The Daily WTF: Curious Perversions in Information Technology

Jeff S · 2006-07-19 Reply Admin

Kev777:
Jeff S:
Kev777:

This is true, since when has microsoft ever worried about creating code that is fast and efficient.   We are just lucky that the speed of the internet isn't increasing like the power of the CPU is. If it did, we would be downloading their OS evertime we requested a page.    Microsoft doesn't give a damn about how fast their code is or how clean it is. All they care about is making money on their OS and making you upgrade your PC every year for it.     The CMS system described here is just doing exactly what microsoft does best by forcing you to upgrade.   Security, bandwidth, speed, standards be damned when microsoft is around.

That's a pretty dumb statement to make. MS's main goal is to make things fast and efficient! Sometimes, unfortunately, at the expense of security! that's why they added all of these DHTML features to IE -- so that developers could create faster, more robust applications. That's why they invented XMLTTP. that's why they made manipulating the DOM much easier.    To make things faster, to decrease bandwith, to make it easier to developers to create apps.

Again, you can argue about how they went about things or how they have since implemented or worked with standards or well they were able to implement security in their ideas.   Adding features that allow programmer X to do good things also adds those same features for programmer Y to do bad things. But statements like the ones you are making are completely ignorant.   Especially in light of their recents efforts to improve standards support and security.

Try to look at things objectively and form your own intelligent conclusions and don't just repeat what you've heard people write at Slashdot.

Well..  these are examples of technologies that solve problem X only to create problem Y.

Since microsoft is in the business of selling its OS it doesn't want you to create web applications that will work on other OS systems and do all the processing on the server.   They also don't want you to write script without the need of their bulky developer tools. That is why they create all these totally useless client side features and chunky asp.net controls.    Active X and MS J++ are also good examples of MS trying to force their OS up everyones ass.

In this regard classic asp was wonderfull because you could code it in notepad (never require a licence) and then host in on an external server without ever giving microsoft a dime or your own money). In fact that server didn't even have to run IIS. :)   I'll bet ms sat back before they developed .NET and thought about ways that they could make web applications require their OS. And force people to pay their licence fees.   With scripting you can't force that on people but with client side code and dlls you can.

The statements I'm making are from hard lessons learned and experience in developing microsoft applications using their technologies.    The best web applications require the client to do as little processing as possible (if any) and return the least amount of code to the browser as possible.        I also find that it takes longer to develop (more lines of code and more layers) using MS technologies . Things are not getting easier they are just more complicated.    Most of the new features that microsoft creates don't help programmers they help people who don't know how to program. They are great for MS geek conventions and make great sales, but they don't help me. I have to write more lines of Code now then I ever did.

I suspect that you are a scripter and/or web designer, and not a programmer. Anyone who utilized the ASP.NET features such as the .net framework, databinding, data grids, custom server controls, full OOP (esp. inheritance -- very useful in ASP.net design), full compilation with type checking, C# code, and so on would never dream of going back to plain old ASP. The guys who wrote the current site I am in the middle of redoing fell into the scripter category -- everything was cut and pasted and duplicated one each page, lots of in-line ASP-style scripting in the ASPX pages, no concept of when to use server or user controls or shared DLL's and so on. Thus, they probably thought the same thing you did -- what benefit does ASP.NET provide for me? It sucks! Heck, I've never been a "web scripter" but even I thought that ASP.NET was way more work than ASP at first -- until I took the time to truly learn it and use it correctly. I suggest giving it a shot, you might be surprised. I recently rewrote an entire poorly "scripted" ASP.NET application to properly use databinding, shared libraries, server controls and inheritance the source code ended up being 20% as big (plus I added many new features and fixed quite a few bugs).

And, FYI -- while you may need IIS, it doens't cost a dime to develop an ASP.NET app. You can use notepad to write all your code if you want along with the free .net compilers and tools.

Kev777 · 2006-07-19 Reply Admin

Jeff S:
Kev777:
Jeff S:
Kev777:

This is true, since when has microsoft ever worried about creating code that is fast and efficient.   We are just lucky that the speed of the internet isn't increasing like the power of the CPU is. If it did, we would be downloading their OS evertime we requested a page.    Microsoft doesn't give a damn about how fast their code is or how clean it is. All they care about is making money on their OS and making you upgrade your PC every year for it.     The CMS system described here is just doing exactly what microsoft does best by forcing you to upgrade.   Security, bandwidth, speed, standards be damned when microsoft is around.

That's a pretty dumb statement to make. MS's main goal is to make things fast and efficient! Sometimes, unfortunately, at the expense of security! that's why they added all of these DHTML features to IE -- so that developers could create faster, more robust applications. That's why they invented XMLTTP. that's why they made manipulating the DOM much easier.    To make things faster, to decrease bandwith, to make it easier to developers to create apps.

Again, you can argue about how they went about things or how they have since implemented or worked with standards or well they were able to implement security in their ideas.   Adding features that allow programmer X to do good things also adds those same features for programmer Y to do bad things. But statements like the ones you are making are completely ignorant.   Especially in light of their recents efforts to improve standards support and security.

Try to look at things objectively and form your own intelligent conclusions and don't just repeat what you've heard people write at Slashdot.

Well..  these are examples of technologies that solve problem X only to create problem Y.

Since microsoft is in the business of selling its OS it doesn't want you to create web applications that will work on other OS systems and do all the processing on the server.   They also don't want you to write script without the need of their bulky developer tools. That is why they create all these totally useless client side features and chunky asp.net controls.    Active X and MS J++ are also good examples of MS trying to force their OS up everyones ass.

In this regard classic asp was wonderfull because you could code it in notepad (never require a licence) and then host in on an external server without ever giving microsoft a dime or your own money). In fact that server didn't even have to run IIS. :)   I'll bet ms sat back before they developed .NET and thought about ways that they could make web applications require their OS. And force people to pay their licence fees.   With scripting you can't force that on people but with client side code and dlls you can.

The statements I'm making are from hard lessons learned and experience in developing microsoft applications using their technologies.    The best web applications require the client to do as little processing as possible (if any) and return the least amount of code to the browser as possible.        I also find that it takes longer to develop (more lines of code and more layers) using MS technologies . Things are not getting easier they are just more complicated.    Most of the new features that microsoft creates don't help programmers they help people who don't know how to program. They are great for MS geek conventions and make great sales, but they don't help me. I have to write more lines of Code now then I ever did.

I suspect that you are a scripter and/or web designer, and not a programmer. Anyone who utilized the ASP.NET features such as the .net framework, databinding, data grids, custom server controls, full OOP (esp. inheritance -- very useful in ASP.net design), full compilation with type checking, C# code, and so on would never dream of going back to plain old ASP. The guys who wrote the current site I am in the middle of redoing fell into the scripter category -- everything was cut and pasted and duplicated one each page, lots of in-line ASP-style scripting in the ASPX pages, no concept of when to use server or user controls or shared DLL's and so on. Thus, they probably thought the same thing you did -- what benefit does ASP.NET provide for me? It sucks!   Heck, I've never been a "web scripter" but even I thought that ASP.NET was way more work than ASP at first -- until I took the time to truly learn it and use it correctly. I suggest giving it a shot, you might be surprised. I recently rewrote an entire poorly "scripted" ASP.NET application to properly use databinding, shared libraries, server controls and inheritance the source code ended up being 20% as big (plus I added many new features and fixed quite a few bugs).

And, FYI -- while you may need IIS, it doens't cost a dime to develop an ASP.NET app. You can use notepad to write all your code if you want along with the free .net compilers and tools.

I totally agree with you that ASP.NET laungage features are very good. I'm just not a fan of the html it creates. . I also don't agree with the copy paste mentality that some scripters love. To that end, I developed my own template engine to manage all the html so that I could get the best of both worlds. I totally droped the faked event driven model that ASP.NET uses. All my ASP.NET applications have a folder that contains web templates (html,css, js) and another that contains my app_code. With a template engine I can port my website to php or even classic asp and only have to change library code behind it. I can also just point my web designers to a folder and have them create a new template without an issue. In my view, code sent to the browser should not ever be mixed with application code. That entire Master Pages concept is a stupid ugly fix to a problem that microsoft created. It still doesn't help you when you want to create a website that is made for SEO.

TankerJoe · 2006-07-19 Reply Admin

Anonymous:
Anonymous:
The real WTF here is the number of TDWTF readers who are so bold as to offer corrections on the meaning of AJAX when they themselves don't know the definition.
AJAX stands for Asynchronous Javascript And XML.
No, the real WTF is that you used wikipedia to acquire all your information about AJAX. And if you would have read a little bit farther, you would have noticed that AJAX doesn't "stand" for anything. It's not an acronym! HAHA you lose.

