Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Help Beta Test Slashdot CSS

CmdrTaco posted more than 8 years ago | from the oh-my-god-it's-actually-happening dept.

Slashdot.org 581

After almost 8 years, Slashdot's HTML is finally getting an overhaul. For now the changes are almost entirely under the hood, as we migrate the current skin to CSS. Slashdot itself will migrate in the next few weeks, but for now, we'd appreciate it if people who understand CSS could take a look at Slashcode. If you use a browser that lets you select a stylesheet, you can take a look at that site with the Slashdot CSS Skin. Keep in mind that Slashcode doesn't look exactly like Slashdot, so there will be some differences between that site, and the final version that will appear on Slashdot. We're mainly looking for feedback on compatibility issues and blatant bugs. You can use our our SF bug tracker to submit bug reports. Thanks for your help. Once we move Slashdot, work will begin on a new look & feel. If you have ideas, you could start playing with the CSS stylesheets now!

cancel ×

581 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Just one question... (5, Funny)

suso (153703) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490338)

After almost 8 years, Slashdot's HTML is finally getting an overhaul.

What is a HTML?

Re:Just one question... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13490403)

What is a HTML?

Wow, that's like being in a roomfull of carpenters and asking "what's wood?" If that question was serious, go to 'View--Page Source' in your browser's menu bar and you'll see why it's a good idea to smooth things out.

Re:Just one question... (3, Funny)

JoeBar (546577) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490486)

What is a joke?

Sigh (4, Insightful)

suso (153703) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490489)

Of course I know what HTML is. I was trying to be funny (appearently wasted effort). The joke is that HTML is old. For slashdot to only be using HTML makes it old. Something so old that people forgot about it.

Oh nevermind.

Re:Sigh (1)

GoClick (775762) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490536)

I knew you were kidding *pat* *pat* *pat* there there....

So when are articles going to get dates with years on them?

css!! (5, Informative)

jlebrech (810586) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490343)

If you do change to CSS beware as some CSS is IE specific, like list trees.

Re:css!! (5, Funny)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490396)

Doesn't everyone on Slashdot use IE?

(sorry)

Re:css!! (5, Insightful)

qw(name) (718245) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490427)

The "design for all browsers" paradigm isn't a good one. It promotes the use of non-compliant browsers. It's much better to design to the standards no matter what.

Get a life (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13490453)

Get a life

Re:css!! (4, Funny)

cybersaga (451046) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490512)

Thank goodness everyone's customers use standards compliant browsers. Whew! Your theory would be totally ridiculous if they didn't.

[/sarcasm]

Re:css!! (3, Insightful)

bmongar (230600) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490520)

"Design for standards" paradigm isn't a good one. It promotes looking for consultants that won't drive away business.

Re:css!! (1)

T-Ranger (10520) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490538)

But here in reality, that hast to be "design for a subset of standards that major browsers actually use"

Re:css!! (3, Informative)

VJ42 (860241) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490443)

That shouldn't be a problem if the developers remember to use the w3c CSS validatior:
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/ [w3.org]

But seeing as they don't bother using even the html validator I'm not counting on it.

Re:css!! (1)

tehwebguy (860335) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490544)

i hiiiighly doubt that anyone working on slashdot will be testing it only on ie..

Waiiiiiiiiiit... (1)

scenestar (828656) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490565)

You want /. to adapt to IE's raped standards?

Even after slashdot had headlines stating Internet explorer was a "cancer to the web"?

Go eat a rock.

IE should be effectively killed.

w00t (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13490346)

Way to go Taco! This is a wonderful move, though well overdue.

Now get rid of the dupes, get your editors regularly participating in the comments so they know what /. is like for us regular users, somehow improve signal/noise, get some (non-Katz) feature articles, and you might finally stop the defection to Bruce Perens' excellent technocrat.net [technocrat.net] !

