• The Undroid (unregistered)

    Is he by any chance from Framingham? But I'd agree that his grasp of HTML is on a par with Aristotle's.

  • (cs)

    just reading through those letters I am reminded of a quote, "all sound and fury, signifying nothing" this whole post could be summed up with one word: FRAMES!

  • (cs)
    "Second, all pages must be securely and consistently served. Here is what I mean: if your server is down, and you have a full page, then that full page is not sent and you get the 404 error message. With frames, you can get that error on just a frame. So, if you have three frames, then if your server is not secure, you have three times the opportunity to get the 404 error message. Therefore, to use frames (an advanced mediation capability), you must be smarter and more secure."

    Wrong-o, Gary, you have FOUR chances to get a 404. Your frames page is a page hit.

    I also don't understand how security of a server has to deal with a page not being found.

    Anyone who talks that much about how it's not just his ego...it's definitely his ego.

  • (cs) in reply to The Undroid

    My gosh, Gary needs mental help. I've had people who had the same standpoint, but in different terms. Back in the 90s when MS came out with ADO, that was the first thing I learned while I was in college. But once I got a job, a guy I worked with swore up and down that DAO was much better than ADO and DAO was less prone to the problems that happen with databases in ADO. I knew it was a pile of crap as soon as he said it, just like Gary. Frames are simply in the HTML anyway, so it can't make it any more secure than a regular page. And if you're taking multiple pages from multiple locations... well, I don't see how that is more secure, just more prone to errors since now they only have a fraction of the content.

  • AdT (unregistered)

    "Again, Chris, you have done nothing wrong. You were just taught a lie."

    I knew it! We have been framed!

  • Jason (unregistered)

    "I can feel the energy and intelligence"

    Anyone see Grandma's Boy?

    Seriously, though.. having such delusions of grandeur is a pretty significant symptom of a few serious psychological disorders. The WWW doesn't need anymore of that. At least that's what Jason thinks.

    Gary, you've done nothing wrong. You're just crazy.

    • Jason
  • zck (unregistered)

    Is it just me, or does Gary remind anyone of the TimeCube guy? They both think they're right, even though everyone's disagrees with them. They don't listen to anything anyone else says; they merely reiterate what they've previously said. Finally, they both use normal English words in ways no one else does (Gary: "people do not know how to frame"; Gene Ray: "Google is ONENESS EVIL").

    Wait! I'm beginning to see it their way!

    Put "Gene Ray" inside a frame! |Gene Ray| Now, wait for one corner day to pass! |Gene Ray| turns into |G ray| which turns into |Gary|!

  • vman (unregistered)

    Gary needs to be slapped with a large fish...a tuna maybe, or a flounder.

  • (cs) in reply to zck
    zck:
    Is it just me, or does Gary remind anyone of the TimeCube guy? They both think they're right, even though everyone's disagrees with them. They don't listen to anything anyone else says; they merely reiterate what they've previously said. Finally, they both use normal English words in ways no one else does (Gary: "people do not know how to frame"; Gene Ray: "Google is ONENESS EVIL").

    Wait! I'm beginning to see it their way!

    Put "Gene Ray" inside a frame! |Gene Ray| Now, wait for one corner day to pass! |Gene Ray| turns into |G ray| which turns into |Gary|!

    That was my first thought too. Perhaps Chris should ask Gary how many corners his frames should have, and how many actual days there are in one Earth frame.

  • Matt (unregistered)
    You tell me there are two frame problems: handicap access and book marking. Even if true (I'd need to research), these are not the key issues. The key issues are as I laid out in the first email on this.

    That is PRICELESS! Accessibility? Who cares, frames are the answer! Interfering with someone's web experience? Who cares, frames are the answer!

    The key issue, Gary, is that you are a raving lunatic!

  • (cs) in reply to Someone You Know
    Someone You Know:
    zck:
    Is it just me, or does Gary remind anyone of the TimeCube guy? They both think they're right, even though everyone's disagrees with them. They don't listen to anything anyone else says; they merely reiterate what they've previously said. Finally, they both use normal English words in ways no one else does (Gary: "people do not know how to frame"; Gene Ray: "Google is ONENESS EVIL").

