Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #318621 > unrolled thread
| Started by | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-02 15:43 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-09-04 04:55 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 168 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-02 15:43 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-02 17:45 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-02 15:52 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 08:54 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX dunno <dunno@dunno.dunno> - 2015-09-03 00:12 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-02 18:00 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-02 16:07 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-02 18:40 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-02 12:09 -0500
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-02 20:43 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-02 21:19 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX ronb <ronbNOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 23:31 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-02 20:36 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-03 09:17 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-03 10:06 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-03 08:47 -0400
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-03 13:22 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-03 10:10 -0400
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-03 09:31 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-03 16:47 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-03 22:29 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-03 23:48 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-04 01:38 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-04 02:50 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-04 04:34 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-03 23:35 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-04 07:39 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-04 01:00 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-05 16:59 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-05 17:15 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-05 10:40 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-05 18:51 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-05 13:09 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-05 10:39 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-05 20:03 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-05 18:50 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-05 13:16 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-05 20:52 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-05 19:58 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-05 20:39 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-05 19:13 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-05 21:26 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-05 19:43 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-05 19:50 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-05 19:55 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 13:39 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-05 23:14 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-05 23:28 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-06 00:02 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-06 01:24 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-06 02:12 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-06 02:33 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX ronb <ronbNOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 01:03 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-06 03:24 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-06 09:45 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-06 06:40 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-06 09:58 -0500
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-06 03:40 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX dunno <dunno@dunno.dunno> - 2015-09-06 03:04 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX dunno <dunno@dunno.dunno> - 2015-09-06 04:48 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX dunno <dunno@dunno.dunno> - 2015-09-06 06:46 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-06 06:14 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-06 07:21 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-06 08:12 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-06 10:09 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-06 10:24 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-06 09:00 -0500
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-06 10:55 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-06 18:44 -0500
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX ronb <ronbNOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 19:24 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-06 21:47 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-06 09:35 -0500
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-06 12:03 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-06 21:04 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-06 23:18 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-06 21:51 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-06 22:37 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-06 23:08 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-06 23:38 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-07 00:10 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-08 09:15 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-08 09:18 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-08 10:04 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-09 01:44 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-09 02:00 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-08 19:05 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-09 09:23 -0400
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-09 09:44 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-09 12:47 -0400
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-09 10:04 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-09 13:15 -0400
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-09 10:28 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-08 19:00 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-09 02:12 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-08 19:18 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-09 02:30 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-08 19:33 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-08 07:42 -0500
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-08 15:30 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-08 09:05 -0500
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-08 08:02 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-08 12:10 -0400
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-08 09:17 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-05 22:53 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-06 01:00 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-09-07 00:10 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Melzzzzz <melz@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-07 02:12 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-06 01:04 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-05 12:45 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-05 19:48 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-05 13:20 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-05 13:38 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-05 19:10 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-05 12:48 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-05 19:53 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-05 13:26 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-04 09:28 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-04 04:52 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-03 23:48 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX dunno <dunno@dunno.dunno> - 2015-09-04 05:13 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-03 23:49 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX dunno <dunno@dunno.dunno> - 2015-09-04 07:34 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-04 00:48 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-05 10:09 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-06 09:42 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-06 07:49 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX ronb <ronbNOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 19:26 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-08 07:34 -0500
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-08 08:31 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-03 09:33 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-03 16:48 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-05 10:08 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-05 13:36 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 11:45 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-05 01:26 -0500
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-05 02:27 -0500
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX ronb <ronbNOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 23:30 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-05 02:15 -0500
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX ronb <ronbNOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 21:19 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-07 04:39 -0500
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-05 01:15 -0500
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-05 02:12 -0500
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-05 02:26 -0500
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX ronb <ronbNOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 21:21 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-07 04:46 -0500
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-09-07 10:18 -0400
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-03 04:27 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-09-03 09:26 -0400
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-03 10:37 -0400
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-02 20:40 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-02 21:17 +0200
Snit Michael Glasser unable to do simple search Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-02 23:02 +0200
Re: Snit Michael Glasser unable to do simple search hifye <hifye@humanoid.net> - 2015-09-02 17:10 -0400
Re: Snit Michael Glasser unable to do simple search Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-03 01:09 +0200
Re: Peter Köhlmann admits he has no clue what he is talking about "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-02 17:50 -0400
Re: Peter Köhlmann admits he has no clue what he is talking about Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-05 01:17 -0500
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-09-03 12:02 -0500
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-03 13:02 -0500
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-09-03 13:16 -0500
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-02 20:42 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 09:08 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-02 20:35 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX dunno <dunno@dunno.dunno> - 2015-09-03 00:12 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX dunno <dunno@dunno.dunno> - 2015-09-03 01:07 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX dunno <dunno@dunno.dunno> - 2015-09-03 01:39 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-03 04:28 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Debbie Ballard <rex.ballard@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 21:10 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-04 04:55 +0000
Page 2 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 22:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <adfm93l.afu@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #318816 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 9/3/15, 9:47 AM, in article fsmcn8.vzkci@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 9/3/15, 6:22 AM, in article famvn83.sadfj@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >>>> A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>>>> On 2015-09-02 6:58 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>> On 9/2/15, 1:36 PM, in article pfha.fa8@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> since it is already way beyond that I doubt they'd take the step >>>>>>>>> backwards. >>>>>>>>> And in UI, they are miles ahead of Linux in any form. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Owl has kindly gone out of his way to show that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ha! >>>>>>> >>>>>> Hey, from what you and I show OS X is more than 4 times faster than Linux, >>>>>> right? :) >>>>>> >>>>>> Mine: <https://youtu.be/akFfpX77z-E> 18 seconds for 22 files >>>>>> average = 0.8 / file >>>>>> Yours: <https://vid.me/X4kA> 70 seconds for 20 files! >>>>>> average = 3.5 / file >>>>>> >>>>>> 3.5 / 0.8 = 4.37 >>>>>> >>>>>> Thus the Mac is over four times faster than Linux. Owl has proved it! >>>> >>>>> Hooray for the Mac demonstrating its superiority - with owl's help no >>>>> less - over Linux! When Linux can't even beat the most sluggish >>>>> operating system on the market, you know it sucks. >>>> >>>> You mean when he fakes it with local files. >>>> >>> Nope. No local files. That is all happening real time, as you watch. >> >> Bullshit. >> Answer these questions: >> >> Why does the menu bar not switch to say "Safari" when you click on >> the URL in that window? Why does it still say "Finder"? >> >> Here's the way it looked before in another video when you clicked on >> the site to get the links individually: >> >> http://i.imgur.com/v1LAf2p.png >> >> The menu bar switched to say "Safari." >> >> Here's how it looks now when you click on the URL to get the menu to run >> your script: >> >> http://i.imgur.com/n5r9DNz.png >> >> The menu bar still says "Finder." >> >> Is that a screenshot of the allrecipes.com site taken with paparazzi >> that you are viewing? What's with the YemuZip icon on your toolbar? >> >> http://i.imgur.com/Ks7dEyz.png >> >> What exactly does the menu mean by "Download linked allrecipes.com >> recipes"? What does it mean by "linked"? Are those just files just >> links to the online printer-friendly pages that you have named with a >> PDF extension? Alternatively, are you just extracting a local archive >> in this video? Enquiring minds want to know... >> >> How about you do it again and show the current time along with the >> timestamps of the downloaded and converted files. Show the folder >> with detailed listing showing file creation dates as they arrive >> Open them in a PDF viewer and show file properties. >> >> And open a netstat window so we can see it connect: >> BSD nestat doesn't have a '-c' option, so this will let it loop: >> >> $ while [ 1 ]; do netstat -an -f inet; sleep 1;clear; done >> > Already showed you much of this... but it comes down to you cannot believe > OS X, in the hands of a non-programmer, is handling your hand-picked > scripting task better than you can get Linux to handle it. > I *love* it! > By the way, note the smilies when I note OS X is four times faster. It is on > THIS task as you and I do it... but that is not overall. > But this is fun! OK. I accept your video as legit. For now :) I checked into the conversion utility I use. It has *as an option* what I assumed would be standard: don't process javascript. I turned off javascript and got an immediate speed increase. I fiddled with various options to GNU parallel and now have it processing 58 files in 102 seconds. (Not sure why it's 58 now instead of 59) There is also an additional option to the conversion utility to not bring down images, so with no images it jumps to 58 files in 49 seconds. All of this is without digging into my own code for improvements, and surely there will be some there. The formatted page without images is actually nice. But I would think a photo of the food would be desired. Have you gotten yours to get all 58(59?) recipes yet?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 23:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <adfmvu84jfr.o@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #318862 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 9/3/15, 3:29 PM, in article adfm93l.afu@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> Already showed you much of this... but it comes down to you cannot believe >>> OS X, in the hands of a non-programmer, is handling your hand-picked >>> scripting task better than you can get Linux to handle it. >> >>> I *love* it! >> >>> By the way, note the smilies when I note OS X is four times faster. It is on >>> THIS task as you and I do it... but that is not overall. >> >>> But this is fun! >> >> OK. I accept your video as legit. For now :) > But your first thought was I *had* to be cheating... shows your assumptions. Not my fault your video look suspicious. > What evidence do you have that you are not cheating? Why not show your > script? Maybe when I've squeezed every last mph out of it. > A video with mine is uploaded here: <http://youtu.be/TH3rKDAAvsc> > Right now that is set to "private" but I will make it "public" once you show > yours. As far as I know, no way to change the URL nor swap videos (no matter > what Peter claims). >> I checked into the conversion utility I use. It has *as an option* >> what I assumed would be standard: don't process javascript. I turned >> off javascript and got an immediate speed increase. I fiddled with >> various options to GNU parallel and now have it processing 58 files in >> 102 seconds. (Not sure why it's 58 now instead of 59) > So still more than a second per file, vs. my 0.8. :) My PDFs are in the 300-800KB range vs your <100KB files. That probably accounts for some of the sluggishness here. (Down to 98 sec now). >> There is also an additional option to the conversion utility to not bring down >> images, so with no images it jumps to 58 files in 49 seconds. All of this is >> without digging into my own code for improvements, and surely there will be >> some there. The formatted page without images is actually nice. But I would >> think a photo of the food would be desired. Have you gotten yours to get all >> 58(59?) recipes yet? > Nope. It would, by the way, be trivial for me to cheat and do so - just have > the list of URLs preset and send it to my download / conversion utility. But > I do not cheat. While debugging, I had the html files sitting already downloaded and it was actually slower for some reason.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-04 01:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fasmnvc93.jdif@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #318867 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 9/3/15, 4:48 PM, in article adfmvu84jfr.o@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 9/3/15, 3:29 PM, in article adfm93l.afu@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >>>>> Already showed you much of this... but it comes down to you cannot believe >>>>> OS X, in the hands of a non-programmer, is handling your hand-picked >>>>> scripting task better than you can get Linux to handle it. >>>> >>>>> I *love* it! >>>> >>>>> By the way, note the smilies when I note OS X is four times faster. It is >>>>> on >>>>> THIS task as you and I do it... but that is not overall. >>>> >>>>> But this is fun! >>>> >>>> OK. I accept your video as legit. For now :) >> >>> But your first thought was I *had* to be cheating... shows your assumptions. >> >> Not my fault your video look suspicious. > LOL! It shows me doing the task you asked about... run a script to download > the recipes. > You are the one who assumed this was not likely to be true... you assumed > the task could not be done on a Mac or, perhaps, on a Mac by someone who is > not a programmer. I already explained to you the oddities I noticed in your video, as well as the sparse information you displayed. > As I said, not as easy for me as a programmer and if we keep playing this > game we might get to my limits - as it is I have tried briefly to get the > full list of recipes and failed... tried scrolling down and getting the list > of URLs. No dice. Watch the URL bar while you're scrolling. >>> What evidence do you have that you are not cheating? Why not show your >>> script? >> >> Maybe when I've squeezed every last mph out of it. > Hey, I have mine uploaded including bugs. My video even talks about one > (there is a bug in it when I ran it - I discuss it and how I have solved it > and what would likely be a better way... have not even taken the time to see > if I could). >>> A video with mine is uploaded here: <http://youtu.be/TH3rKDAAvsc> >> >>> Right now that is set to "private" but I will make it "public" once you show >>> yours. As far as I know, no way to change the URL nor swap videos (no matter >>> what Peter claims). >> >>>> I checked into the conversion utility I use. It has *as an option* >>>> what I assumed would be standard: don't process javascript. I turned >>>> off javascript and got an immediate speed increase. I fiddled with >>>> various options to GNU parallel and now have it processing 58 files in >>>> 102 seconds. (Not sure why it's 58 now instead of 59) >> >>> So still more than a second per file, vs. my 0.8. :) >> >> My PDFs are in the 300-800KB range vs your <100KB files. That probably >> accounts for some of the sluggishness here. (Down to 98 sec now). > Why would yours be so much bigger? Higher quality? Who knows. > Seems we have another place where the Mac > is "ahead". Are the links in yours active and working? In mine they are, > though I could change that so they would not be. Mine don't have any links after I strip the javascript. It's not that there are dead links -- all the crap from the html version is stripped off. It's nice and clean. http://i.imgur.com/gLtDoVP.png >>>> There is also an additional option to the conversion utility to not bring >>>> down images, so with no images it jumps to 58 files in 49 seconds. All of >>>> this is without digging into my own code for improvements, and surely there >>>> will be some there. The formatted page without images is actually nice. But >>>> I would think a photo of the food would be desired. Have you gotten yours >>>> to get all 58(59?) recipes yet? >>>> >>> Nope. It would, by the way, be trivial for me to cheat and do so - just have >>> the list of URLs preset and send it to my download / conversion utility. But >>> I do not cheat. >> >> While debugging, I had the html files sitting already downloaded and it >> was actually slower for some reason. > Odd. For me I would just need the URLs... having trouble getting all of > them. Did not really put much effort into it, though. Already put too much > time into something that has no real value for me. I did, though, try and > failed. Not denying that. See above.