ClosedGL's Website / Things I dislike

Things I dislike

Bloated web standards

The HTML5 standard and many other web standards crapped out by big tech are so bloated and have made web browsers more resource-intensive having to handle an unnecessary "kitchen sink full of technologies for the web".

Web apps

The web is one of the worst frameworks for a GUI application. It takes loads more system resources to handle all the web standards used, and there are huge UI inconsistencies across web apps.


Supposedly a better C, but it's actually more complicated and tedious than C. The creator of C++ even admitted that it was designed to be a bad programming language.

I thought 'I wonder what would happen, if there were a language so complicated, so difficult to learn, that nobody would ever be able to swamp the market with programmers?'


Man-in-the-middle as a service. All web traffic going through Cloudflare's gateways is always decrypted in the gateways, allowing Cloudflare to easily collect sensitive data from anyone using their services.


Promising for memory safety, but there is no specification and one has to rely on the official compiler, toolchain, and package repository.


Place of forced indoctrination, kids are deprived of their natural curiosity, huge waste of time that could be spent enjoying life

Most ISP's bullcrap

Many internet providers actively harm net neutrality with things like requiring port forwarding for servers, slower upload speeds than download speeds, throttling P2P file sharing, and server hosting being against their terms of service.

Some ISP's will even scare people away from net neutrality. In March 2021, I tried running an IPFS node and I was texted this screenshot from my stepmother. I'm not into IPFS anymore, but why should we let some company tell us what we can and cannot do with our internet connections?

Anonymity networks like Tor and I2P are a safe haven from all this.

HTTPS certificate authorities

Almost every website on the clearnet uses HTTPS, and everyone's web browsers are having to check with some huge certificate authority to verify a site's authenticity.

Self-signed certificates are just as secure as those signed by a popular authority like Let's Encrypt or DigiCert, but as much as a webmaster wants to use one, browsers will still say the site is insecure because their home-grown signatures are not popular enough to be included in everyone's web browsers.

Certificate authorities were likely created to capitalize on security since companies would charge people to get their certs signed before Let's Encrypt offered free signatures.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't certificate authorities allow for mass surveillance when the CA can log what sites everyone is visiting when people's browsers check with them to verify the certificates?

"The Aquinas Protocol leaves us no choice but to stay offline. You simply can't use Internet 3 without a machine at Area 51 knowing about it."

- Gary Savage, Deus Ex

Secure boot

In my opinion, it doesn't make the system any more secure. If malware manages to gain enough control to be able to overwrite the bootloader, it should also be able to sign an infected bootloader.

To achieve some tight security, the operating system can deny full access to unprivledged users, something Unix-like systems have been good at long before Secure Boot, and the BIOS/UEFI can be configured to authenticate with the user before booting from external media. Also use full-disk encryption so only you can access the data on a drive.


Windows is bloated as hell. I was shocked that Windows 11's ISO's are too big to be burned to a DVD or written to a 4 GB flashdrive. Windows has gotten even more bloated with each iteration. The laptop I'm typing this on would be unusably slow with Windows 10 and explode trying to run Windows 11 assuming it could be installed. I blame Microsoft's bloating of Windows for nearly all the bloated software we have today, because developers may have neglected performance more after being used to the bloat of Windows.

With each iteration of Windows, Microsoft keeps unnecessarily reinventing the wheel with so many new and pointless API functions that many developers will use, forcing people to upgrade to newer Windows versions to run the latest software. Now be honest, not counting modern hardware and Bitlocker, what can modern Windows do that Windows 7, Windows 2000, or even Windows 95 couldn't do?

It's impossible to fix Windows problems without completely reinstalling Windows. I installed some drivers on Windows 7, and it would always BSOD on startup. No matter how hard I tried, it wouldn't let me start in safe mode to uninstall the bad driver, and Startup Repair doesn't do jack. There's also no way to "chroot" into a Windows system from another live system like you can with Unix-like systems.

It's hard to develop software on Windows without installing some clunky tools. There's no /usr/include and MinGW/Cygwin must be installed to get some kind of "Unix" experience.

Windows is proprietary malware and no source code is publically available except for leaked copyrighted source code that must be obtained illegally. This makes it hard to trust Windows, and it makes it hard to improve or remaster Windows. When I use Windows, even the really old versions, I always make sure it never connects to a network so Microsoft can't spy on me.

The structure of the system is a mess.

Windows has been getting worse and worse. The peak of Windows was Windows 95 and NT 4.0, and Windows 2000 was the calm before the storm.

Windows is a sinking ship that must be abandoned in favor of Linux, BSD, Haiku, Plan 9, SerenityOS, basically anything that doesn't suck.