I'm aware of all of this. I started developing web applications around 1998.
I use ImageMagick because in my testing it was faster at the time for bicubic resizing/scaling. I'm using the Imagick PECL extension, which mostly eliminates the security and speed issues as it wraps the library into a PHP extension. I've written it to never scale an image up. If you specify a height and width larger than the original file, you'll be served the original file... So someone smart enough can't fiddle and blow up images wasting server resources.
The point of having it dynamic is that I don't have to go out of my why (which interrupts my workflow) to fire up a graphics editor and make multiple scaled versions of an image. That, and 95% of the time the websites are operated and managed by whomever I create them for. Having a way to scale images for technically inept clients (that don't understand what a pixel is, let alone how you need to scale down pictures from your Canon camera before putting them on the web) is a huge time saver.
You keep bringing up ads... I don't put ads on my sites. I develop web based applications for businesses, with the odd small business and community organization websites sprinkled in.
I've written a script that sits between static files and the web (or a CDN depending on the project) to automatically optimize all of these things for me, so I don't even have to think about it anymore, it just does it automatically.
The script also optimizes images (with optipng, jpegoptim, etc). It even goes as far to do image scaling based on a GET parameter (eg. ?scale=WxH) using ImageMagick. It automatically caches the optimized files and serves them up. It watches the file modified time of the original files to ensure whenever a change is made, the cached optimized files are updated on demand as well.
I've already posted above that I don't use big libraries... really basic things like DOM manipulation, the odd modal window, and some iframe stuff.
As an example, a site I built recently for a local church has a single JS file called core.js. The original file is 14340 bytes. Compressed it is 3732 bytes. Minified and compressed it is 2792 bytes.
Another example, a project I built last year, is a web based document management system for an appliance manufacturers customers (dealers/retailers/distributors) to access product documentation (service manuals, marketing materials, etc), there is a total of 3 JS files. Each file is only loaded on pages it is needed. portal.js - orig 7959 bytes - compressed 1971 bytes - minified/compressed 1636 bytes rpc.js - orig 2088 bytes - compressed 819 bytes - minified/compressed 554 bytes admin/docs.js - orig 1543 bytes - compressed 526 bytes - minified/compressed 405 bytes
Now these are pretty small files, as I've mentioned already I don't do very much JS. Some example CSS files from the document management system: structure.css - orig 12589 bytes - compressed 2615 bytes - minified/compressed 2128 bytes responsive.css - orig 7227 bytes - compressed 577 bytes - minified/compressed 433 bytes forms.css - orig 5951 bytes - compressed 1262 bytes - minified/compressed 1097 bytes
A users first impression of a website is how quickly it loads initially. Caching doesn't help here.
I have tested Minification with Compression, and just straight compression. In all of my testing, Minification with Compression always wins. This is for both JS and CSS.
No. You clearly don't do this stuff, so you really shouldn't be commenting on it if you don't know what you're talking about.
Minification makes the payload smaller. Compression is limited to gzip or deflate. If you compare original source compressed to minified source compressed the minified compressed will be smaller. Anywhere from 5-20% smaller in my own testing.
Some minification techniques will replace local variable names with smaller variable names, decreasing payload size in a way that compression cannot.
To be fair, we (web developers) minify and compress everything, or atleast we should. You don't know who is on the other side of the connection, or what kind of bandwidth they have available so always try to cater to the largest target you can.
I also don't depend on huge JS libraries/frameworks, because I avoid JS if I can, but that's just me. Anything outside of basic DOM manipulation (show/hide elements, change this string to that value, etc) it just turns into a pain in the ass. I try to do all of the logic on the server side.
Unfortunately server side operations/logic falls flat when you try to do anything mildly interactive (games)... so I see where it would be very useful to have some kind of universal interface to utilize more than just ECMAScript/Javascript.
* Stupid Touchscreen * From what I gather each unit is wired from there to have RJ45 receptacles on each floor. So when a user signs up all they need to do is bring in a modem and hook it all up.
