Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

bitty.com not .org - .org is NSFW

It may be cool, but see here for why it may not be a great choice of product name in the UK at the moment.

The name for Bitty was inspired by my new daughter -- so perhaps the UK's "I want bitty" isn't so far from the mark... ;)

-Scott

David, I think your link to the .org version of the name is, well, incorrect as it takes one to a, well, porn site. The .com version is a browser site.

It's free. But it's not open. The License agreement is a piece of intrusive marketing: 'by registering for the Service and implementing the Resident Software, you authorize Turnstyle to collect, store and process Customer Data subject to the terms of this Agreement, and represent that the collection, storage and processing of such Customer Data...' Well, I think it's not free at all. The data has a big value. I think we must review the word free in a connected society.
best, hdhd

Hi Hernani,

When I put the agreement together, I had been thinking that it might be helpful to provide Bitty users with statistical usage information -- stuff like the number of times their Bitty has been loaded, etc. (ie, typical webcounter type stuff).

I have absolutely no intention of providing that data to anybody, except to the person whose site it belongs to.

If it would help to know a little more about me, please visit:
http://www.turnstyle.com/bio.asp

yours, -Scott

I see that the iframe tag they provide you with has a url pointing to their site. Seems that "embeded browser" might just be a fancy name for an iframe?

Yikes! Best of luck to them. Hope they have a good server cluster.

In fact, this is the essence of their "embedded browser":

iframe width="400" height="500" src="http://b1.bitty.com/browser/"

At first I though maybe bitty serves up an html page that loads into the ifmame with javascript that controls either another iframe or a frame? Looks like they have the right-click menu disabled so it is hard to tell. Thinking more... I am not even sure this requires and DHTML? You would only need javascript that sets the href for the frame/iframe, no DHTML. Hmmm, wait the "Menu" and "Open URL" pages in are just served up from bitty and loaded into the iframe.

http://b1.bitty.com/browser/openurl/

http://b1.bitty.com/browser/menu/

Wait, these pages server side ASP server! Try http://b1.bitty.com/browser/openurl/?a=0 These pages are passed the id you included on the iframe url "a=0824903D...". Hmm, and "openurl" has a cleverly hidden form that posts your url request back to bitty with the id.
I smell smoke... and mirrors.

Wait a minute, let me get this straight, here it is 2005, and we are getting all excited about an iframe and request snooping 'service'? Show me the VC money and we've got 1998 all over again!

The fact is that anyone skilled in javascript and html can implement the functionality of the bitty browser with an iframe, some basic javascript, and a couple of html pages hosted on their own server. I know scott claims good intentions, but I can't see any reason for the use of server side processing. Why not just serve the frame wrapper, menu, toolbar and openurl pages as static html pages? Anyone could then install the code on their server, without the need for the bitty server at all?

But... what's the point of it?