 | | LUGNET is fast today
|
|
I noticed a significant increase in speed when loding pages today, especially the front news page. Also the pages load different than before - the whole page just pops up when its done loading. The effect is like setting Response.Buffer = True in (...) (25 years ago, 25-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) It seems that slow DNS is the culprit if Todd is right. Why does cutting and pasting make it go faster? If Todd is right, you would have to pay the same DNS price either way. Or is it just a perceived speedup? Well, I've set FUT o-t.geek to (...) (25 years ago, 25-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: dead link?
|
|
(...) Yes. This is now a dead link. I had to take it down a few weeks ago and neglected to inform anyone. The purpose of the page was simply to show that OmniRemote for the Palm could be trained with IR commands from the IR tower or MindStorms (...) (25 years ago, 24-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: News/Discussion Group Traffic (Fri 24 Nov 2000)
|
|
(...) Can you tell it was a US holiday? ;-) Jude (25 years ago, 24-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) It isn't just you. I notice the delay as well on every machine I use - fast or slow, on every connection I use, fast or slow. Last time I looked into this (and I think posted about it) it seemed fairly obvious the biggest delays were had by IE (...) (25 years ago, 24-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) Did I just say that? Oops. That's wrong. There isn't any jump.cgi in the context of NNTP -- only HTTP. Duh. So it's never more than 1 DNS lookup in the case of NNTP and never more then 2 DNS lookups in the case of HTTP -- and in practice, it (...) (25 years ago, 23-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) If you're reading via HTTP, then it's only one resolution because your client will already have resolved www.lugnet.com. If you're reading via NNTP, then it may be two and it may be one depending on your DNS cache. (...) With a typical URL, (...) (25 years ago, 23-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) Well I suppose the nub of this is, if we accept LP's assertion that it is slowing things down, is the cost of doing this worth the benefit. Is the data being collected because it can be collected, or because it needs to be collected? Scott A (...) (25 years ago, 23-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 years ago, 23-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Is it time for lugnet.build.sculpture ?
|
|
Henry Lim wrote in message ... (...) postings (...) Surely that group would be for discussions of how to build sculptures of Eric (our hero!) Kevin (25 years ago, 23-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Is it time for lugnet.build.sculpture ?
|
|
It doesn't bother me to have a sub-group. What with the sculptures LEGO now offers (giant mini-fig, Statue of Liberty), it seems like a legitimate category. However, what we really need is a lugnet.build.ericharshbarger for his postings and (...) (25 years ago, 23-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Is it time for lugnet.build.sculpture ?
|
|
The issue with fractioning groups is that a fan must scan more groups to find new MOC's. I only build mini-fig style models, but I like to look at pretty-much everything else. I think that the mecha sub-group is a good idea because it is a HUGE (...) (25 years ago, 23-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.build)
|
| |
| | Re: New Themes
|
|
(...) may (...) this (...) I still find it strange that "Life on Mars" is at the same level of classification as "ClassicSpace+SpaceP...itron+Expl oriens+UFO+Insectoids..." You can't accurately classify all the animals if you just have orders, (...) (25 years ago, 22-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Is it time for lugnet.build.sculpture ?
|
|
(...) As a minor player in the sculpture arena, I echo all of Eric's comments quoted above. Andrew (25 years ago, 22-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.build)
|
| |
| | Re: Community to design new LEGO T-shirts
|
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, William Wong writes: <snip> Aww nuts, try to ignore this version, "1 month | 4 weeks". Todd, this looks like another instance of this: (URL) (25 years ago, 22-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New Themes
|
|
(...) This is kinda wild, a change from the current setup, but how about creating a lugnet.productline hierarchy, and put all the (play)theme-groups under that? The current upper-layer product ng's could either stay where they are, or move to the (...) (25 years ago, 22-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.space)
|