... (finishing edit to wikipedia entry)... Ok, it's an acronym now... HAHA you lose.

2006-07-19 Reply Admin

Kev777:
Jeff S:
Kev777:

This is true, since when has microsoft ever worried about creating code that is fast and efficient.   We are just lucky that the speed of the internet isn't increasing like the power of the CPU is. If it did, we would be downloading their OS evertime we requested a page.    Microsoft doesn't give a damn about how fast their code is or how clean it is. All they care about is making money on their OS and making you upgrade your PC every year for it.     The CMS system described here is just doing exactly what microsoft does best by forcing you to upgrade.   Security, bandwidth, speed, standards be damned when microsoft is around.

That's a pretty dumb statement to make. MS's main goal is to make things fast and efficient! Sometimes, unfortunately, at the expense of security! that's why they added all of these DHTML features to IE -- so that developers could create faster, more robust applications. That's why they invented XMLTTP. that's why they made manipulating the DOM much easier.    To make things faster, to decrease bandwith, to make it easier to developers to create apps.

Again, you can argue about how they went about things or how they have since implemented or worked with standards or well they were able to implement security in their ideas.   Adding features that allow programmer X to do good things also adds those same features for programmer Y to do bad things. But statements like the ones you are making are completely ignorant.   Especially in light of their recents efforts to improve standards support and security.

Try to look at things objectively and form your own intelligent conclusions and don't just repeat what you've heard people write at Slashdot.

Well..  these are examples of technologies that solve problem X only to create problem Y.

Since microsoft is in the business of selling its OS it doesn't want you to create web applications that will work on other OS systems and do all the processing on the server.   They also don't want you to write script without the need of their bulky developer tools. That is why they create all these totally useless client side features and chunky asp.net controls.    Active X and MS J++ are also good examples of MS trying to force their OS up everyones ass.

In this regard classic asp was wonderfull because you could code it in notepad (never require a licence) and then host in on an external server without ever giving microsoft a dime or your own money). In fact that server didn't even have to run IIS. :)   I'll bet ms sat back before they developed .NET and thought about ways that they could make web applications require their OS. And force people to pay their licence fees.   With scripting you can't force that on people but with client side code and dlls you can.

The statements I'm making are from hard lessons learned and experience in developing microsoft applications using their technologies.    The best web applications require the client to do as little processing as possible (if any) and return the least amount of code to the browser as possible.        I also find that it takes longer to develop (more lines of code and more layers) using MS technologies . Things are not getting easier they are just more complicated.    Most of the new features that microsoft creates don't help programmers they help people who don't know how to program. They are great for MS geek conventions and make great sales, but they don't help me. I have to write more lines of Code now then I ever did.

Sorry, but are you a total twit?

You do know that ASP.NET allows you to code EXACTLY like ASP, right? Don't want to use the ASP.NET controls? Fine, don't. Don't want to use Viewstate? Fine, don't use Viewstate. Don't want to use the event model? Fine, don't. Don't want to use code-behind? Fine, don't. Want to keep using <%= %> everywhere? Fine, use it. Want to keep using the Request.Form[] structure? Fine, there it is.

And since you don't seem to have even a clue about the clusterfuck that COM was/is, I can only surmise that whatever "applications" you wrote in ASP were nothing but the most simplest applications. You want to see "lots of lines of code"? Write something in COM using MSVC++.

And the fact that you mention that you put your "code" in App_Code tells me that you don't have a fucking clue about how to create a separate library for your business layer. Oh well.

Kev777 · 2006-07-19 Reply Admin

Anonymous:
Kev777:
Jeff S:
Kev777:

This is true, since when has microsoft ever worried about creating code that is fast and efficient.   We are just lucky that the speed of the internet isn't increasing like the power of the CPU is. If it did, we would be downloading their OS evertime we requested a page.    Microsoft doesn't give a damn about how fast their code is or how clean it is. All they care about is making money on their OS and making you upgrade your PC every year for it.     The CMS system described here is just doing exactly what microsoft does best by forcing you to upgrade.   Security, bandwidth, speed, standards be damned when microsoft is around.

