1  2  3  |   Order by index

Jan 29, 1999, 5:54am

[View Quote] [View Quote] Because he HASN'T been updating his page, which is my point.

> And of course Rolu thinks it means something. Otherwise he wouldn't bother
> updating it at all.

Exactly my point: Rolu's still a "kid" when it comes to webmastering.

>
> Wow, wow..
> Quite proud of yerself, aren't ya?

Yes, actually. I'm proud of ALL my accomplishments. Aren't YOU proud of all YOUR accomplishments?

> Pffrt... As if the amount of updates says something about whether it means something. As you already said yourself (I think in an other reply): with programs frequent updates rather indicate buggyness than quality-programming ;-)

Indeed. However, webmastering isn't programming, but scripting.

>
> Ok, that's another way to keep updates recognizable then.
> Does that mean you have to criticize every other way??

Yes. I wouldn't be fair if I didn't. :) Don't worry; I'm just as hard on myself as I am with everyone else.

> Why do you always have to mix your message with arrogance and sarcasm?
> Maybe you could be a bit more *con*structive...

Constructiveness is relative. I usually give both extremes to people and let them decide where to take it from there. It's interesting to note people's responses, too. It's kind of like a game, see...

Jan 29, 1999, 6:04am

[View Quote] [View Quote] The trick is to use dates AND descriptions of what's been added/deleted/edited. Most programs have release notes which explain what's changed ANYWAY with the new versions, so descriptions are still necessary. Plus, version #s are really erroneous; dates are more efficient because they show that, indeed, the product has changed, and give the date as to when that change took place. No version # to cause confusion and make things more complicate than they need to be. Try tracking WHEN version #s appear on a program/website that doesn't use dates. You can't.

KISS (keep it simple, stupid). Remember that.

> Version numbers on the opposite, are recognizable.
> Unless of course you release a new version every day...
>
> And maybe using the date as 'version#' *is* indeed a better idea.
> But the way dean and eep bring it, it's not an idea but more like forcing
> there opinion through.

Thing is, experience counts. I (dunno about Dean) have been on the Web for a few years now and have seen enough "update" pages to know that dates are the way to go. Why do you think such big programs like, oh, say, Windows now include the date in their name? Windows 95, 98, 2000; Word 97, Office 97; etc. Now those are big, generalized examples, and they still have individual version #s (4.00.950, etc). But for websites, version #s just look silly and end up causing more confusion. Compared to date updates vs version #s, I've maybe seen less than 5 websites out of the thousands (and probably tens of thousands) I've been to. All others (those that HAD update pages), use(d) dates. Dates seem to be the standard, and standards are standard for a reason...

Jan 29, 1999, 2:36pm

It's kinda pointless to make me aware of that: I wouldn't have posted it if
I saw his post first, 'sport':)

--

[ Fluxen Dean-Christian Strik ]
[ ICQ: 11760568 ISG RhinoSoft ]
[ fluxen at bigfoot.com dean2 at bigfoot.com ]

The nice thing of standards is that there are so many to choose from.
-- Andrew S. Tanenbaum

[View Quote]

Jan 29, 1999, 4:43pm

[View Quote] Is it so crazy? How long is he doing this awfwwl anyway?
I he'd update it more often you'd lose track of all these updates and you
probably wouldn't take an effort anymore to even take a look at it whit
every update. And that would be a pitty.

bother
>
>Exactly my point: Rolu's still a "kid" when it comes to webmastering.

Aaargh...
Why is he a kid? Because he doesn't bother to update every time he goes
online?
You call everyone a kid who doesn't do things the way you'd do it. If
everyone reasoned that way we'd be forever youn ;-)

(http://tnlc.com/rw/updates.html)
system down. Rolu's page is
same amount of time than
updates page (at
>
>Yes, actually. I'm proud of ALL my accomplishments. Aren't YOU proud of all
YOUR accomplishments?

Why would you be proud? There's a difference between confidence and
proudnes..
I think it's quite self-centered to be proud of every line you draw.. That
creates the sterotype of a 007-movie-kinda-psycho-person.

