Most importantly, we want you to know that Classic Slashdot isn't going away until we're confident that the new site is ready. And — okay, we've got it — it's not ready.
Why are you so inflexible on the idea of keeping classic slashdot *forever*. Think of it as a protected historical landmark in the internet space. To help future generations understand where this 'blogging' thing really came from? Computers are good like that, keep classic.slashdot.org FOREVER and your audience^H^H^H CONTRIBUTORS might stop rallying against you.
Totally agree. They seem hell bent on changing it no matter what.
I get that they want to make more money and would love to help them do that, but the only way to make that happen is to be smarter about their ads. You have the super, mega, ultimate nerd tech site and can't figure out how to make oodles of cash???!!!! Jeez it's like having the Internet version of the Superbowl EVERY DAY and saying we can't make any money!
Here's a car analogy that might help: I recently purchased a new vehicle and have been
The same reason they keep updating Gnome and KDE, to keep people busy. People fail to realize at some point there is a peak of usability and perfection. But no, people keep wanting to change things.
I agree, I have been on/. since at least 1999 and the best solution is just to leave the Classic option and you can do whatever you want with the "Beta" version of slashdot. You have made changes over the years and I always go back to the "Classic" look of Slashdot. I like the current density of information on the home page and do not want to scroll through 8 pages just to see 4 stories.
So make whatever changes you like, even make it the default view for new visitors, but for us oldtimers please le
Probably becasue it costs a lot of moeny to maintain the old crappy site and the new modern awesome site.
Work isn't free, the site isn't free, servers aren't free. Got it?
I get it. But I don't think you've seriously considered it. You have to weigh the benefits of the work vs the cost. The comments all day today, should illustrate an estimate of the value gained by that maintenance cost. Likewise, you aren't honestly suggesting that server cost is a real issue are you? One server can serve multiple code paths. And the bandwidth and server resources are proportional to the number of visitors accessing that service. And by the time you imagine that many people would cho
My guess is because it's a waste of resources. They'd have to maintain it anyway, and it'd be a lot harder to upgrade features which depend on common data sets. Hell, I'm pretty sure Slashdot users complained every time the site changed, but you wouldn't still be using the 1997 version if you had the chance.
I have nothing wrong with updating the software. The problem I have is how they're going about it: redesigning from scratch rather than upgrading the current, functioning site, and seemingly going in a di
Why are you so inflexible on the idea of keeping classic slashdot *forever*.
Because whilst it's obviously technically possible - and I think as many have said here trying to argue otherwise is *not* going to pass water with a single user of this website - doing so is an admission that the change wasn't really needed and that doesn't seem to be something that is going to be accepted.
The only way to learn a new programming language is by writing programs in it.
- Brian Kernighan
Why not keep classic forever? (Score:5, Insightful)
Most importantly, we want you to know that Classic Slashdot isn't going away until we're confident that the new site is ready. And — okay, we've got it — it's not ready.
Why are you so inflexible on the idea of keeping classic slashdot *forever*. Think of it as a protected historical landmark in the internet space. To help future generations understand where this 'blogging' thing really came from? Computers are good like that, keep classic.slashdot.org FOREVER and your audience^H^H^H CONTRIBUTORS might stop rallying against you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The same reason they keep updating Gnome and KDE, to keep people busy. People fail to realize at some point there is a peak of usability and perfection. But no, people keep wanting to change things.
Re: (Score:1)
You have made changes over the years and I always go back to the "Classic" look of Slashdot.
I like the current density of information on the home page and do not want to scroll through 8 pages just to see 4 stories.
So make whatever changes you like, even make it the default view for new visitors, but for us oldtimers please le
Probably becasue it costs a lot of moeny (Score:1)
to maintain the old crappy site and the new modern awesome site.
Work isn't free, the site isn't free, servers aren't free.
Got it?
Re: (Score:2)
Probably becasue it costs a lot of moeny to maintain the old crappy site and the new modern awesome site.
Work isn't free, the site isn't free, servers aren't free.
Got it?
I get it. But I don't think you've seriously considered it. You have to weigh the benefits of the work vs the cost. The comments all day today, should illustrate an estimate of the value gained by that maintenance cost. Likewise, you aren't honestly suggesting that server cost is a real issue are you? One server can serve multiple code paths. And the bandwidth and server resources are proportional to the number of visitors accessing that service. And by the time you imagine that many people would cho
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you so inflexible on the idea of keeping classic slashdot *forever*. Think of it as a protected historical landmark in the internet space.
I'm writing UNESCO World Heritage Centre to preserve the Classic right now!
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/ [unesco.org]
Re: (Score:0)
My guess is because it's a waste of resources. They'd have to maintain it anyway, and it'd be a lot harder to upgrade features which depend on common data sets.
Hell, I'm pretty sure Slashdot users complained every time the site changed, but you wouldn't still be using the 1997 version if you had the chance.
I have nothing wrong with updating the software. The problem I have is how they're going about it: redesigning from scratch rather than upgrading the current, functioning site, and seemingly going in a di
Re: (Score:2)
Because whilst it's obviously technically possible - and I think as many have said here trying to argue otherwise is *not* going to pass water with a single user of this website - doing so is an admission that the change wasn't really needed and that doesn't seem to be something that is going to be accepted.