That's a pretty dumb statement to make. MS's main goal is to make things fast and efficient! Sometimes, unfortunately, at the expense of security! that's why they added all of these DHTML features to IE -- so that developers could create faster, more robust applications. That's why they invented XMLTTP. that's why they made manipulating the DOM much easier.    To make things faster, to decrease bandwith, to make it easier to developers to create apps.

Again, you can argue about how they went about things or how they have since implemented or worked with standards or well they were able to implement security in their ideas.   Adding features that allow programmer X to do good things also adds those same features for programmer Y to do bad things. But statements like the ones you are making are completely ignorant.   Especially in light of their recents efforts to improve standards support and security.

Try to look at things objectively and form your own intelligent conclusions and don't just repeat what you've heard people write at Slashdot.

Well..  these are examples of technologies that solve problem X only to create problem Y.

Since microsoft is in the business of selling its OS it doesn't want you to create web applications that will work on other OS systems and do all the processing on the server.   They also don't want you to write script without the need of their bulky developer tools. That is why they create all these totally useless client side features and chunky asp.net controls.    Active X and MS J++ are also good examples of MS trying to force their OS up everyones ass.

In this regard classic asp was wonderfull because you could code it in notepad (never require a licence) and then host in on an external server without ever giving microsoft a dime or your own money). In fact that server didn't even have to run IIS. :)   I'll bet ms sat back before they developed .NET and thought about ways that they could make web applications require their OS. And force people to pay their licence fees.   With scripting you can't force that on people but with client side code and dlls you can.

The statements I'm making are from hard lessons learned and experience in developing microsoft applications using their technologies.    The best web applications require the client to do as little processing as possible (if any) and return the least amount of code to the browser as possible.        I also find that it takes longer to develop (more lines of code and more layers) using MS technologies . Things are not getting easier they are just more complicated.    Most of the new features that microsoft creates don't help programmers they help people who don't know how to program. They are great for MS geek conventions and make great sales, but they don't help me. I have to write more lines of Code now then I ever did.
Sorry, but are you a total twit?

You do know that ASP.NET allows you to code EXACTLY like ASP, right? Don't want to use the ASP.NET controls? Fine, don't. Don't want to use Viewstate? Fine, don't use Viewstate. Don't want to use the event model? Fine, don't. Don't want to use code-behind? Fine, don't. Want to keep using <%= %> everywhere? Fine, use it. Want to keep using the Request.Form[] structure? Fine, there it is.

And since you don't seem to have even a clue about the clusterfuck that COM was/is, I can only surmise that whatever "applications" you wrote in ASP were nothing but the most simplest applications. You want to see "lots of lines of code"? Write something in COM using MSVC++.

And the fact that you mention that you put your "code" in App_Code tells me that you don't have a fucking clue about how to create a separate library for your business layer. Oh well.

You must be one of those stupid programmers that read the spec document and see something totally different then what the client requested.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

You need to read what I wrote all over again. I never said I wanted to code exactly like asp. In fact, I hate using <% %> everyplace. I've also created multi layered applications that are currently being used to manage millions of dollars in transactions per month. You make a fair number of uneducated assumptions about my skill level. I guess you can't believe for one second that someone with over 10 years of hard core application development experience could possibly not completely love your .NET butt buddy.<o:p></o:p>

I was making a statement about how Microsoft tries to push off technology that is nothing short of a bloated fat pig. The cluster fuck of COM was invented by Microsoft was it not? I guess you then agree that Microsoft creates cluster fucks and then provides solutions to correct them, only to create other cluster fucks for them to fix later. <o:p></o:p>

Anyway, I'm sorry I hurt your feelings regarding .NET. I didn't realize you had an emotional connection to the anal cavity of Bill Gates.<o:p></o:p>

amigan · 2006-07-20 Reply Admin

mc wrote:

The only WTF here is that the system administrator couldn't figure out how to add gzip compression to the web server.

Where does it say in the OP that the web server isn't using gzip?

2006-07-20 Reply Admin

Kev777:
You must be one of those stupid programmers that read the spec document and see something totally different then what the client requested.<o:p></o:p>
You need to read what I wrote all over again. I never said I wanted to code exactly like asp. In fact, I hate using <% %> everyplace. I've also created multi layered applications that are currently being used to manage millions of dollars in transactions per month. You make a fair number of uneducated assumptions about my skill level. I guess you can't believe for one second that someone with over 10 years of hard core application development experience could possibly not completely love your .NET butt buddy.<o:p></o:p>

I was making a statement about how Microsoft tries to push off technology that is nothing short of a bloated fat pig. The cluster fuck of COM was invented by Microsoft was it not? I guess you then agree that Microsoft creates cluster fucks and then provides solutions to correct them, only to create other cluster fucks for them to fix later. <o:p></o:p>

Anyway, I'm sorry I hurt your feelings regarding .NET. I didn't realize you had an emotional connection to the anal cavity of Bill Gates.<o:p></o:p>

But the question remains...have you considered AJAX?