"Wow! Look what I did! Ain't I b-r-i-l-l-i-a-n-t !?!" <stares at the drawing
he made by wiping the shit from his shoes to the door-mat>

Personally, I don't see a need to be proud of everything I do. With most
things: it only starts meaning something as soon as yur not the only one who
appreciates the things you do.

Besides, I don't use the way I feel about my own deeds to critisize
everything someone else does.
What I mean: You can be proud without being destructive.

means something. As you already said yourself (I think in an other reply):
with programs frequent updates rather indicate buggyness than
quality-programming ;-)
>
>Indeed. However, webmastering isn't programming, but scripting.

I am not the one that brought the word programming into this thread.

>
>Yes. I wouldn't be fair if I didn't. :) Don't worry; I'm just as hard on
myself as I am with everyone else.
>
>
>Constructiveness is relative. I usually give both extremes to people and
let them decide where to take it from there. It's interesting to note
people's responses, too. It's kind of like a game, see...

I thought so already.
One can't *seriously* be so stubborn.

--
Cubic
ICQ - 18557607
cubic at mediaport.org
http://welcome.to/cubic

Jan 29, 1999, 6:36pm

Eep, you seem to miss something. AWFWWL is *not* a site that I am
webmastering. It is a list, it has versions, an I have numbered these
versions. Much like a weekly newspaper thingy or so. I have made it into
HTML because I liked to do that. However, I could have used DOC or RTF, or
even TXT if I liked to do. I have put it on a website so people can have
quick access to it. However, I am not intending to make a website out of it.

So, get lost. When I really wanted to make a website, I would have done it
much different.

[View Quote]

Jan 29, 1999, 6:38pm

Well, since version 2 I have added the date to it. So, everyone can like
whatever they want, and everyone can use whatever thety want.

Rolu

[View Quote]

Jan 29, 1999, 6:40pm

1. AWFWWL is NOT a website.
2. I use both version # AND date since version 2. And I will add something
so everyone can see what wishes are new. Just wait a version more, or so.

[View Quote]

Jan 29, 1999, 6:42pm

[View Quote] [View Quote] Heh, "awfwwl" (thing?)..."awful"...it's becoming that...

> I he'd update it more often you'd lose track of all these updates and you
> probably wouldn't take an effort anymore to even take a look at it whit
> every update. And that would be a pitty.

Since he uses an "ID" system to give each entry an original number, to see what's changed would be as simple as looking at the bottom numbers. This ain't brain surgery, Cubic...

>
> Aaargh...
> Why is he a kid? Because he doesn't bother to update every time he goes
> online?

Rolu is a "kid" because he thinks creating versions of his web page MEAN something. You've lost the point. I suggest you read past threads and recapture the point.

> You call everyone a kid who doesn't do things the way you'd do it. If
> everyone reasoned that way we'd be forever youn ;-)

I call everyone a kid who acts like a kid relative to my perspective. You'll get to that point someday...after you've thought long and hard about things no one else normally thinks and couldn't give a shit about...

>
> Why would you be proud? There's a difference between confidence and
> proudnes..
> I think it's quite self-centered to be proud of every line you draw.. That
> creates the sterotype of a 007-movie-kinda-psycho-person.

What's self-centered to you may be self-esteem to another. Wee...

> Personally, I don't see a need to be proud of everything I do. With most
> things: it only starts meaning something as soon as yur not the only one who
> appreciates the things you do.

The sign of someone who needs external gratification...

> Besides, I don't use the way I feel about my own deeds to critisize
> everything someone else does.
> What I mean: You can be proud without being destructive.

Destructiveness is relative. Wee. What you consider destructive, others may consider CONstructive. It's all relative, sport.

>
> I am not the one that brought the word programming into this thread.

Right. You're just the one who misunderstood its context (as usual).

> let them decide where to take it from there. It's interesting to note
> people's responses, too. It's kind of like a game, see...
>
> I thought so already.
> One can't *seriously* be so stubborn.

Seriousness is also relative. Taking notes yet? Step out of your narrowminded mindset and see existance from simultaneous multiple perspectives.

Jan 29, 1999, 8:36pm

Web PAGES make up web SITES. A single web PAGE could just as easily be called a web SITE. AWFWWL is an AWFUL web PAGE. ;P

[View Quote] > 1. AWFWWL is NOT a website.