    Wait! I'm beginning to see it their way!

    Put "Gene Ray" inside a frame! |Gene Ray| Now, wait for one corner day to pass! |Gene Ray| turns into |G ray| which turns into |Gary|!

    That was my first thought too. Perhaps Chris should ask Gary how many corners his frames should have, and how many actual days there are in one Earth frame.

    You're not the only one. I was about to paste in the timecube guy too! I love that Gary speaks in the third person, as well.

  • little biologist (unregistered)

    Moving story, somehow.

    Remembers me of the first time I heard of frames... it was in 1997.

  • TroelsL (unregistered)

    I wouldn't believe anyone could be both this stupid and this arrogant if I hadn't already met people worse than this.

    I love his argument that when using frame, you can just get a 404 in one of the frames, instead of the entire page. Which, of course is a typical occurrence on a well run and secure server. Everyone knows that pages disappear every once in a while. By his argument, it would be even better to have 10 vertical frames on all sites, so you "distribute" the possibility of error. Just split your .jpgs into 10 parts and show one in each frame. That way, if one or two of the files are sucked out of existence by the sheer stupidity of your boss, the user can still see 8/10 of the image.

    How can you not see that this is brilliant?!

  • CRNewsom (unregistered)

    I am pretty sure that whenever you make the statement "I am right and the entire industry is wrong." you are, in fact, the one who is wrong. Unless your name happens to be Steve Wozniak, and it happens to be 1976.

  • Carra (unregistered)

    No frames?

    You come up with a better solution!

  • (cs)

    Gotta love how he refers to himself in the third person and uses profundities like "Secure multi-mediation is the future of all webbing". He could make more money if he got out of web design and started a cult in Guyana.

  • Mike (unregistered)

    People who think they're always right really annoying those of us who know we are.

    Oh, and it's true: Gary's grasp of HTML appears to be about the same of that as Aristotle's...

  • (cs)

    "Even if true (I'd need to research), these are not the key issues."

    That sums up his entire argument right there. He doesn't even know the downfalls and issues that frames present, nor does he care. But he will defend them TO THE DEATH.

    When someone is so vehement about something, I will typically give them the benefit of the doubt and take what they are saying for granted until they prove themselves wrong.

  • Greg D (unregistered)

    Always be wary of people who refer to themselves in the third person.

  • Rohan Prabhu (unregistered)

    "You know what's worse than useless? Useless and oblivious"

    • Gregory House, Three Stories
  • Shinobu (unregistered) in reply to CRNewsom
    CRNewsom:
    I am pretty sure that whenever you make the statement "I am right and the entire industry is wrong." you are, in fact, the one who is wrong.
    Erm... you can use that statement to justify DRM, XML, not checking for buffer overflows, the NIH syndrome and lot's of other even more nasty things. The reality is that over 90% of the people are wrong most of the time and IT doesn't solely attract the brightest bulbs from the lot. Far from it.
  • Zapakh (unregistered)

    Awww crud. My sarcasm detector did the Futurama exploding-head thing... I'll have to get a new one.

    This kind of story makes me scream on the inside.

  • JonC (unregistered)

    Jon is scared by the fact that Gary seems to talk in the third person.

  • bz (unregistered) in reply to CRNewsom

    Though the article highlights the craziness, I still find it annoying when people toss out technology simply because it has been deemed inferior or "not cool".

    Though there were probably many reasons not to use frames in this case, I really don't like when ideas are cast aside without being examined in detail first.

    E.g. The people that only use C++ and refuse to use any high level languages. Or the people that refuse to use anything BUT CSS, resulting in somewhat rigid and complicated CSS pages to do the work of a simple table.

    A screwdriver is not a hammer, although it can be used as such.

