What is Digg?79 Comments
- Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Poor use of Ajax. Examples:
Click on a picture. Try and hit the back button. Doesn't work.
Click on a picture. Try and email it to a friend. They end up at the main gallery page.
Click on 'Next' to go the the next page of the gallery. Click on a picture. Hey, the back button is available this time! Click on it. Nothing happens.
There are good places to use Ajax - where it actually adds value to the application - and bad places to use Ajax - where you jump on the buzzword bandwagon for no good reason. Guess which one this is?
The thing is, there's absolutely *no point* in using Ajax here. It's not going to make things any faster, because the majority of the download time comes from loading the image - which you have to do anyway. This is a pointless source of bugs. - richardiscool, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14"A professional hacker"?
No white-hat calls themself a hacker, and if a black-hat is making money (yes, that's what professional means), then you must be stealing CC details or something, and if you're smart enough to do that, surely you're not stupid enough to openly admit it?
I call BS. - arnorhs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11**spydrlink**: Ok, so this guy comes a long with a fine piece of code that genarates a fine gallery... he's not saying it's the best, he's not even saying that it's the only one you need (he also points out links to other more complete galleries)... It's just a nice small bit of code you might want to use... And here you go to nag about small stuff that's completely besides the point...
Just aknowledge this fine bit of code, .. _IF_ you need a big complicated gallery that works in all browsers since netscape 1.0 and doesn't need JS, just pick something else, and don't nag about small stuff...
guys like you make me want to bite my eyeballs - smhill, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10"I'm not trying to be a troll here, I'm just curious about other people's thoughts on this. I am interested in the reasons that people might disable javascript to begin with."
Like many things with the web (cookies, "web-safe colors") it is kinda of a dated hold over from days gone by. Javascript is as much a part of the web as html and css these days. There really is no need or point to having it disabled.
That being said, there is accessibility. A good developer will build fall-throughs to account for this, and you should always account for this whenever possible. But I fully agree with you on this point. An image gallery has little need to overly accessible for screen-readers. But accessibility can also cover things like cell phones and PDAs. Build to your audience. - Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7> Maybe I'm unprofessional by using the term "hacking", but isn't that what I do?
In my experience, people who get paid to test security for organisations call themselves security consultants and call what they do auditing. They don't call what they do hacking and they don't write viruses - if for no other reason than it's *not necessary* to write a virus to determine whether a web application has holes or not. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I'm not trying to be a troll here, I'm just curious about other people's thoughts on this. I am interested in the reasons that people might disable javascript to begin with. I have never had a need to disable it and many web sites take for granted that it will be there. I have never seen anything wrong with that.
I know screen readers don't really support it, but for a photo gallery such as this one, the point is most definitely moot. Popups used to be a reason, but any decent popup blocker has long since taken care of that. So what are your motivations if you do happen to disable javascript? - kimos, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I second the BS call to "I am a professional hacker"...
Real hackers don't call themselves hackers, especially openly on a forum like this. That's a good opening line to make a bunch of people not take the rest of your post seriously.
Edit: LOL! Read the rest of your post... *ooooo* big man. Good thing that had nothing to do with anything. I'm sure you're impressing lots of people with your "web virus" that you used to take passwords from the site that you work for. - rekka, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7agh! Comic-sans! Run for the hills!
- fennecfoxen, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12Hey! I wasn't ready with my latest release yet! You could have given me five minutes to update the docs for version 1.11...
:) - olegk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8People, this is NOT AJAX, it's simple dynamic HTML. AJAX is when you use xmlhtpprequest.
- fennecfoxen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5No, it's not. The latest one isn't quite as lightweight and simple for me to put in... There is support for Lightbox version 2 in the vaporware (development) edition, though.
- shuai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think the point is, this is a bare-bones script in which one could customize easily, unlike Gallery2, due to its complexity.
- Matt2k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4It's fine. An AJAX photo gallery isn't my thing, but people on Digg are just *****
- Chrysalid, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7"Check out this excellent web gallery thingie!!!"
