Matthew Lang avatar

Matthew Lang

Family guy and web developer

Assumptions about the Internet based services we use lead to the fact that only the more popular ones are catered to when it comes to subsequent tools being built.

Assumptions on the Internet are everywhere. It's in the networks that we can share articles to, the growing number of companies using Facebook as their sole Internet presence and in the ways that we can connect services together.

For someone like me it's pain in the backside.

There's a campaign at the moment to stop the development of greenbelt land in our town. The local council want to sell the land to developers to build a thousand more homes for our town. Trying to coordinate with other campaigners on this issue has proved difficult. The only point of contact I can find are on Facebook and even there they don't give an email address to contact them. The assumption here is that everyone has a Facebook account but that's just not the case.

Then there's the services that require you to register using an existing social network account without providing users with a chance to register with their email address. Assuming that we're all on once social network or another is a bad assumption to make and in the end it's only going to lose you potential users and money.

I make an assumption on this website with the sharing links at the bottom of each article. You can share to App.net or Twitter. I choose these because at the time I did have accounts on both, but now I only have an App.net account. Am I going to reduce the sharing options to just App.net? Definitely not, as I see that these are two of the quickest ways of sharing links now.

When compared to the assumptions that bigger companies and organisations have made about social network choice and prescence then my site doesn't seem so important, so I guess then that my assumptions are not too damaging to others. More of an inconvience really, but there are other ways of sharing my website.

Not everyone is connected in a way that we can be accessed on any of the more popular social networks. Some of us even choose to stay away from these in favour of reaching people directly through email or publishing updates to an RSS feed. The good thing about these is that they're the most open formats avaialble for the sharing and consumption of data. No one controls email or RSS feeds, they're free for everyone to use.

I'm more selective about the services and tools I use. I try to use services that provide open endpoints such as RSS so that I can connect services together. They don't depend soley on specific social networks and give me more of a choice. Choice is good, assumptions are bad.

Sticking with App.net

Many readers here will know of my support of the social platform, App.net, and how it has become a worthy alternative to other social platforms. It's a place where I hang out daily, watching conversations happening, taking part in them on the odd occasion and using the 256 character length posts to bash out my thoughts, opinions and ideas through out the day.

I wasn't particularly surprised by the news yesterday that the App.net team is having to scale back its number of employees and rely on contractors to maintain and support the App.net platform. The App.net team have been quiet of late and there hasn't been a visible enough uptake of new members for me to see that App.net platform is growing. It's not all bad news though, Dalton and Bryan have said they will continue running App.net indefinitely.

I've heard so many arguments that App.net doesn't have the user base to sustain growth and given the recent announcement from Dalton, it's hard to argue against this. The thing is though, it's still making enough money to sustain the platform, but this for me is the worrying part.

App.net started as a platform that required payment before you could create an account here. $36 per year is the cost. It's not much for many people, and there's even the option of paying monthly. It was this pay wall that guaranteed that there would be some sense of mediation of users coming onto the platform. If you were serious about joining you paid up. Dalton's recent post reads that hosting is covered by the renewal of paid accounts, but how much of the hosting costs are being used to support free accounts on the platform?

I want App.net to survive and continue to grow, but the free tier account has always been a sticking point. Accounts that don't contribute to the sustainability of the platform and their continued use of other features such as Broadcast means that they're using up part of the hosting of this platform while giving nothing in return.

I could be wrong about this and I don't have the numbers to prove my argument, but I would like to see the platform reducing the features that are on offer to free accounts and continue to add more value to paid and developer accounts. If these accounts are the ones that will sustain App.net in the future, then surely they must be the primary focus rather than building features for all in the hopes that some free tier accounts upgrade?

It's not all bad though, the App.net team have open sourced the Alpha client for the platform. It's from this point on that I hope that contributions made by the community will drive this social platform back into a more healthier state of sustainability and growth.

I love the community behind App.net. My timeline is a much more pleasant place for reading than any single day that I had when I was on Twitter. Interesting conversations and shared links provide a much better environment than being the one account in millions on Twitter.

I'll continue to post on App.net until the lights go out, which I hope is years away from now.

Daily routines

The last two months have been something of a blur. Client work has taken up most of my day now and even into the night as well when I shouldn't really be working. A pattern, or lack of pattern has emerged.

It started a couple of months when I decided to scale back on my daily writing. I thought that not writing as much would let me focus on getting other chores and such done. Truth is, it was the start of a slow decline in what I had carefully built up over the best part of a year. The daily routine.

My work day pretty much had the same format for the most of last year and it worked for me. I had the same routine in the morning for preparing for the day ahead and the same routine at night for reviewing the day. It worked for me.

Once I stopped writing on a daily basis though the routines started to be skipped, and then the calendar was running empty, the task list built up and before you know it, my daily routine consisted of nothing more than simply putting out fires. I've been in that place before and it wasn't a good place to be.

I ended up reacting to problems rather than anticipating problems and setting time aside for them. I was context switching multiple times a day and losing focus. My inboxes and lists were stradily climbing with not view of the bottom of them.

No more. The routines are back in place, the daily writing will be started again and a plan of attack has been formalised. Let's see where this goes.

Moving to Linode

I've been reluctant to explore other services for hosting web applications, but with costs for even a small application on Heroku I've been considering other options.

Last week I successfully transferred the hosting of my blog from Heroku to Linode. Performance wise Heroku was ideal for this website and it handled the traffic well enough considering that I ran the site on one dyno. So if performance and uptime is satisfactory then why make the move?

I've got a number of other Rails applications that are sitting on Heroku. One is a production application, while the rest are simply prototypes and work in progresses. For the production application I've enabled a number of addons to ensure the application responds well to traffic but these addons come at a price. By the time I've added the minimum addons needed I'm looking at close to $100 dollars a month. That's expensive for just a small application.

The beauty of Heroku is that it requires little maintenance. Need more dynos? Add them on. Need more worker processes? Add them on. Everything is easy to maintain through the Heroku web interface. That maintainability comes at a price though and it's a price that I think is becoming too expensive. This is where the move to Linode comes in.

At $20 per month for their basic server it's much more cheaper than keeping a two dynos running on Heroku. This is only half the story though. The other half to this puzzle is Cloud 66. It's a fully configured application stack that sits on your Linode server. It's geared towards Rails and other Ruby based applications so it fits my criteria nicely. The nice thing about Cloud 66 is that it handles the setup and maintenance of your application stack giving you the choice to setup servers with different cloud providers if you need to.

I'm still in the early days of using Cloud 66 and Linode but so far I'm liking what I'm seeing. The end goal is to move all my main Rails applications over to Linode and with some running using Cloud 66 and some just running on a bare server without Cloud 66. Heroku is a great service for hosting Rails applications but it's price is far too expensive for me and when there's cheaper alternatives out there that don't require as too much maintenance.

The other benefit to this move is that I'm starting to learn more about the internals of hosting Rails applications again. I'll use Cloud 66 for most applications, but I will aim to have a Linode server for small Rails applications that are just ideas. Learning how to host Rails applications without all the Heroku magic can only make me a better developer as it broadens my knowledge as a developer. That's all I'm aiming to be, a better developer. And if this hosting move help me do that then I'm happy.