don't even realize they are meant to be ellipses, but they definitely look like a skewer of qebabs.
(ETA: Also yes, it is sort of weird that Microsoft feels a need for three levels of menus: waffle, hamburger, qebab. Though in practice it seems better than the Android apps I've seen with 2+ Hamburger menus. Which one is which? Which one does what? The hierarchy of waffle, hamburger, qebab offers some context.)
Thanks for posting the last article. I recently found an interesting post from Jeff Atwood about the Uncanny Valley of User Interfaces (2008) where he explains how web apps that mimic desktop UI conventions is rarely a good idea.
His blog is amazing (Start > Documents > Blogs). I love being able to open multiple blog posts in different windows. And the most amazing thing: it doesn't even feel like a website. The windows open almost instantaneously.
The first time I saw a GUI desktop (Win95-like) in a Web browser, it was done by one of the prominent kernel developers. Either a proof of concept, or a hack for fun, or both.
It was especially impressive, because this was when Web developers were mostly concerned with things like rounding corners of rectangles in layouts. Then some non-Web person is passing by, and says, hey, y'know, it looks like one thing you could do with this now is... :)
I started work on one of these a couple of years back. Never actually finished it (is anything ever truly finished?!). It’s got a media player with milkdrop visualiser (you can control the presets with left and right on the keyboard), a terminal (with matrix effect via the command with the same name), various settings and apps. I had a drum machine in there, but removed it because it was a bit messy code-wise. Wanna get some emulators in there, my previous site had an awesome JS NES emulator virtual arcade easter egg that was triggered via the Konami code. This web OS experiment is built in jQuery, but I’m inclined to port it over to Vue at some point.
Reminds me of an app I saw in the late 90's developed with Delphi. I never used Delphi, but apparently it had the ability to compile an app to an ActiveX plug-in and run a full desktop-like application in Internet Explorer. Of course, ActiveX had major security problems, but the UX was amazing.
I was a heavy Delphi user back in the day (late-90's/early 2000's) it was way ahead of the curve in terms of RAD that didn't gimp you as a developer.
Shame they decided to go for the large enterprise insanely expensive end of the market, if they'd done a decent commercial version for a 10th the price they'd have done much better.
Though the writing was on the wall as the cost of development tools trended towards zero - JetBrains have continued to prove that if you provide enough utility competing against free can be profitable.
Many webdevs have used systems like those for their development work. Today, the web can nicely represent them right in the browser. This makes it quite easy for the new generations of devs to take a feel of those systems. Feels like the Web is giving something back. Thanks for sharing!
How were loading times after the initial loadup? I found almost every one of these (especially this https://ash.ms/) be extremely fast compared to 'modern' websites. I'm wondering why more websites can't do whatever it is they're doing to load things fast.
Thanks. My most recent one took quite a long time. I'm going to be distributing floppy disks with it soon as a fundraiser
I'm curious though: Would people be interested in tossing $5 or $10 my way for a custom labeled vintage 3.5 floppy, with my software on it, made to look like the early 90s, shipped to them? It's more of a novelty artpiece, I realize it, but I have a box of old floppies, a couple drives, a bunch of packaging material, and a color laser printer, I can put them to work (the floppies will be from this viral image I made about 9 years ago, went viral on its own, don't ask me about the secrets, I do not know them: https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/enhanced/web...) I probably have the original somewhere, probably on that same drive with those couple hundred bitcoins I tossed.
Anyway, I'm about to make maybe 10 of these floppies as a test run (and I'll put some surprises on the disk as well) but if nobody wants to toss the cash my way then I probably shouldn't bother.
I'll have to buy the labels, get glabel to have the right parameters, carefully affix the labels and test the disks, make the "marketing" material ... it's not a zero cost or low time operation.
This is silly, I should just do it. Who cares if I don't sell them ... my highest profit aspirations here are like < $500 ... it's silly worthless pocket change, I'm just looking for excuses to be lazy. Ok, I'm stating it publicly, I'll do it.
I have nothing to add to this conversation other than to say how much I love each of these. It really takes me back to a time when I fell in love with computers, and how much endless exploration and excitement they represented. Thank you sharing this – it's nice to remember those feelings.
I miss the rise (and fall) of desktop.com (which is coming back under a new owner; some ideas never go away). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop.com for more. Katie Mitic and the Drebes had a vision for client-computing that was really fun, but browsers and the market just weren't there.
It's kind of funny: the iPhone was lauded for being skeumorphic and then that faded away. Desktop guis also went through this, at one end becoming Microsoft Home, and the other end being, well, pick your favorite Linux desktop ( 8-) ).
Is this a new wave, only instead of reflecting the physical world (why is the save button still a 3.5" floppy?), now it reflects a desktop gui?
I'm curious about the tech in some of these. Probably a mix of straight up HTML reinterpretation, probably some web assembly, feels like at least one or two are running a full win9x dist in either docker or something...
There's some frameworks that are available for old Windows desktop apps to run in the browser. It's main use is for old ERP systems that were originally written for on-premise to be deployed in the cloud and browser based without needing to essentially rewrite everything.
Someone should load up a copy of Soashable. I ran it as recently as 2017 against the current Prosody, just enable BOSH and I think legacy auth (xmpp). The copy on SourceForge can be massaged to run with just the obnoxious browser detection check disabled as it fails in new browsers—an otherwine great 1.0, if I say so as the author a decade later. Xmpp4js that it usess also works in JS Core, as it has its own everything down to DOM. If I can get around to it I’ll try to get it up and submit it, but am homeless with barely functional IT and web access right now.
Is there a case anyone can think of (other than backward compatibility with legacy workflows and expectations) that one would write a new browser app with an old desktop OS look and feel?
That is, are there use cases that a classic OS's GUI excels at more than the typical web or mobile/tablet app GUI, that we have lost due to the typical style and behavior of the latter types of apps? I mean both the interaction model of the windows and menus themselves, and also the look and behavior of elements used to render content.
For some reason i was reading something on the CERN website a few days ago and while noticing the layout was odd, it never really clicked it was modelled after a desktop GUI. That's pretty cool though.
A major accessibility problem with this: the list uses <div>s with click handlers, rather than links. This makes it not respond properly to clicks with modifiers (e.g. Ctrl+click), not have the right context menu options, not show the href in the status bar, and be completely unusable to users of tools like screen readers or those that would navigate by keyboard.
Never ever do this. If it opens a new page, it’s a link. <div> with a click handler is the wrong thing >99.99% of the time: it should be a link or a button.
Accessibility is super important, but gosh your comment here is downright horrible.
It's neither not constructive, nor friendly. Nothing about the contents of the page itself. You're basically, rude and borderline hostile with italics emphasizing something the author /should not/ do. Horrible.
Where's your #1 Hacker News site? Where's your awesome collection of awesome sites that you shared with people. I don't see one.
I found it concise, well-explained, informative and helpful. Hopefully many other people learned something useful from it. The author of the original site certainly got value from it given their reply. You don't always have to sugar coat code review feedback with a meaningless "This is awesome but..." - it's usually disingenuous at best. Surely as hackers we should all appreciate good, useful feedback like this?