I think he missed one.

A bad programmer won't understand or take into consideration the limits of the target platform.

A good example is posting an article to a host with limited bandwidth.

That's a bit harsh, that's a distribution problem, not a development problem. It's been long time since I've used free hosting, is there provider that doesn't limit bandwidth? (This is just out of curiosity.)

We don't :) (Weebly)

Not yet.

No. Down the line, maybe a cap on the very top end (tens of millions of pageviews per month) -- if that becomes a problem (it hasn't yet).

But we have absolutely no problem serving high traffic sites (millions of pageviews per month) for free, it hardly costs us a thing.

wow, that's completely ridiculous.

searching through their help center, they won't even tell you what the limit is, but it seems to be pretty low. just. wow.

Reminiscent of Geocities, isn't it.

This has been making the rounds on twitter and other places, I'm sure it's had a fair amount of load.

Never thought I'll see that on a google service. Thanks for the cache.

It's fairly ironic--Google is restricting the page views (to limit bandwidth usage), but at that same time they're hosting a copy in cache of that same page, with no limits.

No kidding. That's so moronically un-Google, it's got to be a bug rather than a genuine quota issue.

Because otherwise, Google 2009 == GeoCities 1999, and that would be unthinkable.

I find "Google 2009 == GeoCities 1999" very thinkable, especially if tweaked a little to "Google Sites 2009 == GeoCities 1999".

Empires rise and fall fast on the net. Google is now a mish-mash of offerings which get uneven attention from their internal talent. 'Sites' itself is a successor to the soon-to-be-shuttered Google Page Creator (which unlike Sites allowed custom CSS and JS). A few key people leave, a couple bad quarters -- 'Sites' could get the axe too.