Jeff S · 2006-07-20 Reply Admin

Kev777:
You must be one of those stupid programmers that read the spec document and see something totally different then what the client requested.<o:p></o:p>
You need to read what I wrote all over again. I never said I wanted to code exactly like asp. In fact, I hate using <% %> everyplace. I've also created multi layered applications that are currently being used to manage millions of dollars in transactions per month. You make a fair number of uneducated assumptions about my skill level. I guess you can't believe for one second that someone with over 10 years of hard core application development experience could possibly not completely love your .NET butt buddy.<o:p></o:p>

I was making a statement about how Microsoft tries to push off technology that is nothing short of a bloated fat pig. The cluster fuck of COM was invented by Microsoft was it not? I guess you then agree that Microsoft creates cluster fucks and then provides solutions to correct them, only to create other cluster fucks for them to fix later. <o:p></o:p>

Anyway, I'm sorry I hurt your feelings regarding .NET. I didn't realize you had an emotional connection to the anal cavity of Bill Gates.<o:p></o:p>

Kevin -- I don't think he or me or anyone else has that emotional connection that you mention; the only emotion being displayed is your blind and ignorant hatred of Microsoft. Again, I can only suggest actually trying to learn ASP.NET and how to use it properly before you criticize a product that you clearly have demonstrated little knowledge for. I'm sure you are a smart guy and a great programmer, but anyone reading any of your comments can clearly see that you know very little about ASP.NET. It's ok to criticize things, but it is really annoying when it is done out of ignorance and it really doesn't reflect well on you.

Richard Nixon · 2006-07-20 Reply Admin

Jeff S:
Kev777:

Much vulgarity and cursing
I'm sure you are a smart guy and a great programmer,

He makes a post like that and you think he's a smart guy? Come on...

sincerely,
Richard Nixon

2006-07-20 Reply Admin

Kev777:
the real wtf is why the F is there an office in the Republic of Elbonia?

Umm...because the Elbonians will work for $2.23/hr and never complain about reading slashdot/digg/WTF on a slow internet connenction?

2006-07-20 Reply Admin

KoFFie seems to be the only one who noticed that a decent proxy webserver with negative caching should essentially solve the problem. I hereby declare the WTF to be that Brian chose terminal services instead.

2006-07-20 Reply Admin

Sounds like Brian's the one at fault here for not researching his own requirements and/or not testing the system enough in his own real-world locations. Can't blame the CMS maker. I doubt one of the features touted of the sytem was, "Works perfectly with spotty connections."

Not to say the system might have been able to be designed/built better, but the whole thing really points back to Brian. He's the one that chose to implement the system, not the CMS company. He's only got himself to say WTF to, IMO.

2006-07-20 Reply Admin

Ed wrote the following post at 07-20-2006 9:40 AM:

[image] Kev777:

the real wtf is why the F is there an office in the Republic of Elbonia?

Umm...because the Elbonians will work for $2.23/hr and never complain about reading slashdot/digg/WTF on a slow internet connenction?

Actually, the Elbonians recently overthrew their oppressive old-school leaders in a velvet revolution, and embraced democracy and the free market. They privatized their telecom industry and leapfrogged to the latest technology; everyone has broadband at home and they press a button on their cell phone to make a payment when getting a Coke from a vending machine. The problem is that the parent company in the US won't pay for a T1 connection at the branch office because they can't afford it.

Kinda like many offices in the US: the internet connection at home is faster than the internet connection at the office.

The Elbonians are just resigned to this situation and wait for the day that their home-grown entreprenneurs can take over the companies which run branch offices in their country.

makomk · 2006-07-20 Reply Admin

Anonymous:
The only WTF here is that the system administrator couldn't figure out how to add gzip compression to the web server.

Yes, AJAX is pretty damn verbose (the same problem you'll encounter with SOAP) but there are things you can do to help remedy the situation. It doesn't take a genius to realize the amount of repeating data in XML lends itself very well to compression. Every major browser supports it with zero configuration.