  • Gage (unregistered) in reply to Shinobu
    Shinobu:
    CRNewsom:
    I am pretty sure that whenever you make the statement "I am right and the entire industry is wrong." you are, in fact, the one who is wrong.
    Erm... you can use that statement to justify DRM, XML, not checking for buffer overflows, the NIH syndrome and lot's of other even more nasty things. The reality is that over 90% of the people are wrong most of the time and IT doesn't solely attract the brightest bulbs from the lot. Far from it.

    83.23% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

  • my name is missing (unregistered)

    Anyone else get the ad "you are being framed". It's a conspiracy by Gary.

  • SomeCoder (unregistered) in reply to Shinobu
    Shinobu:
    CRNewsom:
    I am pretty sure that whenever you make the statement "I am right and the entire industry is wrong." you are, in fact, the one who is wrong.
    Erm... you can use that statement to justify DRM, XML, not checking for buffer overflows, the NIH syndrome and lot's of other even more nasty things. The reality is that over 90% of the people are wrong most of the time and IT doesn't solely attract the brightest bulbs from the lot. Far from it.

    I'm just curious as to who in the industry (besides the RIAA which is NOT in the industry) likes DRM, what is so wrong with XML (when used properly), and which forum you frequent that tells you to not check for buffer overflows.

    Just because DRM exists, abuse of XML occurs (as we have seen on this very site) and people don't check for buffer overflows doesn't mean the industry thinks these are good things. It just means that people write software to make a living (I'd probably write DRM-type technology if I was asked to by my boss. Doesn't mean I would like it) and there are a lot of bad coders out there (that I would argue don't make up the "industry").

    Just my opinion so take it for what it's worth (probably not much).

  • (cs)

    "I feel your energy and intelligence on this. It's a pleasure working with you."

    Wow. Gary sounds creepy. When I read it, I picture a soft, soothing tone exactly like the megalomaniac villains always talk like in movies when they've captured the protagonist, proceed to expound upon their evil plan, and then leave the protagonist alone to die in a poorly designed Rube Goldberg death contraption that never works.

    Which, if you think about it...

  • JOHN (unregistered)

    This guy seems a little whackadoo, but he's not wrong about frames.

    We use iframes here at work to achieve some very advanced features that would otherwise not be possible using plain HTML. We've cut our page sizes down by 30%, performance is up, etc.

    I've never understood the irrational hatred people have of frames. When you use them for properly, they're a godsend.

    PS: even gmail uses iframes. Is google wrong?

  • (cs) in reply to JOHN
    JOHN:
    PS: even gmail uses iframes. Is google wrong?

    Unpossible. Google is never wrong. Google can do no wrong. Google makes great sandwiches. Google made me a better man.

  • (cs) in reply to JOHN
    JOHN:
    This guy seems a little whackadoo, but he's not wrong about frames.

    We use iframes here at work to achieve some very advanced features that would otherwise not be possible using plain HTML. We've cut our page sizes down by 30%, performance is up, etc.

    I've never understood the irrational hatred people have of frames. When you use them for properly, they're a godsend.

    PS: even gmail uses iframes. Is google wrong?

    Frames != iFrames

  • (cs)

    You people are all idiots. Did you even READ the post? It says right there that EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG AND GARY IS RIGHT. If you would just WAKE UP and SEE THE TRUTH you would understand how important it is to believe Gary about this. Where does this guy work? All of the people at my place of work are IDIOTS LIKE YOU who can't see Gary's genius. Or my own. I need to put a resume in at Gary's office.

  • Todd (unregistered)

    Actually, this is a lot like Aristotle. Genius that he was, he was wrong about... well, not everything, just physics and anything derived from it.

  • Rooser (unregistered)

    "Secure multi-mediation is the future of all webbing." Is this guy for real?

  • (cs)

    Gary is so wrong. Clearly DesktopSearch is the future (unless we can get line numbers into frames). Why don't you people understand this?

  • Monster (unregistered) in reply to vman

    I was going to say that Gary deserves to be punched out for being a pompous ass, but your way it much funnier.

  • (cs) in reply to JOHN
    JOHN:
    This guy seems a little whackadoo, but he's not wrong about frames.

    I've never understood the irrational hatred people have of frames. When you use them for properly, they're a godsend.

