Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Return of LWK

M

Macbookprodude

Suspended
Original poster
Jan 1, 2018
3,306
898
Hello,

So, I spoke with Tobias, the developer of LWK and he told me the reason he could not continue with updating LWK(many tickets have been submitted due to https/http sites not loading due to SSL), his iMac G5 broke, so I have decided in the spirit of keeping LWK alive to DONATE for free my G5 Quad, so he can continue to develop and update LWK. Awaiting his response.. stay tuned.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: netsrot39, Jubadub, Project Alice and 11 others
Cool! I prefer LWK to TenFourFox as it is much lighter on the CPU, but there are more and more webpages not compatible due to SSL. I would love a newer version of LWK, but as long as the SSL error is fixed I'd be more than happy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: smnbldwn
I wouldn’t get my hopes up on continued development. It’s a tricky area considering the extremely outdated security of the OS.

Your donation, while a generous offer, clearly has expectations in return. I’m telling you now that if I were on the receiving end I would kindly say thanks, but no thanks and then carry on with my life.

But, we’ll see. Maybe the broken iMac story is true... or maybe other priorities came up. Either way, with low expectations, anything good is a bonus :cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jubadub, repairedCheese, Amethyst1 and 1 other person
Dronecatcher said:
I don't think Tobias abandoned LWK purely because of a broken Mac - LWK uses the system TLS which is now out of date in Leopard, to go forward he has to write/introduce an independent TLS cipher library.
Click to expand...

If HTTPS support is really the blocker for an updated LWK, I'm sure I could get either Squid 3 or carl to actually run on PPC. I previously kind of lost interest due to Squid 3's inability to verify certificates (ie no security), but it's doable.
 
As I said.. that is what he told me was that his iMac G5 broke and everything stopped, I offered him my G5 Quad for free so he can continue the development.. I have not heard from him since last night.
 
Wowfunhappy said:
If HTTPS support is really the blocker for an updated LWK, I'm sure I could get either Squid 3 or carl to actually run on PPC. I previously kind of lost interest due to Squid 3's inability to verify certificates (ie no security), but it's doable.
Click to expand...
As a matter of fact, it is.. no reason why you can’t goto www.Wikipedia.org why does an online encyclopedia need security ?? Most stupidest thing I ever heard, now if I need to enter my SS number or access my bank info, that is different :)
 
Because Wikipedia is a "public" encyclopaedia, they have to preserve the authenticity of the data contained as is. Even with that security, some people still make fun of their pages by mocking their contents. Without security it would be a complete circus full of fake news, fake facts and misinformation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Strategia and repairedCheese
Bruninho said:
Because Wikipedia is a "public" encyclopaedia, they have to preserve the authenticity of the data contained as is. Even with that security, some people still make fun of their pages by mocking their contents. Without security it would be a complete circus full of fake news, fake facts and misinformation.
Click to expand...

This is why colleges can’t stand it for information... they think it isn’t “scholarly...”
 
Bruninho said:
I definitely agree.
Click to expand...

Seconded.

During the freshman year of my BA, we had it drummed into us that Wikipedia is not a scholarly source, that it is not an accurate or reliable source of information and on no account should it ever be cited in our academic papers. This wasn't snobbery or sneering, it was sensible and responsible guidance that has put me in good stead and led to me becoming a better researcher.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MacFoxG4, RogerWilco6502, NikolaPPC and 3 others
Bruninho said:
Because Wikipedia is a "public" encyclopaedia, they have to preserve the authenticity of the data contained as is. Even with that security, some people still make fun of their pages by mocking their contents. Without security it would be a complete circus full of fake news, fake facts and misinformation.
Click to expand...
HTTPS doesn't affect the authenticity of the data on the server; it only ensures that that data makes it to your browser without being changed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MacFoxG4, NikolaPPC, Jubadub and 2 others
When I was a kid, and I wanted to know something, my dad used to say “Look in your dictionary”.

And we had dictionaries. But I never read them, I just kept insisting (as every kid would) until he replied me.

Nearly 30 years later, now he says “Do a search on Google” *rolleyes*

Yes, and I do google now.
 
Nermal said:
HTTPS doesn't affect the authenticity of the data on the server; it only ensures that that data makes it to your browser without being changed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, thanks, that’s what I tried to say, I didn’t phrase it properly. My bad - english isn’t my mother language. But you’re correct.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nermal
TheShortTimer said:
Seconded.

During the freshman year of my BA, we had it drummed into us that Wikipedia is not a scholarly source, that it is not an accurate or reliable source of information and on no account should it ever be cited in our academic papers. This wasn't snobbery or sneering, it was sensible and responsible guidance that has put me in good stead and led to me becoming a better researcher.
Click to expand...
I mean there's lots of sources that aren't academic. There's been a number of studies that have shown the quality of Wikipedia content.
 
impermanence said:
I mean there's lots of sources that aren't academic.
Click to expand...

Yes but they should at least be reliable on a basic level.

impermanence said:
There's been a number of studies that have shown the quality of Wikipedia content.
Click to expand...

There has also been a large volume of studies that have highlighted the often poor quality of Wikipedia's content in terms of accuracy and the inherently and intrinsically flawed nature of its very premise. Even something as seemingly innocuous as the celebrity biographies have had major errors stand for years before they were eventually corrected.

I've read Wikipedia articles about consumer electronics products that I personally own and I saw that the historical information was completely inaccurate. As I've stated before, each to their own but I personally give Wikipedia a wide berth. I'd be embarrassed at myself as a researcher to even contemplate citing its articles. It's not a scholarly source and it's problematic on numerous levels for even the most basic of purposes.

No offence is intended to anyone who does use it and I'll stop here because this is a divergence from the topic at hand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amethyst1
TheShortTimer said:
I've read Wikipedia articles about consumer electronics products that I personally own and I saw that the historical information was completely inaccurate.
Click to expand...
Even some of the dates on the recent page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PlayStation_5_games are wrong. I put something on the 'Talk' page months ago and it's never had a response, let alone a correction!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_with_overtures was also a great source of fiction, although it's better than it was.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheShortTimer
I don’t like Wikipedia either as they are biased.. no politics in this though, I just use their site as a test for http working on our machines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back