We achieve about 95-98% compression ratio with XML from our AJAX and SOAP calls. That means that 600k is only about 30k transferred between the client and the server.

Unfortunately, gzip compression doesn't compress the HTTP headers - and judging from the general WTFness and the amount of 304s per request, I'd say they could well make up a large fraction of the data transferred...

2006-07-20 Reply Admin

Ok, ok!
gzip, http headers, Ajax (isn't AJAX!) and lot o' names and technologies.
Just info, huh?
We 'no that a single page being rendered in about a megabyte is quite huge 'n' slow, right?
But... WTF Web 2.0 was taken as the villain?
SOAP, XML, even Ajax... Just bits and bits (tons of 'em), going in and out, in a (almost) high speed...
Is the Ajax's verbosity or the XML's 'grandiosity' the gap of this matter?

But 600k, representing ONE HTML page, is an issue to worry about!

Regards,

Prof Paulo Maximo, MSc

2006-07-20 Reply Admin

Did you try to use HTTP compression. I find that most people over look this. It might not have been adiquate, but you never know. Most Webservers support this, almost all browsers do; and you can usually just enable it or buy a cheap plug-in.

2006-07-20 Reply Admin

while i will admit asp.net is more "robust" what you gain in robustness, you pay for in efficiency. asp.net is expensive with respect to memory usage and execution time, which is due in large part to a longer code path. For Web-based applications, these limitations can be a serious problem, because on the Web, your application is likely to scale to thousands and thousands of users per second. Memory usage can also become an issue on your Web server.

As far as security asp.net officially requires that you use IIS. Unfortunately, IIS has a long history of vulnerabilities, which makes many administrators reluctant to deploy it to handle their web site. Whether these weaknesses are because of Microsoft's ineptness or because IIS is a real red flag to hackers is irrelevant: Those systems have a history of being hacked and compromised. PHP runs on Apache, too, which is fast and open source and has a good security track record. Also, as I mentioned, Apache runs on many platforms.

But in all honesty the first point is what takes it all, if you expect to have a machine thats serving thousands of users per second. be prepared to have a machine/s that break the bank to run it...

2006-07-20 Reply Admin

Kev777:
Most of the new features that microsoft creates don't help programmers they help people who don't know how to program.

that has to be one of the most truthful statments ever made.

and have you noticed that alot of the people who have hopped on the asp bandwagon are the same people who bitch about the terrible comments/forum on this very site... maybe you guys should take a look at your address bar...

2006-07-21 Reply Admin

hello

2006-07-21 Reply Admin

I just want to jump on the AJAX bandwagon for a moment - responding to the freaks who bitch about the possibly of visitors using obscure browsers and disabling javascript.

I say that if you don't have javascript enabled, fuck off and go somewhere else - we don't want you as a customer. I feel the same way about people who use 800x600. Monitors are cheap. If you can't afford a decent monitor then you probably don't have much money to spend on e-commerce and we don't need you.

So let's rather cripple our apps for the minority. That is forward-thinking.

This is the 21st century - get a life.

GoatCheez · 2006-07-21 Reply Admin

Anonymous:
I just want to jump on the AJAX bandwagon for a moment - responding to the freaks who bitch about the possibly of visitors using obscure browsers and disabling javascript.

I say that if you don't have javascript enabled, fuck off and go somewhere else - we don't want you as a customer. I feel the same way about people who use 800x600. Monitors are cheap. If you can't afford a decent monitor then you probably don't have much money to spend on e-commerce and we don't need you.

So let's rather cripple our apps for the minority. That is forward-thinking.

This is the 21st century - get a life.

If your buisness and site is all about e-commerce, then maybe you can get away with it. It is somewhat logical to assume that if someone doesn't have a monitor that can do 1024x768, as well as have a browser supporting the latest technology, then they probably won't be able to buy anything on your site that sells products starting at $5000. Realize though, that it's not about crippling your application. You should be able to provide a fully featured "web-application" to people that have a compatible browser and configuration, as well as provide at least something that doesn't give errors or look horrible for people that aren't as capable. All of this should also be able to be done without two seperate copies of everything. Remember that most of the top website STILL provide a text-only interface, and not just because they feel like it.

ammoQ · 2006-07-24 Reply Admin

GoatCheez:

If your buisness and site is all about e-commerce, then maybe you can get away with it. It is somewhat logical to assume that if someone doesn't have a monitor that can do 1024x768, as well as have a browser supporting the latest technology, then they probably won't be able to buy anything on your site that sells products starting at $5000.