Fp, but blah. (-1, Offtopic)

c0ldfusi0n (736058) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490350)

In Soviet Korea, CSS beta test you! No, seriously, it's about damn time.

a word (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13490458)

Soviet blah. A word to the wise here, the new troll-in-a-can isn't:

"where is teh css? will someone *please* think of the bandwidth"

it's:

"When will slashcode finally adopt an AJAX framework?"

And it'll come in 2013, I promise*

Until then try new troll-in-a-can, comes with 10% more troll that your old soviet brand, aren't you glad the wall came down?

*promises from ACs may or may not be fulfilled

slashdot needs to support standards (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13490352)

sex with ducks mutherfuckers!

Will the beta bring the site down? (4, Interesting)

geomon (78680) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490354)

Just about every site remodel has problems. I have just gone over the list of things I have issues with on our local public school's new website. Most of my comments have to do with broken capabilites. I'm sure that the folks at /. have tested this system in a non-production environment, but things are bound to go wrong at first. The unfortunate thing about my local school district's website has been access. How much of the /. staff resources are going to be committed to the rollout and how soon are problems going to be addressed?

Considering the fact that it took nearly two minutes for the form to arrive makes me think we are in for a bumpy ride!

Re:Will the beta bring the site down? (2, Funny)

mspohr (589790) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490399)

It looks like /. has been slashdotted (slashdotti?).

Re:Will the beta bring the site down? (4, Funny)

liam193 (571414) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490470)

Slashcode has been slashdotted!

For all those wishing to read the original article, the contents have been replicated in a modified format here [slashdot.org] .

Re:Will the beta bring the site down? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13490501)

Perhaps this will help [mirrordot.org]

Oh My God, It's Actually Happening! (5, Interesting)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490355)

CmdrTaco? I have exactly two words for you.

This. Rocks.

Kudos on finally bringing Slashcode into the 21st century! The Slashdot style over on Slashcode looks absolutely wonderful, with none of the chunky layout problems that plague Slashdot itself! What I'd love to know is, how much bandwidth are you saving by using CSS? Many of the experiments done to date suggest that you could cut your bandwith usage by 30-50%! Will this update usher in a new era of faster page loading? Inquiring minds want to know! :-)

Tinfoil hat -- the firefox rendering bug..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13490423)

The only reason I used IE for many years was the firefox-slashdot-rendereing bug.

Seems now that the firefox slashdot rendering bug is fixed, the old broken /. can no longer be used to drive people away from F/OSS to Internet explorer. (for example, I switched totally to firefox)

Because this bug is fixed, I bet Microsoft (the buyer of quite a few /. ads) is no longer as interested in supporting /. Perhaps this is a strategy to implement IE-specific CSS to get people to switch from firefox to IE again

Re:Oh My God, It's Actually Happening! (2, Funny)

fshalor (133678) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490469)

It's also slashdoted...

LOL!!!

I love this site. hehe...

Re:Oh My God, It's Actually Happening! (3, Funny)

Crazy Man on Fire (153457) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490475)

Considering the fact that the Slashcode servers are now a pile of smoldering ash, I'm guessing they haven't saved much bandwidth

Re:Oh My God, It's Actually Happening! (4, Funny)

jpostel (114922) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490552)

CmdrTaco - "Do you smell something?"

CowboyNeal - "Oh Sh*t! The slashcode server's on fire!"

ROFL

Cover(Index) Page good ...Comments page bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13490564)

(I'm posting as AC because I already modded another comment)

The index page looked great, but when I clicked on a comment page, it was horrible and misshapen.

(I don't know if that was because the server was struggling under load and perhaps delivered only part the page and no style??).

Maybe adding a little JS ... (5, Interesting)

TeXMaster (593524) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490356)

for things like collapsing articles to header only and expanding them to full article? (And user options for the initial view)

MOD PARENT UP (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13490417)

Or someone write a firefox plugin to do this.

Re:MOD PARENT UP (1)

VJ42 (860241) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490487)

Greasemonkey [mozilla.org] will probably let you do it.

Re:MOD PARENT UP (1)

IMarvinTPA (104941) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490497)

Or go download the GreaseMonkey script for it...