Jan 30, 1999, 7:03am

[View Quote] That's what you are making of it.
He uses it to make clear the difference between the updates.
Obviously you think using the date for that is a better idea.
Well, maybe Rolu doesn't think so...

>I suggest you read past threads and recapture the point.

>
>I call everyone a kid who acts like a kid relative to my perspective.
You'll get to that point
>someday...

Let's hope not.

>after you've thought long and hard about things no one else normally thinks
and couldn't give a
>shit about...
>
(http://tnlc.com/rw/updates.html)
system down. Rolu's page is
same amount of time than
updates page (at
all YOUR accomplishments?
That
>
>What's self-centered to you may be self-esteem to another. Wee...
>
who
>
>The sign of someone who needs external gratification...
>
>
>Destructiveness is relative. Wee. What you consider destructive, others may
consider
>CONstructive. It's all relative, sport.

Yep it is. But I think the group of people who find your critisizing replies
constructive is relatively small.

means something. As you already said yourself (I think >>in an other reply):
with programs frequent updates rather indicate buggyness than
quality-programming ;-)
>
>Right. You're just the one who misunderstood its context (as usual).

Programming is just an example. I think you understand that; cuz u used the
word yurself.
As soon as I use it you automatically assume I misunderstood it. THat's what
I call destructive.

Plz start assuming I mean it the seem way you do.

>
>Seriousness is also relative. Taking notes yet? Step out of your
narrowminded mindset and see
>existance from simultaneous multiple perspectives.

Narrowminded? Looks like you're getting acquainted with yourself..

--
Cubic
ICQ - 18557607
cubic at mediaport.org
http://welcome.to/cubic

Jan 30, 1999, 7:05am

[View Quote] That was not what I meant: my point was the difference in 'tone' between
your and eep's message.
I didn't mean to grab you on the point that you 'repeated' eep's text ;-)

--
Cubic
ICQ - 18557607
cubic at mediaport.org
http://welcome.to/cubic

>The nice thing of standards is that there are so many to choose from.
>-- Andrew S. Tanenbaum
>
[View Quote]

Jan 30, 1999, 7:09am

[View Quote] What he means is that it's not meant like a homepage or so.
It's just a list that happens to be available over internet.
I agree it's easier to use dates, but why won't versions do??
He is not using ver#'s to make it look like it means something, also you
think he is.
It's just an alternative for using the date to indicate updates.

[View Quote]

Jan 30, 1999, 6:22pm

But my PAGE isn't inteded as a SITE it is just an ONLINE VERSION OF AWFWWL.
Would you call a single text file somewhere a site, too?

btw, I already said I was going to CHANGE the LOOK of AWFWWL some time. But
only when I have some time left.

[View Quote]

Jan 30, 1999, 6:25pm

[View Quote] Indeed. People liked it to be online, so I put it online.

>I agree it's easier to use dates, but why won't versions do??
>He is not using ver#'s to make it look like it means something, also you
>think he is.

I'm using version # because I liked to do so. Version 2 also has the date in
it. But I'm not going to remove the version #, no matter what Eep says.

>It's just an alternative for using the date to indicate updates.
>
>
>
>

Jan 30, 1999, 6:48pm

Don't even listen to him - such a jerk :((
You are right - it is an online version not a SITE :o)
<watch out - he will respond to this one too! Can't stand if the last word is not his one>
Andras
<yes - I sign my posts!>

[View Quote] > But my PAGE isn't inteded as a SITE it is just an ONLINE VERSION OF AWFWWL.
> Would you call a single text file somewhere a site, too?
>
> btw, I already said I was going to CHANGE the LOOK of AWFWWL some time. But
> only when I have some time left.
>
[View Quote]

Jan 30, 1999, 7:32pm

[View Quote] [View Quote] Too bad.

> means something. As you already said yourself (I think >>in an other reply):
> with programs frequent updates rather indicate buggyness than
> quality-programming ;-)
>
> Programming is just an example. I think you understand that; cuz u used the
> word yurself.

