Thread
My68kSpace
Should we make a 68k version of the sites of the ilk of myspace, facebook, and the slightly superior IMO imeem?
I know they have there detractions.... but the ability to upload different files and send and recieve messages in one particular website does have an appeal to me..... to be able to upoad a picture in .iff format or a sound in .aiff, these things could be useful & to be able to send and recieve messages simply could be good.
imeem is superior for me, because I can upload different types of media & I've not recieved so much spam from imeem (Puts me hands over me head thinking now the torrent will start!)
I know they have there detractions.... but the ability to upload different files and send and recieve messages in one particular website does have an appeal to me..... to be able to upoad a picture in .iff format or a sound in .aiff, these things could be useful & to be able to send and recieve messages simply could be good.
imeem is superior for me, because I can upload different types of media & I've not recieved so much spam from imeem (Puts me hands over me head thinking now the torrent will start!)
What I'd love is a replacement for PHPbb that wasn't only accesible via web.
Basically make it possible to write readers without the overhead and trouble of HTML and CSS. There's really nothing in the basic principle of a forum that requires the web... it's just text in a predictable format, like e-mail. Actually simpler than e-mail. It'd be great to have a native 'forum reader' in the style of a newsreader for System 7. Actually that's pretty near the top of my app wish list for any platform...
Basically make it possible to write readers without the overhead and trouble of HTML and CSS. There's really nothing in the basic principle of a forum that requires the web... it's just text in a predictable format, like e-mail. Actually simpler than e-mail. It'd be great to have a native 'forum reader' in the style of a newsreader for System 7. Actually that's pretty near the top of my app wish list for any platform...
MySpace and other like it serve their purpose. It's when you start adding people to your friends list like rabbits in heat that it becomes a nuisance. I just have some family and friends on my personal page and that's about it. Maybe a few people that have shown some interest, but it's mainly family, friends, and long lost friends from the past.
I still think it would be nice to have some profile pages similar to those social networking sites where we can highlight our conquests and whatnot. It doesn't have to have a "friends" component per se since we all talk it up here and on the IRC channel. But it would be nice to have something where you can post a quick message to members of the 68KMLA and vice versa.
I still think it would be nice to have some profile pages similar to those social networking sites where we can highlight our conquests and whatnot. It doesn't have to have a "friends" component per se since we all talk it up here and on the IRC channel. But it would be nice to have something where you can post a quick message to members of the 68KMLA and vice versa.
That would be quite good as long as the emphisis is on 68k (and maybe old PPC) Macs, and as long as the site is fully compatible with these. e.g. I would expect to be able to use it without problem on a 68k Mac.
I agree with paws that some kind of programme which could be run on the computer could be used as an alternative to the web. I'm assuming you mean something like Hotline, but for a specific site only?
I agree with paws that some kind of programme which could be run on the computer could be used as an alternative to the web. I'm assuming you mean something like Hotline, but for a specific site only?
Well, filesharing is very useful but I'm really more interested in the forum/wiki side of things - asking questions, getting answers, writing articles and commenting.. showing off your conquests... Pretty much exactly what we're doing with this bulletin board.
I love the forum format because it's so simple and free form.
Think about how it works in the most abstract terms: I login to the server and enter a post, text with a bit of formatting, nothing fancy at all.. It goes into a database. Other people login and read my posts, and post their replies.
Look at the contents of our posts. Is there anything at all in there that requires the complexity of HTML+CSS+JavaScript? It's wasted! A 128K Mac should be able to handle this! The only reason it requires a huge memory hog of browser is because the presentation of the data is tied to the Web and the technolgies the Web is built on.
A protocol for accessing and replying to posts in plain text or a simple rich text format - or even complicated rich text, with multimedia and what have you - on a remote server is trivial. You could have a web client for those that love the web, or you could have a real desktop app, all interfacing with the same servers, seamlessly.
