Since when has now.netapp.com needed JavaScript & Cookies?
I find this unacceptable:
a) I have JavaScript (& Java) disabled on my GUI browser because it increases the reliability and security.
b) My text browser (lynx) doesn't support JavaScript.
With NetApp's drive to encouraging customers to using now.netapp.com as a method to lodge support calls, I remind them that until this point I could do everything (manage my filers, submit calls, look at bug reports/new releases) via a text based connected *if* I needed to.
Next thing we know the initial release of new features will only be available via Windows and/or Web based GUI interfaces. Memo to NetApp: if you do this, you will lose customers.
Luke.
(Afraid of the slippery slope to brain damaged interfaces because of PC magazine perceptions that filers ``need'' a GUI..)
Luke Mewburn (lukem@cs.rmit.edu.au) said, on [991017 20:43]:
Since when has now.netapp.com needed JavaScript & Cookies?
Since someone decided that IIS/ASP was a Good Thing(TM). And, AFAICT, the cookies aren't used at all for the only technical reason for using them, keeping state. I smell the presence of marketroids and user tracking. Pfeh.
I find this unacceptable:
a) I have JavaScript (& Java) disabled on my GUI browser because it increases the reliability and security.
b) My text browser (lynx) doesn't support JavaScript.
As do a fair number of the people who use NOW, I'd wager.
With NetApp's drive to encouraging customers to using now.netapp.com as a method to lodge support calls, I remind them that until this point I could do everything (manage my filers, submit calls, look at bug reports/new releases) via a text based connected *if* I needed to.
So could I. And if I ever need information from NOW in the middle of the night, while I'm hunched over a dead filer in a colo cage, with nothing but a vt100 at my disposal, I'm going to pitch a pretty serious fit. This is a technical resource, folks, not just another opportunity for your marketing department to count hits.
Guys,
CLI will be out in the next few years, no matters where your nostalgia goes. The whole market is going that way, and I'm not sure it's that bad, but anyway - NetApp is probably not the first company to have a nice looking web.
Blame your textual browsers for not handling that, no NetApp for designing good looking pages.
Eyal/Motorola.
Pete Ehlke wrote:
Luke Mewburn (lukem@cs.rmit.edu.au) said, on [991017 20:43]:
Since when has now.netapp.com needed JavaScript & Cookies?
Since someone decided that IIS/ASP was a Good Thing(TM). And, AFAICT, the cookies aren't used at all for the only technical reason for using them, keeping state. I smell the presence of marketroids and user tracking. Pfeh.
I find this unacceptable:
a) I have JavaScript (& Java) disabled on my GUI browser because it increases the reliability and security. b) My text browser (lynx) doesn't support JavaScript.As do a fair number of the people who use NOW, I'd wager.
With NetApp's drive to encouraging customers to using now.netapp.com as a method to lodge support calls, I remind them that until this point I could do everything (manage my filers, submit calls, look at bug reports/new releases) via a text based connected *if* I needed to.
So could I. And if I ever need information from NOW in the middle of the night, while I'm hunched over a dead filer in a colo cage, with nothing but a vt100 at my disposal, I'm going to pitch a pretty serious fit. This is a technical resource, folks, not just another opportunity for your marketing department to count hits.
-- Pete Ehlke Sys Admin type @ Sony Music entertainment "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action." -- Ian Fleming
1999-10-18-01:31:39 Eyal Traitel:
CLI will be out in the next few years, no matters where your nostalgia goes.
If by "CLI" you mean command-line interfaces, why no, they're going nowhere, they remain the most efficient and powerful tool for getting work done.
Sure, somewhere well over 90% of users may prefer to avoid getting work done, and for that goal, graphical user interfaces are terrific, but there will remain a few of us who use our computers productively, and we'll be using command lines.
None of which has anything to do with the issue at hand....
The whole market is going that way, and I'm not sure it's that bad, but anyway - NetApp is probably not the first company to have a nice looking web.
Blame your textual browsers for not handling that, no NetApp for designing good looking pages.
Ahh, you've confused "nice-looking website" with "website that requires Java, Javascript, or cookies to navigate". Turns out they have nothing to do with each other; rather, "websites that require security-problematic hacks to use" are better correlated with "websites designed by morons". Browsers that don't support Java, Javascript, or cookies --- or that have these capabilities turned off --- are the choice of people who care about security, performance, and stability.
Now there may well be a coincidence that people who care about these things may be likelier to care about getting work done, and less interested in playing games, and so may be likelier to use a command-line more than a GUI, so perhaps I'm wrong, maybe your opening salvo really was apropos. Of course if Netapp things the vast majority of people who don't want to get work done constitute the market they need to pursue to increase their market share, then maybe their website redesign is appropriate. But if they're pursuing that pack, they probably need to drop the price per box by a couple of orders of magnitude.
-Bennett
If NetApp needs to have their website so fancy, there is no reason they couldn't have it support all types of browsers. If I use a terminal to access my filer, then I want to use the same terminal to access support documentation. It is there for support (not marketing) purposes after all.
Thanks, Tom
On Mon, 18 Oct 1999, Eyal Traitel wrote:
Guys,
CLI will be out in the next few years, no matters where your nostalgia goes. The whole market is going that way, and I'm not sure it's that bad, but anyway
NetApp is probably not the first company to have a nice looking web.
Blame your textual browsers for not handling that, no NetApp for designing good looking pages.
Eyal/Motorola.
Pete Ehlke wrote:
Luke Mewburn (lukem@cs.rmit.edu.au) said, on [991017 20:43]:
Since when has now.netapp.com needed JavaScript & Cookies?
Since someone decided that IIS/ASP was a Good Thing(TM). And, AFAICT, the cookies aren't used at all for the only technical reason for using them, keeping state. I smell the presence of marketroids and user tracking. Pfeh.