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-04 02:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fsa.vjcxzi3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #318888 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 9/3/15, 6:38 PM, in article fasmnvc93.jdif@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > ... >>>>> But your first thought was I *had* to be cheating... shows your >>>>> assumptions. >>>> >>>> Not my fault your video look suspicious. >> >>> LOL! It shows me doing the task you asked about... run a script to download >>> the recipes. >> >>> You are the one who assumed this was not likely to be true... you assumed >>> the task could not be done on a Mac or, perhaps, on a Mac by someone who is >>> not a programmer. >> >> I already explained to you the oddities I noticed in your video, as well >> as the sparse information you displayed. > Nothing odd about the video at all. Not a thing. Heck, it is showing me > directly working on the system. But whatever: you made a mistake and jumped > to a poor conclusion. To me it is just funny to see the reaction. The title bar was odd. >>> As I said, not as easy for me as a programmer and if we keep playing this >>> game we might get to my limits - as it is I have tried briefly to get the >>> full list of recipes and failed... tried scrolling down and getting the list >>> of URLs. No dice. >> >> Watch the URL bar while you're scrolling. > Right, it moves to page 2 and 3. Is it cheating to hard code that? Do you > keep searching until you add no more links? If we can just hardcode those > URLs in, or add the added bit to the end of the URL it becomes pretty > trivial. I grab all three. Originally I just got the first twenty on page 1, but you mentioned that there were more, so I just get them all. > ... >>>>>> I checked into the conversion utility I use. It has *as an option* >>>>>> what I assumed would be standard: don't process javascript. I turned >>>>>> off javascript and got an immediate speed increase. I fiddled with >>>>>> various options to GNU parallel and now have it processing 58 files in >>>>>> 102 seconds. (Not sure why it's 58 now instead of 59) >>>> >>>>> So still more than a second per file, vs. my 0.8. :) >>>> >>>> My PDFs are in the 300-800KB range vs your <100KB files. That probably >>>> accounts for some of the sluggishness here. (Down to 98 sec now). >> >>> Why would yours be so much bigger? >> >> Higher quality? Who knows. > Yours are actual PDFs with actual text in them, right, not just images. anon@sandpit:~/Recipes$ file worlds-best-lasagna.pdf worlds-best-lasagna.pdf: PDF document, version 1.4 anon@sandpit:~/Recipes$ cp worlds-best-lasagna.pdf foo anon@sandpit:~/Recipes$ file foo foo: PDF document, version 1.4 anon@sandpit:~/Recipes$ >>> Seems we have another place where the Mac >>> is "ahead". Are the links in yours active and working? In mine they are, >>> though I could change that so they would not be. >> >> Mine don't have any links after I strip the javascript. It's not that >> there are dead links -- all the crap from the html version is stripped >> off. It's nice and clean. >> >> http://i.imgur.com/gLtDoVP.png > But I assume that is PDF text and not just an image saved in a PDF, right? It's possibly just an image on these pages. I tested the utility on another site and it produced a pdf that had text that is at least selectable for copy/paste. Links don't work. I'll have to play with this some more and find out. Images would explain the huge file size. > ... >>>> While debugging, I had the html files sitting already downloaded and it >>>> was actually slower for some reason. >> >>> Odd. For me I would just need the URLs... having trouble getting all of >>> them. Did not really put much effort into it, though. Already put too much >>> time into something that has no real value for me. I did, though, try and >>> failed. Not denying that. >> >> See above. > Did you hardcode the URLs? If so that is sorta cheating I think... but wrote > about it elsewhere that I see gray areas here. This is designed in a way > that would work only with that site. For the three site pages, yeah. That's the only way to get them all. Doesn't matter to me if we limit it to just the 20 on page 1. > Right now my workflow would take modification to grab multiple URLs, but I > could do it with saving the things to a file then reading the file. Would > add a fraction of a second to the processing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-04 04:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <afdsmv8.kdi@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #318892 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 9/3/15, 7:50 PM, in article fsa.vjcxzi3@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 9/3/15, 6:38 PM, in article fasmnvc93.jdif@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >>> ... >>>>>>> But your first thought was I *had* to be cheating... shows your >>>>>>> assumptions. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not my fault your video look suspicious. >>>> >>>>> LOL! It shows me doing the task you asked about... run a script to download >>>>> the recipes. >>>> >>>>> You are the one who assumed this was not likely to be true... you assumed >>>>> the task could not be done on a Mac or, perhaps, on a Mac by someone who is >>>>> not a programmer. >>>> >>>> I already explained to you the oddities I noticed in your video, as well >>>> as the sparse information you displayed. >> >>> Nothing odd about the video at all. Not a thing. Heck, it is showing me >>> directly working on the system. But whatever: you made a mistake and jumped >>> to a poor conclusion. To me it is just funny to see the reaction. >> >> The title bar was odd. > It is the standard Safari title bar. And you could see a script was running > and, more importantly (to prove I was doing an actual conversion), that > Paparrazi has a progress bar in the dock. Your reputation is also not my fault. >>>>> As I said, not as easy for me as a programmer and if we keep playing this >>>>> game we might get to my limits - as it is I have tried briefly to get the >>>>> full list of recipes and failed... tried scrolling down and getting the >>>>> list >>>>> of URLs. No dice. >>>> >>>> Watch the URL bar while you're scrolling. >> >>> Right, it moves to page 2 and 3. Is it cheating to hard code that? Do you >>> keep searching until you add no more links? If we can just hardcode those >>> URLs in, or add the added bit to the end of the URL it becomes pretty >>> trivial. >> >> I grab all three. Originally I just got the first twenty on page 1, but >> you mentioned that there were more, so I just get them all. > Right... but do you do so by hard coding in the URLs? Assuming a page 2 with > the right addition? If