You gain flexibility (choose the client you want), lose complexity by using existing functionality (think opening videos in QT Player instead of the browser plugin hell I'm sure we all remember), and you kill this horrible idea of making user interfaces with HTML+CSS instead of, you know, user interface toolkits...
I have to go to bed now. This is an idea that's been brewing for a while, and really, it's quite obviously superior to the web in every single way for communities like ours. I'll write more about it sometime soon.
Why would a faceless person with no space want a facebook or myspace clone?
NNTP access to the forums would be nice, since that allows the use of any old news reader. And there are a few good ones available for System 7 (and I think System 6), not to mention Unix (if you use a unix shell to do stuff, as I do). And Windows. And MS-DOS. With the appropriate software, you can even have a bridge to QWK message packets, thus allowing you to read messages offline on an Apple II (or was it IIgs). I did the latter with usenet for a while, back in my dialup days.
The other thing is that phpBB supports some sort of theming. It would probably be possible to make a theme that is dead simple for an old browser to parse. That would mean things like getting rid of gratuitous graphics (e.g. buttons that are just links anyway), getting rid of avatars and extraneous user information (user information doesn't really slow things down, but it makes it harder to read on small screens), getting rid of signatures (same as above, actually I think phpBB allows you to have this as a user preference), and replacing the table that the messages are embedded in with something more linear.
It would also make it easier to develop software to parse it and present it in a newsreader.
NNTP access to the forums would be nice, since that allows the use of any old news reader. And there are a few good ones available for System 7 (and I think System 6), not to mention Unix (if you use a unix shell to do stuff, as I do). And Windows. And MS-DOS. With the appropriate software, you can even have a bridge to QWK message packets, thus allowing you to read messages offline on an Apple II (or was it IIgs). I did the latter with usenet for a while, back in my dialup days.
The other thing is that phpBB supports some sort of theming. It would probably be possible to make a theme that is dead simple for an old browser to parse. That would mean things like getting rid of gratuitous graphics (e.g. buttons that are just links anyway), getting rid of avatars and extraneous user information (user information doesn't really slow things down, but it makes it harder to read on small screens), getting rid of signatures (same as above, actually I think phpBB allows you to have this as a user preference), and replacing the table that the messages are embedded in with something more linear.
It would also make it easier to develop software to parse it and present it in a newsreader.
I like the idea! Facebook won't even load on my IE 5-equipped iBook G3 (OS 9) and MySpace doesn't work well on it.
We could have dithered bitmap pictures on there...I already do that with pics of my friends and I so I can use them as wallpaper on my Plus. Perhaps give it a HyperCardish interface?
BTW: Is anyone maintaining the 68KMLA page on MySpace?
We could have dithered bitmap pictures on there...I already do that with pics of my friends and I so I can use them as wallpaper on my Plus. Perhaps give it a HyperCardish interface?
BTW: Is anyone maintaining the 68KMLA page on MySpace?
I had a feeling I'd get a few replies with this...
I wonder what a wiki is! I thought wiki was just that stupid encyclopedia site that puts up information of dubious validity!
Flixster, the film reviewing/social networking site, is saying it now has a wiki.... but I don't get it, or even know or undersatnd what it is.... I'll have to go and have a look I suppose (I drags my feet & look sullen).
I didn't know we had a myspace page, bugger I don't take enough notice of what goes on here!
my thought was to have a site like the others, but more like imeem (which I accessed fairly successfully on my Quadra 650), but specifically for 68k computers & I was thinking for Atari's and Amiga's to be able to get involved too as well as macs.
I would guess that by the very nature of the machines we'd be running hopefully we'd keep out of the loop of those horrible nasty side effects of the myspace ilk sites, where if you're unfortunate you just get bombarded by fake profiles offering porn, but giving out spyware.
I wonder what a wiki is! I thought wiki was just that stupid encyclopedia site that puts up information of dubious validity!
Flixster, the film reviewing/social networking site, is saying it now has a wiki.... but I don't get it, or even know or undersatnd what it is.... I'll have to go and have a look I suppose (I drags my feet & look sullen).
