In all fairness, I did say "If that's actually your site...". Glad to know it's not.:)
Making assumptions about your visitors' browsers is poor practice.
I agree with you to a point about making assumptions. Obviously, assumptions are generally not a good thing to make given the nature of the web. But from a practical perspective you have to make _some_ assumptions, no? Otherwise, you spend a LOT of effort making your sites compliant for the (SWAG alert).5% of users with "reduced feature" user agents. Either you have some very important content (as in you make a lot money selling something) or you make your javascript/xmlhttpreq degrade gracefully for the exercise, both of which are good reasons. Or, I guess you have to strictly adhere to ADA requirements. But for practical purposes, why go to the effort unless you must?
...my javascript degrades even my ajax sites...
When you say that your AJAX degrades gracefully, I have to ask: do you mean that it actually degrades or do you redirect the user to a different page that is designed for "reduced feature" user agents? And if it does in fact degrade (meaning the SAME page will work for Firefox as well as lynx) how do you do that? iframes? fallback to traditional forms / page reloads? How do you do it? I am just curious.
If a mobile device comes to one of my sites I redirect to another page designed for mobile devices (I wish CSS were adequate to perform this task, but sadly, no). I detest having to maintain two separate code bases, even if one is stripped. I am always interested to see how others attack a similar situation.
Why don't you just use a text browser? I mean, you are disabling every web innovation since like 1995. If you want lean, go lean. Why take a rambling piece of garbage like Nutscrape 4x and strip it?
Me thinks you are a bit paranoid. I use Firefox on an XP box (when I am not using Firefox on Ubuntu) and I have NEVER had a problem. Ever. Really. I look at images AND allow javascript. And, brace yourself -- allow XMLHTTPRequest calls. It's really not a big deal. No problems. None.
If you're still that paranoid, for what it's worth, I use lynx to test my sites and it's pretty good if that's what you're into. Meanwhile, I can hook you up with a good tinfoil haberdashery.
The pffft made me think you were being sarcastic. But the rest of your post seems to indicate you were serious. So, I hopped over to your site. If that's actually your site, then you shouldn't be offering web design tips.
* Your code doesn't validate, even against a transitional DTD. * You have javascript, which is against your own principles. And what clunky javascript, I must add. You sniff for user agent strings? Really!? Sheesh. * You have javascript errors, very unprofessional. * You have invented HTML elements like CSSCRIPTDICT. Huh? Did you write your own DTD? No, no you didn't.
Not everyone is a web developer. This is fine. But don't criticize developers who choose to use "new" "scary" technology like javascript. Some sites require javascript. Why one earth would site developers want to use nasty evil dirty javascript? Because it's ubiquitous. It's simple. It's reliable. It's useful. And it enhances the user experience. It's not unprofessional just because you don't like it. Grow up. Learn stuff.
But, in the interest of finding merit where it lies...there are some good points you make. Let's have a *real* web developer (me) highlight them.
1) don't force your users to use a certain font size. Use em to specify your fonts.
2) IF your content doesn't require javascript, then don't make your site require it. If your content does require javascript, then know that you will alienate some folks. That said, if everyone coded to the lowest common denominator (folks who, for whatever reason, use a platform that disallows javascript) there would be no ajax. ajax haters aside, ajax is a good thing when used properly. Don't run away from javascript just because a very small amount of people disallow it. Roads are not designed around people who refuse to use horseless carriages, and websites shouldn't be developed around people who refuse to adapt. The web is a product of quickly evolving technology. Before you complain about people making use of said technologies, get off the intarwebs first.
There, the valid points you made have been lifted from the mire that is the rest of your post.
That's actually pretty brilliant, thanks for sharing that. Was that some type of PSA? Some nonprofit organization's work? An artist? An advertisement of some kind?
Sometimes even advertisements can contain profound wisdom. I once saw an ad for large nationwide bank on the side of a NYC bus that said something like "Money: it can't love you back."
Anyhow, interesting.
And, so that I am not totally OT here...the tag "securitytheater" is totally appropriate here. Does anyone actually think this is enforceable? Would a real terrorist, one with the intelligence and resources to carry out some type of devastating attack, be stopped by a do-not-fly list? One has to wonder.
People want the easy way. Security and "the easy way" are often at odds.
Case in point...I was in a hospital ER the other day, waiting in the room (for a very long time), and I looked at the computer in the room. I noticed that someone affixed a sticker to the keyboard tray with (presumably) the windows domain login info. Had I wanted to, I could have logged in and probably gotten to all kinds of medical records. Someone from the hospital's CIS department would probably poop a brick if he saw that.
