Sure, there are the obligatory "K" apps, many of them having been around for quite a few years and unlikely to change names for no good reason. The new stuff is pretty unconstrained, though, and certainly no more so than their Gnome counterparts.
Something that may be affecting the differing results you two are seeing is that the call to check if a file has been modified is browser and user settings dependent.
In fairness to AC, he may also be connecting to some ancient or broken server that doesn't support the "Cache-Control: max-age" or "Expires:" headers. If that's the case, or if he's running a noncompliant browser that improperly handles those, then it's possible that he's making a lot more requests than necessary.
Either way, it's still a problem between his browser and that server, and not a problem with HTTP in general.
Re:KDE mature enough to drop the annoying K prefix
on
KDE 4.1 Beta 1 Released
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
However, I do have this piece of software called a "web browser" and another called a "packet sniffer".
You have another one called "spyware", or perhaps "rootkit". Your experiment, conducted here on Ubuntu 8.04 with Wireshark 1.0.0, Firefox 3.0b5, and Konqueror 3.5.9, shows exactly the results I described and nothing resembling the results you invented to "prove" your point.
Oh, hey, look, it DOES make a request for external JavaScript files EVERY SINGLE PAGE LOAD, just like I said it does! Sure, it gets a 304 response, but you've still got extra overhead and latency for NOTHING.
304s would show up in my Apache logs, but they don't. Of course not! My browsers aren't making them.
And as someone else pointed out, it's faster to just pull it from the page than to load it from the cache in the first place.
As they incorrectly pointed out. Let's add some more facts to the discussion.
First, this (almost never incurred) overhead is much smaller than inlining proponents want to claim:
Second, given an average HTML size of 20KB, an average JavaScript size of 20KB, and a 56K modem (which will get about 5KB/s on a good day), loading n pages will take:
time(inline) = 40 * n / 5, or about 80 seconds for 10 pages
time(external) = ((20 * n) + 20) / 5, or about 44 seconds for 10 pages
time(external + fictional 304 overhead) = (((20 +.6) * n) + 20) / 5, or about 45.2 seconds per 10 pages
Care to explain which part of that makes inline JavaScript faster, particularly for the dialup users y'all are claiming to save from the evils of external files?
Nope. You're flat-out, demonstrably wrong. Try watching an Apache log sometime. You see a visitor load a page, all its JavaScript, and all of its images. Then you see them load another page, and this time they only fetch the new HTML. There are no other GETs or HEADs - just the HTML.
Inlining script isn't hard, either:
Of course not. The issue is whether it's a good idea (it's not), not whether it's easy (it is).
Some of us are still stuck on, gasp, dial-up. And loading an external JavaScript file is STILL far slower than inlining it.
Your grasp of the web sucks. Here's what happens on the second page you load on that site:
Send request for the page.
Read the page, sees it needs a JavaScript file.
See that the JavaScript file was already cached locally.
You're finished loading the page, so let people interact with it.
I use maybe 20KB of JavaScript in parts of my site. Why tack an extra 20KB onto each and every pageload, meaning that each takes about another 4 seconds for someone on dialup? To satisfy the screwed-up sense of purity for some premature optimization fan who doesn't really understand the issues involved? No thanks. My site is optimized for real conditions.
I want to know what the Green and Libertarian candidates stances are on tech issues.
I'm guessing that the Green Party is for all technology that's designed by minorities for the explicit purpose of saving endangered species, but against almost anything else. By the way, that's the same party who split one vote among two candidates in a recent county race.
I've voting Libertarian this year. McCain will almost certainly win my state anyway, so I'm trying to give a third party a good showing.
All I require, is a base operating system with simple hardware support, Mono, and a window manager that (preferably) does nothing but act as a host for mono applications. Is this available?
Is that exact arrangement pre-made? Probably not. Why don't you let us know what you're trying to accomplish so that we can steer you in the right direction?
I'm a KDE guy, but my first suggestion would be to install Ubuntu with the stock Gnome desktop. Just because you can run other applications doesn't mean that you have to.
In other words of the people who claimed to be sensitive, only 4.5% correctly identified when the mast was on in all 6 tries. Meanwhile in the control group - the group of people who do not claim to be sensitive - 4.3% correctly identified when the mast was on in all 6 tries.
Furthermore, there are only 64 possibly outcomes of a series of 6 binary events. I'm not a stats guy (as my college prof will vouch), but it seems like pure dumb luck will get you 1:64 people picking all six correctly (and the same ratio picking all six incorrectly) without even trying. 2:44 and 5:144 are just about twice the "dumb luck" number. Isn't that within the error bar for such a small sample?
This may seem paranoid, but I choose to be both skeptical and cautious until we have proper, long-term studies of each and every molecule in our natural environment, and of what they do to us in combination. Then, and only then, will I feel safe enough to live in this world.
But that still won't tell you how we react to chemicals.
(No, I'm not using that stupid "satire tilde", and no, I don't expect anyone to take the above seriously.)
"Prior to the shift in the lexicon of American and worldwide classification of race and ethnicity in the late 1960s, the appellation was accepted as a normal neutral formal term both by those of African descent as well as non-African blacks. Now it is often considered an ethnic slur [...]"