This someone might be using her new $1000 smartphone with an 800x600 display and a browser that doesn't support all the latest and greatest technology. Are you sure you want to scare her away?

2006-07-24 Reply Admin

Anonymous:
As far as security asp.net officially requires that you use IIS. Unfortunately, IIS has a long history of vulnerabilities, which makes many administrators reluctant to deploy it to handle their web site.

These administrators should do some research. IIS 6.0 (Windows Server 2003) has had a sum total of three vulnerabilities in three years. IIS 5.0 has had 10, but if you were going to do a new deployment, you should use Windows Server 2003: Windows 2000 is now out of mainstream support.

In comparison, Apache 2.0.x has had 28.

In both cases, errors by the web site programmer are more likely to lead to vulnerabilities (SQL injection, for example).

As for open source, to me that means 'not tested'.

GoatCheez · 2006-07-24 Reply Admin

ammoQ:
GoatCheez:

If your buisness and site is all about e-commerce, then maybe you can get away with it. It is somewhat logical to assume that if someone doesn't have a monitor that can do 1024x768, as well as have a browser supporting the latest technology, then they probably won't be able to buy anything on your site that sells products starting at $5000.

This someone might be using her new $1000 smartphone with an 800x600 display and a browser that doesn't support all the latest and greatest technology. Are you sure you want to scare her away?

She wouldn't be using that smart phone to do buisness shopping. She might use it to find movie showtimes, to lookup the definition of some word, or to check e-mail, but I highly doubt she would be using it to shop for e-commerce packages. Although she probably should. A good e-commerce package should scale to 800x600 ;-P

ammoQ · 2006-07-24 Reply Admin

GoatCheez:

She wouldn't be using that smart phone to do buisness shopping. She might use it to find movie showtimes, to lookup the definition of some word, or to check e-mail, but I highly doubt she would be using it to shop for e-commerce packages. Although she probably should. A good e-commerce package should scale to 800x600 ;-P

If she is a manager who is on the road all day long, she probably also uses it for shopping. Anyway, it's always dangerous to assume anything about the equipment the customers use. Such assumptions are self-fullfilling prophecies, since people with non-compliant equipment cannot become customers as they are effectively locked out.

GoatCheez · 2006-07-24 Reply Admin

ammoQ:
GoatCheez:

She wouldn't be using that smart phone to do buisness shopping. She might use it to find movie showtimes, to lookup the definition of some word, or to check e-mail, but I highly doubt she would be using it to shop for e-commerce packages. Although she probably should. A good e-commerce package should scale to 800x600 ;-P

If she is a manager who is on the road all day long, she probably also uses it for shopping. Anyway, it's always dangerous to assume anything about the equipment the customers use. Such assumptions are self-fullfilling prophecies, since people with non-compliant equipment cannot become customers as they are effectively locked out.

Yeah, I see your point. Frankly, I am still a firm believer that all sites should still have a text-only alternative.

Jeff S · 2006-07-25 Reply Admin

Anonymous:
Anonymous:
Anonymous:
As far as security asp.net officially requires that you use IIS. Unfortunately, IIS has a long history of vulnerabilities, which makes many administrators reluctant to deploy it to handle their web site.

These administrators should do some research. IIS 6.0 (Windows Server 2003) has had a sum total of three vulnerabilities in three years. IIS 5.0 has had 10, but if you were going to do a new deployment, you should use Windows Server 2003: Windows 2000 is now out of mainstream support.

In comparison, Apache 2.0.x has had 28.

In both cases, errors by the web site programmer are more likely to lead to vulnerabilities (SQL injection, for example).

As for open source, to me that means 'not tested'.

Systems of balences fools its not a diffrence of more or less, its a diffrence of severity lets have a look at some graphs

IIS
   Ver6
      Criticality
      Impact
   Ver5
      Criticality
      Impact

Apache 2.0.x
      Criticality
      Impact

Ill take a ddos over a system access any day

Not to mention 5 of the "vunerabilites" for apache required you to be sitting at the terminal to do it
more info at http://secunia.com wich im sure is where you got your info as well, but you fail to see past your love for Mr. Gates

Do you have any idea how to read the graphs that you are linking to? Why would you purposely link to data that completely disagrees with your statements? Weird.