People are lazy, and security folks constantly have to toe the line between making things hard enough to be secure but not so hard that it's just easier to find the loopholes.
Maniac Mansion, heck yes! Games like that, where you could really do whatever you wanted, are still playable today. I just got done playing Maniac Mansion again.
Did you ever play star control (I think that actually was on the amiga)? Star Control2? There is actually an open source port of SC2 (done by the original designers, no less) called ur-quan masters. That's another classic. I still play that one pretty regularly. In a lot of ways (wide open play, free form gameplay), it's like Maniac Mansion.
409 scam, is that where they take you into a room and spray you with a bleach solution until you submit? Or is it where they make you watch flash websites about products that don't deserve websites?
"From your Comcast address? No, that won't do. My hardware is not Comcast-enabled." Even without that, things are going that direction. I tried to send a note to a friend's hotmail address the other day. Since I use flat text formatting, it kept on getting rejected by a spam filter and I had to switch to html format to get it to go (needed MORE junk characters, amazingly enough). Gee, I'd bet those eMails would have gone through had I been using hotmail. Denying mail from other providers because it's suspected of being "spam" is really just one step away from only allowing hotmail users to talk to other hotmail users. Thanks, MSFT, for taking a perfectly portable, open, transport mechanism like SMTP and making it incompatible.
It hit me then that the openness of the internet is under attack from many different vectors, not just on the net neutrality front.
The idea is that it's very easy to switch from "Layout View" (WYSIWYG) to a nice color-coded HTML view, and from there to previewing it in your browser(s) of choice. I don't think the author in this case got the idea.
Well then, you've just paid $400 for a text editor. Why not try out jEdit or textpad? jEdit is what I use at work even though I have an expensive IDE license, don't think I even installed it.
yeah, I am sure all the extra stuff won't matter that much. I just don't like having it (all the KDE stuff) mostly cause I just don't know what all it does. Maybe that's irrational, but it is what it is. Perhaps if I understood the role all the stuff I view as cruft played I would be more accepting. Why can't Amarok just adopt the gnome UI elements and provide me with the functionality I want? That's what I want to know. Why does using Amarok require all kinds of KDE crap? That's like installing iTunes on my XP box and having it bring with it half of OSX (quicktime is bad enough).
hrodc.com, wow. I mean, that's so bad it's impressive. 2.75M page size! No wonder it takes forever to load. That's just as bad as hvysl.org but for entirely different reasons.
Ok, that was half serious, actually! Will it work on gnome without having to pollute my gnome DE with KDE crap? In other words, will it just run on Ubuntu _without_ having to install the KDE DE?
"You claim you use Ubuntu but all you have done is spent your time complaining about how Ubuntu isn't windows therefore no one will use it." Thanks for spending the time to tell me stuff I already knew. You sir, have managed to Totally Miss The Point. That, or you just advertised the fact that you don't read very well.
The Linux community in general responds well to honest criticism. It's the few like you who turn people off to Linux, you and your petulant, self-righteous sneering that you mistake for information.
yeah...although I don't know if I could bring myself to do that. Preventing crapware installs is one thing, but being the net nanny would make me one of *those* people.
If you work for a large corporation, probably the best way to get the latest breaking news (especially news of this type) about your company is from external news sources. Experience has shown that large corporations, for whatever reason, are extremely bad about keeping employees in the loop. Go figure.
Not sure why you got modded flamebait. Fanbois, I guess. I think you are pretty much right, except I'd make one correction:
'This excludes Linux from "serious" office work.' Actually, Linux seems to be more for the office than home. I wonder why (other than legacy apps) businesses use Windows, actually. Well, I don't wonder, actually -- in most cases I am pretty sure it's good old inertia.
There are two things about Linux that make it less than desirable for the *average* user at home while at the same time make it ideal for business. Disclaimer, on my main machine at home I have a dual boot with ubuntu and XP. I actually prefer ubuntu and would use it exclusively were it not for some windows-only software I need to use and keeping my wife sane by giving her what she is familiar with (who is NOT a geek).
1) lack of media support. Now, before someone flames me as to why linux doesn't play DVDs, MP3s, etc, out of the box, don't waste your time. And a boot to the head for the first person who mentions OGG. Who gives a CRAP about ogg? We (here on/.) know why media doesn't work out of the box, and that it's not really Linux' fault. But that doesn't matter to end users. It either works or it doesn't. Lack of media support is bad for home use, but arguably good for business use.
2) ease of installing software. Riddle me this: how do most people install software in Windows? I'd bet my bottom dollar that most people pop in a CD and autorun takes over, or they download a program to their desktop and double click it. Hell, that's how I do it. Why? Because it's easy. Now, I do like synaptic and apt-get. But they are not easier than double clicking an icon on your desktop. Most users know how to search the web for software, so that's not a problem. So, while synaptic saves you this step, I'd argue that's irrelevant. It's easier to search the web than some program that suffers from what I like to call "yellow pages syndrome", where stuff is placed into arbitrary categories. This forces you to use the sub-par search feature and wade through heaps of unintelligible results. Synaptic's search is no google; and installing stuff on Linux is not as easy as on Windows. And that's OK. I don't want anyone installing comet cursor or Bonzi-buddy on my computers anyhow.
In a business setting, Ubuntu offers what you need: a secure, lean, cheap, and easy to administer platform. It has a good office suite (Office is good, OOo is good enough). It has a superior web browser in Firefox. It has a good eMail program in Evolution. Did I mention it's secure? If I started a small business, I'd at least try going 100% linux.
Accountability is a good thing. She should have been forced to pay (maybe fourfold?) for the songs she got caught downloading. 220K is oppressive, though, and this verdict doesn't just stop with her.
Consider this: The RIAA has a site where you can pay settlement fees (and it accepts credit cards). The scenario: the RIAA accuses you of illegal file sharing and threatens you with a lawsuit (and thanks to this one, that threat carries more weight). Not wanting to go to court, you'll probably choose the settlement. At that point, they can extort anything from you they want.
In fact, I'd argue that their "settlement" process is little more than extortion. Most people don't have settlement money just lying around, and the site accepts credit cards, so what do people do? Get even more in debt to some large corporation. It may make me sound like a conspiracy theorist, but it seems like some collusion is taking place here. The people are being forced into servitude to the large, rich, and powerful corporations. It's almost like a modern day feudal system. And in this case, why? Over music.
This 220K figure is not fair. Yes, life's not fair but the law *should* be. That's the whole point of law. When the law upholds such draconian tactics, something is severely out of whack.
Slashdot Mirror
You are confusing strength with health.
Just because someone is strong doesn't mean that person is healthy.
If a mobile device comes to one of my sites I redirect to another page designed for mobile devices (I wish CSS were adequate to perform this task, but sadly, no). I detest having to maintain two separate code bases, even if one is stripped. I am always interested to see how others attack a similar situation.
Why don't you just use a text browser? I mean, you are disabling every web innovation since like 1995. If you want lean, go lean. Why take a rambling piece of garbage like Nutscrape 4x and strip it?
Me thinks you are a bit paranoid. I use Firefox on an XP box (when I am not using Firefox on Ubuntu) and I have NEVER had a problem. Ever. Really. I look at images AND allow javascript. And, brace yourself -- allow XMLHTTPRequest calls. It's really not a big deal. No problems. None.
If you're still that paranoid, for what it's worth, I use lynx to test my sites and it's pretty good if that's what you're into. Meanwhile, I can hook you up with a good tinfoil haberdashery.
The pffft made me think you were being sarcastic. But the rest of your post seems to indicate you were serious. So, I hopped over to your site. If that's actually your site, then you shouldn't be offering web design tips.
* Your code doesn't validate, even against a transitional DTD.
* You have javascript, which is against your own principles. And what clunky javascript, I must add. You sniff for user agent strings? Really!? Sheesh.
* You have javascript errors, very unprofessional.
* You have invented HTML elements like CSSCRIPTDICT. Huh? Did you write your own DTD? No, no you didn't.
Not everyone is a web developer. This is fine. But don't criticize developers who choose to use "new" "scary" technology like javascript. Some sites require javascript. Why one earth would site developers want to use nasty evil dirty javascript? Because it's ubiquitous. It's simple. It's reliable. It's useful. And it enhances the user experience. It's not unprofessional just because you don't like it. Grow up. Learn stuff.
But, in the interest of finding merit where it lies...there are some good points you make. Let's have a *real* web developer (me) highlight them.
1) don't force your users to use a certain font size. Use em to specify your fonts.
2) IF your content doesn't require javascript, then don't make your site require it. If your content does require javascript, then know that you will alienate some folks. That said, if everyone coded to the lowest common denominator (folks who, for whatever reason, use a platform that disallows javascript) there would be no ajax. ajax haters aside, ajax is a good thing when used properly. Don't run away from javascript just because a very small amount of people disallow it. Roads are not designed around people who refuse to use horseless carriages, and websites shouldn't be developed around people who refuse to adapt. The web is a product of quickly evolving technology. Before you complain about people making use of said technologies, get off the intarwebs first.