I didn't know we had a myspace page, bugger I don't take enough notice of what goes on here!
my thought was to have a site like the others, but more like imeem (which I accessed fairly successfully on my Quadra 650), but specifically for 68k computers & I was thinking for Atari's and Amiga's to be able to get involved too as well as macs.
I would guess that by the very nature of the machines we'd be running hopefully we'd keep out of the loop of those horrible nasty side effects of the myspace ilk sites, where if you're unfortunate you just get bombarded by fake profiles offering porn, but giving out spyware.
We already have a 68kMLA group on Facebook...
...and someone made a MySpace profile.
I know this isn't what was originally intended (as someone mentioned an actual site as opposed to the groups listed above), but I'm just throwing those out there.
...and someone made a MySpace profile.
I know this isn't what was originally intended (as someone mentioned an actual site as opposed to the groups listed above), but I'm just throwing those out there.
I cringe when I see people say that. But I don't know if it's because I hold Wikipedia with too much esteem, or because I regard traditional print and online publishing with less regard.
Things to consider:
- Virtually no website undergoes peer review. (Peer review involves another expert checking the document for accuracy.) That includes websites that people usually regard as being more authoritative, such as university websites. Most of the content that is peer reviewed and accessible online require you to pay heafty access fees.
- Very few print publications undergo peer review. If you are looking at a popular book, chances are that a friend or colleague of the author reviewed it. As such they can hardly be considered independent, and may even share the same views on controversial topics. A credible form of peer review is usually adopted by the publishers of academic journals. They usually use a form of peer review called single-blind. That means that the author of the article doesn't know who reviews the article. In theory, this allows the reviewer to be honest. In reality, the reviewer can still see the name and institutional affiliations of the author. This can bias the reviewer because of anything ranging from affiliation, the author's stature, gender, or many other factors.
- Peer reviewers are often experts. Experts usually have considerable training in the field. While this may make them authoritative, there is a flip-side. Only the strongest of personalities will be able to withstand the conventional wisdom of their field, which leads to a sort of intellectual stagnations. (Granted, you're safer listening to the conventional wisdom than you are to a raving nut-bar.) It is also worth noting that people pick up misconceptions during the learning process. That applies as much to experts as it does to outsiders. And yeah, it's a concern. There is a lot of knowledge that experts rarely use, but are expected to comment on. See my comment on textbooks below.
- Relatively few online publications undergo editorial review. While most print publications will under go some form of editorial review, it is worth noting that editors are not fact-checkers. They may catch glaring errors, but since they are rarely experts in the field they will rarely catch more obscure errors. You also have the case of editors who are more concerned with what can sell than what is true.
- The popular press has this weird convention: thou shalt not cite. Or if you do, it is in a bibliography that doesn't connect the source with the content. Or if you're dealing with an asshat author that demands some sort of academic integrity, make it as end notes that can (at best) be associated with a particular page and not with a particular fact.
- At the end of the day, you can always find people who will print books if you pay them to do so.
I have read too many books with too many errors during my life. Some of these errors are can be considered as typographical issues or accidents that can be attributed to the rush of writing or editing or proof reading prior to shoving the things into presses. But some of these errors are more glaring and are more critical. These errors pop up in things like elementary school textbooks where the kids often don't have the means to assess the validity of the content (and quite often their teacher doesn't either). I also find it kinda weird that these errors are not caught while writing or editing the book. Yes, I know that many books are rushed, but we are talking about stuff that the experts should have known when they were 12 years old.
And at the end of the day you always have to fret about the credibility of the authors and publishers. Some people have an agenda that they are trying to push. Maybe they truly believe in it, but their slanted beliefs will result in a slanted book. Other people simply want to make a few bucks and will say what they want in order to do so. After all, it should be no surprise that doom-and-gloom makes more money than balance or happy-happy. (What do you think newspapers are about?)
