raylu

Yes, I linked to IfIsEvil. The fact that you need a page to document the horrible behavior because it's too late to fix it is a sign that something is very wrong with the config syntax.

Slightly off-topic, but I'm sad that people still use apt-get. aptitude is pretty much just better[1].

Also, if you're reading this article you probably don't need the slightly better performance/throughput of nginx. Nginx's configuration is just terrible. You can cause segfaults and all sorts of unexpected behavior with the If directive[2]. And who came up with the idea that rewrite[3] should sometimes redirect instead of rewriting?

If the replacement string begins with http:// then the client will be redirected, and any further rewrite directives are terminated.

Apache's configuration might be ugly and unwieldy and the community might be horribly infested, but at least the configuration makes sense. Lighttpd has none of the above problems, though.

[1] http://superuser.com/questions/93437/

[2] http://wiki.nginx.org/IfIsEvil

[3] http://wiki.nginx.org/HttpRewriteModule#rewrite

*TLS

Also, if I had a unicorn.

Does anyone love IE6? IE6 doesn't need love, it needs an axe.

I'm a little scared because... yes, that's sort of the whole point privacy advocates have been trying to make since I learned about the internet.

Wait, really? What are we including in "US newspaper industry?" Also, source?

While I agree with your point, I think you chose a poor example. In the last 10 years, URIs have changed to no longer refer to a path on the filesystem (yes yes, there are still a ton of old sites that do). A lot of new web frameworks start by regexing the daylights out of your URI and then running a function based on the match.

So you _do_ think that this is a valid, enforceable patent that represents how the system _should_ work?

Generally, you will have many copies of the public key on many servers.

How does storing the public key on the key bastion make it useless?

Hetzner is very open, transparent, and exact in their communication about this. I'm not a customer but I really like that they didn't try to dress anything up and were forthcoming with information.

Wait, this sounds way harder than the previous solution and entering the password over a remote IPMI console.

Click this patent[1]. Click "Original document". Tell me with a straight face that this is not patent trolling.

They patented "the ornamental design for an electronic device" which is a "thin rectangular cuboid with rounded corners"[2]. Tell me with a straight face this is the point of the patent system.

[1] http://worldwide.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=USD...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Samsung_Electroni...

Because if you sign into one, you expect to be signed into the others. If you're signed into all of them, you don't want to have to go to every Google service and log out of them.

There's a difference between being presented with stats and a company's homepage which is designed specifically to get you on board. It's not that I don't trust anything I hear, it's that I assume that a company is cherry-picking the best anecdotes.

But there are ways to present information that don't seem stupid. In particular, Basecamp is doing two things here that are misleading. First, they're not actually presenting data, they're presenting anecdote(s). Second, they're presenting them in a medium which should be viewed with extra skepticism.

I don't want to know what percentage of your paying customers like you (seriously? 3% of your customers use you but dislike your product?). What I want to know is what specifically you do and how you do it. Everything else is noise - and so the entire page is noise.

You find it hard to believe that people would pay for things without understanding what they are? I don't understand your premise.

Do you honestly think the Basecamp homepage communicates what it is? As stated earlier, the description could apply just as well to Dropbox, MediaWiki, or Eventbrite.

So you're saying Basecamp tries to accurately portray a neutral individual making a decision to use or not use their product rather than someone who's conclusion supports their agenda? That's beyond ridiculous.

That's one step beyond believing an "independent, third-party" report commissioned by McDonalds to show that their burgers make you healthy or cure cancer or whatever. Basecamp is not even pretending to be neutral.

While it may be the case that this version of their homepage has been tested to yield the best conversion, that seems completely irrelevant to my point: "the Basecamp homepage does a very poor job of communicating what it is".

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I really think Basecamp's homepage does a very poor job of communicating what it is.

> Last week 6,033 companies signed up for Basecamp to manage their projects. Today it’s your turn.

This is not a description of what Basecamp is.

> For all of my projects, I use Basecamp to keep track of every file, discussion, and event from beginning to end—all in one place.

This pretends to describe Basecamp but I could also use it as a description for Dropbox, MediaWiki, and Eventbrite (seriously, what the hell is an event?).

> 97% of customers recommend Basecamp.

COLOR ME IMPRESSED!

To quote myself: I want something concrete like "Basecamp lets you write words, puts checkboxes next to them, then moves them around randomly" (I'm not a fan of the product so my summarization may be biased).

So you embrace the idea of catering to and selling to idiots? What's the difference between what you do and what a conman does?

OK, it's rude. But Basecamp makes mistake #2 from the article, which is actually a mistake to call it a mistake.

Really? Testimonials? Out of all of the potential and made-up customer feedback, you've hand-selected a few data points to advertise on your homepage. Even if they were randomly selected (obviously not), reducing the data down to mere anecdotes is... stupid. Insanely stupid. I can't even wrap my head around why people would ever base a decision on that.

And so when it presents the thought bubble of the woman thinking about how she uses Basecamp and the fact that, of the extremely unbiased sample of people who use Basecamp (haha), 97% of them recommend Basecamp, I'm just unimpressed.

Here's my number one beef with homepages: I still don't what your product actually specifically does. I don't want generalizations like "manage your projects" and "keep track of every file, discussion, and event" (what the hell is an event?). I want something concrete like "Basecamp lets you write words, puts checkboxes next to them, then moves them around randomly" (I'm not a fan of the product so my summarization may be biased).

A company is not a "patent troll" unless the company makes a living only doing it. However, what Apple brought against Samsung and what is being described here is a pretty clear-cut case of patent trolling.

And that assumes you're willing to host with those providers, many of whom don't provide computing power. Also, the machine learning service you are using has to pay again for that bandwidth too and that cost gets passed along to you.

Storing terabytes is cheap. Terabytes of bandwidth is very very expensive.

Only if you want to commit on every iteration.

You mean websockets? Those try to support all the legacy of HTTP proxies (which I don't understand the point of).

So... instead of disagreeing out of hand, how did you overcome the fact that you had to pay for bandwidth between your terabytes of data and the computation centers?

> I usually hear nice things about Arch

That's because you're hanging out with too many Gentoo users.

The Arch Way[1] is stupid. Less broadly, it's a poor, knee-jerk reaction to Debian maintainers' over-zealous patching of software. Trusting upstream software maintainers to properly tag "stable" releases (which means something different for everyone) and to work with the rest of the software in the system is a mistake. Also, that's the entire point of package maintainers maintaining repositories.

But that's OK. Something went wrong (again)? Just downgrade[2]!

1. Hope that the old package is in your cache

2. Hope that some repo mirror is out of date

3. Profit???

[1]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way

[2]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Downgrading_Packages#Fi...

Well, specifically running only free software. While Ubuntu falls short of that goal, OS X is not even in the same league.