ipreferpickles
An Onion Among Onions
I remember he stopped posting on KF for a week a year or two back so he could attend a funeral in the US, so I don't think his family has disowned him.
Updates to Website
All Races, Ethnic Groups, Religions, Gay or Straight, CIS or Trans: If you can rock with us, you are one of us.
For the time being register with Protonmail until I can check with G-Mail.onionfarms is now on Bluesky social.
Onionfarms.online is temporarily down.Topics of Interest
Kiwifarms Speculation Would you help fix Null's fucked up life?
- Thread starter Cat Administrator
- Start date
Parody Threads related to Kiwifarms Satire and speculation threads related to Null or Kiwifarms go here.
>Would you help fix Null's fucked up life?
No, because then I have no entertainment.
No, because then I have no entertainment.
please tell us what will happen if kiwifarms have little to no donos in the future.
it's sad to see no one in the freeze peach™ give a fuck about ED disappearing. people have to remember/know that ED is one of the core pillars of the old internet
That's an incredibly big and optimistic if. We all know how slavishly devoted some of these nerds are. Josh flipped on the donate now sign and pulled in six figures, so I don't see any signs of momentum dying down
Well for starters, muh free speech is just a grift. It has been and always will be empty words that no one has really followed through entirely on.
Also, no one gives a shit about ED because it's a dead nigger forum. It was fun back in the day but that shit's been over for a long time. Compare the traffic of KF or the Sharty to ED.
It's not just muh free speech crowd that doesn't give a shit, it's everyone else
you do understand that ED isn't just a forum, right?
true. I wish more and more people finally wakes up and see Josh as what he truly is: a fraud
I would never help Josh in anything
The only way to get the old internet back would be to build parallel infrastructure and have a lot of exit nodes onto the normie-net. Everything is too centralised and too controlled now.
You have to be able to ship your own bits with nobody looking over your shoulder.
It's getting more and more feasible to do and a few folk I know are building small localised meshes that were interconnecting by tunnelling over normie-net but ain't nobody got time to duplicate the whole internet a la 1998
i feel like instead of rebuilding the old net from scratch, we should instead spawning multiple websites that are just like websites from the old internet. not only this is more easy to do but it also expose normies to the old internet and underground internet culture. bonus point from this is those normies would be converted to based and redpilled dudes
The first time you get called a whatever the current ist or phobe is then your site can be black holed, much as what happens to null all the time. Without your own pipes you're just a consumer the same as every other dipshit.
Part of what made the old internet so great was there were lots and lots of small ISPs and providers, people could just host a site on their desktop PC if they wanted to because malware wasn't quite the same as it is now. Everything was a bit more naive, your home box had more open holes than onlyfans but nobody was trying to attack with the same sick desperation that they are now.
Some other sites have had longer lives and an easier time staying up than Kiwi Farms, eg Stormfront.
Our Lord and Savior @Null repeatedly struck a hornets nest full of narcissists with time on their hands who arguably had a special privilege and weren't afraid to take advantage of it, bolstered by their master manipulation skills and willingness to tell blatant lies.
Without the troons being in the picture, KF would have had 90% less external problems to deal with.
I tried this in 2004, and what I found, other than my stock firmware WRT54G shitting bricks and my 1 megabit uplink being insufficient, is that my (and most) residential ISPs blocked inbound port 80.
Worms and viruses reigned rampant back then, particularly if you used Windows. Even businesses were affected by this shit on the regular.
Mac OS X came out in 2000 and was more than capable of running a web server without the massive security implications inherent to the Wintel platform, it was easy to use and you could buy it and the computer it runs on anywhere Apple products were sold.
The more advanced user found Linux to be up to the task by this time, and that ran on almost anything, and cost nothing. It was also much more secure than Windows.
People were getting pwned left and right back then, it was so easy back before the widespread use of cheap residential NAT devices. Even after that, laptops remained an easy target thanks to the advent of free wifi. That's not even counting just how easy it was to trick people into downloading and executing viruses.
Today's desperation comes from the fact that Windows as a platform is the most secure its ever been (read: doesn't have as many gaping holes as it used to) and many attack vectors aren't viable anymore.
Literally 5+ years late to the party I'm afraid.
My desktop box was running slackware.
Self-hosting a website at home was even more unrealistic in 1998 than it was in 2004.
Almost nobody had broadband Internet at that time, the concept still being pretty new. The vast majority of people connected to the Internet by dialup modem. It's not realistic to host a web server on such a connection for a number of reasons, such as the fact that 33.6 kilobaud is fucking slow. Another reason is that in almost all dialup ISP schemes you're always sharing a public IP address with the other users of the ISP, because the small ISPs were often nothing more than a bank of modems connected through a remote access server to a Unix machine with some fraction of a T1 connection, and big ISPs were essentially the same but scaled up.
