Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Talking about me : Why use static web-site generators?

3 views
Skip to first unread message

Michael Uplawski

unread,
Jan 19, 2021, 1:42:25 AM1/19/21
to
Good morning

the bizarre subject line is there for a reason: I know nothing about
static web-site generators. What I want to know is – however – closely
related to what I *do know* ...

I have been writing HTML and CSS for as long as I have an Internet
connection, meaning for about 20 to 25 years. I know enough JavaScript
to do what I want and a lot of stuff that I *thought I want* but turned
out to be utterly useless.

Once I was a professional software-developer... it still makes me laugh.
But anyway, I contributed to – and actively participated in the
development of multi-tier Web-applications, using a diversity of tools
and frameworks, the full functionality of which has never been
exploited, but mostly avoided, as bits and parts of other libraries and
frameworks appeared better suited for a specific task.., while most of
the functionality of the second framework or library was ignored...
meaning:

I do not ever want to do that again!! Especially not in my private
endeavours to publish tiny bits of information, once in a while.

Can you think of a reason for me to try a static web-site generator?

The fact is, I have to oversee a shovel excavator root out a bunch of
trees and must occupy my mind with something.

TIA

Michael
--
GnuPG rsa4096 2020-09-08 [SC] [expire : 2022-09-08]
B31591374C4824DE872841D27D857E5045D038F8
sub rsa4096 2020-09-08 [E] [expire : 2022-09-08]

Joy Beeson

unread,
Jan 21, 2021, 7:58:08 PM1/21/21
to
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 07:42:14 +0100, Michael Uplawski
<michael....@uplawski.eu> wrote:

> my private
> endeavours to publish tiny bits of information, once in a while.

Using a page-generator for that would be like using your back hoe to
plant tulips.

I redefined a few keys in my word processor, and compose directly in
plain old hypertext, using hanging indent so that paragraph breaks and
the like are in the left margin and don't inhibit reading the source.

Which I do so often that I have to restrain myself from saying
"jalape&ntilde;o" in e-mail. (I also try to use the un-transpose key
that my mailer hasn't got.)

The only recent code I use is "<div>", which I was forced into to
allow for landscape monitors.

But <div> turned out to be useful -- I can put parenthetical links
such as "back to top" in the left margin.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/



Michael Uplawski

unread,
Jan 22, 2021, 7:30:03 AM1/22/21
to
Good afternoon

Joy Beeson:

> I redefined a few keys in my word processor, and compose directly in
> plain old hypertext, using hanging indent so that paragraph breaks and
> the like are in the left margin and don't inhibit reading the source.

As regards “sophistication” by shortkey, I already write all code in
vim and run html-tidy after any modifications, with the indent-option
amongst others.

But your mentioning it reminded me of Arachnophilia.., the HTML-editor
by Paul Lutus which once allowed me to store whole templates and assign
styles to boilerplate HTML-code. I stopped using it a while after it
had become a Java-program, although I even added some plug-ins, myself.

Maybe I will download the most recent version of Arachnophilia again and
give it another try. If I am not erring, this software can be anything
from a simplistic text-editor to something close to a static web-site
generator... :D

I think you can even have your ftp-program called from within
Arachnophilia and thus do updates on the fly.

TIA anyway.

(Those trees I wrote about had to be cut down *before* the excavator
passed, so I was anyway concentrated on jumping around with my
running chainsaw.)

Arno Welzel

unread,
Jan 22, 2021, 11:40:57 AM1/22/21
to
Michael Uplawski:

> Good morning
>
> the bizarre subject line is there for a reason: I know nothing about
> static web-site generators. What I want to know is – however – closely
> related to what I *do know* ...
>
> I have been writing HTML and CSS for as long as I have an Internet
> connection, meaning for about 20 to 25 years. I know enough JavaScript
> to do what I want and a lot of stuff that I *thought I want* but turned
> out to be utterly useless.
[...]
> Can you think of a reason for me to try a static web-site generator?

Maybe you don't want to repeat yourself when creating a bunch of
documents which should all include a common header/footer etc. but still
want to have static files and not a CMS with scripts, database etc.


