SourceForge: testing? no testing! testing! no! yes!



  • So, I open up SourceForge an notice the home URL is http://sourceforge.net/?testing=1  -- that sounds like I'm taking part in a beta programme and since SF has been vaporware from day one anyway, I don't want that. So, let's set testing to "0". Wait, that's a fordward to  http://sourceforge.net/?testing=0&testing=1 ... Now here's what I wound up with:

     http://sourceforge.net/?testing=1&testing=1&testing=1&testing=1&testing=1&testing=1&testing=1&testing=1&testing=1&testing=1&testing=1&testing=1&testing=1&testing=1&testing=1&testing=1&testing=1&testing=1&testing=1&testing=1&testing=1&testing=1&testing=1&testing=1&testing=0



  • @ann.t.clockwise said:

    ... and since SF has been vaporware from day one anyway, I don't want that.

     

    I'm confused--how exactly is SourceForge vaporware?



  • At first I though "I'm never going to fall for yet another rick roll again" but you have a trusting user name so I had to try the link.

    For me - I don't get the testing=1 when I just go to http://sourceforge.net BUT I did notice that there was a banner ad that appears all of a sudden if I do a testing=1  Work blocks most ads from at the firewall, and it's pretty good, so it's probably to test using some new ad server.



  • I didn't get forwarded at all.  It appears the get var isn't even used.  Enjoy your mug.

     

    (TRWTF is that the SF homepage has 12 different ad networks trying to load JS.) 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    I didn't get forwarded at all.  It appears the get var isn't even used.  Enjoy your mug.

     

    (TRWTF is that the SF homepage has 12 different ad networks trying to load JS.) 


     

      I guess the new fad to defeat NoScript is to load javascript from so many locations that the selection menu scrolls off the screen and is unusable. It's just crazy enough to work!

     Also, TRWTF is that the forum requires javascript enabled to log in. YOU DON'T NEED JAVASCRIPT TO DO FORM.SUBMIT!!!! 

     Third site today to require that too...sigh.



  • @Nether said:

     Third site today to require that too...sigh.
     

    Might be time to get a browser with JavaScript then huh?



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @Nether said:

     Third site today to require that too...sigh.
     

    Might be time to get a browser with JavaScript then huh?


    Yeah, it's not wise to use Internet Explorer 3 nowadays. Think of all the exploits!

    </sarcasm> Would this crappy forum software even load on IE3? I'm on Vista (yes yes, TRWTF) so can't try it I believe.


  • @dtech said:

    I'm on Vista (yes yes, TRWTF)

    No! Now MPS will go on a tirade how your computer is as powerful as a lawn mower! You have doomed us all!



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @Nether said:

     Third site today to require that too...sigh.
     

    Might be time to get a browser with JavaScript then huh?

    I never understand people who get so pissy about sites that require javascript.  As a developer, I usually think it's a tad stupid when a site uses JS for stuff that doesn't need it, but it doesn't really fill me with rage.  And I certainly don't get the whole "the site should work perfectly without JS and scripting should only be used to enhance" mindset.  I could maybe see that if you are running an online store where maximum compatibility was profitable or if you have some simple source of data like a blog that people don't need to interact with.  I'm not going to design my web apps so they work without client-side scripting, though, that's just idiotic.

     

    However, I do use NoScript religiously, but mostly just because it blocks annoying ads, insecure scripts and those god-awful "trick" pages that use JS to move the window all over and screw up the cursor. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    I never understand people who get so pissy about sites that require javascript.  As a developer, I usually think it's a tad stupid when a site uses JS for stuff that doesn't need it, but it doesn't really fill me with rage.  And I certainly don't get the whole "the site should work perfectly without JS and scripting should only be used to enhance" mindset. 

    ...snip 

     

    I only get pissy when trivial HTML functionality is reduplicated with javascript, and that's the only purpose of it on the site. I sure see a lot of it too. And it does fill me with rage. MAD KLINGON RAGE!!
     

    I'm beginning to think the purpose is deliberate and nefarious: force you to turn javascript on for the site so their ads can load and do all sorts of whiz-bang neato stuff like fly ads around the screen, wreck all your context menus, turn your mouse cursor into two dogs humping, and finish it off by giving you a seizure.



