Arch Linux? Why? Though, I did switch from Gentoo to Arch, so I suppose I could be one of those Linux Vegans...

Agree here, I don't understand why arch users would be the target of that comment.

I switched from Ubuntu, and I find the experience pretty similar, by and large. Nobody screams about Ubuntu users.

If anything, by stereotype, I would expect Arch users to be "do it yourselfers". They are the "5%" of users by choice, and they figure out a way to make it work. In contrast to the GGP comment who wants everything to "just work" for him even though he's chosen to break things.

Seems to me like they're exact opposites.

I also don't think the arch stereotype holds true, anymore. I haven't had to fix a broken system or do any manual-update stuff in the couple of years I've been running arch. I think it has much broader appeal at this point.

>gentoo to arch

He's already too far gone lads, just let him go in peace

I think NoJS users are the opposite of vegans. Vegans scream that "Not eating animals works for me, maybe it works for you too!" rather than "Without meat my body does not work, could you change the nutritional requirements for humans?"

And there are 5 times as many people who get personally upset about another person's preferences to the extent that they blow right by the part about "...not why I'm writing this" and the actual comment that the poster made in order to post their anti-vegan and, for some reason, Arch Linux user screed.

Did you try rebooting your humour module?

I was riffing on the common joke about "How do you tell someone is a vegan? You don't need to, they'll tell you".

You forgot Haskell as well.

That is like saying "most of our customers use the drive thru, so we will COMPLETELY CLOSE our restaurant to foot traffic".

A hybrid approach is best, especially when this article is literally text and some photos.

I looked, figures I can find for the UK show that 98.7% of people have javascript enabled.

If I ran a restaurant and 98.7% of my revenue came from the drive through I'd seriously consider shutting the foot traffic part down.

Yea but having a hybrid doesn't just take care of that 1.3%, it tremendously helps those that are blind [1], the huge smear with different versions of JS, those that come in on mobile with JS enabled and then flick it off because your site broke for their random configuration of screen size and mobile browser, etc.

Finally, that's the UK. Students in India trying to learn about space may not have the internet speeds we're used to, and might browse with JS disabled because that's the literally the only way they can afford to without blowing data caps.

Anyway, you'll never catch me doing it unless I'm testing my own site, but it's definitely forward-thinking and kinda polite to have SOME sort of fallback for people without JS enabled.

[1] https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/57340/percentage-of-s...

Accessibility is way more important (to me) than noJS.

Given infinite resources I'd do all three but the with JS experience and accessibility matters more (to me).

Nobody is asking any miraculous things. Merely a dump of article contents without any formatting effort on webdesigner's part would do. Us "nojs vegans" aren't picky. Don't even need pictures, just the meat (I'm sure a pun of some sort could be made here) of the page.

I don't think that's unreasonable, given that the meat here is just plain text, something that web has been capable of delivering years before your javascript crutch became widely available.

> your javascript crutch became widely available.

Bit harsh, my personal blog has zero javascript.

Sorry, it wasn't meant to be a personal "your" aimed at you specifically, but rather than a general one.

No worries. For what it's worth I think 2Mb of JS to load text and picture is bonkers as well.