--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

Michael Uplawski

unread,
Jan 22, 2021, 2:09:50 PM1/22/21
to
Arno Welzel:
>> Can you think of a reason for me to try a static web-site generator?
>
> Maybe you don't want to repeat yourself when creating a bunch of
> documents which should all include a common header/footer etc. but still
> want to have static files and not a CMS with scripts, database etc.

This is a valid argument or it can be one. Once there were
server-side-includes for this kind of facilitation. We are asked to not
use them, where they are still supported and I did not experiment a lot
with SSI. Pardon my mentioning them anyway. ;)

One of my own solutions to repeating headers and footers had been
inline-frames. This is another technique which must disappear if those
in charge have their will.

I clearly see the charm of an automating helper-application for this
kind of work. If this were though the only procedure to take into
consideration, I would likely develop my own (xml-munging) scripts ...

TY

Grant Taylor

unread,
Jan 22, 2021, 3:35:32 PM1/22/21
to
On 1/22/21 11:56 AM, Michael Uplawski wrote:
> This is a valid argument or it can be one. Once there were
> server-side-includes for this kind of facilitation. We are asked to
> not use them, where they are still supported and I did not experiment
> a lot with SSI. Pardon my mentioning them anyway. ;)

I was going to mention Server Side Includes (SSI). I make extensive use
of them. And I do mean /extensive/.

It's possible to do a LOT of things with SSI, including beyond including
a header / footer / menu / etc. I've got multiple (sub)pages that set
variables which are then used in other (sub)pages that print / output
the data in one format or another. E.g. using the same data for the
main page, summary in an overview, and data in an XML site map.

It's amazing what can be done with venerable SSIs.

> One of my own solutions to repeating headers and footers had been
> inline-frames. This is another technique which must disappear if
> those in charge have their will.

I don't know about those in charge per say. But I do know that frames
in general, including inline, cause a number of problems from a web
browser point of view, particularly in the context of security.

> I clearly see the charm of an automating helper-application for this
> kind of work. If this were though the only procedure to take into
> consideration, I would likely develop my own (xml-munging) scripts ...

Oy vey. Talk about overhead. ...and slow.



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

unread,
Jan 22, 2021, 4:16:43 PM1/22/21
to
Michael Uplawski wrote:

> the bizarre subject line is there for a reason: I know nothing about
> static web-site generators. What I want to know is – however – closely
> related to what I *do know* ...

Put simply, judging from the code that they produced, all generators I have
seen in that regard are junk. And I do not think that this is a viable
solution for Web publishing nowadays.

Incidentally, a local competitor of the company which I worked for then used
a static Web site generator, and their customers switched to us because we
offered them a Content Management System (CMS; hosted on our servers) that
avoided the bottleneck of them having to contact a “webmaster” for every
change.

> Can you think of a reason for me to try a static web-site generator?

No, good riddance to those.

--
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
<https://github.com/PointedEars> | <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | Please do not cc me./Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

Michael Uplawski

unread,
Jan 22, 2021, 4:50:55 PM1/22/21
to
Grant Taylor:

>> I clearly see the charm of an automating helper-application for this
>> kind of work. If this were though the only procedure to take into
>> consideration, I would likely develop my own (xml-munging) scripts ...
>
> Oy vey. Talk about overhead. ...and slow.

:D Okayokay... “xml-munging” was already an exaggeration. This is not
about DOM against SAX or something but rather copy&paste of boilerplate
code into a rudimentary HTML file. Forget XML.

On the other hand. Even my OOXML (dox) generating Ruby code is swift
enough to be a time-saver.

Off-topic now. Good night, all.

Grant Taylor

unread,
Jan 22, 2021, 11:10:15 PM1/22/21
to
On 1/18/21 11:42 PM, Michael Uplawski wrote:
> Can you think of a reason for me to try a static web-site generator?

You might want a static website generator for something like static
pages on GitHub et al.

E.g. (re)generate the pages locally and then upload the static pages to
the service that only supports static pages.

Michael Uplawski

unread,
Jan 23, 2021, 12:22:17 AM1/23/21
to
Good morning

„Even implicitness has to be expressed“ (we say).

Grant Taylor:

> You might want a static website generator for something like static
> pages on GitHub et al.
>
> E.g. (re)generate the pages locally and then upload the static pages to
> the service that only supports static pages.

