Hi Marcel,

It was actually Firefox 39 and Chrome 45 on OS X 10.6.  It just seemed
strange that a site that doesn't seem to have any real need for (or provide
value in making) hard-line security cutoffs would choose to do so.  (i.e.
sites from google.com to pharo.org don't do that... why should squeak.org?)
Put another way: what's the rationale for not keeping less secure, or even
totally unencrypted, options available to keep the site as accessible as
possible?

For my situation, I was able to just switch to a different system.  But had
the only thing available been a device with an old browser that couldn't
(conveniently or otherwise) be upgraded, it would have been quite annoying.

Thanks,
Phil

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 2:39 AM Marcel Taeumel <marcel.taeumel at hpi.de>
wrote:

> Hi Phil,
>
> so, you have Firefox version 48 installed in OS X (10.6)?
>
> Best,
> Marcel
>
> Am 10.10.2019 03:49:21 schrieb Phil B <pbpublist at gmail.com>:
> I ran into this issue and wasn't sure if it was intentional or not: I was
> attempting to get to squeak.org from an old version of OS X (10.6) and
> neither Firefox or Chrome versions for Snow Leopard are able to render even
> the main page.  Firefox hangs and Chrome reports
> ERR_SPDY_INADEQUATE_TRANSPORT_SECURITY.
>
> While I appreciate that supporting the latest and greatest from an SSL
> standpoint (assuming that's what's going on) is a good thing, it seems
> overkill to prevent older systems from using the site.  Most other sites
> large and small still work with both browser versions I tried from at least
> a basic HTML standpoint... Javascript support is less consistent.
>
> For now I'll just switch to a different system to get what I need but
> thought it was worth reporting.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20191010/33c4a050/attachment.html>