When I look at everything, I look at the Wikipedia and see an institution that does have things like peer review and editors to back the factual content. And even though you don't have a true single blind or double blind peer review system, it is probably close enough to a double blind review process for practical purposes. A lot of the articles even include citations. And they include something better than all of the above: they maintain a history of edits and discussions relating to the article. This means that you can check the article for a history of vandalism and you can check to see if there is more controversy.
Yeah, the Wikipedia has its own faults. It is possible for people to vandalize pages -- either for kicks, to prove a point, or to promote an agenda. But the Wikipedia does have a self-correction mechanism. Yeah, that self-correction mechanism will only work for more popular articles. But you take that into consideration. If you find an article on an obscure topic that has received a couple of edits, then you know that the article may be a bit more dodgy because it is more difficult for those self-correction mechanisms to kick it.
So at the end of the day, I don't see why people should automatically say that the Wikipedia is automatically a stupid site with information of dubious value just because an online magazine article written by a green reporter in 2005 said so.
Now wait a second. How much peer review did that article receive? None. How much editorial review did it receive? Very little. Did they site their sources? Maybe, but only in a cursory way that makes the source article hard to find. Is it's source biased? In some respects the Wikipedia is their competition. Does the publisher have an alterior motive for publishing the article? Well, negativity sells more than happy-happy.
Why the hell should I treat that article as credible?!
I'm with you ][2//. Nicely said.
I also agree with Paws. I looked into phpBB to see if there was an API or a plugin that lets you get the data as XML, or make db queries. Didn't find anything. I was hoping to make a 68k client so I can keep up with 68kmla on my 68kmac. Oh well.
I also agree with Paws. I looked into phpBB to see if there was an API or a plugin that lets you get the data as XML, or make db queries. Didn't find anything. I was hoping to make a 68k client so I can keep up with 68kmla on my 68kmac. Oh well.
I'm not terribly fond of sites like Facebook or Myspace as they just all seem to be clones of each other and are often devoted to complete drivel. I'm not saying this would happen with a 68K site though, but I have seen other good forums and websites being wrecked by getting turned into Myspace clones.
The exception is the RetroMacCast site which seems to be working well at the moment with most topics, photos and videos being relevent. The fact that the site is based around the central core of the podcast helps alot as well and provides good topical fuel for listeners to discuss.
Personally I like the 68KMLA forums as they are since they're neat, easy to navigate and search, the conversation is generally sensible and on-topic etc. The 68KMLA forum also loads on older browsers and machines but you can almost guarantee that a bloated social networking site would not load on your favorite Quadra with Netscape 4. The only thing I would change about the current forum is the look, it would be great if we had that System 7 look of the old forum back...
So yes, I would say that the current forum fits it's purpose well and I reckon that a social-networking style thing would pretty much ruin things.
The exception is the RetroMacCast site which seems to be working well at the moment with most topics, photos and videos being relevent. The fact that the site is based around the central core of the podcast helps alot as well and provides good topical fuel for listeners to discuss.
Personally I like the 68KMLA forums as they are since they're neat, easy to navigate and search, the conversation is generally sensible and on-topic etc. The 68KMLA forum also loads on older browsers and machines but you can almost guarantee that a bloated social networking site would not load on your favorite Quadra with Netscape 4. The only thing I would change about the current forum is the look, it would be great if we had that System 7 look of the old forum back...
So yes, I would say that the current forum fits it's purpose well and I reckon that a social-networking style thing would pretty much ruin things.
Hey II2II...
I won't quote your whole post...
But if I say that I altered a fact about the British isles on wikipedia & then the next day the "fact" was altered back the way it was..... Now obviously me being from the British isles I am obviously so ignorant as to not know what I'm talking about... no it is better for peer moderation that some nerdy American computer geek corrects my facts and gives me their American version of the facts.
If I can just say here that I use wiki, when I want to look things up quite often..... I just double or triple check the facts elsewhere afterwards.