(I'd link it, but the site is having difficulties.)

IMarv

Interesting new site... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13490358)

Internal Server Error

The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.
Please contact the server administrator, admins@slashcode.com and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.

More information about this error may be available in the server error log.

No logon (2, Informative)

liam193 (571414) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490360)

Is there a separate user database for slashcode? Logon doesn't seem to work and even a "send my password" doesn't recognize the login id. Perhaps this is just a Beta/Test issue, but it would be nice to test with real-world configurations and customizations.

Re:No logon (2, Funny)

WalksOnDirt (704461) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490574)

Sounds like the Slashdot main page got hacked, adding this artcle with a link to harvest Slashdot logins. B-)

Dear Slashdotters... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13490362)

It's getting cold down here.

-- Satan

500 Internal Server Error (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13490363)

Noooo. You killed slashcode.

Anyone have a cache?

The apocalypse draws nigh. (2, Funny)

funny-jack (741994) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490367)

from the oh-my-god-it's-actually-happening dept.

You can say that again.

Re:The apocalypse draws nigh. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13490422)

ok.

from the oh-my-god-it's-actually-happening dept.

There, I said it again.

OMFG (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13490373)

Slashdot going to CSS? Has hell frozen over!? Windows gone GPL!? What's next?

Re:OMFG (5, Funny)

schon (31600) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490449)

Slashdot going to CSS? Has hell frozen over!? Windows gone GPL!? What's next?

I'd answer, but I'm too busy trying to catch these damn flying pigs!

Re:OMFG (1)

FireFury03 (653718) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490521)

I'm hoping that we're going to see XHTML1.1 strict compliance on slashdot one day...

maybe apple ... (1)

mbaudis (585035) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490558)

maybe apple using switching the mac main processors from powerpc to some intel breed? though, this is even more unlikely, i think.

XHTML (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13490377)

Just curious -- not attacking or anything -- but why HTML 4 as opposed to XHTML 1 Strict? Is it because of the content type issues with a certain browser, strict XML compliance was too difficult, or simply that only purists ever seem to care? ;-)

Re:XHTML (3, Informative)

schon (31600) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490476)

but why HTML 4 as opposed to XHTML 1 Strict?

Here is a good list of reasons [utvinternet.ie] why HTML4 is preferable to XHTML.

Re:XHTML (4, Insightful)

spongman (182339) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490573)

that has to be the lamest excuse for a list of reasons why not to use something.

The Big Move (2, Informative)

qw(name) (718245) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490379)

It's good to see that you're moving on to something more modern. HTML 3.2 is very antiquated and isn't CSS friendly. It would more work to move to XHTML 1.0 Transitional but I would think that it would pay off big dividends in the future.

Re:The Big Move (2, Informative)

Sentry21 (8183) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490527)

I'm curious as to what you mean when you say 'HTML 3.2 ... isn't CSS friendly'. the CSS1 recommendation is actually older than the HTML 3.2 recommendation by about a month. Sure, it's not as CSS-friendly as, say, HTML 4.01 or XHTML 1.x, but I don't think 3.2 is explicitly unfriendly.

Slashdot.... testing??? (2, Interesting)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490392)

After almost 8 years, Slashdot's HTML is finally getting an overhaul.

I'm more surprised that after 8 years, slashdot is testing something on a machine that isn't the main server.

Seriously, while you guys are changing things, how about changing it so ALL code changes go through regression testing along with some major user testing before you drop ut into the production servers. We all dislike 503s, and we have see a TON of bugs pop up (like last weeks 'unable to see comments' for several hours).

I groan saying this... (1, Redundant)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490394)

but...

Is slashcode slashdotted??

Re:I groan saying this... (2, Funny)

wbren (682133) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490451)

No, the new site design is just a blank gray window with a never-ending browser status animation culminating in a message box that says "Host unavailable". I bet that only took three lines of CSS code.