I can't speak for all of America, but I've lived in quite a few places. In each of them, the word "negro" would have been ignorant at best, and often at least mildly offensive.
"Cult typically refers to a cohesive social group devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture considers outside the mainstream, with a notably positive or negative popular perception. In common or populist usage, "cult" has a positive connotation for groups of art, music, writing, fiction, and fashion devotees, but a negative connotation for new religious, extreme political, questionable therapeutic, and pyramidal business groups. For this reason, most, if not all, non-fan groups that are called cults reject this label."
This would tend to indicate that a significant number of people feel that "religious cult" is a negative phrase, regardless of its dictionary definition.
Seriously, just roll with it. If you don't have access, then you can't be the one responsible if things go wrong just before you leave, right? Yeah, maybe it's kind of insulting, but at the same time it gives you a lot of deniability.
i would say amongst the slashdot community it certainly is, but in wider society, its a simple descriptor of a small religion.
...in much the same way that "negro" is a simple descriptor of a dark-skinned person.
Yes, "cult" is highly offensive to many (most?) religious people, with connotations of "Jim Jones" and "Heaven's Gate" and other scary groups of brainwashed zombies.
Can OO.o, KOffice, or Symphony read _any_ valid ODF document properly and properly save any changes made to the document that ODF supports?
What you describe is an inescapable problem with computing in general. You can create a perfectly valid PNG that Photoshop will choke on, or an Excel spreadsheet that will not open in polynomial time. That doesn't mean that either of those applications are faulty for that reason.
I have a client that was recently nailed by the BSA for having illegitimate copies of Autocad
OK, I've gotta know: does the BSA have any legal means to actually enforce their "right" to audit you? I mean, if nothing else, it'd seem that first they'd have to prove that you are using software subject to their authority.
There is a piece of paper tucked inside that says it is a licensing agreement with the statement "by opening the sealed software packet(s), you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of this license agreement."
You, in court: "Mine didn't have that. Do you have evidence to prove me wrong?"
Because you want to experiment with IPv6? Because your backup DNS supports IXFR just like every other server on the planet, and they won't enable rsync just for you?
As an industry, we really need to start growing up and using the tools the mathematicians have provided us, just as other engineers do in other disciplines, to show our programs actually work as advertised.
The problem is that programming is nothing like any other discipline. I read a comparison between coding and building a bridge once: imagine that the bridge had to be optimized for a a Prius and a convoy of Abrams tanks; that there was no (practical) way to examine the materials you built it from; that the same design had to be extensible from the culvert under your driveway to the Royal Gorge; that random attackers spent their days trying to blow it up. Add to this that there just aren't as many ways to combine concrete and steel as their are to arrange clauses in a complex application.
The competent have nothing to fear from formal verification and anyone who is not capable of doing such verification should not be writing software anyway.
I don't fear formal verification, but blanch at the thought of having to do it for every single package I wrote had to go through it. It makes sense in places where you don't mind productivity being quartered, but not so much for most businesses.
Slashdot Mirror
*spews coffee over Model M keyboard*
These things are dishwashable, right? Right?
Presumably something coming from Miguel.
It was so advanced that it beat AmigaOS by negative ten years.
So has KDE for new applications:
Phonon
Solid
Plasma
Gwenview
Decibel
Strigi
Soprano
Dolphin
Sure, there are the obligatory "K" apps, many of them having been around for quite a few years and unlikely to change names for no good reason. The new stuff is pretty unconstrained, though, and certainly no more so than their Gnome counterparts.
In fairness to AC, he may also be connecting to some ancient or broken server that doesn't support the "Cache-Control: max-age" or "Expires:" headers. If that's the case, or if he's running a noncompliant browser that improperly handles those, then it's possible that he's making a lot more requests than necessary.
Either way, it's still a problem between his browser and that server, and not a problem with HTTP in general.
iThere iAre iTwo iOther iCompeting gschools gof gthough, i'll grant iou.
You have another one called "spyware", or perhaps "rootkit". Your experiment, conducted here on Ubuntu 8.04 with Wireshark 1.0.0, Firefox 3.0b5, and Konqueror 3.5.9, shows exactly the results I described and nothing resembling the results you invented to "prove" your point.
Oh, hey, look, it DOES make a request for external JavaScript files EVERY SINGLE PAGE LOAD, just like I said it does! Sure, it gets a 304 response, but you've still got extra overhead and latency for NOTHING.304s would show up in my Apache logs, but they don't. Of course not! My browsers aren't making them.
And as someone else pointed out, it's faster to just pull it from the page than to load it from the cache in the first place.As they incorrectly pointed out. Let's add some more facts to the discussion.
First, this (almost never incurred) overhead is much smaller than inlining proponents want to claim:
Second, given an average HTML size of 20KB, an average JavaScript size of 20KB, and a 56K modem (which will get about 5KB/s on a good day), loading n pages will take:
time(inline) = 40 * n / 5, or about 80 seconds for 10 pages .6) * n) + 20) / 5, or about 45.2 seconds per 10 pages
time(external) = ((20 * n) + 20) / 5, or about 44 seconds for 10 pages
time(external + fictional 304 overhead) = (((20 +
Care to explain which part of that makes inline JavaScript faster, particularly for the dialup users y'all are claiming to save from the evils of external files?
