After a ridiculously long hiatus, orsburn.net is back online. While true it never went offline, the period of time between the last post and now means that it might as well have. With the new release, it's probably a good opportunity to describe a little behind the combination of the name, what with both “orsburn” and “static content.”
At one point way back when the blog was conceived, the idea was to use the term “static content” as the name. It was a sort of tongue-in-cheek expression hearkening back to the early days of the Web, when all web pages were updated manually. Think of it as a sort of antithesis of the way the Web actually works today. That is, where nearly 100% of the content on the Web is generated “on the fly” and from a host of sources.
So the question then becomes,”why not just staticcontent.com or something like that?” The answer is two-fold. Well one really, and this is it. Domain name squatting. The domain name staticcontent.com was already taken, as was staticcontent.net, but there was no website at either one. It's true that there are other top-level domains that could have been used, but it boiled down to the fact that orsburn.net was already owned and wasn't being used for anything else anyway. This is the pseudo second reason alluded to earlier, but is too cheesy to really count as a decision maker. It was really just a sort of work-around. The end result was a blog that is thought of as “Static Content” and is accessed via orsburn.net. It's not ideal, but so far we're going with it like this.
At one point way back when the blog was conceived, the idea was to use the term “static content” as the name. It was a sort of tongue-in-cheek expression hearkening back to the early days of the Web, when all web pages were updated manually. Think of it as a sort of antithesis of the way the Web actually works today. That is, where nearly 100% of the content on the Web is generated “on the fly” and from a host of sources.
So the question then becomes,”why not just staticcontent.com or something like that?” The answer is two-fold. Well one really, and this is it. Domain name squatting. The domain name staticcontent.com was already taken, as was staticcontent.net, but there was no website at either one. It's true that there are other top-level domains that could have been used, but it boiled down to the fact that orsburn.net was already owned and wasn't being used for anything else anyway. This is the pseudo second reason alluded to earlier, but is too cheesy to really count as a decision maker. It was really just a sort of work-around. The end result was a blog that is thought of as “Static Content” and is accessed via orsburn.net. It's not ideal, but so far we're going with it like this.
Comments
Post a Comment