  • @Nether said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    I never understand people who get so pissy about sites that require javascript.  As a developer, I usually think it's a tad stupid when a site uses JS for stuff that doesn't need it, but it doesn't really fill me with rage.  And I certainly don't get the whole "the site should work perfectly without JS and scripting should only be used to enhance" mindset. 

    ...snip 

     

    I only get pissy when trivial HTML functionality is reduplicated with javascript, and that's the only purpose of it on the site. I sure see a lot of it too. And it does fill me with rage. MAD KLINGON RAGE!!
     

    I'm beginning to think the purpose is deliberate and nefarious: force you to turn javascript on for the site so their ads can load and do all sorts of whiz-bang neato stuff like fly ads around the screen, wreck all your context menus, turn your mouse cursor into two dogs humping, and finish it off by giving you a seizure.

     

    It may also be because the admin portion of the site requires javascript and stopping a user at the login page saves a headache. 



  • @Soviut said:

    It may also be because the admin portion of the site requires javascript and stopping a user at the login page saves a headache. 

    It could be, but there are more elegant ways to handle this (not reduplicating functionality for luddites, but just displaying an error message).  In this day and age, asking someone to have Javascript is like asking them to have a monitor that supports a resolution higher than 640x680 @ 8-bit. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Soviut said:

    It may also be because the admin portion of the site requires javascript and stopping a user at the login page saves a headache. 

    It could be, but there are more elegant ways to handle this (not reduplicating functionality for luddites, but just displaying an error message).  In this day and age, asking someone to have Javascript is like asking them to have a monitor that supports a resolution higher than 640x680 @ 8-bit. 


    Don't make fun of me old 12" CRT! It's still very usefull as a server-monitor!



  • @Lingerance said:

    @dtech said:
    I'm on Vista (yes yes, TRWTF)

    No! Now MPS will go on a tirade how your computer is as powerful as a lawn mower! You have doomed us all!

    TBH had I a computer with the power of a lawn mower, I'd use it to slice limbs off of people who annoyed me on the internet. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    In this day and age, asking someone to have Javascript is like asking them to have a monitor that supports a resolution higher than 640x680 @ 8-bit.

    I take it you don't give a shit about cell phones or PDAs then?



    If your site doesn't work, whatever the reason, then you've just lost a user. People have very little patience and there's a lot of things that can go wrong.



  • @Cap'n Steve said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    In this day and age, asking someone to have Javascript is like asking them to have a monitor that supports a resolution higher than 640x680 @ 8-bit. 

    I take it you don't give a shit about cell phones or PDAs then?



    If your site doesn't work, whatever the reason, then you've just lost a user. People have very little patience and there's a lot of things that can go wrong.


    Don't they generally support some basic JS too?
    Or was it because of the resolution? You have CSS for that and most of them have some tweaks (image resizing, scrolling) so websites are displayed less bad.
    And besides, how many people actually browse with their cell phone? I think it's only really usable with things like PDA's and Smartphones. And how many people have such a thing? (and the iPhone doesn't count: that one acts just like a normal safari browser cmiiw)



  • As a developer, I usually think it's a tad stupid when a site uses JS for stuff that doesn't need it, but it doesn't really fill me with rage.

    Depends on the "stuff". The idiots who use JS to implement hyperlinks deserve to be tortured slowly to death in public.



  • @Iago said:

    Depends on the "stuff". The idiots who use JS to implement hyperlinks deserve to be tortured slowly to death in public.


    how about idiots who use JS to implement checkbox-based radio buttons? let's see what's the biggest JS abuse WTF we can find, that would be fun! just like a nuclear arms race!



  • @lanzz said:

    @Iago said:

    Depends on the "stuff". The idiots who use JS to implement hyperlinks deserve to be tortured slowly to death in public.


    how about idiots who use JS to implement checkbox-based radio buttons? let's see what's the biggest JS abuse WTF we can find, that would be fun! just like a nuclear arms race!

    What about using document.writeln to output the HTML to the webpage, I've seen that.



  • they're just hiding it from the search engines' spiders :)



  • they're just hiding it from the search engines' spiders :)

    Ah, because that matters.... How exactly?



  • @dtech said:

    they're just hiding it from the search engines' spiders :)

    Ah, because that matters.... How exactly?

    Are you serious?  Spiders are creepy.  I don't want them all over my website either!



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    In this day and age, asking someone to have Javascript is like asking them to have a monitor that supports a resolution higher than 640x680 @ 8-bit.

