Product review and beta sites wanted: AstroFlowGuard

Sat Aug 23 17:10:03 PDT 2003

Quoting Matt Olander (matt at offmyserver.com):
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 02:08:04PM -0400, J C Lawrence wrote:
> > > We like "HTML".  
> > 
> > There are a couple bits of the management controls which currently use
> > VBScript in the same manner many sites use Javascript to make things
> > like form behaviour a little more "friendly".  It is going to be fixed,
> > and soon.  You (and others) have been heard.
> 
> argh. yes, this was certainly a lack of foresight that I'll admit too.
> the move from VBScript (ugh) to Javascript is already in the works and
> will be complete in about 4-5 weeks.

I'd still suggest that while Javascript is fine to use if the
browser supports it and it's on, it's terrible to require.

It's very useful to aid a user filling out a form (entering data, whatever)
and ensuring that, say, numbers only are used in a ZIP code.  The data
must still be validated by the form handler, either way, but javascript
lets the user IMMEDIATELY get feedback that it's wrong.

However, when my browsers have Javascript off, it's still a web browser.
And this app won't work?  I blame the app for being broken.

I often find myself ssh'd into some place with many layers of tunnelling
(ssh to Box A which lets me ssh to box B).  I then, often, use tools
like lynx or w3m (text www browsers) to get some tasks done.

In my previous life at a company putting a web based UI infront of complex
software, we ensured that it worked for Netscape/Mozilla, IE and Lynx.
We weren't so pedantic about wellformed HTML (ironic given the product
which will stay unnamed).

> >   Note: It is precisely this sort of feedback (and much else) that Matt
> >   was looking for.  Just me commenting on how popular iBooks are in
> >   NOCs, or how much &feature; is needed is a little less convincing than
> >   half a dozen or more people in the field coming up with , "We need..."
> >   and "This won't work for us because..." statements.
> 
> actually, I did take your iBook remark seriously and passed it along but
> yes, the more specific feedback and suggestions from real world
> administrators we get, the better the product will be in the end.

Now run it with Opera on a PDA; run it with w3m.  Run it on a phone.

You'll start to lose presumptions like 1024/768 screens.

> > > I'll not mumble about running an IDS on a firewall and the issues of
> > > Watching the watcher here.
> > 
> > True, and its a fair complaint were AFG aimed at a larger deployment
> > case.
> 
> I agree. we're already talking to very large German ISP that feels
> exactly the same way. they are going to use the all-in-one units in
> their customer cabinets and are opting for separate, broken out
> appliances to run the larger operation.

Yeah, a friend works with very small IDE boxes - far less than 1U.
Re-worked, you could put 12 of these boards into a 3 or 4 U case.
All separate computers.  OTOH, virtual multiple machines via a vmware
type of trick would give you a full segregation with multiple machines.
(I've also seen 20 linuxes on a mainframe the size of my (modest) TV).