Re:I groan saying this... (2, Funny)

T-Ranger (10520) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490513)

My bet is that they rewrote slash in Ruby on Rails, and as a result it actually takes negative storage space. slashcode isnt realy slashdotted, the extra hard drives that are popping out of that server have knocked out the ethernet line....

From Slashcode.com (1)

evil-osm (203438) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490397)

If you'd like to see what Slashdot might look like you can activate the Slashdot stylesheet on Slashcode.com in Firefox by choosing View > Page Style > Slashdot. I'm sure you can do the same thing with other browsers but you're on your own for the specifics of how to do so.

Why do this? (1)

L. VeGas (580015) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490398)

If it ain't broke... oh, nevermind.

Re:Why do this? (5, Insightful)

Pike (52876) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490478)

Um, because: [alistapart.com]

Though a few KB doesn't sound like a lot of bandwidth, let's add it up. Slashdot's FAQ, last updated 13 June 2000, states that they serve 50 million pages in a month. When you break down the figures, that's ~1,612,900 pages per day or ~18 pages per second. Bandwidth savings are as follows:

* Savings per day without caching the CSS files: ~3.15 GB bandwidth
* Savings per day with caching the CSS files: ~14 GB bandwidth

Most Slashdot visitors would have the CSS file cached, so we could ballpark the daily savings at ~10 GB bandwidth. A high volume of bandwidth from an ISP could be anywhere from $1 - $5 cost per GB of transfer, but let's calculate it at $1 per GB for an entire year. For this example, the total yearly savings for Slashdot would be: $3,650 USD!

Remember: this calculation is based on the number of pages served as of 13 June, 2000. I believe that Slashdot's traffic is much heavier now, but even using this three-year-old figure, the money saved is impressive.

Re:Why do this? (1)

FireFury03 (653718) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490570)

Remember: this calculation is based on the number of pages served as of 13 June, 2000. I believe that Slashdot's traffic is much heavier now, but even using this three-year-old figure, the money saved is impressive.

For extra bandwidth savings they should also think about using client-side XSLT. Send all the styling XHTML data to the clients as an XSLT stylesheet along with the CSS stylesheet, both the XSLT and CSS get cached by the browser and from then on you're just shifting the actual _content_ over the network. Definately a Good Thing.

Slashdotted (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13490401)

Slashcode is slashdotted.

Finally, Slashdot Slashdotted, Literally! (4, Funny)

conner_bw (120497) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490402)

Looks like the Slashcode servers aren't as robust and numerous as the Slashdot servers...

Technically, this count as Slashdot Slashotting itself.

The prophecy has been fulfilled.

Re:Finally, Slashdot Slashdotted, Literally! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13490493)

Just be glad that they din't link to the main site an brought that down.

But... (1)

daniil (775990) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490406)

...does it validate?

finally... lol (1)

kiskoa (696916) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490407)

A List Apart, the design magazine, did it nearly two years before [alistapart.com] !

Let me quote something from that article:


Before you panic because I'm picking on Slashdot, let me inform you that I asked Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda, the guru behind Slashdot, for permission to post this information, and he stated in his reply email:



Have fun. Feel free to submit patches back to us if you come up with anything useful. Slashdot's source code is open source and available at www.slashcode.com.



Browser compatibility testing (1, Funny)

Hulkster (722642) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490408)

I tested the CSS version with wget and it looks good ... ;-)

Newsflash (-1, Redundant)

James Youngman (3732) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490409)

Newsflash: Slashdot slashdots Slashcode. I get a 404 for http://www.slashcode.com/ [slashcode.com] .

404? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13490410)

Wow... looks like we just Slashdotted Slashcode. I never thought that would ever happen...

/. ed? (-1, Redundant)

kinkadius (882692) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490418)

Can't seem to reach it. oh man if this got slashdotted that would be classic...

Change? (0)

bazmail (764941) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490429)

we fear change.

*raises hands to block out the light.....*

next you'll be telling us (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13490430)

you fixed the american flag icon with the wrong number of stripes.

