[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
The LinuxIL website
*****************************************************
* Please do NOT CC: me if you reply to the list *
*****************************************************
On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, Ofer Maor wrote:
> Remind me to shoot ira, first time I meet him
> MA ZE LO HAYA GIBUY! argh
It's not Ira's fault. The computer's at Jonathan's site. I believe now
there _are_ regular backups, right Jonathan?...
> not "that much" - but still - it was grahpically appealing.
So make new pages and make new graphics for them. Go ahead, I dare you.
> look - the thing is simple.
Of course it is. I don't have time to make 20,000 bits of graphics a day.
Yesterday I made two more title-graphics, I on't see you saying "Ok, the
"About Linux" page looks better.
The site is not static. It's a bit plain and bland because I don't have
the time to spice it up all in one go. Once again, all of this is clearly
stated.
> if you gonna attempt having your site be supported
> by ALL browser, you will have a site that looks like it was written in 95....
> that's about all that ALL browsers support.
That's nonsense. Something written in/for 95 will NOT be supported by
anything else. It'll have Java, ASP, ActiveX, etc.
> if you want to use advanced technology (which I believe you do, or at
> least, most people do, and it makes it attractive)
Actually I don't.
>, u have to give up that backwards compatibility. HTML 3.0,
> frames, tables, JAVA Scripts, etc - are all wonderfull technologicall
> advancments, supported by over 95% of the browsers (distribution wise)
No, no, NO! I will _not_ give up on backward compatibility! A page that is
beautified or whatever with Java/Javascript is Ok, but NOT a page that
completely relies on Java! This site _is_ for everyone.
> Netscape3+ and IE3+. if you gonna insist that Web Sufer 3.1, lynx, and some
> other browsers that are used by 2 users, u are NOT gonna have a good looking
> site.
Sorry, I do NOT think the site looks bad right now.
> and a nice soothing background is the ABC of making a page that will look
> nice, and not boring white.
According to who's book, exactly? I think a nice, simple white is a lot
better than what they have at www.linux.org, which is _far_ from what I'd
call soothing. I believe you meant 'headache-causing-blatant-eyecatcher'.
> I wouldn't really mind what you do with YOUR site, but since you are
> holding the domain of all the israeli linux user group, I think all the
> israeli linux user group should decide on this issue.
_I_ am coordinating the site, and so far, I have used every single
submission anyone has sent me. I do _not_ want to be the HTML designer or
graphics artist, but I _have_ and _will_ lay down some ground rules, to
which everyone on the list has had a month or two to react.
> >That said, I won't put things _I_ don't like up instead of what's already
> www.linux.org.il is not YOUR site. it's OUR (ILUG) site. and you shouldn't
> forget it!
ILUG is NOT an official establishment, and you should remember I was kind
enough to volunteer to update the site a few days before it crashed, and
have been stuck maintaining it ever since. If enough people would like me
_not_ to maintain/coordinate the site, say the word, as I've asked many
times before.
Bye,
-Yaron.