For me the biggest problem wiki has is how I think of politics.... who wins in the politics? the smartest guy? the person with the best policies? Most often no, most often it's the people with the loudest voice who win & so it is with wiki, hang being correct or fair, the loudest win.
The other problem with wiki of course is that no matter how long one may argue, there are allways at least two versions of history, both may hold truths, and both may be different!
I was harsh & expected a fairly harsh rebutt but wiki has some serious delusions..... I think I just don't see that it can do what it beilieves it does, it is just too ambitious.
I won't quote your whole post...
But if I say that I altered a fact about the British isles on wikipedia & then the next day the "fact" was altered back the way it was..... Now obviously me being from the British isles I am obviously so ignorant as to not know what I'm talking about... no it is better for peer moderation that some nerdy American computer geek corrects my facts and gives me their American version of the facts.
If I can just say here that I use wiki, when I want to look things up quite often..... I just double or triple check the facts elsewhere afterwards.
For me the biggest problem wiki has is how I think of politics.... who wins in the politics? the smartest guy? the person with the best policies? Most often no, most often it's the people with the loudest voice who win & so it is with wiki, hang being correct or fair, the loudest win.
The other problem with wiki of course is that no matter how long one may argue, there are allways at least two versions of history, both may hold truths, and both may be different!
I was harsh & expected a fairly harsh rebutt but wiki has some serious delusions..... I think I just don't see that it can do what it beilieves it does, it is just too ambitious.
Bloody oath... And even when you double and triple check things, there is no guarantee that the source you're verifying from hasn't got their information from wikipedia. It's poisoning the entire web. Wikipedia seems to be the no. 1 result for any query where there is an article on that subject, so it's very tempting for most people to get all their information from the one source, without bothering to check more complicated web pages or to verify what they're reading.
The facts ALWAYS end up being coloured on wikipedia. Just one example of many - their article for Pope St. Pius X stated something like "his body was claimed to be incorrupt and entirely intact upon exhumation". I thought the "was claimed to be" was unnecessary, since anyone can see his incorrupt body in Rome, and the article even had a picture of his body taken recently - but no, every time it was edited, some geek took it upon himself to change it back. Shortly after that, I gave up on ever editing anything again, except for vandalism.
What's even more frightening is that google is now talking about making their own encyclopedia - I imagine that due to their monopoly, they will probably replace wikipedia as the first and last word on everything, effectively giving them a monopoly on information. They are a freakin' scary company - they almost make Microsoft look benevolent.
http://tinyurl.com/3lpaw9 <----- my friend gets quoted in the Manchester Evening News as a music critic, entirely due to a wikipedia article he vandalised (!!)
The facts ALWAYS end up being coloured on wikipedia. Just one example of many - their article for Pope St. Pius X stated something like "his body was claimed to be incorrupt and entirely intact upon exhumation". I thought the "was claimed to be" was unnecessary, since anyone can see his incorrupt body in Rome, and the article even had a picture of his body taken recently - but no, every time it was edited, some geek took it upon himself to change it back. Shortly after that, I gave up on ever editing anything again, except for vandalism.
What's even more frightening is that google is now talking about making their own encyclopedia - I imagine that due to their monopoly, they will probably replace wikipedia as the first and last word on everything, effectively giving them a monopoly on information. They are a freakin' scary company - they almost make Microsoft look benevolent.
http://tinyurl.com/3lpaw9 <----- my friend gets quoted in the Manchester Evening News as a music critic, entirely due to a wikipedia article he vandalised (!!)
You can level that criticism at an source of information. Do you think that any American textbook is going to give a flattering account of the British side of the story leading up to their declaration of independence. Heck no. But that doesn't mean that either side of the story fails to exist. It just means that you find it in different places.
The Wikipedia is one place where those ideas have the potential to come together, and for people to discuss those varying ideas. Yes, you may personally lose out for whatever reason. No, that doesn't mean that they are wrong. But if you do lose out, at least someone can go through the history of the document to see where the debate over facts popped up. You cannot do that in a book. (It's also worth noting that just because you personally believe that something is true, that doesn't make it true.)
