red banner and links with safari?

   

Why the link to StackOverflow? It is not our data, our community or the
possibility to influence the answers. Please delete it.
   I'll continue answering questions there, we should not point people
there.

Stephan

Oh, This explains it…

On 22-11-15 23:53, Ben Coman wrote:
> I guess the only real fix for the https pages produced to reference
> https stylesheets.
> cheers -ben
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 1:58 AM, Peter Uhnák
> <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     > The question now is: what do we need to fix to make it work?

Rewrite all internal links to use https when served over https

Stephan

Better yet, rewrite all links to be properly relative and independent of the scheme used.
This can also be done with external resources, for example:

    <!-- Custom Fonts -->
    <link href="//fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Lato:400" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css">
    <link href="//fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Titillium+Web:400" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css">

    <!-- Font Awesome-->
    <link rel="stylesheet" href="//maxcdn.bootstrapcdn.com/font-awesome/4.3.0/css/font-awesome.min.css">

Note the weird but valid // syntax of the URLs.

Sven

Ah, ok. I will make a TODO entry and will fix it… (maybe when back in Lille december so I can
do it with Esteban).

        Marcus

> On 23 November 2015 at 07:24, Stephan Eggermont <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Why the link to StackOverflow? It is not our data, our community or the possibility to influence the answers. Please delete it.
>  I'll continue answering questions there, we should not point people there.

A link to Stack Overflow is valuable in lots of ways:

1) It is a very good code facility for questions and answers, which is
exceptionally searchable via Google Bing et al.

Good facilities which we do not need to write or maintain ourselves
means that we can focus our effort on other things.  There is no
reason for us to re-invent a question-and-answer facility, or do the
work of keeping it as searchable as a curated site is.

2) Why does it matter who hosts the data?

It is freely and publically available, and Stack Exchange are
well-funded to keep it that way over the long haul.

What benefit does owning the data provide?  (My general experience is
that trying to control and own data leads to greater data losses over
time, compared to putting them in a well-funded public repository.

Does the rest of the world use github, or does it builld its own facilities?
We don't own the github data.  Github is not our community.

Do we use Slack, or have we built our own?
We don't own the Slack data.  Slack is not our community.

3) We certainly *do* have the possibility to influence the answers.
If we cannot influence answers to Pharo-specific questions on a public
Q&A site, who can?

4) Why Stack Overflow?
There was a famous bank robber in the USA who was on the FBI’s list of
Ten Most Wanted Fugitives.
He was asked by a reporter "Why do you rob banks?"
His answer was "Because that's where the money is."

Going to where there are valuable resources is a good idea.  For us,
the most valuable resource is developers.  People who develop the
Pharo platform and developers who *use* the Pharo platform.

At Stack Overflow, we have the opportunity to access the hearts and
minds of a *very* large group of developers.

We are a very small community, chronically short of developers,
documenters, testers, and many other roles.

Stack Overflow is a good way to help us encourage people to express
interest, and possibly even join us.

Stronger, wider, deeper awareness of the benefits of our platform can
only help interest in using it.

Pharo is not intended as an academic pursuit.

It is intended to help make a difference:
   to the professional lives of developers;
   to organisations;
and
   to individuals who need a good way of being introduced to OO fundamentals.

We make the best difference by making a difference to a large number
of people and organisations.

We make the best difference if a lot of people help us accelerate the
speed of progress and help us complete and maintain and document our
feature sets.

Cheers,
    Euan

On 30-11-15 05:16, EuanM wrote:
> A link to Stack Overflow is valuable in lots of ways:
>
> 1) It is a very good code facility for questions and answers, which is
> exceptionally searchable via Google Bing et al.

That is not valuable if we cannot provide the answers.
On StackOverflow we often cannot provide the answers needed.
The amount of time I had to spend getting closed questions reopened
makes it a bad platform for us. And remember, SO is not about giving the
right answers, it is about giving popular answers.

> 2) Why does it matter who hosts the data?
>
> It is freely and publically available, and Stack Exchange are
> well-funded to keep it that way over the long haul.

Because we need to think longer term. I regularly need 15 and 20year old
information. StackOverflow doesn't look to be making much money and is
not owned by a non-profit. That makes it vulnerable to new ownership
shutting it down. I agree that for SO the availability of the data is
not much of an issue. Ownership is, as we can not publish a digest of
interesting questions and answers.

> What benefit does owning the data provide?  (My general experience is
> that trying to control and own data leads to greater data losses over
> time, compared to putting them in a well-funded public repository.

There is a difference between a private and a public repository. Data
losses arise from using proprietary formats that can no longer be
reconstructed. Mail, irc and netnews archives are easy to read and keep
over time. We already know how to avoid data losses: use peer-to-peer
distribution, bittorrent style.

> Does the rest of the world use github, or does it builld its own facilities?
> We don't own the github data.  Github is not our community.

That makes depending on github only a bad move. The nice thing about git
is that it is properly distributed.

> Do we use Slack, or have we built our own?
> We don't own the Slack data.  Slack is not our community.

And that already creates problems. Valuable design discussions are not
properly preserved.

> 3) We certainly *do* have the possibility to influence the answers.
> If we cannot influence answers to Pharo-specific questions on a public
> Q&A site, who can?

1000 times as many clueless non-smalltalkers.

> 4) Why Stack Overflow?
> Going to where there are valuable resources is a good idea.  For us,
> the most valuable resource is developers.  People who develop the
> Pharo platform and developers who *use* the Pharo platform.

No, it is not. Paid smalltalk projects is much more valuable. We won't
get them from answering tech-only questions of new smalltalkers.
And let's take a look at what actually is on SO. What message does
looking at the smalltalk or pharo tag on SO send to these developers?
Who should that convince that developing in Pharo is a smart idea?

> At Stack Overflow, we have the opportunity to access the hearts and
> minds of a *very* large group of developers.

No we don't. At SO we can answer stupid questions requiring no
discussion or trade-offs. Everything else is closed. That makes it very
difficult to show the advantages of smalltalk.

> Stack Overflow is a good way to help us encourage people to express
> interest, and possibly even join us.

Not really. The first year or so we were able to provide interesting
information on SO, and even then we had enormous problems with the
clueless majority. Just take a look at questions on OODBs vs relational.
Already at that time it was clear that people using popular technology
gained reputation much faster than those using non-mainstream/hyped
technology. Thereafter, the closing down of everything that required a
little thought and discussion and the enormous amount of clueless
closers made SO a dying platform. The number of views and
answers/question is going down.

> Stronger, wider, deeper awareness of the benefits of our platform can
> only help interest in using it.

SO is not a platform that allows us to do that.

Stephan

I do agree there is some lost opportunity since fast/good responses on
SO provides a benchmark of the community for some people.  However the
overarching answer is that parties outside our community (senior SO
members) tune in to police "our" responses to questions posed to us
and close discussions as "not constructive"  or "not suited to the
site".  Complaints that our community was quite happy to answer such
questions posed to us went nowhere.

cheers -ben

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 12:16 PM, EuanM <[hidden email]> wrote: