| |
Quick bits #4 |
| |
This is a long thread. Click here to view the threaded list. |
| |
|
Rob Kendrick |
Message #88802, posted at 14:40, 9/7/2001 |
| Unregistered user
|
Ick, SSI :) |
| |
 [ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Michael Gerbracht |
Message #88803, posted at 14:48, 9/7/2001, in reply to message #88802 |
| Unregistered user
|
2 Things: - IIRC the Viewfinder card has been reduced from 800 to 650 guilders (unlimited). And additionaly it has been reduced by 10% for July and August. - There seems to be an HTML error (maybe your browser doesn`t show): You can see the comment after the link to the POSum website. I think there is a space missing between HTML tag and comment. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Michael Stubbs |
Message #88804, posted at 15:08, 9/7/2001, in reply to message #88803 |
| Unregistered user
|
Yes, ViewFinder is more of a viable option now. Very nice price indeed :) Hmm, I see a certain company has been throwing its weight around again. Not the best way to mend an already poor reputation for tactics. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Theo Markettos |
Message #88805, posted at 15:30, 9/7/2001, in reply to message #88804 |
| Unregistered user
|
I think showing that comment was deliberate :-) |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew Veitch |
Message #88806, posted at 17:22, 9/7/2001, in reply to message #88805 |
| Unregistered user
|
Interesting your comment about Microdigital's attitude to certain individuals - given that the individual in question made a defamatory comment against them (the producers of the Mico), I think their response is quite reasonable, especially waiving their claim for damages in favour of a donation to charity. Maybe (one can live in hope) this might act as a learning point for people who are quick to throw defamatory statements around on Usenet. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard Walker |
Message #88807, posted at 17:25, 9/7/2001, in reply to message #88806 |
| Unregistered user
|
Andrew, I agree with you. I don't see what the iconbar.com can have against MicroDigital, nor how the said newsposting could relate to iconbar.com not wishing to post a full Mico-offer review. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Michael Stubbs |
Message #88808, posted at 18:33, 9/7/2001, in reply to message #88807 |
| Unregistered user
|
You can't say 'anything' against MicroDigital without them getting all shirty about it. Maybe in your case, Richard, you said something past the mark! However, I have yet to see it. Sounds interesting though :D You sound like an angel at the moment, though ;) |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Peter Price |
Message #88809, posted at 19:46, 9/7/2001, in reply to message #88808 |
| Unregistered user
|
Thanks for that Rich - yes Drobe is being reworked and will be with you very soon - watch this space! (BTW for those with a password, the new site can be played with at http://www.drobe.co.uk/beta/) As for MicroDigital, I can back up Rich's comments about the company's attitude. While I feel that saying too much about the emotional termoil they have dragged the Drobe Editors through recently, you can be assured that they won't be getting much news coverage on Drobe in the future... |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jon |
Message #88810, posted at 21:58, 9/7/2001, in reply to message #88809 |
| Unregistered user
|
You missed the bit I posted about Pineapples price reductions! |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
therodent |
Message #88811, posted at 21:59, 9/7/2001, in reply to message #88810 |
| Unregistered user
|
do you mean registered users with passwords can access the beta site? i couldn't with mine. keep it going, I'm beginning to miss my Drobe searchbar! |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
therodent |
Message #88812, posted at 22:01, 9/7/2001, in reply to message #88811 |
| Unregistered user
|
More price reductions? Great! I just need to persuade dad to get a viewfinder.... |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Stephen |
Message #88813, posted at 23:12, 9/7/2001, in reply to message #88812 |
| Unregistered user
|
Don't forget, there is another news service - ANS (http://www.acornusers.org/ans) still going strong :) |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard Goodwin |
Message #88814, posted at 08:49, 10/7/2001, in reply to message #88813 |
| Unregistered user
|
Just to clarify, I'm not saying that Richard was right or wrong to say whatever he said about MD, because I didn't see what was written in the first instance. I'm just saying (as a personal opinion) that MD have been quite agressive in controlling its image and the way it's doing it is not winning them many friends. In all my time in Acorn/RISC OS community this is the first time I've seen anyone sued into submission for posting something to the newsgroups (if I read the retraction right), no matter how much they slag someone off, and that in itself is worthy of note. Hence, that particular link. Many of you are not privy to what goes on behind the scenes of a news service, even one run by enthusiasts like The Icon Bar. I don't make it a habit of excluding companies that I don't agree with - in the past I've had some great arguments with the head of a certain games company because we both care about the RISC OS community, but at the end of the day we're still friendly. However, recent dealings that I and others have had with MD make it quite frankly not worth the hassle of writing small updates on them. If they ever get round to releasing their new computer then I'll report on it. Until then... well, I didn't see the point in excluding APDL just because they're selling a product from a company I have issues with. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard Goodwin |
Message #88815, posted at 08:52, 10/7/2001, in reply to message #88814 |
| Unregistered user
|
BTW, the fake SSI is a joke, it's not actually a valid syntax. And the site's run on PHP :) |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Rob Kendrick |
Message #88816, posted at 18:41, 10/7/2001, in reply to message #88815 |
| Unregistered user
|
Ick, PHP. :) |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Tim Fountain |
Message #88817, posted at 20:49, 10/7/2001, in reply to message #88816 |
| Unregistered user
|
What's icky about PHP? :P |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Paul Biggs |
Message #88818, posted at 21:53, 10/7/2001, in reply to message #88817 |
| Unregistered user
|
Microdigital as a commercial enterprise are entirely justified in seeking to defend themselves from libellous comments, especially when said comments could have an adverse effect on their business. If anyone used the same term in describing me I wouldn't reach for my lawyers, I'd reach for my baseball bat!
