<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for ubiquitic</title><link>http://disqus.com/by/ubiquitic/</link><description></description><atom:link href="http://disqus.com/ubiquitic/comments.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2015 02:23:03 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: URLFind &amp;#8211; Faites une petite analyse de votre site</title><link>http://korben.info/urlfind-faites-une-petite-analyse-de-votre-site.html#comment-2092348579</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Deux essais, le 1er affiche un lien entrant qui n'existe pas, le 2nd ne trouve aucun des liens sortants présents sur la page.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ce service n'a pas l'air très fiable.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">François Nonnenmacher</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2015 02:23:03 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: As Campaign Ends, Was Calling Out "Dying Platforms" Good for Posterous?</title><link>http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/as_campaign_ends_was_calling_out_dying_platforms_good_for_posterous.php#comment-917269608</link><description>&lt;p&gt;And today Posterous dies. Oh the irony…&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">François Nonnenmacher</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 03 Jun 2013 02:52:43 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Movable Type Releases 39 Plug Ins, Includes Social, Analytic, Editing Enhancements</title><link>http://www.cmswire.com/cms/customer-experience/movable-type-releases-39-plug-ins-includes-social-analytic-editing-enhancements-018225.php#comment-712244259</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Funny to see CMSWire refer to MT as a "blogging platform" when it's a real CMS that happens to have a good blog engine inside. Nothing forces you to have a blog when using MT for publishing a website. (Ironically, that's precisely the move from a blog-only engine (MT4) to a CMS (MT5) that bothered a few people years ago.)&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">François Nonnenmacher</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:37:39 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: One minor point on the comment bullshit</title><link>http://www.bynkii.com/archives/2012/01/one_minor_point_on_the_comment.html#comment-400943657</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Good point on the link juice, but why not using the rel="nofollow" attribute on a link and make the experience for your readers better while not giving any SEO advantage to the source?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">François Nonnenmacher</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2012 22:07:38 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The WordPress Attack, Competition and Blogging Innovation</title><link>https://onemanandhisblog.com/2009/09/the_wordpress_attack_competition_and_blo/#comment-16220371</link><description>&lt;p&gt;"There are no good alternatives for a less technical user who wants to self-host."&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Actually there is: Dotclear. Much simpler to use, less hacky for the power-user but better written and less of a hog than WP. Very popular in francophone-land and powering thousands of blogs (the Gandiblog hosted platform at Gandi is based on it). Never heard of an attack against it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Disclosure: I'm a Movable Type veteran and make a decent living out of it. I understand the line between the casual, non-technical blogger and the power-user, but I would not use WP either personally or on a professional basis, precisely because of the regular security issues it has, that other blog/CMS software have not. I tend to agree with the "dominance factor" being an incentive for attackers, but I disagree that this is the only explanation for WP (and its plugins) poor security track record.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">François Nonnenmacher</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2009 20:30:52 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>