Most people who wanted to put up a website in 1998 were using GeoCities, getting hosting service through their ISP (hosted on that Unix box), or paying for one of many dot-com era hosting providers that were putting full page and multiple page ads in computer magazines at the time.
Good on you. My first Linux distro was Red Hat.
Sure bro, thanks for the vaguely understood nonsense about stuff I was directly involved in.
Just for clarity bit rate and baud rate are two completely different things. Modem throughput was not quoted in baud rate because they use multiple tones to send several bits per signal change, so trying to make yourself sound clever exposed that you don't know what you're waffling about.
Last edited:
56k modems were extremely common in 1998, as was 128kbps (bits, not baud 
) ISDN if you had deeper pockets. In the US, cable companies were providing internet at the blistering speed of 1mbps within easy reach of regular folk
Lots and lots and lots of people were self hosting stuff.
) ISDN if you had deeper pockets. In the US, cable companies were providing internet at the blistering speed of 1mbps within easy reach of regular folk Lots and lots and lots of people were self hosting stuff.
This sounds like the thing a guy might say when he doesn't have a good argument. It might be an indication that you don't know what you're talking about.
Baud is the correct terminology to describe the connection speed between two analog modems communicating over POTS lines. In newer, higher bandwidth digital systems we usually call this the symbol rate.
Bits per second is how you describe the connection speed between your modem and your computer's serial port. You're normally running the serial connection at twice the baud rate to account for the hardware compression inside the modem, and to prevent buffer overruns. For 56k modems your serial port would be configured to run at 115.2k.
Before you even start with "but internal modems..." every dialup modem in the PC compatible world is has an RS-232 connection to the computer, whether that be a physical connection to a serial port, or an onboard UART in the case of an internal hardware modem, or virtually as a software device in Winmodems.
ISDN was a weird and expensive technology, being essentially some small fraction of a T1. It gave you two direct links back to the phone company of 64k each, plus a third link of 8k. Normally in the use case of Internet access, the two 64k links would be bonded together to make a single connection of 128k of guarranteed bandwidth in both directions, and the 8k link was typically used to provide digital telephone service. ISDN didn't really take off in America as a residential service, but the symmetrical and guarranteed nature of ISDN did make it useful to some people. Also, you could put other things on those links, they didn't have to be pipes to the Internet. You would have had to be pretty well off to justify an ISDN line at your home, or have a real use case such as a home business. DSL, whcih was pretty new in 1998, was cheaper and capable of higher link speeds. Do keep in mind 128k isn't really all that fast if you have a lot of users trying to download things from you. It would only take 4 people with 33.6k modems simultaneously downloading your WAD files or whatever the fuck you're hosting, to saturate your connection and prevent your own web browser from working, even if your downlink is quiet. QoS didn't really exist just yet.56k modems were extremely common in 1998, as was 128kbps (bits, not baud
Lots and lots and lots of people were self hosting stuff.
You are correct that ISDN links are measured in bits per second, not baud. The D in ISDN stands for Digital.
56k dialup only had the faster speed in the downlink direction and on the ISP end was a digital connection to the phone company. That 56k downlink was actually limited by FCC regulations to 53.3k, and you only got that with optimal line conditions. I remember dialing up and variously getting link speeds anywhere from 33 to 48k, and never the full 53.3k. The uplink was still analog, still 33.6k maximum, and still measured in baud.
DOCSIS as a standard was barely a year old in 1998. The rollout took a long time, and that's only if the cable company was interested in being an ISP. You might have had 1 megabit cable (1 meg downlink with what, 128k uplink?) available to you but a majority of Americans didn't. If they gave you a unique public IP and didn't block the ports you needed, it might've worked out for you, but you would have the same problems as with ISDN, and in later years, depending on your market you might also be dealing with the realities of shared bandwidth connections.
Cable Internet before DOCSIS was extremely rare and usually involved using a dialup modem as the uplink. You wouldn't be hosting jack shit on that. Ditto for one-way satellite Internet systems.
I guess if you were your own ISP or otherwise had a T1 in your home, none of this applies to you, but lets be realistic here.
My point is, for so many people dialup was the only real option available to them, and you're not realistically hosting a website on dialup.
I think this too. I think familial hardships are greatly exaggerated.
You do understand that I wasn't joking when I said that I've been on ED since '05? I'm quite aware but their forum's activity level is a great measure of how many people still use the site at all.
Spoiler: no one gives a shit anymore.
It used to at least be a good repository of memes and such but half the images are still broken and gone like a decade later.
pointing out people's josh-tier tech knowledge seems to be my cross to bear
I actively want him to make his life just worse enough without losing the ability to have an online presence so I can continue to laugh at his antics until he is inevitably taken by the 'beetus.