Why can't Paul understand that Steve is catering to his target audience, pretty much in the same way Paul is. The big difference is that Steve is criticizing a competitor while trying to compete in an industry and Paul is just a Microsoft apologist trying to drive visitors to his site.
C'mon... even the jersey natives are leaving the state to move to eastern PA, and other surrounding states. Why would anyone want to visit a state no one even wants to live in?
Too bad you really don't know what your talking about, you're obviously not a real world web developer or a business owner. Read on.
Your saying i should make my app accessible to as many people as possible but follow it up with something about alienating my customers.
If I spend time making sure the app works on a cell phone when it does not need to (because my clients do not want that feature) then i am alienating them when I do make it work, because there are higher priority feature sets they want.
Time is not unlimited, resources are not expendable. I have the manpower to cater to my clients needs. That is all. Not add features for 1% of the population to enjoy from their cellphone.
You have failed as a developer and failed as a business if you spend valuable time and resources on fruitless ventures.
Why is it that amongst web developers there is only considered to be 'one way to do things'.
Standards compliance is a good guideline, but it is not law.
Web developers only need to cater to those devices in which they expect their content to be viewed. I do not expect, nor do I desire for someone to use my company's web apps from a cellphone or PDA.
Yet, people wear their xhtml compliant gif's like medals of honor.
Write your pages with compliance in mind, but never lose site of refining your apps and pages for your target audience, regardless of it if bends the standards.
It's amazing to think that 8 years ago some of the greatest minds in the world were saying "How will we organize and access the far reaches of the web". Two college students took it upon themselves to figure it out and deploy that solution to the world.
Sergey and Brin take their job very serious. Organizing and delivering a whole world's information/thoughts/opinions is a HUGE responsibility, yet they've carried it and with dignity. I see little if any abuses of the power they hold. How many other companies could do what google does and resist the temptation to abuse their audience or subject them to slanted views/opinions or worse.
Google's only agenda is to get you where you want to be.
That's a rather cynical view. How could you possibly try to downplay the impact of Google by attempting to paint them as yet another search engine and email provider.
Without Google I'd have lost hours searching through wads of irrelevant and/or paid listings in yahoo or MSN.
Without Google I'd have been lost when trying to convert teaspoons to tablespoons or quarts to liters.
Without Google, we'd be lost in a sea of paid advertisements lurking as 'relevant articles'.
Only recently have I found it more difficult to pull good results from google, but even so, their usefulness is unparalleled. Google maps is easily the best web-based mapping application. Gmail leaves other mail providers in the dust (and gives free POP access, which is rare) Google local is incredibly useful for finding nearby shops and restaurants.
I can no longer imagine a world without Google, and can only laugh at your attempt to downplay their importance in todays society.
While I agree that a WYSIWYG font selector is awesome, I think the reason we did not see one sooner is based on the target market for photoshop.
Most pro-users like myself use external font management software for which we can preview and select fonts for a project. (as well as activating and deactivating them). I'd hate to think of how slow that WYSIWYG font editor would work with my 500+ fonts.
Or did anyone else find that article to be useless. Way to state the obvious...
I think we all knew that back links and keyword rich text help our placement in google. What exactly has this 'expert' shared with us?
Paying a professional to perform SEO for you seems to be fruitless. If you've been in the web development game for long you already know most of the legitimate techniques to help improve your placement. Seems like the SEO industry is a bit of a sham.
I decided to come back and craft a more thorough rebuttal to make sure your uninformed reply does not get modded up.
"Oh good; excuses. That will fix anything. Also, I think you meant "adoption of CSS." Finally, you point out that Slashdot was coded years ago -- do you think that slashcode has been under code freeze for all those years? No. But has the HTML been fixed? Also no. "
Nope, you're correct, there is no code freeze, but as with any project its tough to find time to go back and fix something that works. Slashdot HTML obviously works as is.
" Last time I checked, "open source" did not necessarily imply "the developers give a shit about third-party patches." There are open source projects out there who appreciate it, but slashcode ain't one of 'em. It's got Not Invented Here syndrome in a bad way. In fact, someone at A List Apart retooled Slashdot to be standards compliant (part one, part two) -- then showed how it would be PDA compatible, and save OSDN bandwith costs. Did the slashcode group care? Hell no. "
In the ALA article, they only downloaded a single page (through their browser, not from slashcode source) and rewrote the html. Big deal, anyone here could have done that. It provides nothing for slashdot to use. Big deal, they proved something we already knew, that the slashdot layout can be reproduced using cleaner code. Had the people really wanted to help they would have downloaded the source code.
" Complaining about Slashdot standards support is te ONLY way we have to goad slashdot into supporting standards -- just like it's the only way we have of convincing MS to support the same standards. Clearly, the devs aren't motivated by much -- hell, the code was handed to them already! -- but maybe they'll get sick enough of their users bitching that they'll implement one of the eleventy trillion fixes that has already been created for them"
Complaining is NOT the only way. Contributing is another way that comes to mind. You again mention code being handed to them, where is this code? The code from the ALA article that you obviously did not read otherwise you'd know there is no code, just a rebuilt index page?