In short, what I do now, I can do with a static website generator, too.
So much I have understood...

The question aimed more at the advantages over doing the same *without*
a static website generator. BTW. I confirmed that Arachnophilia (©Paul
Lutus) does proably even more than ... whatever and integrates the
ftp-part, if needed.

I discovered again what made me fall foul of Arachnophilia and might be
my problem with downright website generators: Psychology.
I am initially overwhelmed with all the functionality and – in the
effort to benefit from it – the way that my actual code and the
editor window are losing interest.

When I diminish the weight of convenience functions, toolbars,
menu-commands – e.g. by assigning keyboard-shortcuts –, in the end, all
looks terribly like the vim-editor that I am anyway used to right now.

I ventured that there must be something that appeals to die-hard static
web-site authors and justifies the existence of so many website
generators. Otherwise, these people could just as well edit their pages
by hand. Automation is something a creative person wants to master
her-/himself, normally, and the reasons for replacing your own work by
that of a software should be a valuable revelation to me.

If there is no such argument, and I am confirmed in the end that nothing
of this is worth an effort, what rests is a déja-vu: Learning the
conventions of a helper-program – or downright markdown-syntax, like in
current CMS – is preferred over learning basic HTML. This may appear
natural to some, it does not to me.

I am still open for suggestions. ;)

TY anyway

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

unread,
Jan 23, 2021, 12:34:31 AM1/23/21
to
Grant Taylor wrote:

> On 1/18/21 11:42 PM, Michael Uplawski wrote:
>> Can you think of a reason for me to try a static web-site generator?
>
> You might want a static website generator for something like static
> pages on GitHub et al.

The existence of (GitHub-flavored) Markdown and associated tools makes this
unnecessary.

> E.g. (re)generate the pages locally and then upload the static pages to
> the service that only supports static pages.

Name one.

Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

unread,
Jan 23, 2021, 3:45:00 AM1/23/21
to
In article <slrns0m7vf.1fa....@kurti.uplawski.eu>, Michael
Uplawski <michael....@uplawski.eu> writes:

> Arno Welzel:
> >> Can you think of a reason for me to try a static web-site generator?
> >
> > Maybe you don't want to repeat yourself when creating a bunch of
> > documents which should all include a common header/footer etc. but still
> > want to have static files and not a CMS with scripts, database etc.
>
> This is a valid argument or it can be one. Once there were
> server-side-includes for this kind of facilitation. We are asked to not
> use them, where they are still supported and I did not experiment a lot
> with SSI. Pardon my mentioning them anyway. ;)

I still use them, have been using them for a quarter of a century, and
see no reason not to use them.

> One of my own solutions to repeating headers and footers had been
> inline-frames. This is another technique which must disappear if those
> in charge have their will.

Frames are bad.

Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

unread,
Jan 23, 2021, 3:45:47 AM1/23/21
to
In article <rufd7u$st2$1...@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>, Grant Taylor
<gta...@tnetconsulting.net> writes:

> On 1/22/21 11:56 AM, Michael Uplawski wrote:
> > This is a valid argument or it can be one. Once there were
> > server-side-includes for this kind of facilitation. We are asked to
> > not use them, where they are still supported and I did not experiment
> > a lot with SSI. Pardon my mentioning them anyway. ;)
>
> I was going to mention Server Side Includes (SSI). I make extensive use
> of them. And I do mean /extensive/.
>
> It's possible to do a LOT of things with SSI, including beyond including
> a header / footer / menu / etc. I've got multiple (sub)pages that set
> variables which are then used in other (sub)pages that print / output
> the data in one format or another. E.g. using the same data for the
> main page, summary in an overview, and data in an XML site map.
>
> It's amazing what can be done with venerable SSIs.

Indeed. Also, I have SSIs which include other SSIs and so on.

Michael Uplawski

unread,
Jan 23, 2021, 5:18:03 AM1/23/21
to
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply):
> Frames are bad.

A phrase like that is received like “I have to use them by all means,
now.”

Vaccines are bad.
RNA is bad.
XML is bad.
Threads are bad.
Java is bad... wait, skip that one.