Another issue was brought up, and that is people using the Wikipedia as a first-stop and only-stop for information. That is not the fault of the Wikipedia. It is the fault of the researcher. I have heard the same criticism leveled at the CIA World Factbook. I have heard the same criticism leveled at encyclopedias. Heck, I've even heard the same criticism leveled at the web at large.
I think a big part of the reason for that is that online sources (and encyclopedias) are usually secondary sources and the dependence upon these sources is more of a sign of intellectual laziness. Not only do these sources do a lot of the interpretation for you, but they are also a one-stop source of anything you want. No thought required.
But that doesn't mean that the Wikipedia is bad. It just means that you should broaden your horizons. And I still standby what I said earlier on issues like peer review.
Indeedle, but just because something reaches a certain level of consensus on wikipedia, that doesn’t make it true either – yet that seems to be a common belief. The idea that passing information past the critical eyes of a thousand internet editors will somehow iron out all the inaccuracies and bias is not a realistic one. It always ends up being majority rule, and the majority of wikipedia users haven’t yet managed to grasp the concept of maintaining a neutral persective.
It doesn’t matter whose fault it is – the point is, if wikipedia didn’t exist, this wouldn’t happen. It’s not only the fault of researchers anyway, but also people who constantly link to wikipedia, and only wikipedia, when discussing a subject online, as though no other source is worth consulting.
“The Britannica has become the first and last word on everything”?? When has anyone ever made any similar claim? Even if they did, it would hardly be comparable when you consider the accessibility of a traditional encyclopaedia vs. the ubiquitous wikipedia.
The CIA Factbook maybe, but that’s mainly statistical information and is thoroughly checked, without the ability to be edited discreetly and anonymously. If it was suddenly put online and open to anyone’s edits it would quickly become a joke, yet wikipedia has somehow gathered credibility simply through repeated use. Besides, there aren’t too many ways you can colour statistics, and for most statistics no-one would have any interest in colouring them anyway.
It’s a valid criticism of the web. People should consult books more. But, this is a society of remote controls and dishwashers.
I'm lumping in those who cite Wikipedia with researchers. The reason being that they are using the Wikipedia for research purposes in order to express their point. I can't say that I have seen too many people referencing the Wikipedia online, outside of forums like these. (I have seen students reference it in papers, but that receives the same scorn as a student who refernces a print encyclopedia.) At the end of the day, people citing Wikipedia in forums may be a god-send. I say that because I doubt that people would try to support their ideas in casual discussion if they didn't have a convenient resource to reach for.
I also think that the Wikipedia is a great source for getting a starting knowledge of something, and how it relates to other stuff. After that you branch off into deeper resources. I'd lump print encyclopedias in the same category: great starting point but go deeper.
I'm trying to figure out if I'm old, or if too much of my life has been spent in schools. But I have seen this "the encyclopedia is an authoritative source" mentality before.
The CIA World Factbook is also published by a highly biased source (and I'm not talking about the U.S. government in general here, but a particular branch that seems to have close ties with the executive branch of your government). It is also worth noting that it is difficult if not impossible to check upon the data presented in the CIA World Factbook for many countries. Particularly those countries with which the U.S. has antagonistic relationships with.
Dishwashers? Oh, I remember what those are. Those are interesting analogies and I like them because I view the reliance upon online sources as being primarily the product of intellectual (and physical) laziness. But I'm not going to pretend that this association with intellectual laziness makes the Internet any less reliable than the already unreliable print media.
Like I said, wikipedia I use it, just with caution & you're right to say it's not the only place with sometimes missleading information..... I steer clear of Dorling Kindersley & Usbourne..... DK have "A version" of events & Usbourne just have some fairly poor grammer.
I don't trust wikipedia which leaves you, in your world, writing about things about the world in your world..... If you see the point that it certainly has bias.
