What does the creator of RSS have to say on Google Reader phasing out?

While users from all over the world went crazy, signing petitions, begging Google to reconsider their decision about the phasing out of Google Reader in July, one person didn't give a fuck. I'm not talking about just anyone, I'm talking about the inventor of RSS!

Dave Winer, who is credited for his inventions of both RSS and blog, wanted to respond to the demise of Google Reader, Google's RSS service and feed aggregator:
"I won't miss it. I've never used it. I do not believe that a company as large as Google has common interests with me, and I do not trust them to store all the news I want to read. Besides that, I do not think that an approach such as "inbox" is a good idea. Who cares about the number of unread items? I like the idea of a river of news to read, and I have many configured flows, bringing me news and podcasts. [...] the next time, remember to pay for the services you depend on. Those have more chances of surviving the bubble. "
 

The approach is interesting, but probably too biased for the most of Google Reader users. Anyway, I have already published an article suggesting some alternatives to Google Reader.

Two quick tips!

I'm in a good mood and I really feel like sharing something. And since this isn't my diary, neither my twitter account, I thought why don't I share something with my really good committed (:@) readers. Something, that my readers will actually benefit from.

So, I have two tips, the first should concern anyone, anyone who access the web actually; And the second one, is exclusive to anyone who has a blog, a site or planning on getting one.

1st Tip: Your personal security.

We all know how critical our personal information can be, and yet people still choose to share them anywhere and then blame it on the web.

Well, I'm not saying that it is completely the user's fault. but corporations like Google are really working on privacy. And you also should. After all it's your information.

After this boring introduction, I'm going to talk to you about the security questions that you answer when you register in some sites, in order to get your password in case you forgot it. Well, the thing is, these days, these security questions aren't as secure as you would think. I mean take a look at this example :

WWW, WWW2, WWW3...What is the difference?

We've all seen www, www2, www3; We type for exemple 'www.company.com' and we're suddenly redirected to 'www3.company.com'. What exactly is this, and how do we get there?

Starting the domain name name of your web site with www. or www2. or www3. is a common convention and nothing more. There is nothing in the HTTP specification that says a web site must start with www. or any other prefix. It is simply a convention that began in the early days of the web and was used to distinguish a company's web server from its FTP server, gopher server, mail server, etc... But no such distinction is necessary, because this part of the URL, 'www.' help it decide how to perform this internal routing.
Usually this type of configuration is stored in your .htaccess file, located in public_html.

Another example is role-based routing. For example, store.company.com and developer.company.com are both hosted at company.com, but serve different roles on the web; one is an online store, the other is a site with resources for programmers. (And each is probably also load-balanced in ways that don't rewrite your URL.)