This is really spam - it's an advertisement and it does not give anything to 99 % of Digg users. - fennecfoxen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Spam? Advertisement? Well, maybe. I didn't post it, though. Someone I was chatting with on IRC did.
Myself, I was going to wait until I got cooler things together like, say, image sorting, reading EXIF data, more caching (server-side), a bit of a JavaScript rewrite, MUCH better non-Javascript-enabled-support, et cetera... before submitting it to anything big. - mjaleo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The example gallery is listed here: http://fennecfoxen.org/misc/photo/reynolda/#0
It's okay-- but it's not perfect as said before. - seventoes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The only thing that your ability to do that showed was that your users were using insecure browsers. IE, FF, Camino, Opera, and all decent recent version browsers today do NOT allow javascript to read cookies from other sites, and the only way i could think that you did anything else you claim is by making your script run in an iframe (which wouldnt work if they typed the address into the URL bar,) so i say your BSsing as a lame attempt to get people to disable JS.... I am an experienced JS developer , and i have never heard of any way to get javascript to read a cookie from a different domain.
BS. - shuai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think people today believe in "Free but Good" open-source. That's not always available, if you think about it, people work for money, or people work for free. What would be more motivating? Most of the time, the money incentive.
- mDot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@sulace
Blocking Java script eliminates the appearance of even text-based ads (Google), and just plain stops some of the nastiness Java script can produce.
NoScript is a good Firefox plug in that allows per-domain Javascript filtering. As turning it off and on the the browsers settings can be a pain. - Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@foobr,
He's talking about an XSS attack. You don't need any access to the server-side code to do that. The reason for mentioning that he works for the organisation is that he claims to be conducting the attack with approval, not to imply that he has write permissions on the server.
His story isn't credible, but at least try and understand what he is saying before ridiculing him. Being able to sniff passwords when you have write permissions to the server isn't a security issue, why would an organisation pay anybody to do that? Being able to sniff passwords when you don't have write permissions to the server *is* a security issue, and organisations do pay consultants to find things like that. - soogy, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10Poorly written. It doesn't support users who have JavaScript disabled. Just because it uses AJAX doesn't mean it can just skip all the accessibility rules.
- aamer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3man, people here are giving brutal reviews. this is not that bad of software. it has its flaws, but it's pretty decent.
- joshwehatetech, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Christ you people are a bunch of whining arses. Is the gallery perfect....no..... but for the love of god it is being offered for FREE and with source code. Perhaps instead of asking someone to apologize for posting something like this, perhaps offer up some constructive criticism and perhaps the individual will improve the product. Giant bitch sessions like this is why people are less likely to release their code. Either people whine and bitch because it isn't perfect or steal it and call it their own.
--Josh - Trigrhapy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yah no *****. Maybe if 75% of the people on here actually spent their time learning to program, instead of bitching, then they could design their own photo gallery. STFU already, a guy actually tried to accomplish something, if you dont like it dont use it.
- arnorhs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I say: Let things like not relying on Java-script be a _feature_ not a requirement to write a program!! crap
- oooo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Not a great gallery software. No support for non-js viewers, and no slideshow.
- tsdorsey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Digg.com, now more brutal than ever. ;)
I like it. I'm looking for some gallery code and there are 2 requirements. Free, and editable. Yours, while not the best thing out there is both. Thanks for making it available for free. - fennecfoxen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Wow. Zen Photo is really cool.
- diecastbeatdown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i'll have to agree here. very generic, but it a good start. i would like to see more browsable features and a slidebar style preview under the enlarged photo. navigation becomes tiresome after the first few clicks.
