Designing for aol

No, AOL does not support CGI. AOL sucks period. Don't use the website space they give their members either; long URL with no features whatsoever. Go with a domain and a paid host or something. Or even a free host, but not AOL...

I agree... find a decent free webhost with CGI support and maybe even a subdomain at the least. I'd stay away from AOL, Angelfire, Geocities, Tripod, and Xoom, especially if you're developing a business-related site.

I have a suggestion for designing on an AOL Member web site [which is about to be summarised in the following HTML Code.]:

Hi.

Hello, world!

That is the extent of AOL's 'highly advanced' web space. Anything else would require things like 'web servers' instead of gerbils in those little wheels..

Loved your answers. LOL

Thanks again for all the help.

MichelleB

Hi People,

Much as I hate supporting Almost OnLine:
I guess none of you have ever been on aol, huh?
I base this on the fact that you evidently don't know what you are talking about. AOL does have cgi, form, counters, etc...

How do I know? Look at my sig -- closely. Go to my site. Then tell someone else who trusts you to give her the straight dope some non-factual opinions.

Do I like AOL? No. Do I intend to leave AOL? Yes. But for none of the quote reasons endquote, you state.

Guess I am being a little too much, but this is the second posting I saw today where people were shooting their mouths off without thinking. I'm sorry and take this personally only if your flippant remarks were given seriously.

Vinny

...I don't think I've ever -been- serious. Hmm. I must've had a slip or something here and there. Damn me and my foolish brain!

Hi Mike,

I know you were just jumping into the fun Shoot, I do it also.
I posted what I did for 2 reasons, only the second of which is important: Michelle left thinking AOL has nothing in the form of cgi -- that misconception can cost her money. I know if I were her client and somehow I found out aol could do the things she said it couldn't....there goes the trust, the client, the money.
At any rate, I'm still waiting for my espresso to be ready so's I can wake up.

See you on the boards.

Vinny

No, I was on AOL for two years, and I know how crappy their web hosting space thing is. They don't support CGI; only pre-installed CGI scripts like formmail and guestbook type scripts. Ask any host and they will tell you that that doesn't count as supporting CGI.

Technically every web server supports CGI. Whether they support Perl is the important factor. I have no experience with AOL’s hosting. I haven’t used it since I first came on the Internet (8 years ago or so). And I’m sure it’s changed.

AOL does have a feature that compresses JPEG (it can be turned off in preferences), which really bugs me. Not only does it compromise image quality, but high resolution JPEG look horrible in AOL. When 50% (depending on the site) of your visitors are using AOL this can be a major consideration when designing JPEG graphics. Anyways that my latest complaint about AOL

Hi Justin,

Quote:
...(snip)...and I know how crappy their web hosting space thing is. They don't support CGI; only pre-installed CGI scripts like formmail and guestbook type scripts

That's your opinion, especially the 'crappy' part. Not a statement of fact. You do know the difference, right? Fact can be proved; opinion cannot.
Adam's statements about the compression (I'm presuming he means the thing they do with *.art files) is a fact. How it looks is an opinion.
In his case, there is some validity to his opinion. In your case, there is none. As you would have it: ask any host if their cgi includes formmail and they will either answer yes or no -- and whatever the answer, the implication is formmail is a cgi program.
According to you, every host/server should supply the same cgi programs as you have on your site. That's not the way it works.
Any way, it shouldn't be your decision whether AOL's meager cgi support is appropriate for someone else's client. You should supply facts -- as you know them -- make recommendations -- as you see them -- and let the client make the final decision.

Hi Adam: In all likelihood, AOL hasn't changed significantly in the last 8 years -- more frills, more flash, more nothing -- it's the same ole 'slow system response', bad connections, non-connections, kick-offs, bad support, etc, etc.
Yea, the compression stinks. And the poor users stuck in the "hometown" section get to have the same headaches plus ads
Shoot! I can go on for days complaining about AOL, but
if you have kids...

Vinny

Quote:
That's your opinion, especially the 'crappy' part. Not a statement of fact. You do know the difference, right? Fact can be proved; opinion cannot.

Of course that's my opinion. Does it say anywhere that you HAVE to post facts? MichelleB wanted to know if anyone had any experiance working with AOL sites. I do, and I think their service is crappy. That's my opinion.

Quote:
In his case, there is some validity to his opinion. In your case, there is none.

Why isn't there. I've used AOL's webspace service, and I think it's junk because a) they have ads for hometown users; big ads, b) they don't allow you to use CGI, and c) you get a long URL.

Quote:
As you would have it: ask any host if their cgi includes formmail and they will either answer yes or no -- and whatever the answer, the implication is formmail is a cgi program.

Formmail is a script that they let people use; a feature. MichelleB asked if you were allowed to use CGI. The answer is no. They allow you to use their formmail script, but not your own CGI program...

Quote:
Any way, it shouldn't be your decision whether AOL's meager cgi support is appropriate for someone else's client. You should supply facts -- as you know them -- make recommendations -- as you see them -- and let the client make the final decision.

As I said before, MichelleB wanted people to voice their opinion on AOL's website feature. I did, and from what I said she can make her decision. Not everything in this world has to fact. We couldn't live our live ONLY believing facts. Sometimes you have to use people's opinions.