Very GOOD, Cubic. Now can say the alphabet too? Oh aren't you just so SPECIAL! Damn you're lame...OF COURSE IT'S AN EXAMPLE BECAUSE *I* MADE AN EXAMPLE OF PROGRAMMING IN THE FIRST PLACE HELLO DRIVE THROUGH. You STILL don't "get" it, either...idiot...

> As soon as I use it you automatically assume I misunderstood it. THat's what
> I call destructive.

No, destructive is how an idiot such as yourself continues to persist in his own idiocy without even knowing it. Sad, man...you're gonna kill yourself if you keep it up.

> Plz start assuming I mean it the seem way you do.

Haha, like YOU do, champ? You assume TOO MUCH. I won't blindly accept your idiocy in exchange for "pleasant" conversation with you. Try THINKING more before responding, eh? Silly kid...

>
> Narrowminded? Looks like you're getting acquainted with yourself..

Unfortunately, what you're witnessing is my "acquaintednance" with YOUR narrowmindedness that you're unknowingly projecting onto me, thus causing you to think it's actually MY narrowmindedness. Sad...I may just have to filter you if you persist in your lameness...I probably should've filtered you long ago, but I thought I'd give you a chance. Oh well.

Jan 30, 1999, 7:34pm

Um, genius, you missed the point YET AGAIN...version #s aren't the issue here, but rather the FREQUENCY OF UPDATING. Try and at least grasp the main point of the thread before responding in the future, eh? How can someone such as yourself be so dumb? Sheesh...version #s are just one RESULT from the main point of my "Rolu website management bashing".

[View Quote] [View Quote]

Jan 30, 1999, 7:37pm

Site, page, same dif...as soon as you put something up on the web it becomes a web PAGE and/or SITE. Wee...

[View Quote] > But my PAGE isn't inteded as a SITE it is just an ONLINE VERSION OF AWFWWL.
> Would you call a single text file somewhere a site, too?
>
> btw, I already said I was going to CHANGE the LOOK of AWFWWL some time. But
> only when I have some time left.
>
[View Quote]

Jan 30, 1999, 8:10pm

Would you consider a .pdf file a "website"? No, you'd consider it a file. But what if ms made a plugin that allowed ie to read
it? it's still a file, but you'd apparently now call it a website!

grover

[View Quote] > Site, page, same dif...as soon as you put something up on the web it becomes a web PAGE and/or SITE. Wee...
>
[View Quote]

Jan 30, 1999, 9:01pm

as a matter of fact, Adobe Acrobat Reader 3.0 comes with such a plug-in (I
think it's an ActiveX control)...

[View Quote]

Jan 30, 1999, 9:17pm

Excuse me, but I should've ELABORATED for the clueless: as soon as you put a web-browser-READABLE (HTML, CGI/Perl script/XML, ASP, etc) file on the web, it's a web page and/or PART of a web SITE. Don't make me smack you, grover...

[View Quote] > Would you consider a .pdf file a "website"? No, you'd consider it a file. But what if ms made a plugin that allowed ie to read
> it? it's still a file, but you'd apparently now call it a website!
>
[View Quote]

Jan 30, 1999, 9:26pm

[View Quote] So does that mean I'm not allowed to your opinion about that?
You don't want threads to evolve?

BTW: Actually *why* do you think Rolu should update more frequently.
On the first you seem to find the entire awfwwl kinda awfull so you
shouldn't bother about the details at all.
On the second even if you're online 24-7 not everyone else is. In Rolu's
case: Practice learns that he has to work 4 out of 7 nights and afternoons
are too expensive to go online, so has fewer opportunities and time to
update it than you seem to think. (or hope)

--
Cubic
ICQ - 18557607
cubic at mediaport.org
http://welcome.to/cubic

[View Quote]

Jan 30, 1999, 9:28pm

[View Quote] Even if so:
Does that mean you are allowed to start flaming as soon as the update-degree
is lower than 1ce per week?

--
Cubic
ICQ - 18557607
cubic at mediaport.org
http://welcome.to/cubic

[View Quote]

Jan 30, 1999, 10:58pm

[View Quote] [View Quote] I don't want IDIOTIC threads to evolve, which is what happens when you continue to babble nonsense like you are now. Wee...