Michael

(... is bad, I guess)

Arno Welzel

unread,
Jan 23, 2021, 5:29:23 PM1/23/21
to
Michael Uplawski:

> Arno Welzel:
>>> Can you think of a reason for me to try a static web-site generator?
>>
>> Maybe you don't want to repeat yourself when creating a bunch of
>> documents which should all include a common header/footer etc. but still
>> want to have static files and not a CMS with scripts, database etc.
>
> This is a valid argument or it can be one. Once there were
> server-side-includes for this kind of facilitation. We are asked to not
> use them, where they are still supported and I did not experiment a lot
> with SSI. Pardon my mentioning them anyway. ;)
>
> One of my own solutions to repeating headers and footers had been
> inline-frames. This is another technique which must disappear if those
> in charge have their will.

Inline-frames have some valid use cases and won't disappear soon.
However for this specific case I wouldn't use them.

The content of an inline frame will *not* be part of document. From the
documents point of view, the inline frame is just a black box. This can
become important, when you want to select text and copy text in the
browser. You can either select text in the inline frame or in the
document around it, but not all together. The other problem is, that the
inline frame will not resize itself to fit the content inside - so you
have to find out which size is sufficient. But when the final viewport
is smaller and text needs to be wrapped, that size may not fit any longer.

Arno Welzel

unread,
Jan 23, 2021, 5:30:58 PM1/23/21
to
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply):

> In article <slrns0m7vf.1fa....@kurti.uplawski.eu>, Michael
> Uplawski <michael....@uplawski.eu> writes:
[...]
>> One of my own solutions to repeating headers and footers had been
>> inline-frames. This is another technique which must disappear if those
>> in charge have their will.
>
> Frames are bad.

Try to achieve this without frames:

<https://arnowelzel.de/en/david-bowie-about-the-internet-1999>

Grant Taylor

unread,
Jan 23, 2021, 9:41:37 PM1/23/21
to
On 1/22/21 10:34 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Name one.

I thought that I did. "Git Hub Pages".

I've never used it myself, so I can't say for certain.

But I know that there have been many services that only support static
pages over the last 30 years.

I'm not familiar with them, beyond knowledge of their existence, because
I host my own pages and use SSI.

😉 Good Guy 😉

unread,
Jan 23, 2021, 10:02:19 PM1/23/21
to
On 24/01/2021 02:41, Grant Taylor wrote:

 because I host my own pages and use SSI.

You own your own pages?  Does your ISP allow incoming traiffic?  My ISP won't allow that at all but for static pages there are many free services such as Git Hub pages (you mentioned), Netlify, Google Firebase, Microsoft Azure, IBM Cloud, and even AWS but with AWS they are now only giving one year free.

With static pages you can still use javascript as it has nothing to do with the host.  Soon we'll get Blazer for web pages and that will make life very interesting.





--

With over 1.2 billion devices now running Windows 10, customer satisfaction is higher than any previous version of windows.

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

unread,
Jan 23, 2021, 10:48:22 PM1/23/21
to
Grant Taylor wrote:

> On 1/22/21 10:34 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Name one.
>
> I thought that I did. "Git Hub Pages".

AISB, _GitHub_ page‎s support GitHub-flavoured Markdown.

> I've never used it myself, so I can't say for certain.

<https://docs.github.com/en/github/working-with-github-pages/about-github-pages-and-jekyll>

> But I know that there have been many services that only support static
> pages over the last 30 years.

Welcome to the 21st century!

> I'm not familiar with them, beyond knowledge of their existence, because
> I host my own pages and use SSI.

<https://owasp.org/www-community/attacks/Server-Side_Includes_(SSI)_Injection#:~:text=The%20Server%2DSide%20Includes%20attack,use%20through%20user%20input%20fields.>

<https://www.whoishostingthis.com/resources/ssi/>

Grant Taylor

unread,
Jan 24, 2021, 1:03:08 AM1/24/21
to
The SSI directives are injected in input fields and they are sent to the
web server. The web server parses and executes the directives before
supplying the page.

On 1/23/21 8:48 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> AISB, _GitHub_ page‎s support GitHub-flavoured Markdown.

Yes. Looking at GitHub Markdown leaves me, as usual, disappointed with
Markdown.