I’m not sure why this topic has gotten so heated. True Perl support means that the Perl modules are available for use. I think that’s Justin’s point. AOL simply gives access to a CGI application of some type that can process specific data for you.

From what I’ve gathered AOL supports CGI (every server does). AOL does not support Perl or custom CGI programs. AOL however does supply a linking syntax to use their CGI programs which means AOL doesn’t have to worry about all kinds of problems that can occur from incorrect usage and installation.

When it comes down to it if your creating sites that need CUSTOM CGI ACCESS you need a host with Perl support. Otherwise hosts like AOL provide an easy alterative - not to mention low cost.

Vinny, Yes I am speaking of the .art file system. When all the “AOL gibberish” is removed it’s simply a compressed JPEG file with a new extension and a different file format. AOL doesn’t compress GIF’s or PNG’s (I believe at least). I have AOL 5.0 and have been using it to test a few large projects I’m working on. And your right, it’s not all that different from 2.0 or what ever I had years ago.

Quote:
True Perl support means that the Perl modules are available for use. I think that’s Justin’s point. AOL simply gives access to a CGI application of some type that can process specific data for you.

That's exactly the point I'm trying to get accross. All servers support CGI (well, almost all), but some companies like AOL don't allow their users to use it. Instead they let them use these pre-installed, pre-configured "script."

I'm just voicing my opinion...

I appreciate averyones input.

A pre-installed, pre-configured "script" is perfect for my needs with this client. I should have made my question more specific.

Please know that as a "brand-new, lots-to-learn, Web site designer, I am very happy for all the discussion this question stirred up. I am gathering all the info that I can.

Thanks again for your help,

MichelleB
mrae@primenet.com

Morning Justin,

As an ex-linguistics student, ex-instructor of remedial English and semi-centurian (may not be a real word, but I like its sound and roots :
I seem to recall having read some of your posts on this and other boards -- don't recall any offhand -- but the overall impression I have is that you generally post intelligent, well-thought solutions, complete with facts and solutions. In other words, a complete contrast to your first post to this thread -- which amounted to little more than posturing and host bashing. (If you think I'm wrong, ask your teacher.)
My working definition of cgi: a folder/directory on the server where executable programs users can evoke are placed. It doesn't matter if the program is written in perl, java or c/c++; it doesn't matter if it's a mail template, a form processor or a database engine. What does matter is the access.
At any rate, I agree with your 'factual' statements about aol. I may even agree with your original assessment of its services, but I disagree with the manner in which you expressed them.

Hi Michelle: glad to have been of help

Vinny

I don't really know what people think of me, so I can't answer your question about posting good replies and threads, but I can tell you, and I'm sure ThinkHost would agree, that I am a host basher

Also, the definition you used for CGI conflicts with itself. And I quote...

Quote:
A folder/directory on the server where executable programs users can evoke are placed.

I agree with that, but then you conflict your definition. I quote again...

Quote:
It doesn't matter if the program is written in perl, java or c/c++; it doesn't matter if it's a mail template, a form processor or a database engine. What does matter is the access.

Ok, I agree that it can be in any language, not just Perl, but then you say that the access is what matters. Exactly my point. AOL users don't have the access. They have these pre-installed scripts, which, going by your first definition, doesn't count as CGI.

Hi Justin,

I can call the mail program from my site. (user evokes) It executes the html commands I give it. (executable program) So my eyes, there is no conflict because I can access (get to use) the programs in the cgi bin.
You're confusing flexibility and customization with functionality. There are two types of access. Access for the user and access for the developer. No, aol does not provide unlimited access for the developer -- it's their bat and ball and you play by their rules. But it does provide access to cgi programs -- to the user. No customization, very little flexibility. (Notice the admission of some flexibility -- I know someone who has used aol's meager cgi 'scripts' to implement a viable forum -- a major feat of javascripting in my opinion
You have to realize some people actually like AOL -- it supplies their every need -- more than one screenname and email address, easy access to net garbage sites, etc. etc., and free space for a site. So host bashing doesn't do anything but make you look small.

Vinny
As the warden in Cool Hand Luke and in Guns & Roses' 'Civil War') says: What we have here is failure to communicate.

ARGH! [BOOM!] IT'S A WAR ZONE OUT THERE! [Machine Gun Fire.] GET DOWN! [Bang! Bang!] THERE'S NO STOPPING IT!

Vinny, your treading on thin grounds supporting AOL. I’d seriously consider your lively hood and safety before praising such a company in a public forum. I’m joking but I’m sure you’ll get some interesting responses.

I have nothing against AOL. The actual software is not terrible and I can see how it would be an advantage for some families.

In all fairness you both have your points. I don’t see why it’s become so personal. We’re simply discussing a simple compatibility issue. I know very few ISP’s that provide a CGI-BIN.

Hi adam,

Ooops! Didn't mean it to sound like I was pushing AOL; fact is, I try to discourage people from signing on. I just think everything has its place -- and didn't think Aol should be bashed simply because it's the McDonald's of ISPs.
At any rate, you're right and I'll stick to the javascript board, from here on in.

Vinny