Re: [PLUG] PLUG Website Maintenence

[Fred K Ollinger <follinge@sas.upenn.edu>]

> Arthur S. Alexion wrote:
>  > I think a write once, present how you want it solution makes a
> > whole lot of sense.
>
> How would this be done? Redirecting people automatically depending on
> which browser they were using? Or is it user-customizable (say using
> cookies)?

Didn't someone all ready say why this is a bad idea? Why code to each and
every browser or put up a nasty link telling people to go away until they
can get a newer browser? HTML is designed to degrade gracefully when the
standards are adhered to. This is a PLUG mailing list so
I think that linux should be the target audience. Some of us use lynx some
of us use dillo.

>  > I don't understand the resistance.

As most people seem to be happy w/ the website (hence the resistence) I
think that it's incumbent on those who wish to make changes to prove why
this is overwhelmingly beneficial. Otherwise, stick to what's there,
adding to it, instead of pulling a major overhaul. What's the motivation
behind this overhaul, anyway? I'm lost at why this is such a big deal.
It's not a rewrite which was called for, but "maintenance". Maintenance
implies that things are left pretty much as they are, fixing things that
really need to be fixed.

> Two separate issues here:
> 1. Should we use a CMS?
> I think there are no serious objections to this, if the maintainers are
> willing to deal with the overhead.

I'm still befuddled as to why cvs is so bad.

cvs update

Now you are prefectly in synch w/ the website. Pretty painless.

Make a change and do:

cvs commit

you just backed up the old changes and applied your new changes to the
website. Also, cvs is designed to handle conflicts, but I don't see how
there could be that many during a "maintenance" job. There aren't going to
be hundreds of people hacking changes on overlapping files.

> 2. Should our site be more graphical than it is?
> This is the wide open question. Ideally, it could be graphical and
> degrade gracefully for less bloated ;) browsers.

Why is this an ideal? Isn't this a website that gives information,
primarily? I think being easily navigable, quickly downloadable, and
universally viewable are the highest goals. They have little to do w/
graphics. I'm not the only one who is saying this, either.

>
> All right, who really uses lynx here as their primary browser? I jump on

Me. I said that before.

Everything works great as it is. There's no reason to change everything
around. Many people have stated as much. Why does this need to be a reason
to bash the lynx users? Maybe better spend time on proving why the site
needs to be lynx incompatible first.

Fred

_________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group        --       http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion  --   http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug