Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] programmers that don't know tarballs?

["Igor Izyumin Jr." <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Monday 31 December 2001 23:20, Michael wrote:
> People still get confussed. I don't but lots of people do. The whole
> concept of milestones and so forth seems confussing to people that aren't
> programmers I guess. Nightly builds seem to confuse them even more. :)
Yes, some people don't understand the simplest things.  I don't know why, 
maybe because they think that this whole computer thing is one big lie or 
something.

> Since pretty much the only things I use from my desktop is the clock and
> the task bar I should probably switch to something lighter but I'm
> comfortable so I don't bother. :)
That's about all IceWM offers.  There's a taskbar with two icons - netscape 
and xterm.  I didn't even bother to change it, since these are the two apps I 
use most often.  Everything else I just launch from the xterm.

> The way websites are designed you'd think we didn't have years of
> usability studies and so forth done for computer programs, signs,
> brochures, and pretty much else that exists.
Yes - amazing.  The same people who can design a nice looking brochure 
usually make the ugliest websites.

> E-commerce sites certainly shouldn't need banners, commercial sites
> shouldn't have banners (why would you want to send your customer somewhere
> else?), and everything else should be a labor of love if you want to
> maintain quality.
Yes, exactly.  The only way the banners don't end up hurting them is because 
everyone ignores them.  Otherwise, it would be like having one commercial 
interrupted by another.  Completely pointless.

> I was suggesting to 'market' it as a user controlled means of filtering
> porn and spam while quietly letting people use it for ad banner filtering
> etc too. I think any site that bans so popular a browser would be in deep
> shit. Netscape isn't what it once was but it still has enough market share
> that most sites don't want to chase that many users away. Add-in all the
> other Children-of-Mozilla browsers and they'd be hurting themselves more
> than anyone.
Who gives a f*ck about the website whores?  No, really, why do we even have 
to be considerate about them.  Just screw them out of their banners and 
they'll go away.  Of course, if you're doing it commercially, it's kinda 
possible that they would sue, but still it's not likely.
One possible idea I had is that there would be a centralized database of ads, 
and the plugin would automatically sync itself.  That would be a very good 
idea, in fact.

> I was actually thinking of including a way to block/rewrite pages on the
> fly based on rules that could be defined in XML modules that could be
> either written locally (or produced by example with a built-in tool)
> and/or imported from a URL on a schedule. Possibly even you could simply
> use XSL to rewrite pages (after converting the DOM to XML) so as to let
> people just use the skills they already have.
Yes.  By the way, mozilla has all kinds of javascript-based plugins, so it 
shouldn't be hard to implement something like that.

> I like proxies but I think it makes more sense to let the browser control
> this as each user may want different filters.
Proxies are annoying in that they are a separate program and have to be 
running.  If the program hangs, the browser is screwed.  Besides, everyone 
else hates the damn things because they die so often.  And frankly, most 
proxies are either dog-slow (Java, junkbuster, etc) or unstable (python, I 
have no idea why).

> Will keep you in mind if I get time/motivation to write this and need to
> compile. I'm to lazy to maintain it if I do write it though so would hafta
> hope someone else would take it over. I don't like working in C/C++ very
> much.
Well, if you make it self-updating, it shouldn't need much maintenance.  Just 
maybe fix the bugs or something.
-- 
-- Igor
--
To unsubscribe, go to http://mlug.missouri.edu/members/edit.php

Archives are available at http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/