2) Last time I checked, "open source" did not necessarily imply "the developers give a shit about third-party patches." There are open source projects out there who appreciate it, but slashcode ain't one of 'em. It's got Not Invented Here syndrome in a bad way. In fact, someone at A List Apart retooled Slashdot to be standards compliant (part one [alistapart.com], part two [alistapart.com]) -- then showed how it would be PDA compatible, and save OSDN bandwith costs. Did the slashcode group care? Hell no.
Actually in the list apart article, they only downloaded the index page through their browser and retooled that with new html. They never even downloaded the slashcode source. Also slashdot does care (see this), however no one including the people in the ALA article, have made a real effort to improve slashcode.
Your come here to battle and you didn't even read the articles you posted as 'proof'.
I love how people complain incessantly about slashdot standards support.
1) Slashdot was coded years ago, when the accepted way to do things was to nest tables. It may not have been right, but it did the job at a time when CSS had even less support than it does now. Also at that time IE was a leader in the adaption of CSS (remember when NS 4 didn't even support external stylesheets without a hack) and its implementation was still poor. Developers had little choice.
2) Last i checked slashcode was open source. Recode it to standards and submit it as a patch.
3) Why has complaining about slashdot standards support become an exercise in growing your karma, all these redundant posts are always modded interesting in any discussion regarding the web.
Please re-read yet gain. I also was not referring to the 970MP at all. I was referring to support for more than 2 processors, be it a dual dual core setup or 4 distinct processors. You keep coming back to justify that you misread my point. Please stop.
Keep in mind that the G5 powermac has 9 fans in that case for cooling the dual processor computer and its already a huge computer. How big would it need to be to accommodate two more cpu's?
Last i checked the xServe G5 was still a 1U configuration no larger than the G4 xServe was.
Slashdot Mirror
Why can't Paul understand that Steve is catering to his target audience, pretty much in the same way Paul is. The big difference is that Steve is criticizing a competitor while trying to compete in an industry and Paul is just a Microsoft apologist trying to drive visitors to his site.
I agree with parent post. I also liked the runner up design better.
C'mon... even the jersey natives are leaving the state to move to eastern PA, and other surrounding states. Why would anyone want to visit a state no one even wants to live in?
Don't worry, no one wants to live in your state, even the natives... they're moving to eastern PA.
Too bad you really don't know what your talking about, you're obviously not a real world web developer or a business owner. Read on.
Your saying i should make my app accessible to as many people as possible but follow it up with something about alienating my customers.
If I spend time making sure the app works on a cell phone when it does not need to (because my clients do not want that feature) then i am alienating them when I do make it work, because there are higher priority feature sets they want.
Time is not unlimited, resources are not expendable. I have the manpower to cater to my clients needs. That is all. Not add features for 1% of the population to enjoy from their cellphone.
You have failed as a developer and failed as a business if you spend valuable time and resources on fruitless ventures.
Here we go...
Why is it that amongst web developers there is only considered to be 'one way to do things'.
Standards compliance is a good guideline, but it is not law.
Web developers only need to cater to those devices in which they expect their content to be viewed. I do not expect, nor do I desire for someone to use my company's web apps from a cellphone or PDA.
Yet, people wear their xhtml compliant gif's like medals of honor.
Write your pages with compliance in mind, but never lose site of refining your apps and pages for your target audience, regardless of it if bends the standards.
It's amazing to think that 8 years ago some of the greatest minds in the world were saying "How will we organize and access the far reaches of the web". Two college students took it upon themselves to figure it out and deploy that solution to the world.
Sergey and Brin take their job very serious. Organizing and delivering a whole world's information/thoughts/opinions is a HUGE responsibility, yet they've carried it and with dignity. I see little if any abuses of the power they hold. How many other companies could do what google does and resist the temptation to abuse their audience or subject them to slanted views/opinions or worse.
Google's only agenda is to get you where you want to be.
That's a rather cynical view. How could you possibly try to downplay the impact of Google by attempting to paint them as yet another search engine and email provider.
Without Google I'd have lost hours searching through wads of irrelevant and/or paid listings in yahoo or MSN.
Without Google I'd have been lost when trying to convert teaspoons to tablespoons or quarts to liters.
Without Google, we'd be lost in a sea of paid advertisements lurking as 'relevant articles'.
Only recently have I found it more difficult to pull good results from google, but even so, their usefulness is unparalleled. Google maps is easily the best web-based mapping application. Gmail leaves other mail providers in the dust (and gives free POP access, which is rare) Google local is incredibly useful for finding nearby shops and restaurants.
I can no longer imagine a world without Google, and can only laugh at your attempt to downplay their importance in todays society.
While I agree that a WYSIWYG font selector is awesome, I think the reason we did not see one sooner is based on the target market for photoshop.