they added a page 4 would yours automatically handle > that? I don't test for that, so no. >>> ... >>>>>>>> I checked into the conversion utility I use. It has *as an option* >>>>>>>> what I assumed would be standard: don't process javascript. I turned >>>>>>>> off javascript and got an immediate speed increase. I fiddled with >>>>>>>> various options to GNU parallel and now have it processing 58 files in >>>>>>>> 102 seconds. (Not sure why it's 58 now instead of 59) >>>>>> >>>>>>> So still more than a second per file, vs. my 0.8. :) >>>>>> >>>>>> My PDFs are in the 300-800KB range vs your <100KB files. That probably >>>>>> accounts for some of the sluggishness here. (Down to 98 sec now). >>>> >>>>> Why would yours be so much bigger? >>>> >>>> Higher quality? Who knows. >> >>> Yours are actual PDFs with actual text in them, right, not just images. >> >> anon@sandpit:~/Recipes$ file worlds-best-lasagna.pdf >> worlds-best-lasagna.pdf: PDF document, version 1.4 >> anon@sandpit:~/Recipes$ cp worlds-best-lasagna.pdf foo >> anon@sandpit:~/Recipes$ file foo >> foo: PDF document, version 1.4 >> anon@sandpit:~/Recipes$ > If you zoomed in does the text get blurry? Is it real text or an image? At > the size you are showing I suspect it might be an image. Mine is real > text... a "proper" PDF. Zoomed to 1600%, image pixelates; text stays sharp: http://i.imgur.com/Bu010DS.png >>>>> Seems we have another place where the Mac >>>>> is "ahead". Are the links in yours active and working? In mine they are, >>>>> though I could change that so they would not be. >>>> >>>> Mine don't have any links after I strip the javascript. It's not that >>>> there are dead links -- all the crap from the html version is stripped >>>> off. It's nice and clean. >>>> >>>> http://i.imgur.com/gLtDoVP.png >> >>> But I assume that is PDF text and not just an image saved in a PDF, right? >> >> It's possibly just an image on these pages. I tested the utility on >> another site and it produced a pdf that had text that is at least >> selectable for copy/paste. Links don't work. I'll have to play >> with this some more and find out. Images would explain the huge >> file size. > Right... though if the text is selectable then it is not just an image. > Text is selectable on some pages generated by this utility. But not on these particular ones. >>> ... >>>>>> While debugging, I had the html files sitting already downloaded and it >>>>>> was actually slower for some reason. >>>> >>>>> Odd. For me I would just need the URLs... having trouble getting all of >>>>> them. Did not really put much effort into it, though. Already put too much >>>>> time into something that has no real value for me. I did, though, try and >>>>> failed. Not denying that. >>>> >>>> See above. >> >>> Did you hardcode the URLs? If so that is sorta cheating I think... but wrote >>> about it elsewhere that I see gray areas here. This is designed in a way >>> that would work only with that site. >> >> For the three site pages, yeah. That's the only way to get them all. >> Doesn't matter to me if we limit it to just the 20 on page 1. > Oh, if we can hardcode the URLs then this is trivial (and, I think, > cheating... but it is what I do for this example). Also modified mine to not > use Pazarrazi but a different tool that allows me to turn off JavaScript (I > like the way your printouts did not have some of my extra "stuff"). The > other "tool" us an Automator action called "Download URLs as PDFs". Hmmmm, > maybe silly I did not use that before. :) > My files are still about the same size. > I then edit the names so they look better (could do this with Paparrazi, > too). I start roughly on the minute (half a second late, whatever) and get > all 53 done, including name change, by 49 seconds (so I have gone up to > about 0.9 seconds per recipe with my different download tool and other > changes... but just playing around): > <http://youtu.be/MuZM_wANG-k> > On these ones links do not work, but it is real text (can select it and > zooming in 800x it is still sharp) Can you copy and paste the text? On mine it looks like a selection block, but copy/paste doesn't work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 23:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D20E89BD.59E79%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #318899 |
On 9/3/15, 9:34 PM, in article afdsmv8.kdi@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: ... >>> The title bar was odd. > >> It is the standard Safari title bar. And you could see a script was running >> and, more importantly (to prove I was doing an actual conversion), that >> Paparrazi has a progress bar in the dock. > > Your reputation is also not my fault. I am responsible only for my actions, and my actions are honest. If you wish to believe my weird "fan" club about my "unquotable lies" then so be it. And you have still not shared your script. Why not? ... >>> I grab all three. Originally I just got the first twenty on page 1, but >>> you mentioned that there were more, so I just get them all. > >> Right... but do you do so by hard coding in the URLs? Assuming a page 2 with >> the right addition? If they added a page 4 would yours automatically handle >> that? > > I don't test for that, so no. First I was trying to do the page down thing where I would look for a changed URL. Now I just have the other two pages hard coded. Seems like a complete cheat, but so be it. ... >> If you zoomed in does the text get blurry? Is it real text or an image? At >> the size you are showing I suspect it might be an image. Mine is real >> text... a "proper" PDF. > > Zoomed to 1600%, image pixelates; text stays sharp: > http://i.imgur.com/Bu010DS.png OK, so a "real" PDF with text. Fair enough. Odd yours are so big then. ... >> Right... though if the text is selectable then it is not just an image. > > Text is selectable on some pages generated by this utility. > But not on these particular ones. That is weird. Any theories? Mine is selectable with each tool. ... >>> For the three site pages, yeah. That's the only way to get them all. >>> Doesn't matter to me if we limit it to just the 20 on page 1. > >> Oh, if we can hardcode the URLs then this is trivial (and, I think, >> cheating... but it is what I do for this example). Also modified mine to not >> use Pazarrazi but a different tool that allows me to turn off JavaScript (I >> like the way your printouts did not have some of my extra "stuff"). The >> other "tool" us an Automator action called "Download URLs as PDFs". Hmmmm, >> maybe silly I did not use that before. :) > >> My files are still about the same size. > >> I then edit the names so they look better (could do this with Paparrazi, >> too). I start roughly on the minute (half a second late, whatever) and get >> all 53 done, including name change, by 49 seconds (so I have gone up to >> about 0.9 seconds per recipe with my different download tool and other >> changes... but just playing around): > >> <http://youtu.be/MuZM_wANG-k> > >> On these ones links do not work, but it is real text (can select it and >> zooming in 800x it is still sharp) > > Can you copy and paste the text? Yes... both tools. Had not checked that before... but knew selection worked. If selection works why wouldn't copy and paste? > On mine it looks like a selection block, but copy/paste doesn't work. Weird. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-04 07:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fad.viz0@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #318906 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 9/3/15, 9:34 PM, in article afdsmv8.kdi@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > ... >>>> The title bar was odd. >> >>> It is the standard Safari title bar. And you could see a script was running >>> and, more importantly (to prove I was doing an actual conversion), that >>> Paparrazi has a progress bar in the dock. >> >> Your reputation is also not my fault. > I am responsible only for my actions, and my actions are honest. If you wish > to believe my weird "fan" club about my "unquotable lies" then so be it. > And you have still not shared your script. Why not? I may post it tomorrow. I need to try a few things first. > ... >>>> I grab all three. Originally I just got the first twenty on page 1, but >>>> you mentioned that there were more, so I just get them all. >> >>> Right... but do you do so by hard coding in the URLs? Assuming a page 2 with >>> the right addition? If they added a page 4 would yours automatically handle >>> that? >> >> I don't test for that, so no. > First I was trying to do the page down thing where I would look for a > changed URL. Now I just have the other two pages hard coded. Seems like a > complete cheat, but so be it. > > ... >>> If you zoomed in does the text get blurry? Is it real text or an image? At >>> the size you are showing I suspect it might be an image. Mine is real >>> text... a "proper" PDF. >> >> Zoomed to 1600%, image pixelates; text stays sharp: >> http://i.imgur.com/Bu010DS.png > OK, so a "real" PDF with text. Fair enough. Odd yours are so big then. > ... >>> Right... though if the text is selectable then it is not just an image. >> >> Text is selectable on some pages generated by this utility. >> But not on these particular ones. > That is weird. Any theories? Mine is selectable with each tool. > ... >>>> For the three site pages, yeah. That's the only way to get them all. >>>> Doesn't matter to me if we limit it to just the 20 on page 1. >> >>> Oh, if we can hardcode the URLs then this is trivial (and, I think, >>> cheating... but it is what I do for this example). Also modified mine to not >>> use Pazarrazi but a different tool that allows me to turn off JavaScript (I >>> like the way your printouts did not have some of my extra "stuff"). The >>> other "tool" us an Automator action called "Download URLs as PDFs". Hmmmm, >>> maybe silly I did not use that before. :) >> >>> My files are still about the same size. >> >>> I then edit the names so they look better (could do this with Paparrazi, >>> too). I start roughly on the minute (half a second late, whatever) and get >>> all 53 done, including name change, by 49 seconds (so I have gone up to >>> about 0.9 seconds per recipe with my different download tool and other >>> changes... but just playing around): >> >>> <http://youtu.be/MuZM_wANG-k> >> >>> On these ones links do not work, but it is real text (can select it and >>> zooming in 800x it is still sharp) >> >> Can you copy and paste the text? > Yes... both tools. Had not checked that before... but knew selection worked. > If selection works why wouldn't copy and paste? >> On mine it looks like a selection block, but copy/paste doesn't work. > Weird. It appears to be related to this problem (which oddly is in reference to an OS X version): https://github.com/wkhtmltopdf/wkhtmltopdf/issues/1747 <quote> wkhtmltopdf 0.12.0-OSX: Massively large PDF file size and non-selectable text #1747 </quote> https://github.com/wkhtmltopdf/wkhtmltopdf/issues/1695 <quote> The current 64Bit builds availabe for OS X are not yet able to embed fonts so they are rasterizing every single character to a vector outline. That leads to a massive increase in file size, especially with sites like yours that have a lot of text. </quote> My systems are a mixture of old and new. Host is old, some moderately new VMs, some cutting edge VMs. I tried using an older version of wkhtmltopdf on the host system, and it does yield much smaller file sizes, but other components used by my script are too old on this system for some options I'm using. Curiously, even though the file sizes are reasonable here (40KB range), the conversion is actually *slower*. I'll mull this over tomorrow, but I hesitate to put much effort into trying to remedy other possible bottlenecks if this particular shadow is inescapable. Could be just a config issue.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-04 01:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D20E9D9C.59EA0%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #318915 |
On 9/4/15, 12:39 AM, in article fad.viz0@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: ... >> I am responsible only for my actions, and my actions are honest. If you wish >> to believe my weird "fan" club about my "unquotable lies" then so be it. > >> And you have still not shared your script. Why not? > > I may post it tomorrow. I need to try a few things first. You are spending a LOT more time on yours than I did mine... but yours will likely also be a lot "cleaner". Mine is a bit of a mess, but as we saw it works well. Once you share yours I will make my video public: <https://youtu.be/TH3rKDAAvsc> Looking at my script again I could have made it a LOT easier. Might test that tomorrow and then have a MUCH better script. But whatever... it works. :) ... >>> Can you copy and paste the text? > >> Yes... both tools. Had not checked that before... but knew selection worked. >> If selection works why wouldn't copy and paste? > >>> On mine it looks like a selection block, but copy/paste doesn't work. > >> Weird. > > It appears to be related to this problem (which oddly is in reference > to an OS X version): > > https://github.com/wkhtmltopdf/wkhtmltopdf/issues/1747 > <quote> > wkhtmltopdf 0.12.0-OSX: Massively large PDF file size and non-selectable > text #1747 > </quote> > > https://github.com/wkhtmltopdf/wkhtmltopdf/issues/1695 > <quote> > The current 64Bit builds availabe for OS X are not yet able to embed fonts > so they are rasterizing every single character to a vector outline. That > leads to a massive increase in file size, especially with sites like > yours that have a lot of text. > </quote> Ouch! Yeah, that is pretty broken. Also gives me a new tool to try... and with that can just toss it into my AppleScript which would be a lot more efficient. Hmmm... I can also script Paparazzi that way.... which might have been more efficient, too. It does not have the ability to turn JavaScript off. > My systems are a mixture of old and new. Host is old, some moderately > new VMs, some cutting edge VMs. I tried using an older version of > wkhtmltopdf on the host system, and it does yield much smaller file > sizes, but other components used by my script are too old on this > system for some options I'm using. Curiously, even though the file > sizes are reasonable here (40KB range), the conversion is actually > *slower*. I'll mull this over tomorrow, but I hesitate to put much > effort into trying to remedy other possible bottlenecks if this > particular shadow is inescapable. Could be just a config issue. If I do try this tool it will break my self-imposed "rule" of not installing any software I did not already have. I *did* update some, but all of this is stuff I already had. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 16:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <famn83.ap3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #318919 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 9/4/15, 12:39 AM, in article fad.viz0@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> ...