404 (1)

DavidBartlett (748559) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490431)

We have slashdotted the future.

Does the new version... (1, Funny)

Pivot (4465) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490434)

Come with a spell checker for submitters?

Re:Does the new version... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13490539)

how about a dupe checker?

Who is Making the Changes? (2, Insightful)

eno2001 (527078) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490435)

Is this in response to that big story last year where someone actually redid Slashdot's main page in CSS to show just how easy it would be to do? Kind of funny in a way because people who usually want to prove how easy something is to accomplish have no idea of just how much glue sits behind the scenes. That's usually what makes these kinds of changes so difficult and fraught with rendering errors, coding slips and the like. Even moreso when you only have a handful of decent people working on the system and a ton of mediocre people making up the majority of the development team. When it comes to systems this big and complicated, it's a wonder they work at all. So who will be making these CSS changes?

Re:Who is Making the Changes? (1)

omega9 (138280) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490515)

Just for reference:

The "someone" that redid Slashdot was A List Apart [alistapart.com] , more commonly refered to as ALA. It was a two part series.


ALA is an awesome sight for real-world web development. Also interesting is that they've recently redesigned their site as well and moved to Ruby On Rails [rubyonrails.org] in the process.

Jay Sherman says, (0)

sjoplin (556514) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490439)

"It stinks!" [wikipedia.org]

Poetic Justic (1)

SumDog (466607) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490442)

You know I can't seem to get to the site. Ah the slashdot effect on...well...slashdot. It's almost poetic

Sorry for being a luddite but.. (-1, Troll)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490445)

... who cares about CSS? Slashdot works and it works well. It aint broke so why fix it? I'm not interested in flash pages and fancy fluffy layouts and all that other crap that comes along with site "upgrades" , I just want to be able to read articles and comments. Period. Leave slashdot alone!

Re:Sorry for being a luddite but.. (1)

syrinx (106469) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490509)

Slashdot works and it works well.

LOL, mod parent funny.

Re:Sorry for being a luddite but.. (2, Insightful)

Lardmonster (302990) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490510)

"I just want to be able to read articles and comments. Period."

Sure.

But blind / partially sighted / physically disabled folks want to read articles and comments too. Period.

And CSS helps make websites more accessible.

Re:Sorry for being a luddite but.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13490516)

you've got it backwards

slashdot is horribly broken. it follows old standards and it doesnt follow them good. theres tons of page rendering problems

css isn't flash, slashdot isnt going to become shockwave.com its just going to become standard compliant.

css is what sites should be developed in now, its the new standard and slashdot needs to catchup and use it

Re:Sorry for being a luddite but.. (1)

cyborg_zx (893396) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490522)

There are numerous advantages of using CSS with HTML rather than using HTML alone - not least of which is that the old way is just fugly to maintain. As far as the user is concerned it has advantages too. For example it makes life a lot easier if you're using Lynx on a webpage that uses CSS and HTML standards properly. That goes for other accessability conerns as well.

IMHO the old Netscape way of doing styles with et al is broken, dead, and should be expunged from the Internet.

I don't know if you've ever tried developing with it but I stopped doing things the old way right after I found out about it.

Re:Sorry for being a luddite but.. (1)

nateziarek (904476) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490545)

Yes, CSS can cause people to go crqzy with design and layout and fluff. There was an article once in The Onion about a guy who got a new Photoshop filter and used it on everything. CSS can be a lot like that. However, CSS is also the future (hell current) of web design. It can cut bandwidth usage and in general make the pages "flow" better. Also, by using CSS (& I hope xHTML, haven't been able to look at SlashCode yet), you seperate content from layout, making it easier to offer Slashdot on other devices (like PDAs or Phones, etc). Slashcode isn't quite broke, but it probably doesn't work as well as a modern, popular CMS should.

Re:Sorry for being a luddite but.. (1)

schon (31600) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490579)

From the slashcode page:

this might bring savings of 10GB of bandwidth PER DAY, while making each reload a little faster for everyone

Stylish (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13490446)

I vote for the entire site to be made in Shockwave. CSS is for suckers.