My last apartment I don't know how they would do it, though. 32 unit, 4 floor, apartment building. We had a single copper twisted pair coming into each unit. That would be a nightmare to wire with fiber optics.
Live in an MDU. 8 townhouses, 4 on the north side, 4 on the south side, we each have our own yards and such, with a common hallway down the middle (with security doors on each end, and a door into each unit.
My ISP ran Fiber in 2 years ago. It took 1 day to get it into all of the units. They were pretty good about it, and did need access to each unit. They simply drilled a hole through the exterior of one of the end units (closest to the alley), then drilled a small hole and placed conduit through the connecting walls in the basement (above the cement, in the wood joist my floor sits on
While I agree that we need to do something about the high prices, I've never had any issues with switching providers. Of course, I only have two choices, so its not exactly crowded with options. I choose soley based on price. Customer service isn't exactly an issue for me. I'm enough of a power user, I guess. I have flip flopped 3 or 4 times in the last 10 years. My current ISP is Fiber Optic at 100Mbps Up, and 20Mbps Down for, and no data caps for $99/mo. It's pretty reasonable. Even moreso because I use it for my home-based business. I don't have cable (television), or telephone service, so I don't waste any money on that, and can better justify the $99/mo for internet. The competitor just changed all of their packages up, and its now $123/mo for 120Mbps Down, 10Mbps Up, with a 800GB data cap. Unfortunately that upload speed just isn't enough for me.
Since I was a young child I've had a knack for disassembling, repairing, and reconstructing things. From cassette players (big stationary systems and walkmans), to multi-disc CD players, desktop PC's, Laptops, mp3 players/ipods, mobile phones, LCD monitors (replacing cathodes).
Honestly your description of "A royal bitch" sounds like a fun 30 minute project to me. Granted, I would be doing it for myself (as my response to the original poster I had commented to implied) to regain full functionality of the device, as I do not repair (physical) things for a living.
Never once have I ever though to myself "Wow, this isn't worth the time to repair and regain full functionality of this device." I guess I think more along the lines of "Once it's repaired I can continue to use it for many more years to come instead of just throwing it out and buying a new one and wasting that money".
Maybe because I grew up poor and had to make things last. My father always told me if I broke something I would have to repair it myself... so I did.
To be honest you sound like the asshole that I always hear complaints from friends about that owns the small, local PC repair shop in my town. Is your name Todd? Do you have a superiority complex and drive a jacked up Ford F250 truck and scream/berate people because "You're smarter than them"?
I've never had to completely disassemble a computer just to replace a hard drive.
Though most of my experience is with ASUS, and HP. Every time there has been a small "door" on the bottom to access upgradable components (RAM, HDD, Wifi Chip, etc).
Either way, it's a one time thing. Once it's back together you'll probably never have to open it again.
Sounds to me like you're just being lazy and making excuses, but that's just my opinion.
In a previous article discussing diabetes I posted wishing there was a Glucometer that could push data directly over Wifi. Unfortunately they only go over Bluetooth.
This Pebble Core could be a cheap, hackable, interim solution to what I was looking for. My young son is a Type 1 Diabetic, and I would love to receive alerts that he is actually checking his glucose levels when he is supposed to. This is small enough I could clip it to his backpack when he goes off to the side to check is BG levels I could set it up to relay over this device and send me a text directly, or over Wifi to e-mail me. He's 6 years old and I don't want to pack in a full blown smart phone just for this functionality.
I've already pledged to get one in the first run to tinker with.
In my opinion the only way to avoid the big companies collecting your information is DIY.
At most on the outside you should ever need is a Dynamic DNS provider, and there are dozens of those you can use and script to send your outside accessible IP (assuming you don't have static address[es]).
A lot of this is actually fairly simple programming with basic IO sensors. You could build a thermostat like a Nest with a PiZero, a basic thermal sensor, a couple of relays and some of your own time. Sure, it won't look pretty, but it doesn't have to if you're using your smart phone to control it anyway. A basic web interface that is Mobile friendly isn't all that hard.