IMHO, Markdown does completely different things than SSI or static site
generators. All the Markdown that I've looked at is about how to format
/ style text / lists / tables. Or rather how to term stupidly simple
text into slightly less simple HTML.

SSI and static site generators perform a completely different function.
They allow you to amalgamate multiple files into one or more pages.
E.g. have a header banner, menu, content section, possibly an
advertisement, and a footer all in separate files. SSI / SSG then
amalgamate to the HTML that is served to the end user. SSI does this
dynamically on the server. SSGs will go through and update / regenerate
the static text files. SSI will simply read the new menu /
advertisement in when it's serving the pages. SSG will methodically
update all the local files with the new content as part of preparing to
upload them to the static site.

You could easily combine SSI / SSG with Markdown if you wanted to.

> Welcome to the 21st century!

Welcome to the 20th century.

It's still something that is amalgamating multiple sources and
generating static files to upload to a web server. Where the source is
read from, how they are amalgamated, and how they are uploaded to the
web server may be different now than they were 25 years ago, but the
underlying concept is still the same. Edit something, re-generate
anything depending on what was changed, and publish it.

> <https://owasp.org/www-community/attacks/Server-Side_Includes_(SSI)_Injection#:~:text=The%20Server%2DSide%20Includes%20attack,use%20through%20user%20input%20fields.>

Nothing about that is SSI specific. That's the traditional input
validation, or lack there of, flaws that have been plaguing the web for
25 years. Nothing new.

The article also assumes that data is being accepted from the user and
then being processed in some way that exposes it to SSI interpretation.
There are many ways to address this. And almost all of them apply to
considerably more than SSI.

> <https://www.whoishostingthis.com/resources/ssi/>

Meh. That page in and of itself is of minimal value. The pages that it
links to are probably quite a bit better.

I've found the Apache documentation to be very good.

Like many things, SSI's power comes when you start thinking (way)
outside the box.

Grant Taylor

unread,
Jan 24, 2021, 1:20:37 AM1/24/21
to
On 1/22/21 10:22 PM, Michael Uplawski wrote:
> Good morning

Hi,

> I discovered again what made me fall foul of Arachnophilia and
> might be my problem with downright website generators: Psychology.
> I am initially overwhelmed with all the functionality and – in the
> effort to benefit from it – the way that my actual code and the
> editor window are losing interest.

Ah. Ignore the things that you don't need. Don't try using things just
because they are there.

> When I diminish the weight of convenience functions, toolbars,
> menu-commands – e.g. by assigning keyboard-shortcuts –, in the
> end, all looks terribly like the vim-editor that I am anyway used to
> right now.

I too prefer the simplicity of vi et al. Fewer distractions on screen.
I see my code / text and know how to do the things that I want to do.
The rest of the features -- read distractions -- are out of my view and
do not bother me.

> I ventured that there must be something that appeals to die-hard
> static web-site authors and justifies the existence of so many website
> generators.

I expect it's quite similar to why I like SSIs. In a word, laziness.

> Otherwise, these people could just as well edit their pages by
> hand.

Why in the world would someone want to edit every single page on a site
that includes a given menu when adding an item to the menu? For example.

> Automation is something a creative person wants to master her-/himself,
> normally, and the reasons for replacing your own work by that of a
> software should be a valuable revelation to me.

I want automation because I'm lazy and don't want to make the same edit
to hundreds of pages.

> If there is no such argument, and I am confirmed in the end that
> nothing of this is worth an effort, what rests is a déja-vu: Learning
> the conventions of a helper-program – or downright markdown-syntax,
> like in current CMS – is preferred over learning basic HTML. This
> may appear natural to some, it does not to me.

I supported a site that used a static site generator years ago. At it's
heart it behaved much like make. If a source file that a given page
used was updated, the static site generator would re-generate the page.
So when you added an item to the menu, all pages that included that menu
would automatically be updated. The static site generator went through
the pages making the edits in bulk and then optionally uploaded the new
pages to the web server.

I use SSI to do quite similar, save for the fact that it's one on the
server and on the fly.

Insert old comment about fried (on demand) vs baked (ahead of time)
websites. SSI is fried. SSG is baked. With SSI, the web server needs
to do some amount of work when serving the pages. With SSG, the web
server simply needs to read the page from disk and serve it out the
network. SSG is less overhead on the web server.

