davewiner

The solution is do nothing. Leave it the fuck alone.

won't engage in discussion -- it's been a long day, lots of discussion, and most of it repetitive. The fact that so much discussion is needed is a pretty good indication that the open web should not be corporatized. Google should create a new medium, like they did with AMP, and make it opt-in. Stop trying to be the dictator of the web. And you -- please stop saying bullshit about me. Thanks. Tired.

I don't have anything against SSL, and say so in the Google and HTTP piece. My concern is Google presuming to make the rules for the open web. They're guests here, as we all are, and guests don't make the rules.

BTW, you're wrong about your "reflexive" theory.

I use far too much Google stuff. I'm on GMail. I use Chrome. I am a Node developer which uses their V8 implementation of JavaScript. I hate it but I mostly use Google for search, habits die hard. It will be a huge pain to me if I have to fall back from using Google. I criticize them because I do use their products. When I stop, you can be pretty sure I will also stop writing about them.

http://this.how/googleAndHttp/

Thank you, that's a very nice thing to say. Over the years I've come to respect Stallman's way of viewing things more and more.

The open web is worth fighting for. And Google is moving into new territory now, by deciding to force sites to switch to HTTPS. Most of the arguments you hear are about new sites, but people are missing that the web has been used for 25 years as an archiving medium. If you want to save something so it's available for others (and yourself too) in the future, put it on the web. It's been incredibly stable platform, far more so than the ones run by the tech industry, and precisely because it isn't run by the tech industry.

That's about to change.

Read the original post. Today's post is just a continuation of that one.

And be a little more kind to Stallman. :-)

Dave

davewineron Don't post a GitHub issue unless you have contributed code, or donated $50 cash

Good issues have as much value as contributed code, maybe more.

davewineron Ask HN: What are some good blogs/books on positioning yourself as a developer?

This is the best book I've read on positioning. The anecdotes might be a little dated now, but the concepts are solid.

https://www.amazon.com/Positioning-Battle-Your-Al-Ries/dp/00...

It goes back to No One Ever Got Fired For Buying IBM. ;-)

When I came out of comp sci school in 1978, everyone thought that DEC and Data General had an insurmountable lead and that PCs were toys. Then they thought Macs were toys. Then they thought the web was a toy. I've been to countless tech conferences where the top guy from some "dominant" company told the tale of how dominant they were and two years later they were slinking around in the back of the room, no one wanting to talk to them. I could name names, but just read my blog. Hubris is a terrible thing and tech is filled with it. And your post was totally a product of hubris ;-)

Isn't Ghost a Markdown-based editor? If so, I can't imagine anything more unlike Medium.

https://github.com/yabwe/medium-editor

This is what I am using in my work --

Dave

davewineron Ask HN: SEO penalty for non-HTTPS if they are static sites?

In my experience in tech, that level of bluster comes just before the platform is undermined and then overtaken by an insurgent. Watch out for over-confidence. Even paranoia won't keep you in your seat of power, but bluster is a sure sign you're overlooking something important.

There are also sites that were done 10 years ago, and are never going to be updated. I pay to keep them online, and they are authoritative on the events they document. But they are never going to be HTTPS sites. If Google wants to de-index them, go ahead, but then we need a new search engine that doesn't care.

Thank you. That's pretty much exactly right.

You're just making this up. It's completely wrong.

We don't. And it doesn't.

http://scripting.com/2016/06/08/1311.html

This post, written with 1999.io, might help explain the context.

Dave

http://scripting.com/2016/06/08/1311.html

The About page should NOT have required JS. That was a mistake. I'm going to fix it, but not tonight.

Here's an example of a blog post written in 1999.io.

You do NOT need JS on to read it, by design.

The technology is 2016, not 1999.

To edit a blog you have to enable JavaScript because the blogging software is written in JS.

It would be possible to create a client that didn't, but that doesn't exist today.

That was the year we did the first browser-based blogging software. It's when Edit This Pager was invented. The first wave of bloggers. The name weblog. It basically came together in 1999.

https://github.com/scripting/river5

Also here's a link to the repo..

Dave

https://github.com/scripting/river5

BTW, for people having trouble getting through to my blog (sorry if you are) here's a link to the GitHub repo.

Dave

https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ascripting.com+river5&...

Maybe your google is broken, but on mine, I get plenty of hits. If you do a view source on the page you'll see why it works, there's a static copy of the full text just for google to index. Try this search:

I get all the hits in the first page. This is something that was just posted recently so you can see they're still indexing the site regularly.

Now the page rank might be hurt by the fact that Scripting News is http and they say that they're downgrading http sites. That's fine with me. The web is not owned by them, as far as I'm concerned. YMMV.