BTW - Ghost is the blog software running this site. It runs on NodeJS ... which makes its buzz-worthiness skyrocket. For good reason.
The buzz leading up to it, in its Kickstarter days, was monumental.
The buzz as it first launched was pretty good.
The buzz around release 0.4 was barely a trickle on my Twitter stream.
I'm now in week two of getting my self-installed, Azure cloud-hosted version of Ghost live and exposed to the world.
There may be security loopholes we don't know about yet. There may be some weird configuration problem I made that'll make the site crash, catastrophically. Lots of opportunities for "may be" to get in the way and cause havoc and mayhem.
(Which is just another day on the internet, if you ask me ...)
Throw out the old?
Launching a new site always leaves a question for server administrators: what do you do with the old one? (Trash it? Archive it? Co-exist for search engines?)
In my case, I had a blog I started in college, diligently kept up during my study abroad, half-assed in seminary, and then sporadically sprinkled with random thoughts in my first years of bi-vocational ministry.
That blog went through many addresses as I moved in life. It also went through at least three different RSS aggregators. My brother at one point said, "Adam, it's like you're tryingto make it impossible for me to read what you write."
For the time being, I think I'm going to move the blog over to http://old-blog.adamfrieberg.com/ (no, I haven't done it yet!)
How old is OLD?
This is a touchy subject with those whose default reactions to change isn't appreciation: how do you honor the past while moving forward?
Is the blog "formerly known as"? Is it OK to call it "old"? What about "legacy"? "Classic"?
In deciding the new address, I decided I was fine with "old" -- mostly because I wrote it when I was so young - no one would mistake those words as those of a wise sage with life experience.
The label means little without the referent
Last week one of the blogs I follow had a picture and featured comment that were hilarious.
The Online Photographer: Canon doesn't do Retro
They also, conveniently, illustrate this point: saying something is classicor oldor legacymeans little without the full context of what it refers to. Old compared to ________?
I have enough journeys this coming year that I'm looking to pack lighter and smaller. I will banish the memories of that time my 40+ lb camera backpack caused me to dislocate a rib. Gone will be the days of looking more like infantry personnel than an on-the-go reporter. People will notice me not for the 18lb telephoto at my waist, but only for the decisive moment when I raise my point-and-shoot to my eye.
At the risk of re-enacting Midnight in Paris, why pick the 1980s as my classic -- why not go back another generation or two and imitate the golden age?
Obviously, more tk ...