Holy Living Fuck! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13490448)

Duke Nukem Forever is just about to be released too!

File not found (4, Funny)

CubicleView (910143) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490468)

Hi, could everyone stop clicking on the link for a minute so I can open it, thanks.

Did /code get /.'d? (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490474)

I get no response from server....

You slashdotted Slashcode! (1)

MarkEst1973 (769601) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490480)

You insensitive clod!

Hell froze over (5, Funny)

paulius_g (808556) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490495)

Damn,

It's getting cold down here.

      - Satan

Still buggy - wait for new slash sites (1)

Lord Satri (609291) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490503)

I decided to make my dreams come true and have my own slashsite. Wanting to migrate my successful GIS / RS mailing list to slash. http://www.matox.com/agisrs [matox.com]

SlashCSS is not "ready yet". I though it would be easy to setup the site, but even with a lot of help from the slash mailing lists and http://www.lottadot.com/ [lottadot.com] . A few weeks will be required for our launch announcement.

SlashCSS is really a great step in the right direction, however, my advice, if you're planning building a slash site, wait a little while, the whole process will be easier for you.

We chose slash over other CMS http://www.cmsmatrix.org/ [cmsmatrix.org] mainly because of the great (even if flawed) moderation system.

Pinch me, I'm dreaming!! (0, Offtopic)

Cally (10873) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490507)

Slashdot user since before there were user accounts (and when they were launched, alas! I thought "why would I want to waste time registering for an account? They'll probably just sell my email address to spammers...")

There's been a hell of a lot of water under the bridge since the late 90s, for me personally, for the Wacky World of Computinga and Geekdom, and the world in general... OSX on Intel... 9/11... the Iraq war... the slow inexorable rise of Linux and Free Software... the 'Slash' code was finally released (after many fun years taking the piss out of Taco because it was closed!)... DEC was bought by Compaq, Compaq bought by HP... IBM drank the koolaid and started pushing Linux.... Lucas released three of the worst films ever made... Matrix I... all the trollers and crapfloods (come back UG the open-source caveman, all is forgiven!)

And many other happy memories of hours wasted at work. And home. And I've changed from a Microsoft / Access developer to Perl, Apache, MySQL, become a real proper developer using Linux as a workstation and CVS... designed & built the system that automatically produces and releases antivirus updates... worked for a dotcom that went titsup... been unemployed... and managed to move over to fulltime network security / pentesting. But enough of my yakkin'...

Bug Report (5, Funny)

johnkoer (163434) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490514)

I tried this and it seems to be kicking out quite a few duplicate stories. Is that normal?

The document contains no data. (0, Redundant)

Thaelon (250687) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490519)

Ladies and gentlemen it has finally happened.

Slashdot has slashdotted itself.*

*Ok, so slashdot slashdotted www.slashcode.com. Slash slash slash......slash

in other news (2, Funny)

rayde (738949) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490531)

Duke Nuken Forever is being released! On the Phantom Gaming Console. Which will be running Longhorn!

seriously though, this is a good thing, hopefully this will allow for user-chosen themes, etc. and way to get http://it.slashdot.org/ [slashdot.org] to not look like baby poo.

WOW! (1)

N3wsByt3 (758224) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490541)

Merely 8 years, and the code already gets an update!

With the high level of IT nerds around here, one can only guess what's next! Maybe something wild... like maybe slashdot will become readable when you use Firefox, for instance!

The skype is the limit!

huh? (3, Interesting)

bad_outlook (868902) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490547)

finally, being as /. is such a tech site, it's about time to bring things into this century. Hell, I rework my site constantly, I still can't believe /. went so long with old/outdated/non-validated code. perhaps it could be a quarterly thing to update things in the future.

Slashcode's been Slashdotted (0, Redundant)

suckass (169442) | more than 8 years ago | (#13490568)

oh the horror
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>