    But I don't want to let everyone use my JavaScript. Isn't it bad enough that I have to part with my cookies?



  • @belgariontheking said:

    @dtech said:

    they're just hiding it from the search engines' spiders :)

    Ah, because that matters.... How exactly?

    Are you serious?  Spiders are creepy.  I don't want them all over my website either!

    So? Use robots.txt
    I believe there's also an apache module that can block spiders that don't respect robots.txt



  • @dtech said:

    So? Use robots.txt
    I believe there's also an apache module that can block spiders that don't respect robots.txt

    You can't reason with the spiderbots.  This kind of attitude is going to get us all killed! 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @dtech said:

    So? Use robots.txt
    I believe there's also an apache module that can block spiders that don't respect robots.txt

    You can't reason with the spiderbots.  This kind of attitude is going to get us all killed! 


    Ok, now I know you're just messing with me.



  • @dtech said:

    Ok, now I know you're just messing with me.

    Unfortunately, no. I was in the spider wars of 1999. It wasn't pretty. They are smarter now. You've got to stay on your toes.



  • For some reason, nothing happened to me whe following the links. Were you using Internet Explorer (Exploder) or another browser? I'm using Opera.





  • @dtech said:

    still messing with me
     

    Are you retarded?

    Do you think anyone would record anything as horrific as the spider wars????



  • @dtech said:

    still messing with me

    You just don't get it, DO YOU?  You think the Google spider is just going to wrap up the truth in a neat little package and leave it on on your doorstep?  You're a traitor to your own race!  Somebody ought to belt you one!



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    It could be, but there are more elegant ways to handle this (not reduplicating functionality for luddites, but just displaying an error message).  In this day and age, asking someone to have Javascript is like asking them to have a monitor that supports a resolution higher than 640x680 @ 8-bit. 
     

    I disagree; what about things like phones or game consoles, where client-side scripting isn't implemented, or is sort of implemented, but doesn't actually work quite right?  

    Not all clients with crippled browsers are going to be luddites these days.



  • @untalented_newbie said:

    I disagree; what about things like phones or game consoles, where client-side scripting isn't implemented, or is sort of implemented, but doesn't actually work quite right?  

    Not all clients with crippled browsers are going to be luddites these days.

    I'll take Reading Comprehension for $400, Alex!

     

    Most sites are not meant for use in limited environments and many times will have their own custom sub-domain.  Bank of America does this for mobile access, many sites do the same for the iphone.  In fact, JS is the only way to develop apps for the iphone right now.  If you are making a site that needs to be viewable on a cellphone or game console then you need to make a custom sub-site or you need to avoid JS.  Most of the people here right web apps and could really give a shit if they work on a 120 x 200 px cell phone. 



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @dtech said:

    still messing with me
     

    Are you retarded?

    My shrink says I'm not. But he also says I'm not an airplane, so I'm not sure if I have to believe him.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @dtech said:

    still messing with me

    You just don't get it, DO YOU?  You think the Google spider is just going to wrap up the truth in a neat little package and leave it on on your doorstep?  You're a traitor to your own race!  Somebody ought to belt you one!


    Sorry, actually I got assimilated by the borg last year so I think I qualify more like a spider than as a human.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    You just don't get it, DO YOU?

    @dtech said:

    Filed under: doesn't it?), I'm not crazy, I'm an airplane, let's
    try to add different tags until the forum software breaks or the reply
    page becomes over 5MB (this one does help quite a bit
    obviously not, and you haven't been keeping up with other threads.  (fucking look up the "pick any price" motherfucker ... I can't do it right now.

    fuck 



  • @belgariontheking said:

    obviously not, and you haven't been keeping up with other threads.  (fucking look up the "pick any price" motherfucker ... I can't do it right now.

    fuck 

    No, that happens when you don't post in a thread after reading it :P<brr />
    Now catching up, quite entertaining. And all the while I was wondering how people managed to get their post ID in the tags of that post :P (without going crazy and doing it manually all the time)



  • @dtech:

    Are you still lost? Do you still not know? Have you ignored the SwampLing's prophecies?

    08:21 <@SwampLing> You shall never win the Spider Wars, we will return, we will come with vengeance, we will be victorious.

    Tch. You are the weakest link here. You will be the first when they return.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.