 | | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
Let me try to be clearer. (...) This is almost certainly what a lot of it indeed is. Using jump.cgi theoretically doubles the latency since two resolutions are required. But it's not ALL the delay, some surely, is at the server itself while it (...) (26 years ago, 23-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) It's not to track stats on who goes where, although an evil server that wanted to do that could probably do that. Its purpose here is to track how often the where's are being gone to relative to one another and from what pages. It's the (...) (26 years ago, 23-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) I’m no expert on this, but I’m pretty sure that, above a certain level, the end users hardware will not affect the problem you mention. The slowness will occur somewhere between the LUGNET server and your computer. For what it is worth, I have (...) (26 years ago, 23-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
Are you sure it's not latency in DNS resolution? That is usually a big factor in how fast a page comes up. A good test is to try the same link again with your browser cache turned off and see what happens. While I understand the usefulness of the (...) (26 years ago, 23-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
As preface, for those that don't know what the LUGNET jump.cgi does... It is a way to track stats on who goes where. For example, when I type (URL) into a post, the web interface rendering technology shows the URL in different text color/font and (...) (26 years ago, 23-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