- fennecfoxen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2With regard to the guy saying it's Not Ajax - that's you, olegk:
function startGallery(){ g = $("gallery"); myAjax = new Ajax.Request(uri, {method: 'get', parameters: "act=json", onComplete: loadGallery }); }
If you'd like to browse prototype.js to see the axtual XMLHttpRequest use, you can do that too. This gallery actually loads the image list from JSON (which is admittedly not XML, but it works with the HTTP request :D)
Why this, instead of sending it in the page in a way that it could degrade better? Well... I wanted to learn JSON, for one thing, and for another it may be possible to put together multiple-gallery navigation this way, and... well... Heck, I might change it right back in another release. :D
As to whether it's above average or otherwise: I dunno. It's a lot better than the last gallery I had there. It's fairly slick, at least, and it does some basic HTTP support that many little PHP galleries lack.
Yes, it is designed to be a drop-in web gallery. Something for those situations when you think "Hey! I just shot 300 pictures of Reynolda House. I want to put them in a gallery online, and I'm kinda lazy." It is an entirely different class of application from Gallery2 and such.
That said... Yeah, most of these Digg people are, umm, hostile at best. :) - detrate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Could use a little beautification and perhaps make use of thumbnails or preloading...
- kmarius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Doesn't support Opera :( No digg
- Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@arnorhs,
It *isn't* a fine piece of code. Just because he's giving it away free, there's no need to pretend it's any good. Free gallery software is abundant, and most of it is much better than this. No offense intended to the author; it's clear this was released prematurely, but still, you're acting like he's made this important contribution to the world and needs to be rewarded with lots of fawning. It's a below average gallery web app, and the comments here reflect that. - lagerbottom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Dude, don't sweat these people, most of them wouldn't know good code if it bit them in the face.
- pucosk, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Why was this modded down. He is right, is degrades quite poorly with JS disabled. But there is some support, so it shouldn't be so hard to do.
- jessejoedotcom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Check out this one http://www.donkeymagic.co.uk/index.php?story=103 . It degrades beautifully. I almost like it better with JS turned off!
- Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Opera 8.52 on Linux just hangs at "loading..."
- Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No, the sort of thing he mentions is perfectly possible using cross-site scripting attacks. It's not a vulnerability in the web browser that allows cookie stealing, it's a vulnerability in the web application.
Basically if a web application doesn't escape data properly, and users can post data that is viewed by other users (e.g. your profile on social networking sites), then users can trick the web application into delivering JavaScript to other users in the web applications security context.
Of course, all that a bona fide security consultant would do is demonstrate that there is a flaw in the escaping, there's simply no need whatsoever to create a virus and "anti-virus virus" to clean up after the virus. That's just a waste of time unless you have malicious intent. - jessejoedotcom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Digg this one - http://digg.com/design/AJAX_Gallery_Experiment
Degrades way better. - alexp2ad, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2pucosk:
The main reason his comment was modded down, imo, is that he replied to a post that he shouldn't have, to be at the top of the comments, even though his comment was irrelevant to the post it was replying to.
I agree with what he says about accessibility, but not with where he put his comment. - fillup07, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1http://www.plogger.org
- fennecfoxen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Its submission was just a little... premature. Maybe it'd be a better idea if I had another week or two...
- aplusplus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2This just looks like a really poor version of Zen Photo.
- bradabrahams, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Doesn't work in Opera for me either. Still, I fired it up in dirty IE and it looks good. Nice work.
- fennecfoxen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm in Opera 8.54 for Windows XP. Everything here is working perfectly. Is there another version that's broken that I should be aware of? Or is something broken in this version that I missed?
- fillup07, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Check out Plogger
- mjaleo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Don't let the 13 year olds who know how to use bold tags and line breaks in HTML deter you from your project. If you started this a week ago Saturday-- then you're obviously pretty talented.
How about some more flashyness to the program? A cleaner UI? You're not very far off from some of the heavier hitters in the free gallery arena. - rustyryan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Shuai,
Apologize for being a complete and total ***** to a guy who's contributing to OSS. - nihalthainua, on 02/03/2009, -0/+0you can find same thing here :
http://www.dzinemart.com/article_view~18.html - washoetech, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Dear Spydrlink,
SHUT THE ***** UP YOU WHINING BITCH.
Most AJAX apps will not work with js on. DUHH! -
Show 51 - 79 of 79 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is