Is wikipedia the best we have? Perhaps, though I try to look elsewhere
Is the truth out there? Let's ask Fox Mulder! Of course we all find out things that we held to be true, that are later proven to be false/miss-leading.
My recommendation is to watch a program on BBC 2 hosted by Stephen Fry called QI (Standing for Quite Interesting). It plays out like a game show come after dinner chat. Panelists get points for making interesting conversation & the validity of there facts determines there point scoring. When asked the point at which water can be either a solid, liquid or gas the answer is 0 degrees....... or so though Dara O'Brien... & then only when he reappeared on the show, & somebody had written in to correct the fact that the freezing point of water is 0.4 degrees! & quiz master Stephen Fry deducted points from his score!
The show freely admits that you may have a different version of "The Facts", but the show does investigate and attempt to validify the facts it proposes.
I don't trust wikipedia which leaves you, in your world, writing about things about the world in your world..... If you see the point that it certainly has bias.
Is wikipedia the best we have? Perhaps, though I try to look elsewhere
Is the truth out there? Let's ask Fox Mulder! Of course we all find out things that we held to be true, that are later proven to be false/miss-leading.
My recommendation is to watch a program on BBC 2 hosted by Stephen Fry called QI (Standing for Quite Interesting). It plays out like a game show come after dinner chat. Panelists get points for making interesting conversation & the validity of there facts determines there point scoring. When asked the point at which water can be either a solid, liquid or gas the answer is 0 degrees....... or so though Dara O'Brien... & then only when he reappeared on the show, & somebody had written in to correct the fact that the freezing point of water is 0.4 degrees! & quiz master Stephen Fry deducted points from his score!
The show freely admits that you may have a different version of "The Facts", but the show does investigate and attempt to validify the facts it proposes.
wish I could restart this thread! without the arguing!
My idea was for like a network site, where I could keep in contact & know that the site was 68k friendly.
I would also love to be able to upload files for people to view & or to listen to, in more 68k friendly formats (mainly smaller perhaps)
What if the new site was called "68kFriendly"!!!
My idea was for like a network site, where I could keep in contact & know that the site was 68k friendly.
I would also love to be able to upload files for people to view & or to listen to, in more 68k friendly formats (mainly smaller perhaps)
What if the new site was called "68kFriendly"!!!
We'd have Amiga and Atari ST users invading on our turf.What if the new site was called "68kFriendly"!!!
It's not a bad idea. I just think that it should have been done years ago, and it's a little too late now. I say a little too late because we have already built up a community of 68k Macintosh users. It's called the 68k MLA forums. Creating another place would only end up with people dividing up their limited time among more places. So, in a very real sense, I think it would take away from the forums.
But maybe it is possible to make these forums more accessible to 68k Mac users. My understanding is that phpBB can be themed or skinned or whatever it's called in phpBB parlance. Maybe someone can take the time to make something or find something that is friendly for an old web browser on an old machine with a small screen.
If you want a temporary place to swap files, without chewing up space on a server, maybe implementing something like the zone on the English Amiga Board (http://eab.abime.net) would work.
Mixed feelings on that one. I remember trying to impress a history prof in university by chasing after a primary source for an 18th century event. That means using an 18th century document. Great, right? Well, not really. Not only did the prof know the document, but he knew that is was unreliable. And he put a comment stating why it was unreliable then told me to stick to secondary sources until I get a better footing in the subject.
If I had used the equivalent of the Wikipedia back then (since the Wikipedia did not exist back then), I would respect his decision to fail the paper based upon the use of indadequate sources. I would respect it because I would understand that he is assessing sources on deeper criteria than "any schlep can edit it, therefore it is evil."
Because you know something, that 18th century document that I used was also written by any old schlep. The fact that it was in print, then microfiched, by a university may lend it perception of credibility but it still lacked credibility. And only someone who is familiar with the publications can make that assessment.