There, the valid points you made have been lifted from the mire that is the rest of your post.
Right you are. CYA security, Security Theatre, same thing. It's "security" done for public show all the while knowing it's likely to be ineffective.
That's actually pretty brilliant, thanks for sharing that. Was that some type of PSA? Some nonprofit organization's work? An artist? An advertisement of some kind?
Sometimes even advertisements can contain profound wisdom. I once saw an ad for large nationwide bank on the side of a NYC bus that said something like "Money: it can't love you back."
Anyhow, interesting.
And, so that I am not totally OT here...the tag "securitytheater" is totally appropriate here. Does anyone actually think this is enforceable? Would a real terrorist, one with the intelligence and resources to carry out some type of devastating attack, be stopped by a do-not-fly list? One has to wonder.
People want the easy way. Security and "the easy way" are often at odds.
Case in point...I was in a hospital ER the other day, waiting in the room (for a very long time), and I looked at the computer in the room. I noticed that someone affixed a sticker to the keyboard tray with (presumably) the windows domain login info. Had I wanted to, I could have logged in and probably gotten to all kinds of medical records. Someone from the hospital's CIS department would probably poop a brick if he saw that.
People are lazy, and security folks constantly have to toe the line between making things hard enough to be secure but not so hard that it's just easier to find the loopholes.
Maniac Mansion, heck yes! Games like that, where you could really do whatever you wanted, are still playable today. I just got done playing Maniac Mansion again.
Did you ever play star control (I think that actually was on the amiga)? Star Control2? There is actually an open source port of SC2 (done by the original designers, no less) called ur-quan masters. That's another classic. I still play that one pretty regularly. In a lot of ways (wide open play, free form gameplay), it's like Maniac Mansion.
409 scam, is that where they take you into a room and spray you with a bleach solution until you submit? Or is it where they make you watch flash websites about products that don't deserve websites?
Or do you mean 419 scams?
hehe, I got your joke. And for those that didn't, here is the link: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/28/060236
Oh, and slashdot folks? 15 seconds for your search to bring back results? Yikes. You should either have a good search or drop it altogether.
"From your Comcast address? No, that won't do. My hardware is not Comcast-enabled."
Even without that, things are going that direction. I tried to send a note to a friend's hotmail address the other day. Since I use flat text formatting, it kept on getting rejected by a spam filter and I had to switch to html format to get it to go (needed MORE junk characters, amazingly enough). Gee, I'd bet those eMails would have gone through had I been using hotmail. Denying mail from other providers because it's suspected of being "spam" is really just one step away from only allowing hotmail users to talk to other hotmail users. Thanks, MSFT, for taking a perfectly portable, open, transport mechanism like SMTP and making it incompatible.
It hit me then that the openness of the internet is under attack from many different vectors, not just on the net neutrality front.
Well then, you've just paid $400 for a text editor. Why not try out jEdit or textpad? jEdit is what I use at work even though I have an expensive IDE license, don't think I even installed it.
I'd bet this is to prevent anyone from spoofing their site.
As if someone couldn't mock it using other markup.
For "intarweb lawyers", they sure don't understand the internet.
Morons.
yeah, I am sure all the extra stuff won't matter that much. I just don't like having it (all the KDE stuff) mostly cause I just don't know what all it does. Maybe that's irrational, but it is what it is. Perhaps if I understood the role all the stuff I view as cruft played I would be more accepting. Why can't Amarok just adopt the gnome UI elements and provide me with the functionality I want? That's what I want to know. Why does using Amarok require all kinds of KDE crap? That's like installing iTunes on my XP box and having it bring with it half of OSX (quicktime is bad enough).
My dislike for KDE is stronger than my like for Amarok. Amarok suffers from the tallest midget syndrome; it's the least ugly music player for Linux.
:(
I do, however, like gnome a lot, and Rhythmbox is tolerable. I guess I won't be using Amarok anytime soon
hrodc.com, wow. I mean, that's so bad it's impressive. 2.75M page size! No wonder it takes forever to load. That's just as bad as hvysl.org but for entirely different reasons.
Yes, but does it run on Linux?
Ok, that was half serious, actually! Will it work on gnome without having to pollute my gnome DE with KDE crap? In other words, will it just run on Ubuntu _without_ having to install the KDE DE?