>>> I am responsible only for my actions, and my actions are honest. If you wish
>>> to believe my weird "fan" club about my "unquotable lies" then so be it.
>>
>>> And you have still not shared your script. Why not?
>>
>> I may post it tomorrow. I need to try a few things first.
> You are spending a LOT more time on yours than I did mine...
Because there's apparently a bug in wkhtmltopdf. (Huge file sizes).
> but yours will
> likely also be a lot "cleaner". Mine is a bit of a mess, but as we saw it
> works well.
> Once you share yours I will make my video public:
> <https://youtu.be/TH3rKDAAvsc>
> Looking at my script again I could have made it a LOT easier. Might test
> that tomorrow and then have a MUCH better script. But whatever... it works.
> :)
The code should work on OS X with the zenity stuff commented out.
Curious if the wkhtmltopdf bug is still present in the OS X
version. At the time it was mentioned, the thing apparently
worked fine for Linux. Now I'm seeing what appears to be
that same situation that was described for the OS X version,
but on Linux.
#!/bin/sh
date=`date`
#zenity --notification --text="starting... ${date}"
stime=`date +%s`
if [ ! -e ~/Recipes ];then
mkdir ~/Recipes
fi
html="$(parallel --no-notice -P 3 -N 3 wget -q {1} {2} {3} ::: \
allrecipes.com -O - \
allrecipes.com/?page=2 -O - \
allrecipes.com/?page=3 -O -)"
recipelines=$( echo "${html}" |grep /recipe/ \
|perl -e 'while(<>){ $x=$_;$x=~s/^.*<a href=\"//g; $x=~s/\".*//g;print $x;}' \
|uniq)
filenames=$(echo "${recipelines}" |cut -f4 -d'/')
parallel --no-notice -P 8 -N 1 --xapply \
wkhtmltopdf -q -n \
http://allrecipes.com/{1}/print/ /home/anon/Recipes/{2}.pdf \
::: ${recipelines} ::: ${filenames}
count="$(ls /home/anon/Recipes |wc -l)"
etime=`date +%s`
elapsed=$((${etime}-${stime}))
rate=$(echo "scale=3; ${elapsed}/${count}" |bc)
echo "${count} files in ${elapsed} seconds"
echo "${rate} seconds per file"
#zenity --info --text="${count} files in ${elapsed} seconds\n\
#${rate} seconds per file"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 17:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <famv93.kidppf@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #319120 |
owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 9/4/15, 12:39 AM, in article fad.viz0@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>> ...
>>>> I am responsible only for my actions, and my actions are honest. If you wish
>>>> to believe my weird "fan" club about my "unquotable lies" then so be it.
>>>
>>>> And you have still not shared your script. Why not?
>>>
>>> I may post it tomorrow. I need to try a few things first.
>> You are spending a LOT more time on yours than I did mine...
> Because there's apparently a bug in wkhtmltopdf. (Huge file sizes).
>> but yours will
>> likely also be a lot "cleaner". Mine is a bit of a mess, but as we saw it
>> works well.
>> Once you share yours I will make my video public:
>> <https://youtu.be/TH3rKDAAvsc>
>> Looking at my script again I could have made it a LOT easier. Might test
>> that tomorrow and then have a MUCH better script. But whatever... it works.
>> :)
> The code should work on OS X with the zenity stuff commented out.
> Curious if the wkhtmltopdf bug is still present in the OS X
> version. At the time it was mentioned, the thing apparently
> worked fine for Linux. Now I'm seeing what appears to be
> that same situation that was described for the OS X version,
> but on Linux.
> #!/bin/sh
> date=`date`
> #zenity --notification --text="starting... ${date}"
> stime=`date +%s`
> if [ ! -e ~/Recipes ];then
> mkdir ~/Recipes
> fi
> html="$(parallel --no-notice -P 3 -N 3 wget -q {1} {2} {3} ::: \
> allrecipes.com -O - \
> allrecipes.com/?page=2 -O - \
> allrecipes.com/?page=3 -O -)"
> recipelines=$( echo "${html}" |grep /recipe/ \
> |perl -e 'while(<>){ $x=$_;$x=~s/^.*<a href=\"//g; $x=~s/\".*//g;print $x;}' \
> |uniq)
> filenames=$(echo "${recipelines}" |cut -f4 -d'/')
> parallel --no-notice -P 8 -N 1 --xapply \
> wkhtmltopdf -q -n \
> http://allrecipes.com/{1}/print/ /home/anon/Recipes/{2}.pdf \
> ::: ${recipelines} ::: ${filenames}
> count="$(ls /home/anon/Recipes |wc -l)"
> etime=`date +%s`
> elapsed=$((${etime}-${stime}))
> rate=$(echo "scale=3; ${elapsed}/${count}" |bc)
> echo "${count} files in ${elapsed} seconds"
> echo "${rate} seconds per file"
> #zenity --info --text="${count} files in ${elapsed} seconds\n\
> #${rate} seconds per file"
grrr.... left in a hard-coded homedir.