Of course it all depends on how you phrase things, I am justified in saying that some people believe that MD are "a bunch of crooks" as I have evidence to support this. I would not describe them in such terms myself as I have no grounds for doing so.
Until somebody digs up evidence to the contrary I shall support MD in their efforts to bring Omega to market. They are at least trying to do something practical to address the problems in this market. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Michael Stubbs |
Message #88819, posted at 00:10, 11/7/2001, in reply to message #88818 |
| Unregistered user
|
Microdigital don't like any sort of comments that aren't full of praise for them. Maybe if they delivered on their promises, they'd suffer less bad publicity.
Example: it was months and months ago (Christmas?) when Omega was supposed to ship. We then hear it is a chip supply problem. However, only the other week we hear that they are about to work on the 26bit/32bit switching thingy, with the comments that Dave P has done similar stuff before so it shouldn't be much of a problem. That doesn't *appear* to be very honest, does it. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Gerph |
Message #88820, posted at 00:37, 11/7/2001, in reply to message #88819 |
| Unregistered user
|
I've got to say that I do agree with Michard and Richard Goodwin, here. There's been a lot of fuss kicked up on usenet about what was alledgedly said. Whilst I never saw the original posting, in my experience I would say that I believe Microdigital to have been quite litigous when anything has been said about them that isn't totally favourable. Such as, for example, reporting the truth about things. Or opinions.
And whilst I've an amount of faith that they will bring Omega out in the coming century, I believe that their track record to date has been less than startling.
I found it amusing that about the only part of the article in question that is ever cited is that 'a bunch of crooks' section. And it's certainly been more of a detriment to MD to have /that/ continually cited in connection with them, even if it's not true.
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Rob Kendrick |
Message #88821, posted at 09:16, 11/7/2001, in reply to message #88820 |
| Unregistered user
|
Well, all IMHO of course, PHP is large, bloaty, ugly in the design and implementation sense, has a badly thought out syntax, leaks memory like a sieve, and grinds to an absolute halt if you want to use it anywhere near a multi-threaded environment due to the sea of mutexes it has. Oh, and it's deadly slow and damages the cachability of pages. :) |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Geoff Youngs |
Message #88822, posted at 13:52, 11/7/2001, in reply to message #88821 |
| Unregistered user
|
Re: PHP damaging cacheability - It's upto the website designer to decide if/when the content expires. It doesn't damage cacheability unless the author is being lazy/naughty/incompetant.