"You claim you use Ubuntu but all you have done is spent your time complaining about how Ubuntu isn't windows therefore no one will use it."
Thanks for spending the time to tell me stuff I already knew. You sir, have managed to Totally Miss The Point. That, or you just advertised the fact that you don't read very well.
The Linux community in general responds well to honest criticism. It's the few like you who turn people off to Linux, you and your petulant, self-righteous sneering that you mistake for information.
*Yawn*
You're just so incredibly witty, a literary genius to be sure. Where _do_ you come up with this stuff?
yeah...although I don't know if I could bring myself to do that. Preventing crapware installs is one thing, but being the net nanny would make me one of *those* people.
If you work for a large corporation, probably the best way to get the latest breaking news (especially news of this type) about your company is from external news sources. Experience has shown that large corporations, for whatever reason, are extremely bad about keeping employees in the loop. Go figure.
Not sure why you got modded flamebait. Fanbois, I guess. I think you are pretty much right, except I'd make one correction:
/.) know why media doesn't work out of the box, and that it's not really Linux' fault. But that doesn't matter to end users. It either works or it doesn't. Lack of media support is bad for home use, but arguably good for business use.
'This excludes Linux from "serious" office work.'
Actually, Linux seems to be more for the office than home. I wonder why (other than legacy apps) businesses use Windows, actually. Well, I don't wonder, actually -- in most cases I am pretty sure it's good old inertia.
There are two things about Linux that make it less than desirable for the *average* user at home while at the same time make it ideal for business. Disclaimer, on my main machine at home I have a dual boot with ubuntu and XP. I actually prefer ubuntu and would use it exclusively were it not for some windows-only software I need to use and keeping my wife sane by giving her what she is familiar with (who is NOT a geek).
1) lack of media support. Now, before someone flames me as to why linux doesn't play DVDs, MP3s, etc, out of the box, don't waste your time. And a boot to the head for the first person who mentions OGG. Who gives a CRAP about ogg? We (here on
2) ease of installing software. Riddle me this: how do most people install software in Windows? I'd bet my bottom dollar that most people pop in a CD and autorun takes over, or they download a program to their desktop and double click it. Hell, that's how I do it. Why? Because it's easy. Now, I do like synaptic and apt-get. But they are not easier than double clicking an icon on your desktop. Most users know how to search the web for software, so that's not a problem. So, while synaptic saves you this step, I'd argue that's irrelevant. It's easier to search the web than some program that suffers from what I like to call "yellow pages syndrome", where stuff is placed into arbitrary categories. This forces you to use the sub-par search feature and wade through heaps of unintelligible results. Synaptic's search is no google; and installing stuff on Linux is not as easy as on Windows. And that's OK. I don't want anyone installing comet cursor or Bonzi-buddy on my computers anyhow.
In a business setting, Ubuntu offers what you need: a secure, lean, cheap, and easy to administer platform. It has a good office suite (Office is good, OOo is good enough). It has a superior web browser in Firefox. It has a good eMail program in Evolution. Did I mention it's secure? If I started a small business, I'd at least try going 100% linux.
Haha, good story. What is Spags, though?
'At least, "job", isn't pronounced like, "jaerb".'
Now, that's funny! Um, I think you mean Jorb! Or Jaorb! Or Jerb!
Please tell me you were trying to be funny.
If you were, your delivery is the epitome of deadpan. I can appreciate that and will laugh with you.
If you were not, then your hyperbole is preposterous. I am still laughing, but I am laughing at you.
Either way, you are a funny guy, I suppose.
Yes. To add to what you said:
Accountability is a good thing. She should have been forced to pay (maybe fourfold?) for the songs she got caught downloading. 220K is oppressive, though, and this verdict doesn't just stop with her.
Consider this: The RIAA has a site where you can pay settlement fees (and it accepts credit cards). The scenario: the RIAA accuses you of illegal file sharing and threatens you with a lawsuit (and thanks to this one, that threat carries more weight). Not wanting to go to court, you'll probably choose the settlement. At that point, they can extort anything from you they want.
In fact, I'd argue that their "settlement" process is little more than extortion. Most people don't have settlement money just lying around, and the site accepts credit cards, so what do people do? Get even more in debt to some large corporation. It may make me sound like a conspiracy theorist, but it seems like some collusion is taking place here. The people are being forced into servitude to the large, rich, and powerful corporations. It's almost like a modern day feudal system. And in this case, why? Over music.
This 220K figure is not fair. Yes, life's not fair but the law *should* be. That's the whole point of law. When the law upholds such draconian tactics, something is severely out of whack.