So if you make an assessment against Wikipedia, "it can be edited by any schlep," I cannot respect that assessment. You can say that for any source, until you have read and evaluated it. If you make an assessment against a Wikipedia article because you know the quality of that article, then I can respect it because the source is being evaluated. Of course no prof is going to allow you to use the Wikipedia because they are too intellectually lazy to bother assessing it themselves.
Of course the other valid criticism of the Wikipedia is one that is valid for any encyclopedic source: they go for breadth rather than depth. I would accept a decision based upon that criteria too.
Hilarious reply..... there are those who use 68k wiki..... there are those who don't!We'd have Amiga and Atari ST users invading on our turf.What if the new site was called "68kFriendly"!!!
It's not a bad idea. I just think that it should have been done years ago, and it's a little too late now. I say a little too late because we have already built up a community of 68k Macintosh users. It's called the 68k MLA forums. Creating another place would only end up with people dividing up their limited time among more places. So, in a very real sense, I think it would take away from the forums.
(http://eab.abime.net) would work.
The community in this sense is fragmented. A 68k friendly network place would only enable people to come together..... but rather than using mainstream places, the place would be more 68k friendly.
These forums are great, but my quadra struggles loading them & perhaps a vote on how many people use wiki is an idea! But I just struggled using my quadra 650 & it just seems daft because I'm sure we could get a network site that we could make more 68k friendly........ & if it had anything to do with me I would intergrate or at least have a big friendly link to the 68kmla.
Would I have a link to 68k wiki? if people wanted it, sure why not.
I intend to do some stuff for my own website with Claris Home Page in the near future.
I would be interested in making some kind of 68k/PPC friendly site which could be used by uses of systems that don't have fast processors/don't have much support for CSS and PHP. Not limited to Macs.
I would be interested in making some kind of 68k/PPC friendly site which could be used by uses of systems that don't have fast processors/don't have much support for CSS and PHP. Not limited to Macs.
I've been looking into the social networking software offers..... nothing seemed to run perfect on the Quadra 650 (only currently accessible 68k machine (in this house)). I'm sure I could make chat of some kind..... but a more fully featured thing would be great.
I would like to be able to chat, post on a forum and send messages..... which is something that 68kmla takes care of to some degree, but like I say, it would be good to be more universal for any 680x0 platform.
I would like to upload pictures & other files of interest, bearing in mind the limitations of the 68k processor in this day & age, smaller files would be better & support for older file formats would be good. At the top here there is flikr..... I've used flikr about 10 or 20 times at the very most, only if I come here really.
So a site that could do these things in one place would be great... I don't believe it would dilute the community, rather it would just give an extra tool for people to communicate, & uploading pics would hardly step on the toes of flikr as that's all about the modern world with it's giant sized jpeg files & what have you.
I may end up making the site myself, though it may not be great, but I'm posting here looking for the opportunity to be part of the creation...
Let me know if you get anything done steve!
I would like to be able to chat, post on a forum and send messages..... which is something that 68kmla takes care of to some degree, but like I say, it would be good to be more universal for any 680x0 platform.
I would like to upload pictures & other files of interest, bearing in mind the limitations of the 68k processor in this day & age, smaller files would be better & support for older file formats would be good. At the top here there is flikr..... I've used flikr about 10 or 20 times at the very most, only if I come here really.
So a site that could do these things in one place would be great... I don't believe it would dilute the community, rather it would just give an extra tool for people to communicate, & uploading pics would hardly step on the toes of flikr as that's all about the modern world with it's giant sized jpeg files & what have you.
I may end up making the site myself, though it may not be great, but I'm posting here looking for the opportunity to be part of the creation...
Let me know if you get anything done steve!
It's going to be impossible to source a fully updated browser for older versions of the Mac OS so a proprietary piece of communication software will be required for older machines or the site would have to be constructed using only outdated web technologies so that early browsers could still access them without glitching or locking up. Myspace or Facebook using early web technologies is going to be painful to look at but if someone thinks they can do it, then go for it.