I'm sure there is already an open source project that does this with a full breakdown of how to do it to save you some time.
- an open, unified, encrypted/secure communications protocol and reference implementation to replace SMS/IM/E-mail (xmpp is broken by design, email is a disaster of old insecure protocols and incompatible servers/clients with hacks to make them talk together... poorly)
- reverse engineer the Accu-Chek bluetooth glucose meter protocol
- build a multi-platform diabetes management app that syncs your data across devices (my 6 year old son is a Type 1 Diabetic.. I can't find anything that syncs across multiple devices. Sometimes my son is with me, or my wife, or his grandparents, I want the data up-to-date everywhere so everyone knows what's going on)
- a new web based, DOM only (no contentEditable) WYSIWYG editor with a contextually aware interface (unless something has come out recently, this didn't exist last I looked. Would have to be cross browser, and written in JavaScript without dependency on monolithic libraries like AngularJS or jQuery)
Unfortunately I've run out of time to go on... sorry. If I get some time later I will add more.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm aware of all of this. I started developing web applications around 1998.
I use ImageMagick because in my testing it was faster at the time for bicubic resizing/scaling. I'm using the Imagick PECL extension, which mostly eliminates the security and speed issues as it wraps the library into a PHP extension. I've written it to never scale an image up. If you specify a height and width larger than the original file, you'll be served the original file... So someone smart enough can't fiddle and blow up images wasting server resources.
The point of having it dynamic is that I don't have to go out of my why (which interrupts my workflow) to fire up a graphics editor and make multiple scaled versions of an image. That, and 95% of the time the websites are operated and managed by whomever I create them for. Having a way to scale images for technically inept clients (that don't understand what a pixel is, let alone how you need to scale down pictures from your Canon camera before putting them on the web) is a huge time saver.
Be sure to set -systemd in your make.conf, otherwise it will slowly creep into your system.
Also, look into Funtoo. It's a fork of Gentoo by the original Gentoo creator. He's made it apparent systemd will remain a second class citizen.
You keep bringing up ads... I don't put ads on my sites. I develop web based applications for businesses, with the odd small business and community organization websites sprinkled in.
I've written a script that sits between static files and the web (or a CDN depending on the project) to automatically optimize all of these things for me, so I don't even have to think about it anymore, it just does it automatically.
The script also optimizes images (with optipng, jpegoptim, etc). It even goes as far to do image scaling based on a GET parameter (eg. ?scale=WxH) using ImageMagick. It automatically caches the optimized files and serves them up. It watches the file modified time of the original files to ensure whenever a change is made, the cached optimized files are updated on demand as well.
I've already posted above that I don't use big libraries... really basic things like DOM manipulation, the odd modal window, and some iframe stuff.
As an example, a site I built recently for a local church has a single JS file called core.js. The original file is 14340 bytes. Compressed it is 3732 bytes. Minified and compressed it is 2792 bytes.
Another example, a project I built last year, is a web based document management system for an appliance manufacturers customers (dealers/retailers/distributors) to access product documentation (service manuals, marketing materials, etc), there is a total of 3 JS files. Each file is only loaded on pages it is needed.
portal.js - orig 7959 bytes - compressed 1971 bytes - minified/compressed 1636 bytes
rpc.js - orig 2088 bytes - compressed 819 bytes - minified/compressed 554 bytes
admin/docs.js - orig 1543 bytes - compressed 526 bytes - minified/compressed 405 bytes
Now these are pretty small files, as I've mentioned already I don't do very much JS. Some example CSS files from the document management system:
structure.css - orig 12589 bytes - compressed 2615 bytes - minified/compressed 2128 bytes
responsive.css - orig 7227 bytes - compressed 577 bytes - minified/compressed 433 bytes
forms.css - orig 5951 bytes - compressed 1262 bytes - minified/compressed 1097 bytes
For the record I use a fairly simple PHP-based CSS and JS minification classes to perform the minification. The compressed sizes are with 'gzip -9' compression.