I find this unacceptable:
a) I have JavaScript (& Java) disabled on my GUI browser because it increases the reliability and security. b) My text browser (lynx) doesn't support JavaScript.As do a fair number of the people who use NOW, I'd wager.
With NetApp's drive to encouraging customers to using now.netapp.com as a method to lodge support calls, I remind them that until this point I could do everything (manage my filers, submit calls, look at bug reports/new releases) via a text based connected *if* I needed to.
So could I. And if I ever need information from NOW in the middle of the night, while I'm hunched over a dead filer in a colo cage, with nothing but a vt100 at my disposal, I'm going to pitch a pretty serious fit. This is a technical resource, folks, not just another opportunity for your marketing department to count hits.
-- Pete Ehlke Sys Admin type @ Sony Music entertainment "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action." -- Ian Fleming
In the immortal words of Eyal Traitel (r55789@email.sps.mot.com):
CLI will be out in the next few years, no matters where your nostalgia goes. The whole market is going that way, and I'm not sure it's that bad, but anyway - NetApp is probably not the first company to have a nice looking web.
Blame your textual browsers for not handling that, no NetApp for designing good looking pages.
Excuse me, but it's generally considered rude to sleep through a conversation and then wake up and offer a non sequitor.
Nobody is complaining about how the pages LOOK.
-n
------------------------------------------------------------memory@blank.org If people buy more copies of Unreal than Quake2, we will have to re-evaluate our design decisions. If people buy more copies of Jedi Knight than Quake2, we will have to see about getting a Star Wars license :-). (--Brian Hook, id Software) http://www.blank.org/memory/------------------------------------------------
I presume this is flamebait ? ;p
I agree with the arguement of VT100 usage -- that's why most admins use VI instead of EMACS or prettier editors -- because when a system is down, many are headless and all you got is that serial connection (or slow dialup vs going in to use the pretty GUI).
But more importantly, and the thing that makes UNIX most powerful -- you can script a CLI, but not a GUI (I know there's expect, but that's not a simple solution).
On Mon, 18 Oct 1999, Eyal Traitel wrote:
Guys,
CLI will be out in the next few years, no matters where your nostalgia goes. The whole market is going that way, and I'm not sure it's that bad, but anyway
NetApp is probably not the first company to have a nice looking web.
Blame your textual browsers for not handling that, no NetApp for designing good looking pages.
Eyal/Motorola.
Pete Ehlke wrote:
Luke Mewburn (lukem@cs.rmit.edu.au) said, on [991017 20:43]:
Since when has now.netapp.com needed JavaScript & Cookies?
Since someone decided that IIS/ASP was a Good Thing(TM). And, AFAICT, the cookies aren't used at all for the only technical reason for using them, keeping state. I smell the presence of marketroids and user tracking. Pfeh.
I find this unacceptable:
a) I have JavaScript (& Java) disabled on my GUI browser because it increases the reliability and security. b) My text browser (lynx) doesn't support JavaScript.As do a fair number of the people who use NOW, I'd wager.
With NetApp's drive to encouraging customers to using now.netapp.com as a method to lodge support calls, I remind them that until this point I could do everything (manage my filers, submit calls, look at bug reports/new releases) via a text based connected *if* I needed to.
So could I. And if I ever need information from NOW in the middle of the night, while I'm hunched over a dead filer in a colo cage, with nothing but a vt100 at my disposal, I'm going to pitch a pretty serious fit. This is a technical resource, folks, not just another opportunity for your marketing department to count hits.
-- Pete Ehlke Sys Admin type @ Sony Music entertainment "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action." -- Ian Fleming
----------- Jay Orr Systems Administrator Fujitsu Nexion Inc. St. Louis, MO
/* Eyal Traitel [r55789@email.sps.mot.com] writes: */
NetApp is probably not the first company to have a nice looking web.
Blame your textual browsers for not handling that, no NetApp for designing good looking pages.
I don't think anyone is complaining about NetApp having good looking pages, the complaint is that their site is not useful unless you use a cookie and javascript enabled browser.
My beef is that I have a couple filers at a co-location facility and when I needed to download the new OS, I'd have liked to just use lynx download it. That didn't work, so I used Netscape from my home machine and got to the write page, and once I found the link which would do the download, I tried doing an lwp-download on it, again, it failed. This stuck me with having to download the OS over my 56K line to my workstation and then re-upload it to the admin machine at the co-location facility.
I like NetApp's "nice looking web"; however, I do expect some basic functionality when I need to access it with a text based browser.
On Mon, 18 Oct 1999, Eyal Traitel wrote:
Blame your textual browsers for not handling that, no NetApp for designing good looking pages.
In this case form should follow the function. We usually don't go to the NOW site to admire the beautiful layout, but to access useful information. I think NetApp money and efforts would be better spent on improving the indexing and searching mechanisms of NOW rather than on the aesthetics. I was dismayed when I discovered that I need to enable cookies to enter the NOW site.
Tom
On Sun, Oct 17, 1999 at 09:41:09PM -0400, Pete Ehlke wrote:
So could I. And if I ever need information from NOW in the middle of the night, while I'm hunched over a dead filer in a colo cage, with nothing but a vt100 at my disposal, I'm going to pitch a pretty serious fit. This is a technical resource, folks, not just another opportunity for your marketing department to count hits.
This is a REALLY good point. NetApp should make sure that the NOW resources are available and at least reasonably readable in lynx.
-
Bennett Todd -
Dane Jasper -
Eyal Traitel -
Jay Orr -
Luke Mewburn -
Mitch Wright -
Nathan J. Mehl -
Pete Ehlke -
tkaczma＠gryf.net -
Tom McDonald