It is a shame that you fail to see past your hate for Mr. Gates. Both emotions equally affect one's viewpoint towards the topic, wouldn't you agree? The funny thing is, no one is stating any "love" for Bill G, but one person is clearly stating their "hatred", so I think we can all agree on which viewpoints are more valid and unbiased than others.

2006-07-25 Reply Admin

How are you interpreting the above graphs Jeff... I get the same vibe from the graphs as the guy who posted them except IIS 6 only has 3 and thats not bad at all... Its the perpetual upgrade costs that scare me away from IIS ASP I dont have to pay a cent for debian, apache and php. Not to mention i havent upgraded the hardware in my web server in 6 years (and even then it was far from top of the line) and the last upgrade was a HD

Jeff S · 2006-07-25 Reply Admin

Anonymous:
How are you interpreting the above graphs Jeff... I get the same vibe from the graphs as the guy who posted them except IIS 6 only has 3 and thats not bad at all... Its the perpetual upgrade costs that scare me away from IIS ASP I dont have to pay a cent for debian, apache and php. Not to mention i havent upgraded the hardware in my web server in 6 years (and even then it was far from top of the line) and the last upgrade was a HD

Exactly. ... based on those graphs, IIS 6.0 is much more secure than Apache.

2006-07-26 Reply Admin

ohh then perhaps we should point out apache 2.22 has 1?

For christ sake, WHO CARES chose what you want for the reasons you want, if it works for you it works for you and thats all you should care about...

2006-07-26 Reply Admin

Bus Raker:
It's pretty obvious the company screwed up by not including in the requirements that it must be accessibile over a dial-up.

They probably didn't want to admit to the vendor that they were using dial-up, because it would have made the company look unprofessional.

Yes, managers think like that.

2006-07-26 Reply Admin

Anonymous:
Nobody's forcing you to use a GUI with all the latest apps. If you want, you can still do everything on the command line in Linux but one is wise to consider the TOTAL cost of ownership and not just the upfront costs.

I 'll keep that in mind when some lame firm has a website that only opens on MS IE with Xhtml, requiring do I know which updates, and don't forget macromedia flash and quicktime and windows mediaplayer, which are all free to download, as usual.

I still remember people making fun of Jscript and Javascript, because it was too laggy and sandbox-like, and php was sooooo-much better, especially with mysql and database-functionality.

I expect people to start using frames again, only under some new nifty three letterword, WTF's maybe?
Wuzzy Telnet Frames.

craptastic (= captcha)

2007-01-08 Reply Admin

NEEDS INTELIGENT CACHING PROXY.

Is simplest fix, really. Lower bandwidth use than terminal servers, probably with less security issues as well.

2007-06-01 Reply Admin

Jimmie Jay:
The real WTF here is that someone worked AJAX into the discussion. If you re-read the original post, there's no mention of it. Stay on topic!P.S. If working with AJAX makes you feel hardcore, then I feel sorry for you. That's just sad.

A dynamically loading JS script -IS- AJAX! How is this 'working AJAX into the discussion'?

By the way, this is my first reply but I just had to comment on your stupidity.

2017-09-27 Reply Admin

Hello from the distant future of 2017, where every page load is at least a meg.

2022-12-08

Comment held for moderation.

2024-03-14 Reply Admin

Hey everyone! I've just stumbled upon an amazing website that's all about crypto markets. If you're keen on exploring different cryptocurrency exchanges, this might be the ideal spot for you!

The site (https://cryptoairdrops.ru/) offers detailed reviews of numerous crypto exchanges, including fees, security measures, available cryptocurrencies, and user experience. Whether you're a beginner just starting out or an experienced trader, there's something for everyone.

What I found particularly useful was their comparison tool, which made it super easy to evaluate different exchanges and find the one that best fits my needs. They also cover the latest developments in the crypto world, which keeps you up-to-date on all the important news.

If you're interested in exploring different cryptocurrency exchanges, I highly recommend checking this site out. It's an invaluable resource that can help you make informed decisions in the ever-changing world of cryptocurrency.

Let's make the most of this resource and share our experiences! Would love to hear your thoughts and experiences with different exchanges as well.

Incompatible with Web 2.0

Leave a comment on “Incompatible with Web 2.0”