WOW.. TMI definatly. I think your missing the point, that it doesn't matter how much the world uses FF or IE, The point is these hacker/zealots/techies, are the ones whom use this plugin, so why would we change the look and feel of a plugin that is geared for us.
i personally dont care about your implementation of website server migration, yawn. that p0rn star analogy was a twist on an old saying, it wasn't literal. and you are wrong, if you were to go back and read how you lead us up to the weiner competition ytou were the first one to claim about your fame, and experience not us, in fact personally speaking i find it kinda brash for you to be talking to me and us like you are, like talking down. We aren't little kids, grandpa. You dont see me bragging or others bragging. We could brag we have the XP to back it up, but we dont, we are better then that, we are humble and dont need to self bloat our ego's cuz our work speaks for ourselves. You should stop trying to tell us what to do, and start listening to how it works, the scope of this app is beyond what concepts or ideas you have abotu whta a piece of software is or website. Maybe you could learn from some of us, lowly, in experienced fb dev and testers. BTW what was your recommendation to change the logo to??? kara Kirby wrote: > About 4 months ago, I migrated 50 to 60 websites over to that server. > Wallaceinfo.com is one of them. I set up the basic www headers for > all of them, but I usually only go back and add the root domain > headers only if someone asks me to. Like now. I added one for my own > site. > > I've often wanted to, but have never had the time to try and figure > out how doing that may affect google rankings? I do not know if > google is smart enough to realise that when they are looking at > "wallaceinfo.com", and "www.wallaceinfo.com", that they are seeing the > exact same physical server/site. I don't want to get penalised for > "double tapping" the system. Google webmaster tools allows me to set > a prefered primary domain, but, again, I really haven't taken time to > go learn all about how that works yet. > > The article you are mentioning below SEEMS to be saying what I just > said. FF is the primary domain of hackers/enthusiasts/zealots, IE is > the primary domain of corporate users, and is likely to remain so for > the forseeable future. FF "made gains"... but only in a general poll, > not a targeted analysis. Again, take that same poll in the Fortune > 100, and again in the Fortune 50,000 (work with me, ok?), and again at > a defCon convention, and compare. You will see a big difference in > the results, I'd bet. > > regarding: "But, seriously... is it more important what they recognize > the icon > as, upon first view, or the "value" they assign that image in > association with the product?" > > Yeah, that's why I suggested that he NOT change it. It was that bit > about "switching boats..." > > > As for the competition... I wonder how everyone else in the thread > feels about you calling them "porn stars". (big grin...) > Hell, given the crowd, they probably like to rockstar status. ;-) > > Anyway, you know there would be no way to validate the results. I > started in 1982 writing programs for a programmable calculator in some > weird version of basic. Since then, I've coded in COBOL, FORTRAN, > ADA, Pascal, Modula II, C, C++, and PowerBuilder, Access, Delphi (not > strictly being "languages" per se), and VB, VBS, HTML/ASP (gotta count > HTML in there, right?), C#, javascript, vbscript... > > ...and probably a few obscure languages that I've forgotten about by > now because I've spent all this time as a consultant/defense > contractor. > > Seriously, we'd all be working on some enormous PACBASE system, and > management would come in and call a meeting and say "We just landed a > huge ADA contract. We need you guys to be hardcore ADA programmers in > four months. And by golly, four months hence, we were all hardcore > ADA programmers." > > And if I could count all the lines of code I've generated with various > code generators (the aforementioned PACBASE, for example), I'd be a > code gazillionaire!) > > But you know there's no way to tally the results. > > Most of the code I've written I can't keep because it's either > classified, or because it's so old it was written on a system that > there was no way to get it off and take a copy of it anywhere (Sperry/ > UniSys System 11's, VAX/PDP, and Honeywell H6000 mainframes didn't > exactly have a lot of USB ports for my thumbdrive, if ya know what I > mean ;-), or I signed non-disclosure agreements that forbid me taking > a copy. > > Of the archive that I have, there's at least three and a half (3.5) > million lines of code spread among all the above languages. And > that's just the stuff I do have copies of. > > Then there's TSQL scripts, perl scripts, SSMS scripts, SSIS > scripts, ...countless DOS/Powershell batch files... Golly scripts > open up a whole new archive. ;-) > > I didn't turn this into a comparison of wiener size.... You did. But > that should give you an idea. I'm not going to let you see my dick. > But it's OK if you stare at my bulge for a while. (No lie: I'm > totally LOL here... hope that didn't offend you.) > > ;-) > > > > > > > > On Jul 16, 4:28 pm, Tripp Lilley <tripplil...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 13:02, Kirby<ki...@wallaceinfo.com> wrote: >> >>> My website has not been updated in AGES. >>> >> As an aside, you should consider adding a redirect >> fromhttp://wallaceinfo.com/tohttp://www.wallaceinfo.com/. >> >> >>> [...] from a purely business aspect, I really don't care >>> about support for FF. I spend my time doing other people's sites. >>> Most of them are not designed for firefox because outside the "geek >>> zone", no one uses it. That whole "nearly half" number being floated >>> around falls to pieces when you separate the wheat from the chaff: >>> take that same poll, exclusing hackers, hobbiests, enthusiasts and >>> linux zealots, and FF hardly makes a blip on the radar screen. Take >>> that same poll and include only Corporate and Industrial users, and >>> you find that Corporate America is decidedly IE and will be for a long >>> time. And that's where I work. Corporate Intranets. That means IE. >>> >> Not according to this summary of the April 2009 Forrester report on >> Browser adoption: >> >> http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Web-Services-Web-20-and-SOA/Microsoft-IE-Top... >> >> "Mozilla Firefox made gains, increasing its share from 16.9 percent in >> July to 18.2 percent in December. Google Chrome went from 1.6 percent >> in September, when it was released, to 2.0 percent by the end of the >> year. Apple Safari held relatively steady, both beginning and ending >> the six-month period with 1.4 percent market share, while Opera came >> in fifth with 0.2 percent of the market." >> >> (For $750 you can get the original Forrester report and draw your own >> conclusions:http://www.forrester.com/Research/Document/Excerpt/0,7211,47196,00.html >> ) >> >> I offer that, as another poster mentioned, you are better off writing >> to the standards, only accommodating specific browser quirks, as >> necessary, to satisfy your clients' needs. Even if your target market >> is predominantly IE, working from a standards base puts you in >> position to adapt quickly when your market changes (even if the change >> is only between IE versions.) >> >> >>> But one way or another, ROACH is exactly what 99 out of 100 people >>> are going think the instant they see your product. If you're OK with that, >>> then more power to ya. >>> >> <sarcasm nature="gentle"> >> By all means, get back to us as soon as you've posted the results of >> the study that yielded these numbers >> </sarcasm> >> >> :-) >> >> But, seriously... is it more important what they recognize the icon >> as, upon first view, or the "value" they assign that image in >> association with the product? Firebug is a debugging tool. Discarding >> the capital built up by the rich history of bug imagery in the >> branding of debugging tools may be counterproductive in the ongoing >> (passive) marketing of Firebug. One might make the argument that, the >> uglier the bug, the better. "My debugger kills nastier bugs than >> yours. Look, it says so, right here, on the icon." >> >> >>> I'd wager that I've written more code and implemented more systems >>> than everyone else in this thread combined. And I am NOT kidding. >>> >> ...and now we come to the real reason I joined this thread. I assume >> that if I, alone, meet or exceed the volume of your accomplishment, >> that is sufficient? I.e., there is no "negative" score to be applied >> from other participants? I'm -almost- arrogant enough to claim that I >> can "beat you" head to head, and give everyone else the day off. >> However, since I hate bad odds, I'll stick with the "everyone else >> [...] combined" terms, since I'm pretty sure jjb has even more uLOC[1] >> and implementations under his belt than I. >> >> So... what will the terms of this wager be? The stakes? How shall we >> judge the results? Are we looking at a LOC-based measure, or a >> "quality" rating metric (tricky!) If it's a LOC measure, is it >> "cumulative lines," or "final product" lines? >> >> Who will we accept as reasonable, competent, and minimally-biased arbiters? >> >> It will take me a while to track down all of my project artifacts for >> submission to the arbiters, as I suspect it will others, so we ought >> to allow for that when imposing any deadlines. >> >> I guess what I'm saying is... if you're going brag about your dick in >> a room full of male porn stars, you'd better be ready to whip it out >> and back it up. >> >> >>> Oh,... and have a nice day. ;-) >>> >> Hey, you, too! >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Firebug" group. To post to this group, send email to firebug@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firebug+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