    Wow. Where to start. How about browsers on small screens, like cell phones and PDAs? How about text-mode browsers like lynx? How about accessibility? And, as has already been mentioned, frames royally screw up any hope of bookmarking, and they're not very kind to the Back button. I won't even go into the security issues.

    Are frames occasionally an appropriate idiom? Sure, occasionally. Appropriate for layout? Hell no. Appropriate implementation of persistent side bars or navigation areas? Hell no.

    But, hey, there's a lot of "professionals" who really are still writing CS assignments, and as such believe that anything that "works" is a good job. You decide if you're among them.

  • Patrick (unregistered)

    One word can sum up Gary, "Douchebag."

  • Been There (unregistered) in reply to Benanov
    Benanov:

    I also don't understand how security of a server has to deal with a page not being found.

    It probably has to do with the EnterpriseBooleanAuthenticationState class: True, False, FileNotFound.

    The real sad part of this, is once this guy learns about the whole "web 2.0/ajax" thing he'll undoubtedly think every asynchronous ajax component is basically a Frame as "he'd have done it" if he wrote the HTML specs....then claim vindication and perhaps industrial espionage.

  • James Spencer (unregistered) in reply to The Undroid

    It sounds to me as if he's just fscking with the guy... at least that's how I'd take it.

  • Tyler (unregistered) in reply to Jason
    Jason:
    "I can feel the energy and intelligence"

    Anyone see Grandma's Boy?

    That is EXACTLY what I thought of when I read that sentence.

  • rycamor (unregistered)

    Ooh... this language style sounds too familiar...

    Reminds me of the guy I once worked for/with who thought that Flash was the future of all application design: "I picture Flash components as a collection of 'magic function boxes', and when you need more functionality for a program, you just plug in another magic function box. All the 'magic function boxes' speak XML to each other and the world beyond."

    And other language along the lines of

    • "As a high level interface, it is adaptable to a number of different environments and technologies with little modification required."
    • "Its delivery is pure vector... the appearance is stunning."

    Yes. Application design, not multimedia. Yes. Client-side applications, not web. On Linux. Yes. Serious business applications. And Yes. He seriously expected me to do this.

  • Jeremy (unregistered)

    Ok, I would have stopped listening as soon as he said "open MS Word".

  • Mattkins (unregistered)

    Why wasn't the Woz included along with Plato and Aristotle?

  • OedipusPrime (unregistered)

    It's like Alex Chiu became a web designer...

  • Sorting My Toolbox (unregistered)

    Looks like Gary had a development problem and solved it by using frames. He then started considering frames to be a bit of a golden hammer. The problem with the golden hammer is that when you hold it, everything looks like a nail.

    Bayesian epistemology predicts a poor outcome here. Once beliefs (about religion, HTML frames, etc.) become firmly entrenched, they are very difficult to dislodge.

  • TEL (unregistered) in reply to CRNewsom

    I'm sure there are many developers dismissing frames as a solution because the entire industry thinks its a bad idea. My advice: don't. Your app may be one of the few in which framming's benefits outshine it's (significant) drawbacks. I can't think of any off hand, but i'm sure they exist somewhere.

    Just because something is best practice in the industry doesn't mean its best to use in your specific app (and vice versa). Buying a "Best Practices" book doesn't give you permission to stop thinking.

  • (cs)

    Frames being BAD may or may not be a lie.

    The cake on the other hand...

  • (cs) in reply to DeLos
    DeLos:
    JOHN:
    PS: even gmail uses iframes. Is google wrong?

    Unpossible. Google is never wrong. Google can do no wrong. Google makes great sandwiches. Google made me a better man.

    We here at Google, deny every making mistakes, indexing anything that is wrong, or ever making mistakes of any kind. And we know who you are, and from where you logged in. We keep your searches for two years (that we admit to), and if we don't like you, we will return search results that make you look bad. Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha!

  • Anonymous (unregistered)

    The problem is not in the "the entire Industry is wrong" part but in the "i am right" part.

Leave a comment on “I am right and the entire Industry is wrong”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #170090:

« Return to Article