Nope. You're flat-out, demonstrably wrong. Try watching an Apache log sometime. You see a visitor load a page, all its JavaScript, and all of its images. Then you see them load another page, and this time they only fetch the new HTML. There are no other GETs or HEADs - just the HTML.
Inlining script isn't hard, either:Of course not. The issue is whether it's a good idea (it's not), not whether it's easy (it is).
Your grasp of the web sucks. Here's what happens on the second page you load on that site:
I use maybe 20KB of JavaScript in parts of my site. Why tack an extra 20KB onto each and every pageload, meaning that each takes about another 4 seconds for someone on dialup? To satisfy the screwed-up sense of purity for some premature optimization fan who doesn't really understand the issues involved? No thanks. My site is optimized for real conditions.
I'm guessing that the Green Party is for all technology that's designed by minorities for the explicit purpose of saving endangered species, but against almost anything else. By the way, that's the same party who split one vote among two candidates in a recent county race.
I've voting Libertarian this year. McCain will almost certainly win my state anyway, so I'm trying to give a third party a good showing.
For the benefit of the 99.9% of us who have never been on Amtrak, please explain why that's a bad thing.
Not at all! It'd be even easier if that actually worked. Here's the entirety of my bug report to Apple (#5604804 if you have access to such things):
Is that exact arrangement pre-made? Probably not. Why don't you let us know what you're trying to accomplish so that we can steer you in the right direction?
I'm a KDE guy, but my first suggestion would be to install Ubuntu with the stock Gnome desktop. Just because you can run other applications doesn't mean that you have to.
I didn't see the grandparent post when I wrote that, and it said almost the exact same thing. Mod him up and me down, please.
Furthermore, there are only 64 possibly outcomes of a series of 6 binary events. I'm not a stats guy (as my college prof will vouch), but it seems like pure dumb luck will get you 1:64 people picking all six correctly (and the same ratio picking all six incorrectly) without even trying. 2:44 and 5:144 are just about twice the "dumb luck" number. Isn't that within the error bar for such a small sample?
But that still won't tell you how we react to chemicals.
(No, I'm not using that stupid "satire tilde", and no, I don't expect anyone to take the above seriously.)
Deferring to Wikipedia again:
"Prior to the shift in the lexicon of American and worldwide classification of race and ethnicity in the late 1960s, the appellation was accepted as a normal neutral formal term both by those of African descent as well as non-African blacks. Now it is often considered an ethnic slur [...]"
I can't speak for all of America, but I've lived in quite a few places. In each of them, the word "negro" would have been ignorant at best, and often at least mildly offensive.
The first paragraph of the Wikipedia entry for "cult":
"Cult typically refers to a cohesive social group devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture considers outside the mainstream, with a notably positive or negative popular perception. In common or populist usage, "cult" has a positive connotation for groups of art, music, writing, fiction, and fashion devotees, but a negative connotation for new religious, extreme political, questionable therapeutic, and pyramidal business groups. For this reason, most, if not all, non-fan groups that are called cults reject this label."
This would tend to indicate that a significant number of people feel that "religious cult" is a negative phrase, regardless of its dictionary definition.
Seriously, just roll with it. If you don't have access, then you can't be the one responsible if things go wrong just before you leave, right? Yeah, maybe it's kind of insulting, but at the same time it gives you a lot of deniability.
...in much the same way that "negro" is a simple descriptor of a dark-skinned person.
Yes, "cult" is highly offensive to many (most?) religious people, with connotations of "Jim Jones" and "Heaven's Gate" and other scary groups of brainwashed zombies.
What you describe is an inescapable problem with computing in general. You can create a perfectly valid PNG that Photoshop will choke on, or an Excel spreadsheet that will not open in polynomial time. That doesn't mean that either of those applications are faulty for that reason.
OK, I've gotta know: does the BSA have any legal means to actually enforce their "right" to audit you? I mean, if nothing else, it'd seem that first they'd have to prove that you are using software subject to their authority.
You, in court: "Mine didn't have that. Do you have evidence to prove me wrong?"
Because you want to experiment with IPv6? Because your backup DNS supports IXFR just like every other server on the planet, and they won't enable rsync just for you?
The problem is that programming is nothing like any other discipline. I read a comparison between coding and building a bridge once: imagine that the bridge had to be optimized for a a Prius and a convoy of Abrams tanks; that there was no (practical) way to examine the materials you built it from; that the same design had to be extensible from the culvert under your driveway to the Royal Gorge; that random attackers spent their days trying to blow it up. Add to this that there just aren't as many ways to combine concrete and steel as their are to arrange clauses in a complex application.
The competent have nothing to fear from formal verification and anyone who is not capable of doing such verification should not be writing software anyway.I don't fear formal verification, but blanch at the thought of having to do it for every single package I wrote had to go through it. It makes sense in places where you don't mind productivity being quartered, but not so much for most businesses.