I won't keep this up much longer with you, by the way...

> BTW: Actually *why* do you think Rolu should update more frequently.
> On the first you seem to find the entire awfwwl kinda awfull so you
> shouldn't bother about the details at all.

Way to miss the point (yet again as usual). I tire of having to explain it to you over and over again, so I won't. Enjoy your non-understanding.

> On the second even if you're online 24-7 not everyone else is.

The correct phrase is "on the other hand", not "on the second".

> In Rolu's case: Practice learns that he has to work 4 out of 7 nights and afternoons
> are too expensive to go online, so has fewer opportunities and time to
> update it than you seem to think. (or hope)

"Practice learns"? What kind of English is that?

The list should be updated as soon as a new "wish" is emailed to Rolu, he reads, thinks up, or whatever. Using version #s for such an update frequency would be impractical, as would specifying the TIME of the update as some sites do. Hell, he doesn't even HAVE to even create an update page with what was added/changed/deleted/edited/etc. Just a simple "last modified on <date>" line (or a varation thereof) would suffice.

KISS (keep it simple, stupid). Remember that.

Jan 31, 1999, 10:13am

[View Quote] You are replying to it aswell. Sp you are also keeping the thread alive.
So don't blame other ppl.

>I won't keep this up much longer with you, by the way...
>
>
>Way to miss the point (yet again as usual). I tire of having to explain it
to you over and over
>again, so I won't. Enjoy your non-understanding.

Thanxx. Bye-bye.

(are ya gone yet..?)

>
>The correct phrase is "on the other hand", not "on the second".

Shut up if you ain't got a better thing to complain about.
Appearantly you get what I'm saying (or you wouldn;t be correcting it) so it
will do.

afternoons

>"Practice learns"? What kind of English is that?

Appearantly good enough to make you understand what I mean.
Or you wouldn't be correcting it.

--
Cubic
ICQ - 18557607
cubic at mediaport.org
http://welcome.to/cubic

>The list should be updated as soon as a new "wish" is emailed to Rolu, he
reads, thinks up, or whatever. Using version #s for such an update frequency
would be impractical, as would specifying the TIME of the update as some
sites do. Hell, he doesn't even HAVE to even create an update page with what
was added/changed/deleted/edited/etc. Just a simple "last modified on
<date>" line (or a varation thereof) would suffice.
>
>KISS (keep it simple, stupid). Remember that.

Jan 31, 1999, 11:56am

I don't think the list should be updated every time I get a new wish or some
votes. When I start doing that, people would just forget about AWFWWL.
However, when I release a new version once in a while, every week, twice a
week, or twice a month, whatever, and I announce that in the NG's, people
are more likely to go take a look at it. And that is the goal of bringing
out a new version.

Rolu

[View Quote]

Jan 31, 1999, 12:00pm

Don't think so. I don't consider a one-byte file called "z" hanging around
somewhere a site. In my opinion, a site is a collection of some html pages,
linking to each other, and providing information, files, data, whatever. A
single HTML isn't a real site, whatever the definition might say. I am not
going to treat the online version of AWFWWL as a site. It is an online copy
of the AWFWWL list, and I am going to update it as soon as AWFWWL is
updated.

[View Quote]

Jan 31, 1999, 1:38pm

Hehe... I love this thread :)

--

[ Fluxen Dean-Christian Strik ]
[ ICQ: 11760568 ISG RhinoSoft ]
[ fluxen at bigfoot.com dean2 at bigfoot.com ]

The nice thing of standards is that there are so many to choose from.
-- Andrew S. Tanenbaum

[View Quote]

Jan 31, 1999, 1:39pm

It's more like 5 out of 7 I think.

--

[ Fluxen Dean-Christian Strik ]
[ ICQ: 11760568 ISG RhinoSoft ]
[ fluxen at bigfoot.com dean2 at bigfoot.com ]

The nice thing of standards is that there are so many to choose from.
-- Andrew S. Tanenbaum

[View Quote]

Jan 31, 1999, 1:40pm

It's a dutchism.

>"Practice learns"? What kind of English is that?

1  2  3  |   Order by index