Text 11398, 85 rader
Skriven 2008-03-20 03:33:31 av Jeff Bowman (1:229/500)
  Kommentar till text 11396 av Maurice Kinal (1:261/38)
Ärende: Re: another test
========================
I just want to say first of all that I'm not sure if your debate is against
transfer time, transfer bandwidth, storage space, or all of the above.  So I'll
respond to most aspects!
 
 
MK> Interesting.  Just for fun I wrote a cgi script to display
MK> m00005KV.text.message and tack on html tags on-the-fly rather than store
MK> that information and it worked excellent.  Furthermore,
 
I won't deny that I did find it somewhat interesting to see the exact
difference in size between the html page and the actual message content, since
I generally don't think about it.  But I don't pay per byte of bandwidth for my
home connection, or have a connection slow enough to notice the difference in
terms of viewing that in either form.  30k comes in as perceivably fast as 3k
or 0.3k from my perspective behind a web browser.
 
I will grant you that from a server perspective, if you were serving thousands
of Fidonet users, the bandwidth difference would add up.  But bandwidth is
cheap these days.  I get more than an ample supply through the company I use. 
And for serving Fidonet messages, it's mostly text, not imagery, so it wouldn't
be a problem.
 
On a server storage side of things, I know some softwares do/did actually make
an html file for every single message, which originally served the purpose of
speed and saving processing power and ram.  But these days PHP and Perl are
commonplace in an installation, so making a template and storing the actual
data separately is easy and the best solution in my opinion.  So is storing the
messages in a database instead of individually, since each individual tiny
message is wasting clusters, and there are speed benefits to be had with a
database on top of that.
 
 
MK> doesn't really save that much and only slows things down when using a
MK> capable browser that can handle compression.
 
Any modern computer wouldn't even bat an eye at decompressing a web page.  It
likely spends more processing power rendering it.
 
 
MK> As far as
MK> bandwidth is concerned, offline text messaging with ftp transfers proved
MK> itself to be vastly superior to viewing the same message online with a
MK> httpd server via a cgi script.
 
Purely in terms of bandwidth, sure.  But I would argue that anything you viewed
it in once you downloaded it works just as well, whether that's the linux
console, a dos window, or a Windows application. Having saved bandwidth by
doing it by that method doesn't make Linux superior.  For example, I just
transferred a pile of messages to a Linux server a few days ago to import into
MySQL, by zipping them first to avoid individual transfers, and then FTPing it
from a Windows machine.  Bandwidth saved, no console involved in that
particular instance.
 
 
MK> The linux terminal will always win no matter what.  No doubt about it. Do
MK> you require more proof?
 
I'll say again that I do enjoy the Linux console for various things, and use it
every day in fact.  But I primarily use them remotely from my Windows XP
machine via Putty.  Probably the best SSH client out there for Windows in my
opinion.  I regularly tunnel certain traffic through it too, and even use it
for connecting to BBSes since it allows me such a wide variety of terminal
options.  There's even a modified version with ZMODEM built in.
 
I have a Linux installation on here, which I keep for various reasons like
hardware interfacing and specific kernel building or whatever, but it doesn't
see a lot of use lately.  My laptop can triple-boot between Win98 (for easy
direct hardware access and playing old games), Linux, and XP.  It generally
gets used for Linux, but I tend to find myself VNCing into my Windows machine
since that's where a lot of my work sits.
 
Anyhow, I'm not challenging your opinion that the terminal is great.  I just
disagree that it's superior to everything.  They all have their uses, including
the GUIs, for me.  I even regularly use the Windows command prompt.  Though I
have yet to get mixed up with that Powershell thing.
 
Also, I have to admit that I am in fact currently working on software (on a
Linux machine) to parse my Fido PKTs and import them directly into the
database, allowing me to both serve messages back out with BinkD for my
D'Bridge to get, as well as display them (and be able to reply) via a web
interface. Now I'll possibly earn your ire for making the very thing you
dislike!  <g>

--- D'Bridge 2.99
 * Origin: FyBBS (1:229/500)