If you can't update your browser, it's manual forms in this case, sorry, that's the non-js version.
The page I linked has a compatibility table, some of them go quite far back (for opera it's version 12 minimum, for FF it seems to be version 4) - it might be worth a shot just using another ancient browser if you can get your hands on one
I don't know if this is related, but when I tried to use mass upload, it returned something like "couldn't contact server". Sorry I don't remember the exact message I didn't take note at the time and just uploaded the pages one by one.
I use Opera 11.64 too, on my desktop machine. The error is the same.
If that's going to trigger server timeout, maybe reducing it to x4/x5 form helps? And not everyone is going to upload 5 MiB on every page.
problem is that every form on the upload page is a discrete form that gets submitted individually, one after another, to allow for error correction.
I understand it's not literally impossible, but that fallback, even in its best iteration, has spotty reliability with what a lot of users might reasonably do, is going to be used by almost no one, and I only got so much dev time to dedicate to the site.
for peeps interested in how the code works, i host unminified versions, plz don't judge me for my js skillz
Hey JuicyGrey! I know that feeling from tech that just won't cooperate. Awful, isn't it? I have a suggestion though. :)
JuicyGrey:Should really have non-JS version, because JS simply plain... sucks...
And I am really not gonna upload 45 pages one by one...
Nope, can't update browser on this machine. Too old...
I've bought a few second-hand Lenovo Thinkpads over the years, notably paying about £25 for a R400 a couple of years ago. (Older models should be cheaper, but you may want to look at non-Thinkpads; older Thinkpads are popular with techs. Just try to make sure it has at least 2GB memory.) I put a spare hard drive in one of my R400s, it had Windows 10 on the drive. I've just booted it up, and I can tell you it's running 64-bit Firefox 65 just fine; just updated. I'm testing with my mail site which is about the most script-bloated site I tolerate. It's perfectly responsive! I actually used this thing for a few weeks a while back; I remember not wanting to have more than a handful of tabs open, but you know that.
Operating system comparison: Windows 10 brings with it the fear of disappearing drivers. I thought I found reason to suspect Linux of doing that too, but now I'm not so sure. (I do get paranoid at times.) In any case, I've had reason to compare Linux with Windows 7 in extended use, and I think Linux is much more responsive when memory gets tight. (Linux is crazy-obsessed with performance in all sorts of ways.) I also ran FreeBSD on both 4GB and 2GB machines; it was somewhere in between in this regard, but I liked it anyway. I'm told FreeBSD gets more use on servers, other BSDs may better support personal use. OpenBSD puts security above everything else, which can be great, but can also mean your machine runs slower. BSDs tend to have fewer developer resources for developing and maintaining drivers.
Speaking of security, I found that if you run Linux or FreeBSD on a machine with Intel graphics, I had to use an ad-blocker if only to filter out Microsoft adverts. See Microsoft advert -> graphics slow until reboot; just enough to notice. I don't know if this is Microsoft's own work, or if it's because Intel are married to Microsoft but only flirting with Linux for popularity's sake. None of these companies are "nice people," not even many in the Linux world.
On the other hand, idiots like me and a younger Ryan Dahl can write web servers in scripting languages. :)
Kyo... I have to ask... *takes a deep breath* Is the server-side image processing the reason you don't allow ftp uploads? What processing does it do? I ask because I don't see any thumbnails or other evidence of server-side processing. If it's just getting the image size, I could probably provide much faster code to do that.
"I think doing FTP upload is quite... complicated for Comic Fury's arrangement", Two weeks ago, 11:37 AM#10
eekee:Kyo... I have to ask... *takes a deep breath* Is the server-side image processing the reason you don't allow ftp uploads?
This relies on an assumption that Comic Fury server being a VPS/co-located machine that @Kyo control. I don't think it is the case. (1)
When using FTP uploads with shared hosting, @Kyo might need to string together FTP tree(3), cron jobs(4), PHP scripts; and orchestrate them to propagate files uploads and update databases without conflict. Doing this is not a small task, and is not trivial to maintain.
With all the shenanigans involved, IMO, "Gmail Classic" style of mass upload looks simple in comparison.
Considering @Kyo is not running Comic Fury as his job (and he already balked at my "Gmail Classic" request), I don't think he would introduce such feature (5); and I won't hold these against him.
(1) I suspect (2) that Comic Fury is based on a normal, shared hosting; otherwise it's going to be really, really, costly for @Kyo.
(2) Guesstimated by how I see @Kyo handle custom domains.
(3) This relies on an assumption that Comic Fury's DreamHost account can create unlimited number of FTP accounts.
(4) This relies on an assumption that Comic Fury's DreamHost account has cron jobs quota.
(5) Unless my assumption (1) is incorrect that is.
…while a number of solutions have been presented here, if the relevant feature works in Firefox 4 onwards… I can't help but feel using the site with an old version of Firefox instead of an old version of Opera is the quickest and most practical way to solve this problem?
This specific issue seems to be a problem with Opera 11 in particular, after all.
TanteiSakana:if the relevant feature works in Firefox 4 onwards... I can't help but feel using the site with an old version of Firefox instead of an old version of Opera is the quickest and most practical way to solve this problem?
It's not that simple, unfortunately. (1)
Opera 11.64 (circa 2012) has user-configurable TLS support, and even includes a somewhat-usable TLS 1.2 option; while the contemporary Firefox of its day doesn't. (2)
When hard-coded with TLS 1.0/1.1, you will get a "game over" screen as early as you enter `https://comicfury.com/` into your location bar. (3)
(1) This even assumes the OP uses Opera from a PC; and not some embedded/gaming platform.
(2) Even Firefox 11 still doesn't do, you would have travel forth in time to the day of Firefox 27 (circa 2014) where it was hard-coded to TLS 1.1/1.2 instead.
(3) Comic Fury's main site can be accessed via TLS 1.1 and 1.2 with SNI. But, if the browser also do TLS 1.0, the negotiation will fail nonetheless. SSL/TLS version negotiation is weird, and interoperability is fragile.
xwindows:(3) Comic Fury's main site can be accessed via TLS 1.1 and 1.2 with SNI. But, if the browser also do TLS 1.0, the negotiation will fail nonetheless. SSL/TLS version negotiation is weird, and interoperability is fragile.
This problem I'm aware of, so many servers do it, but I do NOT understand it! If one side refuses to do TLS 1.0, why does it matter if the other side supports it? To put it politely, I can't see the sense in it.