> I am still open for suggestions. ;)

Many fat / heavy Content Management Systems are extremely dynamic and
typically pull content from a database. As such, CMSs tend to be quite
heavy weight on a web server.

SSI is read this page from disk and write it to the network while
looking for SSI directives, if / when an SSI directive is found, read
that page from disk and write it to the network while looking for SSI
directives in it. Rinse, lather, and repeat.

SSG is read this page from disk and write it to the network. Done. End
of story.

Static sites are how a 486 with 32 MB of memory could serve up hundreds
of sites / thousands of pages. You might think that this isn't
important now, but it does take time to process SSI and CMS. So, static
sites can be served slightly faster than SSI or CMS. Is the difference
enough to matter? I don't know. That's up to you.

> TY anyway

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

To each their own.

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

unread,
Jan 24, 2021, 2:22:48 AM1/24/21
to
Grant Taylor wrote:

> On 1/23/21 8:48 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Welcome to the 21st century!
>
> Welcome to the 20th century.

Did you mean that you prefer to live in the past?

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

unread,
Jan 24, 2021, 2:25:03 AM1/24/21
to
Grant Taylor wrote:

> On 1/22/21 10:22 PM, Michael Uplawski wrote:
>> I discovered again what made me fall foul of Arachnophilia and
>> might be my problem with downright website generators: Psychology.
>> I am initially overwhelmed with all the functionality and – in the
>> effort to benefit from it – the way that my actual code and the
>> editor window are losing interest.
>
> Ah. Ignore the things that you don't need. Don't try using things just
> because they are there.

Yeah, just stick with what you know, and never try anything new.

Because that is how civilization came to be. NOT.

*facepalm*

Michael Uplawski

unread,
Jan 24, 2021, 8:57:28 AM1/24/21
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:

> Yeah, just stick with what you know, and never try anything new.

This is highly off-topic. It has always been *you* who kept insisting on
*your* own point of view. *You* do not ask qusetions, *you* just state
what the right – *your* – way to do stuff, is.

*You* know – in addition – nothing about me and even less about whatever
I or anybody else on this group has ever stuck with / abandonned / tried
and succeeded to create and deliver.

> Because that is how civilization came to be. NOT.

... to be what it looks like, now ? That is *your* kind of stuff. That
is *your* kind of evolving, not mine and – I hope – not ours.

> *facepalm*

Just the sound of it and live well in *your* oversized self.
Over and out – again.

- --
Le progrès, ce n'est pas l'acquisition de biens. C'est l'élévation de
l'individu, son émancipation, sa compréhension du monde. Et pour ça il
faut du temps pour lire, s'instruire, se consacrer aux autres.
(Christiane Taubira)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=KdyH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Grant Taylor

unread,
Jan 24, 2021, 12:56:07 PM1/24/21
to
On 1/24/21 12:22 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Did you mean that you prefer to live in the past?

Nope.

I meant that Jekyll seemed like a re-spin of a 25 year old idea.

Grant Taylor

unread,
Jan 24, 2021, 12:57:49 PM1/24/21
to
On 1/24/21 12:24 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Yeah, just stick with what you know, and never try anything new.
>
> Because that is how civilization came to be. NOT.
>
> *facepalm*

I was being sarcastic in response to your comment.

I have always advised friends and colleagues to keep an eye on new /
different technologies and to try to get an understanding of how it
works to see if it might be able to help them or not. If it is better,
then consider migrating. But don't chase new just because it's new.

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

unread,
Jan 27, 2021, 3:24:11 PM1/27/21
to
Michael Uplawski wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>
>> Yeah, just stick with what you know, and never try anything new.
>
> This is highly off-topic. […]

What you wrote is, yes.

> [more junk]

*PLONK*

F’up2 poster

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

unread,
Jan 27, 2021, 3:24:41 PM1/27/21
to
Grant Taylor wrote:

> On 1/24/21 12:24 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Yeah, just stick with what you know, and never try anything new.
>>
>> Because that is how civilization came to be. NOT.
>>
>> *facepalm*
>
> I was being sarcastic in response to your comment.

I see.
0 new messages