Why Prefer Textfiles? (2010)

32 pointsposted 12 hours ago
by kmstout

31 Comments

kehvyn

10 hours ago

It's always interesting to me that these plaintext sites are flagged as "insecure" and "risky" by modern browsers. I don't have a good solution, but it reminds me of [1]

[1](https://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2018/08/07/securing-sites...)

vbezhenar

8 hours ago

They are insecure, because your ISP can change website responses and text format doesn't protect from that. So basically browser can't guarantee that you're looking at original web server response.

BobbyTables2

8 hours ago

Insecure only if HTTP instead of HTTPS.

The format being text, html, video, or an executable program has nothing to do with it.

VladStanimir

15 minutes ago

This site is being deliver over HTTP instead of HTTPS, that is why it appears as insecure.

yinyang_in

7 hours ago

With checksum & sign nothing can be guaranteed, right ?

childintime

6 hours ago

Turns out text files are a binary format also, with any number of encodings, ever more binary as UTF8 grows, requiring constant updates, hidden by the OS. Text files are just the name for a renderer built in into every OS.

So what exactly distinguishes them? The OS knows how to render them? It's just a linear list of characters? The reliance on a fixed font to allow some form of layout or positioning? Good basis for embedded DSL's, like Markdown?

Don't forget they are a binary format also. Oh, I just said that. I anticipate the day UTF8 will be a fond memory of a big mistake we made in our youth, that held us back for decades.

Don't forget that all of IT is a shit show sprinkled over with dollar paint, much like alchemy was. We don't yet know what the formation in Information is.

andsoitis

6 hours ago

> the day UTF8 will be a fond memory of a big mistake we made

Alternative that would be better?

wodenokoto

5 hours ago

I actually agree, and kinda wished there was some sort of "binary" alternative to json that every text editor would open and let me edit as easily as json, because at the end of the day, it is no more binary than utf8 encodings with their number of bits, endians and confused line endings.

eviks

9 hours ago

The poor readability of the site itself is the best case against its core point

krapp

9 hours ago

It rather supports the site's core point, because that point is about plain text files, not HTML and CSS. Plain text is as readable as it is possible to be.

Besides, this is exactly the kind of site HN constantly laments the loss of - unique, quirky, basic and rough around the edges.

eviks

8 hours ago

> Plain text is as readable as it is possible to be.

Which is nonsense, of course, just like this site illustrates. Trivial formatting and layout changes make it more readable.

> Besides, this is exactly the kind of site HN constantly laments

And this is exactly the beside-the-point response you sometimes encounter on HN. I'm not a representative of the collective HN, so why does it matter that some other people did some lamenting some time ago?

krapp

8 hours ago

text files don't have "formatting" or "layout." They're just streams of ASCII characters. HTML is not plaintext.

eviks

7 hours ago

They do, and it's even misapplied in this example - there are weird hard line breaks (an ASCII character) in the wrong places, breaking the supposed "accessibility" of the format.

But also, you continue to miss the point - this lacking/bad layout/formatting is precisely the reason not to use plain text

koehr

an hour ago

For me this really speaks for intermediate text formats like Markdown, that are easy to read and render, while covering most formatting needs.

orionblastar

11 hours ago

Unlike Word files, there is no chance of a Macro Virus in them. I sent our family lawyer some documents converted to Text by request.

reincarnate0x14

9 hours ago

Comically the use of curl | bash managed to shoehorn them in there, and there were the occasional terminal escape characters that could do funny and sometimes mischievous things.

There used to be something of a game of making specific files that would change screen colors or play songs off terminal bells, etc, tailored for specific terminals or command prompt windows. I remember a few short animated sequences using various backspaces and colors that only really worked if you could expect the text to be loaded at specific baud rates or in specific BBS software.

akoboldfrying

10 hours ago

Weeeell... Ya say that, but:

Many years ago someone "infected" my computer with a "manual virus": A printed-out sheet of paper placed on top of the computer, telling me to delete all my hard drive's files myself, then photocopy the sheet and put both copies on nearby computers.

It was obviously a joke. But in the "modern" agentic era, the same thing in a text file is slightly more realistic as a threat...

eviks

9 hours ago

You can block macros in Word, so you're only left with unformatted downsides?

hagbard_c

11 hours ago

No macro viruses but if your family lawyer uses some LLM-powered thingy in his workflow it might add a new dimension: prompt manipulation/injection attacks. A good spot to hide these would be at about ⅔ distance inside some wall of legalese at the beginning or end of a document since hardly anyone ever reads those.

delichon

10 hours ago

I've known people one-shot by pure text, like Atlas Shrugged, The Communist Manifesto, The Bible, The Qur'an, The Selfish Gene, Godel Escher and Bach, etc. Don't underestimate text.

anonymous908213

10 hours ago

A clever quip, but I have to point out that most adherents for a given ideology have never actually read the canonical text of their ideology. The Bible particularly was generally inaccessible to laypeople for a ~1000 year period, who would typically learn everything they knew about it filtered through the preachers of the Church. Even today with easy access, a majority of Christians have not read it.

graemep

6 minutes ago

The Bible was fairly widely read, but books were very expensive until the invention of printing. There were efforts - it would have been read to people, there were English translations of parts of it going back to the 7th century. Reading it aloud forms a large chunk of services even today.

> Even today with easy access, a majority of Christians have not read it.

Not read all of it certainly. However, most Christians have definitely read some of it. The Bible is not "the canonical text" for two reasons: there are disagreements about what is canonical, and it is not a single text, it is a collection of works.

Not reading all of it - why should we? What is the point of Christians reading things such as (most of?) Leviticus which is a collection of rules that do not apply to Christians? It is perfectly reasonable to be selective about which books within a large collection people read.

1718627440

an hour ago

So the "employees" of X are untrustworthy, but the collection of circular letters for the "employees" of X is not. This doesn't make any sense.

> Even today with easy access, a majority of Christians have not read it.

Depending on the denomination, 50% to 100% of the service they do revolves around reading from that book.

> preachers of the Church

Also what do you understand by "the Church".

HPsquared

9 hours ago

The real version of the information hazard in Snow Crash.

ada0000

10 hours ago

What exactly does “one shot” mean here?

spankibalt

10 hours ago

Famous American detective TV show True Detective had the hero annoy his colleague by referring to religion as "language virus that rewrites pathways in the brain" and thereby "dulls critical thinking". In other words, a lot people read shit and it fries their mixers. Obviously, it can also work the other way. Et cetera.

delichon

10 hours ago

Infected by a packet of ideas that profoundly alters your outlook on life, for good or ill like a mind virus. I've been shot several times, it's thrilling. For me it's always text that does it.

HeavyStorm

9 hours ago

Why not: this looks terrible in my browser.

keyle

9 hours ago

Just cURL it! j/k

not j/k.

I'd rather read in my beautiful gpu-powered terminal emulator than a website with bad taste and/or bloated nightmare under the covers.