A users first impression of a website is how quickly it loads initially. Caching doesn't help here.
I have tested Minification with Compression, and just straight compression. In all of my testing, Minification with Compression always wins. This is for both JS and CSS.
No. You clearly don't do this stuff, so you really shouldn't be commenting on it if you don't know what you're talking about.
Minification makes the payload smaller. Compression is limited to gzip or deflate. If you compare original source compressed to minified source compressed the minified compressed will be smaller. Anywhere from 5-20% smaller in my own testing.
Some minification techniques will replace local variable names with smaller variable names, decreasing payload size in a way that compression cannot.
See Google's guide for more information: https://developers.google.com/...
Never built a site that had ads on it, so I'm not sure what the hell you're talking about.
I came here just for this.
Not disappointed. Never change, Slashdot. Never change.
To be fair, we (web developers) minify and compress everything, or atleast we should. You don't know who is on the other side of the connection, or what kind of bandwidth they have available so always try to cater to the largest target you can.
I also don't depend on huge JS libraries/frameworks, because I avoid JS if I can, but that's just me. Anything outside of basic DOM manipulation (show/hide elements, change this string to that value, etc) it just turns into a pain in the ass. I try to do all of the logic on the server side.
Unfortunately server side operations/logic falls flat when you try to do anything mildly interactive (games)... so I see where it would be very useful to have some kind of universal interface to utilize more than just ECMAScript/Javascript.
I use Telegram for.convenience. Not because sharing gifs with my wife needs to be ultra secure, or anything.
Having clients available everywhere is what got my attention also the fact it "Just Worksâ" for my needs.
In other words, tracking cookies become worthless because they can't follow you from site to site
This effectively does that... just in a tab. Which is a lot easier for the average user to understand.
Sasktel in Saskatchewan. :-)
* Stupid Touchscreen *
From what I gather each unit is wired from there to have RJ45 receptacles on each floor. So when a user signs up all they need to do is bring in a modem and hook it all up.
My last apartment I don't know how they would do it, though. 32 unit, 4 floor, apartment building. We had a single copper twisted pair coming into each unit. That would be a nightmare to wire with fiber optics.
Live in an MDU. 8 townhouses, 4 on the north side, 4 on the south side, we each have our own yards and such, with a common hallway down the middle (with security doors on each end, and a door into each unit.
My ISP ran Fiber in 2 years ago. It took 1 day to get it into all of the units. They were pretty good about it, and did need access to each unit. They simply drilled a hole through the exterior of one of the end units (closest to the alley), then drilled a small hole and placed conduit through the connecting walls in the basement (above the cement, in the wood joist my floor sits on
My providers speed should read 100Mbps Down, and 20Mbps Up. Not sure how I fsked that one up. :-)
While I agree that we need to do something about the high prices, I've never had any issues with switching providers.
Of course, I only have two choices, so its not exactly crowded with options. I choose soley based on price. Customer service isn't exactly an issue for me. I'm enough of a power user, I guess.
I have flip flopped 3 or 4 times in the last 10 years. My current ISP is Fiber Optic at 100Mbps Up, and 20Mbps Down for, and no data caps for $99/mo. It's pretty reasonable. Even moreso because I use it for my home-based business.
I don't have cable (television), or telephone service, so I don't waste any money on that, and can better justify the $99/mo for internet.
The competitor just changed all of their packages up, and its now $123/mo for 120Mbps Down, 10Mbps Up, with a 800GB data cap. Unfortunately that upload speed just isn't enough for me.
Ever try Gentoo? or Funtoo?
Since I was a young child I've had a knack for disassembling, repairing, and reconstructing things. From cassette players (big stationary systems and walkmans), to multi-disc CD players, desktop PC's, Laptops, mp3 players/ipods, mobile phones, LCD monitors (replacing cathodes).
