Every once in a while, I get to write Java code. Having always used an external library (jakarta-regexp) to do regular expressions in my Java code, this constitutes my first try with the JDK 1.4 RegEx classes:
Pattern pattern = Pattern.compile(”^([0-9]*):.*”);
Matcher matcher = pattern.matcher(title);
if (matcher.matches()) {
result = matcher.group(1) + “: “;
}
Popularity: 77%
DB9
- DCD
- RxD
- TxD
- DTR
- GND
- DSR
- RTS
- CTS
- RI
RJ45
- RTS
- DTR
- TxD
- GND
- GND
- RxD
- DSR/DCD
- CTS
Hook DB9 2, 3, and 5 to RJ45 3, 6, and 4/5. Done.
Popularity: 71%
I have been recently working on features in FeedLounge where we want to present a pretty URI to our users, so I decided to pull in mod_rewrite into the lighttpd mix.
No matter what I tried, I couldn’t get the rewritten URI passed down to the FastCGI processes. According to the lighttpd documentation, you only need to order the directives, and everything ‘just works’. I enabled request handling debugging, and I could see the URI being rewritten, but then be passed to FastCGI as the untouched URL.
I tried older versions of lighttpd, just to see if it was a bug, same problem. I then jumped on the lighttpd IRC channel, and was told that the rewritten URI is passed to the FastCGI process as the variable REDIRECT_URI. Brilliant. I read the FastCGI spec again, and could not find anything related to this, so I ended hacking up my request class something along these lines:
req.uri = env.get('REDIRECT_URI', 'BLANK')
if req.uri == 'BLANK':
req.uri = env.get('REQUEST_URI', '')
Not the best solution, but it does get the right URI passed into the python processes to get the work done.
I should note a couple of things:
- I am much more comfortable with Apache
- I did get a response from the lighttpd community in the same time I would have got a response about a similar issue with Apache
Popularity: 81%
Dude 1: “What language are you using?”
Dude 2: “Dude!”
Dude 1: “Sweet! What language are you using?”
Does that make you a duder?
Popularity: 66%
TechCrunch has a review of 9 online feed readers, and FeedLounge was happy to be included. A follow-up podcast was also published by TalkCrunch, discussed the state of online feed reading with Newsgator, Attensa, Rojo, and FeedLounge.
I wanted to mention a few things that were either missing or just wrong in either of the entries.
Modifications
In the features grid, a number of things should be changed for accuracy:
- Number of panes for viewing - FeedLounge was listed as a 3 pane interface, when we actually offer a 2 pane version, as well as two 3 pane versions, so FeedLounge should be changed to show 2/3. The real question should be: “How many views is the user offered to view their content?”, as one size does not fit all.
- Date sorting - This was just added in the SOG release, so notch that one.
- Public subscriber counts - FeedLounge does tell the feed publisher the subscriber count for a feed, so while I would consider that public, some may not.
Omissions
- Mark Item Read/Unread - Just as one view does not suit all users, neither should marking an entire feed read. There should really be a row for marking a single item read, as some (cough cough) readers do not allow that.
Podcast Notes
In the podcast, a few things are worth mentioning:
- I do like it when FeedLounge is called ‘Super Quick’. I am very happy when people notice the work we have done.
- Very interesting that no one is willing to disclose the number of users.
- Feed reading can become a ‘pillar application’ of the internet (Chris of Rojo). Growth is in growing the market, not stealing from each other.
- Michael notes that rendering HTML in the online products is crap: I don’t think that is necessarily true. FeedLounge does this as well as NNW, in my opinion. This is just a simple styling issue, and I am glad to have Alex around to make that happen.
- Michael said he had tried all 9 readers at the start, and then mentions he never tried FeedLounge at about 37 minutes in. I assume the latter is the truth. I guess I have to call ‘bullshit’ on Michael.
- Does FeedLounge have a chance (given the business model)? No and maybe, and yes. I would say we are here now and our hard expenses are above water already, so I would have to go with yes. Yes, I believed before I started, so I am only more of a believer at this point.
My opinion on what makes FeedLounge better
Frank Gruber noted in his review:
Aside from the exceptional performance rating, I wonder what else sets FeedLounge apart from its free competitors.
User experience is very hard to quantify, but my personal favorite example is this:
- Login to FeedLounge
- Press the space bar (and again, and so on…)
That is all you need to know for the simplest, most pleasing user experience online right now - in my opinion, of course. If you came from Bloglines and are used to reading that way, you may not see the benefits from the differences in FeedLounge immediately, but I do believe it will sink in after a while. If you come from an client based reader such as NetNewsWire, FeedLounge is going to be the closest thing to emulate that richer experience. Many people that use a client based reader have a hard time with an online reader, and FeedLounge is trying to bridge that ‘user experience’ gap.
Why we charge for FeedLounge
Many people continue to speculate about whether we should charge, or whether we will succeed, etc. FeedLounge is a business, and like any and every other business out there, it has to make money to survive.
All of the other players with “free” readers are keeping afloat by other means such as VC funding, other products keeping the reader afloat, showing ads, etc. In the end, there are costs, and someone/something has to pay them. When the VC funding runs out for some of these companies, there will need to be a way to monetize the product.
As a service, FeedLounge charges the user to keep the content downloaded, arranged, and tracked whether they are online or not. We don’t present ads, and we are not funded by other entities.
We are delivering real value to our users today, and will be able to survive as long as the user community believes we are providing value. Nothing hidden.
Popularity: 74%
