sramov

8 ms·

31.
by sramov 15y ago
OK, there’s a feed now available.
32.
by sramov 15y ago
Grabbing users from John Gruber? That’s impossible as his writing and style is impeccable. I could’ve gone explaining myself for hours, but I like short and to the point writing. It was just an idea to build a Mac centric site, covering mor
33.
by sramov 15y ago
Email is email. Facebook email, at least how it was marketed (Gmail killer etc) is a joke. People expected a serious, streamlined service and they got girlie private messaging.
34.
by sramov 15y ago
Gruber is an excellent writer, no denying. I am not even going there. English is not my native language. My idea was 'Back to Mac' version of Daring Fireball.
35.
by sramov 15y ago
Safari is most polished of them all. I am not even considering non native apps (Firefox, Opera). While Chrome is good, it has various little interface, implementation and behavior oddities. As for the second part, I am all for Crux, Slackwa
36.
by sramov 15y ago
I’ll consider it, but sites are meant for visiting and reading. I am old school like that.
37.
by sramov 15y ago
Shenanigans.
38.
With Apologies to John Gruber(oldfireball.com)
20 points by sramov 15y ago|19 comments
39.
by sramov 15y ago
I am not using it personally but administer and maintain a cluster, among other people. Magento is brain dead. As for high hosting bills, build your own equivalent version and then share your own hosting bill data.
40.
by sramov 15y ago
Why do you think so? Not all sites are created equal. And Pinboard is definitely on the lean side. Try hosting a cluster of Magento 'daily deal' sites on Amazon infrastructure, with shared storage and isolated RDS instances for each region.
41.
Make It Ugly(ramov.com)
2 points by sramov 15y ago|0 comments
42.
by sramov 15y ago
I wanted to make an opposite `gmailintervention.com` site, it appears they registered it with MarkMonitor Brand Protection™ :)
43.
by sramov 16y ago
No, I've set up Route 53 on my own domain (ramov.com) and queried the results via DNSCog ( http://www.dnscog.com/ ). I've used NSD once, it was good. Other than djb 'non standard' conventions and installation procedures, I see no other issu
44.
by sramov 16y ago
DJ Bernstein TinyDNS 1.05 Anycast djbdns, nice :)
45.
root Login(simeramov.com)
1 points by sramov 16y ago|0 comments
46.
On Hosting(simeramov.com)
4 points by sramov 16y ago|0 comments
47.
by sramov 16y ago
Finally! We can now all use colors! And perky styles! And images! Excellent! I am seriously considering just dropping all HTML email. Want your email to be received and read? Use the god damn plain text. You now, just write the email.
48.
by sramov 16y ago
I can only imagine the horror of running a hosting company. If you want to do it properly, there is no end to complexity. Not to mention the money part. I've always dreamed about running my own niche hosting business, running on dead-stripp
49.
by sramov 16y ago
Linode/Slicehost are always a safe choice. But if you want cheaper, take a look at http://arpnetworks.com/vps -- they start at $10. Heard good things about ARP. Might want to visit http://lowendbox.com/ too, but it is something I do not
50.
by sramov 16y ago
Validator is having hiccups ATM. It is valid, trust me. Try later. If you don't believe me, try some other pages, including the W3 one itself, they all come out as invalid. Edit : The validator works now.
51.
by sramov 16y ago
Those are just tools. A means to an end. The end result is minimal. In essence, it is only one small Makefile, which calls various external scripts. Much like in life, where minimalism often involves more work. It is harder to design someth
52.
by sramov 16y ago
Feel free to put it through W3 validator, it is perfectly valid HTML5 (but the same can be done with 4 too).
53.
by sramov 16y ago
AFAIK there is not. I've just touched a favicon.ico. Zero byte, but at least it's not 404. I might do the same for robots.txt. Thanks.
54.
by sramov 16y ago
I don't have any JavaScript, CSS is small, there is only one tiny image which is very small even base64 encoded. So I don't think this applies in my case. For bigger advanced sites, yes, you are right. Up to certain point, this is 'better
55.
by sramov 16y ago
The one more step is the same as in Jekyll or any other static site generator. You have content on disk, (re)generate the site and then upload it. In my case I edit an article or write a new one, type 'make all', preview the result locally
56.
by sramov 16y ago
You are right. It takes a certain structure, quite a bit of adjusting etc. But the result is what it makes all worthwhile. BTW, I was doing all the optimization you were doing on some of my sites, but I always missed some nice ways to autom
57.
by sramov 16y ago
There is a distinction to be made here. Inefficient in page load times and performance or inefficient in the unnecessary complication? I was talking/responding about performance. The bigger the site, lesser the point in all of this (and har
58.
by sramov 16y ago
I can see being it received like that. But the issue is deeper. Take a regular thousand line site and strip the newlines. It is not a same thing. A fact that buildout depends on so many utilities and little scripts and glue makes it clear t
59.
by sramov 16y ago
Do a test proving it this way is more inefficient. BTW, everything is separated before publishing. CSS is one file, reset CSS is in another, there is a HTML template etc. Easy maintenance off line, online and published does not matter. It i
60.
by sramov 16y ago
Added a note about nginx http_gzip_static_module which doesn't get used as much as it should. One tip on the gzip parameters, I use -9cn. The 'n' flag is important as your gzipped files will not appear corrupted by many gzip online checking

More ›