Honestly your description of "A royal bitch" sounds like a fun 30 minute project to me. Granted, I would be doing it for myself (as my response to the original poster I had commented to implied) to regain full functionality of the device, as I do not repair (physical) things for a living.
Never once have I ever though to myself "Wow, this isn't worth the time to repair and regain full functionality of this device." I guess I think more along the lines of "Once it's repaired I can continue to use it for many more years to come instead of just throwing it out and buying a new one and wasting that money".
Maybe because I grew up poor and had to make things last. My father always told me if I broke something I would have to repair it myself... so I did.
To be honest you sound like the asshole that I always hear complaints from friends about that owns the small, local PC repair shop in my town. Is your name Todd? Do you have a superiority complex and drive a jacked up Ford F250 truck and scream/berate people because "You're smarter than them"?
I've never had to completely disassemble a computer just to replace a hard drive.
Though most of my experience is with ASUS, and HP. Every time there has been a small "door" on the bottom to access upgradable components (RAM, HDD, Wifi Chip, etc).
Either way, it's a one time thing. Once it's back together you'll probably never have to open it again.
Sounds to me like you're just being lazy and making excuses, but that's just my opinion.
... why don't you just replace the hard drive? They are cheap and plentiful.
Moto X Play (Canada) here and I really like this phone.
The huge battery was the biggest draw. Since updating toto Android Marshmallow I get over two days batter with regular use.
Very few apps pre-installed. All of them were Motorola branded, nothing third party.
I was also able to obtain a carrier/network unlock code online for only $4, where Apple and Samsung devices are in the $60+ range.
Fairly sturdy phone. Paid $400 CAD for it. No contract/financing through my carrier.
The Pebble Core looks really interesting to me.
In a previous article discussing diabetes I posted wishing there was a Glucometer that could push data directly over Wifi. Unfortunately they only go over Bluetooth.
This Pebble Core could be a cheap, hackable, interim solution to what I was looking for. My young son is a Type 1 Diabetic, and I would love to receive alerts that he is actually checking his glucose levels when he is supposed to. This is small enough I could clip it to his backpack when he goes off to the side to check is BG levels I could set it up to relay over this device and send me a text directly, or over Wifi to e-mail me. He's 6 years old and I don't want to pack in a full blown smart phone just for this functionality.
I've already pledged to get one in the first run to tinker with.
In my opinion the only way to avoid the big companies collecting your information is DIY.
At most on the outside you should ever need is a Dynamic DNS provider, and there are dozens of those you can use and script to send your outside accessible IP (assuming you don't have static address[es]).
A lot of this is actually fairly simple programming with basic IO sensors. You could build a thermostat like a Nest with a PiZero, a basic thermal sensor, a couple of relays and some of your own time. Sure, it won't look pretty, but it doesn't have to if you're using your smart phone to control it anyway. A basic web interface that is Mobile friendly isn't all that hard.
I'm sure there is already an open source project that does this with a full breakdown of how to do it to save you some time.
And a quick google search away I found this http://www.stuff.tv/features/how-build-homemade-nest-thermostat
I'll add it to the list!
Haha
- an open, unified, encrypted/secure communications protocol and reference implementation to replace SMS/IM/E-mail (xmpp is broken by design, email is a disaster of old insecure protocols and incompatible servers/clients with hacks to make them talk together... poorly)
- reverse engineer the Accu-Chek bluetooth glucose meter protocol
- build a multi-platform diabetes management app that syncs your data across devices (my 6 year old son is a Type 1 Diabetic.. I can't find anything that syncs across multiple devices. Sometimes my son is with me, or my wife, or his grandparents, I want the data up-to-date everywhere so everyone knows what's going on)
- a new web based, DOM only (no contentEditable) WYSIWYG editor with a contextually aware interface (unless something has come out recently, this didn't exist last I looked. Would have to be cross browser, and written in JavaScript without dependency on monolithic libraries like AngularJS or jQuery)
Unfortunately I've run out of time to go on... sorry. If I get some time later I will add more.