I'm not surprised that MD are receiving so much flack for "protecting" their name - we're not used to RISC OS companies who care about image :P
It could open interesting funding and revenue possibilities for new RISC OS developments - I mean if ROL sued all the people making potentially libellous comments about them Re: Select Scheme, 32bit RISC OS etc, they could probably afford to fund all remaining development work to make RISC OS 32bit ready, convert existing software and reduce the price at the end of it. Why ever didn't they think of it before? ;) |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew Weston |
Message #88823, posted at 14:14, 11/7/2001, in reply to message #88822 |
| Unregistered user
|
Yes, lets bring a litigation culture to the RISC OS community and crush open and honest discussion and debate to its knees. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Tim Fountain |
Message #88824, posted at 14:21, 11/7/2001, in reply to message #88823 |
| Unregistered user
|
I can't comment on the performance issues, but I have no problem with PHP's syntax. I found the language very easy to pickup. Cacheability as Geoff said is up to the site author really. Dynamically generated pages can be cached just the same as static HTML pages - it's only when the author needs the pages to be up-to-date that the "please don't cache this" tags start to come into play. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Matthew Somerville |
Message #88825, posted at 14:58, 11/7/2001, in reply to message #88824 |
| Unregistered user
|
Sorry, but PHP by default is completely uncacheable (doing it properly, not putting Expires tags in the HTML source, which is useless for all the proxies in the world) unless a) the cacheing program isn't working properly; or b) the PHP writer personally makes PHP output the right HTTP headers to let it be cacheable (I don't think the Iconbar does).
Please see http://www.mnot.net/cache_docs/ for much more information about cacheing. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Geoff Youngs |
Message #88826, posted at 15:27, 11/7/2001, in reply to message #88825 |
| Unregistered user
|
IMHO, doing it "properly" involves explicitly stating the last modification time, the expiry time and the cacheability of any pages, rather than letting a webserver guess.
The fact that PHP doesn't act as though it is serving static content unless it is overridden is a Good Thing™ - most PHP sites are non-static. The fact that lazy programmers don't bother to change this behaviour when appropriate is a Bad Thing™ but I suspect that there are more appropriate places to discuss the relative merits of PHP :)
(Random comment to make this posting relavant to the news item)
I wonder if APDL would supply their 399 machine with more memory instead of the HD? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Tim Fountain |
Message #88827, posted at 16:37, 11/7/2001, in reply to message #88826 |
| Unregistered user
|
You learn something everyday. So presumably HTML files parsed for PHP code would also not be cached? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Geoff Youngs |
Message #88828, posted at 19:49, 11/7/2001, in reply to message #88827 |
| Unregistered user
|
Sample output header:
HTTP/1.0 200 OK
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 19:10:32 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.20 (Unix) PHP/4.0.5
X-Powered-By: PHP/4.0.5
Content-Type: text/html
Many cache's rely on sending HEAD requests and then comparing the Last-Modified header, but PHP doesn't set this automatically, so the cache will not bother to store the file.
A webserver will read the last modified date for a file and set it in the header, e.g.
HTTP/1.0 200 OK
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 20:09:26 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.20 (Unix) PHP/4.0.5
Last-Modified: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 08:24:48 GMT
ETag: "ede-ed-3b4c0d50"
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Length: 237
The ETag (usually a hashed key containing file size and modification time info) is unique to the particular version of the file being served. If the ETag changes, then the file has changed (this being checked in preference to the date).
But if I go on any longer, this'll probably end up a comms section article in the wrong place :) |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Rob Kendrick |
Message #88829, posted at 21:17, 11/7/2001, in reply to message #88828 |
| Unregistered user
|
Actually, the E-Tag is only guarenteed (well, almost) to be different per entity (which is where the E comes from) rather than a revision of an entity. I also believe that Apache throws the inode numbers in to the mix, also. Zeus and Netscape don't add E-Tags by default, because there's no mathematically provable way of calculating unique ones, and therefor the possibility of serving the wrong version of a file arises. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Paul Biggs |
Message #88830, posted at 22:10, 11/7/2001, in reply to message #88829 |
| Unregistered user
|
Michael Stubbs
01:10, 11/7/2001 Microdigital don't like any sort of comments that aren't full of praise for them. Maybe if they delivered on their promises, they'd suffer less bad publicity.
-------------------------------------------
There is a difference between bad publicity and libel. This is surely obvious, you can easily make negative comments about MD without making claims that cannot be substantiated.
MDs attitude to comments is irrelevant to the point, libel is libel.Discussions should have a basis in fact then people can make an informed choice. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Paul Biggs |
Message #88831, posted at 22:17, 11/7/2001, in reply to message #88830 |
| Unregistered user
|
Gerph
01:37, 11/7/2001
.... Whilst I never saw the original posting, in my experience I would say that I believe Microdigital to have been quite litigous when anything has been said about them that isn't totally favourable. Such as, for example, reporting the truth about things. Or opinions.
--------------------------------------
How can they be litigous when people simply report the truth?
Do you have any evidence to back this up?
I have no problem whatsoever with people criticising MD, there are p[enty of grounds for doing so, but it must be done in a legal manner. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
| Pages (2): 1
> >|
|