Most pro-users like myself use external font management software for which we can preview and select fonts for a project. (as well as activating and deactivating them). I'd hate to think of how slow that WYSIWYG font editor would work with my 500+ fonts.
While this is likely true, the article does not appear to link to his company site and only seems to mention the name once.
Or did anyone else find that article to be useless. Way to state the obvious...
I think we all knew that back links and keyword rich text help our placement in google. What exactly has this 'expert' shared with us?
Paying a professional to perform SEO for you seems to be fruitless. If you've been in the web development game for long you already know most of the legitimate techniques to help improve your placement. Seems like the SEO industry is a bit of a sham.
I decided to come back and craft a more thorough rebuttal to make sure your uninformed reply does not get modded up.
"Oh good; excuses. That will fix anything. Also, I think you meant "adoption of CSS." Finally, you point out that Slashdot was coded years ago -- do you think that slashcode has been under code freeze for all those years? No. But has the HTML been fixed? Also no. "
Nope, you're correct, there is no code freeze, but as with any project its tough to find time to go back and fix something that works. Slashdot HTML obviously works as is.
" Last time I checked, "open source" did not necessarily imply "the developers give a shit about third-party patches." There are open source projects out there who appreciate it, but slashcode ain't one of 'em. It's got Not Invented Here syndrome in a bad way. In fact, someone at A List Apart retooled Slashdot to be standards compliant (part one, part two) -- then showed how it would be PDA compatible, and save OSDN bandwith costs. Did the slashcode group care? Hell no. "
In the ALA article, they only downloaded a single page (through their browser, not from slashcode source) and rewrote the html. Big deal, anyone here could have done that. It provides nothing for slashdot to use. Big deal, they proved something we already knew, that the slashdot layout can be reproduced using cleaner code. Had the people really wanted to help they would have downloaded the source code.
" Complaining about Slashdot standards support is te ONLY way we have to goad slashdot into supporting standards -- just like it's the only way we have of convincing MS to support the same standards. Clearly, the devs aren't motivated by much -- hell, the code was handed to them already! -- but maybe they'll get sick enough of their users bitching that they'll implement one of the eleventy trillion fixes that has already been created for them"
Complaining is NOT the only way. Contributing is another way that comes to mind. You again mention code being handed to them, where is this code? The code from the ALA article that you obviously did not read otherwise you'd know there is no code, just a rebuilt index page?
2) Last time I checked, "open source" did not necessarily imply "the developers give a shit about third-party patches." There are open source projects out there who appreciate it, but slashcode ain't one of 'em. It's got Not Invented Here syndrome in a bad way. In fact, someone at A List Apart retooled Slashdot to be standards compliant (part one [alistapart.com], part two [alistapart.com]) -- then showed how it would be PDA compatible, and save OSDN bandwith costs. Did the slashcode group care? Hell no.
Actually in the list apart article, they only downloaded the index page through their browser and retooled that with new html. They never even downloaded the slashcode source. Also slashdot does care (see this), however no one including the people in the ALA article, have made a real effort to improve slashcode.
Your come here to battle and you didn't even read the articles you posted as 'proof'.
I think the term he was looking for is 'standards whore'.
The biggest problem is Slashdot's, they're the ones paying for the bandwidth on this bloated code.
The page works in all browsers(at least the 4 I have). As i understand it the issue with firefox is a bug in the browser.
I love how people complain incessantly about slashdot standards support.
1) Slashdot was coded years ago, when the accepted way to do things was to nest tables. It may not have been right, but it did the job at a time when CSS had even less support than it does now. Also at that time IE was a leader in the adaption of CSS (remember when NS 4 didn't even support external stylesheets without a hack) and its implementation was still poor. Developers had little choice.
2) Last i checked slashcode was open source. Recode it to standards and submit it as a patch.
3) Why has complaining about slashdot standards support become an exercise in growing your karma, all these redundant posts are always modded interesting in any discussion regarding the web.
I was very disappointed to find that LaunchCast does not work in Firefox(or any mac browser for that matter).
The error message displayed is:
'Sorry, we are unable to support Netscape 6.0+ at this time.'
In other news, slashdot announces new moderation level. '-1 Only funny the first time you hear it'
We also have windows but the BSOD doesn't seem to give me he bronze tan I was hoping for... maybe if I had a 21 inch CRT?
In soviet russia you hound hounds, hounds don't hound you.
You have to ask??? Almost anything is better than CAPTIVE directory!
Please re-read yet gain. I also was not referring to the 970MP at all. I was referring to support for more than 2 processors, be it a dual dual core setup or 4 distinct processors. You keep coming back to justify that you misread my point. Please stop.
Keep in mind that the G5 powermac has 9 fans in that case for cooling the dual processor computer and its already a huge computer. How big would it need to be to accommodate two more cpu's?
Last i checked the xServe G5 was still a 1U configuration no larger than the G4 xServe was.
Is there anything the iPod can't do? ;)
I think that depends solely on the use of the server.
We needed processing power when we chose ours.