--- getem.sh 2015-09-05 13:11:36.785604182 -0400
+++ getem.sh.patched 2015-09-05 13:13:13.465604143 -0400
@@ -21,10 +21,10 @@
parallel --no-notice -P 8 -N 1 --xapply \
wkhtmltopdf -q -n \
-http://allrecipes.com/{1}/print/ /home/anon/Recipes/{2}.pdf \
+http://allrecipes.com/{1}/print/ ~/Recipes/{2}.pdf \
::: ${recipelines} ::: ${filenames}
-count="$(ls /home/anon/Recipes |wc -l)"
+count="$(ls ~/Recipes |wc -l)"
etime=`date +%s`
elapsed=$((${etime}-${stime}))
rate=$(echo "scale=3; ${elapsed}/${count}" |bc)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 10:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D2107736.5A03A%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #319122 |
On 9/5/15, 10:15 AM, in article famv93.kidppf@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 9/4/15, 12:39 AM, in article fad.viz0@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> ...
>>>>> I am responsible only for my actions, and my actions are honest. If you
>>>>> wish
>>>>> to believe my weird "fan" club about my "unquotable lies" then so be it.
>>>>
>>>>> And you have still not shared your script. Why not?
>>>>
>>>> I may post it tomorrow. I need to try a few things first.
>
>>> You are spending a LOT more time on yours than I did mine...
>
>> Because there's apparently a bug in wkhtmltopdf. (Huge file sizes).
>
>>> but yours will
>>> likely also be a lot "cleaner". Mine is a bit of a mess, but as we saw it
>>> works well.
>
>>> Once you share yours I will make my video public:
>>> <https://youtu.be/TH3rKDAAvsc>
>
>>> Looking at my script again I could have made it a LOT easier. Might test
>>> that tomorrow and then have a MUCH better script. But whatever... it works.
>>> :)
>
>> The code should work on OS X with the zenity stuff commented out.
>> Curious if the wkhtmltopdf bug is still present in the OS X
>> version. At the time it was mentioned, the thing apparently
>> worked fine for Linux. Now I'm seeing what appears to be
>> that same situation that was described for the OS X version,
>> but on Linux.
>
>> #!/bin/sh
>
>> date=`date`
>> #zenity --notification --text="starting... ${date}"
>> stime=`date +%s`
>
>> if [ ! -e ~/Recipes ];then
>> mkdir ~/Recipes
>> fi
>
>> html="$(parallel --no-notice -P 3 -N 3 wget -q {1} {2} {3} ::: \
>> allrecipes.com -O - \
>> allrecipes.com/?page=2 -O - \
>> allrecipes.com/?page=3 -O -)"
>
>> recipelines=$( echo "${html}" |grep /recipe/ \
>> |perl -e 'while(<>){ $x=$_;$x=~s/^.*<a href=\"//g; $x=~s/\".*//g;print $x;}'
>> \
>> |uniq)
>
>> filenames=$(echo "${recipelines}" |cut -f4 -d'/')
>
>> parallel --no-notice -P 8 -N 1 --xapply \
>> wkhtmltopdf -q -n \
>> http://allrecipes.com/{1}/print/ /home/anon/Recipes/{2}.pdf \
>> ::: ${recipelines} ::: ${filenames}
>
>> count="$(ls /home/anon/Recipes |wc -l)"
>> etime=`date +%s`
>> elapsed=$((${etime}-${stime}))
>> rate=$(echo "scale=3; ${elapsed}/${count}" |bc)
>> echo "${count} files in ${elapsed} seconds"
>> echo "${rate} seconds per file"
>> #zenity --info --text="${count} files in ${elapsed} seconds\n\
>> #${rate} seconds per file"
>
> grrr.... left in a hard-coded homedir.
>
> --- getem.sh 2015-09-05 13:11:36.785604182 -0400
> +++ getem.sh.patched 2015-09-05 13:13:13.465604143 -0400
> @@ -21,10 +21,10 @@
>
> parallel --no-notice -P 8 -N 1 --xapply \
> wkhtmltopdf -q -n \
> -http://allrecipes.com/{1}/print/ /home/anon/Recipes/{2}.pdf \
> +http://allrecipes.com/{1}/print/ ~/Recipes/{2}.pdf \
> ::: ${recipelines} ::: ${filenames}
>
> -count="$(ls /home/anon/Recipes |wc -l)"
> +count="$(ls ~/Recipes |wc -l)"
> etime=`date +%s`
> elapsed=$((${etime}-${stime}))
> rate=$(echo "scale=3; ${elapsed}/${count}" |bc)
>
>
Definitely something you would not expect a non-programmer to do.
But on OS X I, as a non-programmer, was able to anyway... and end up with
smaller files and get them faster. :)
--
* OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 18:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sfmnvx83.fai@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #319127 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 9/5/15, 10:15 AM, in article famv93.kidppf@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>> owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> On 9/4/15, 12:39 AM, in article fad.viz0@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>> ...
>>>>>> I am responsible only for my actions, and my actions are honest. If you
>>>>>> wish
>>>>>> to believe my weird "fan" club about my "unquotable lies" then so be it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And you have still not shared your script. Why not?
>>>>>
>>>>> I may post it tomorrow. I need to try a few things first.
>>
>>>> You are spending a LOT more time on yours than I did mine...
>>
>>> Because there's apparently a bug in wkhtmltopdf. (Huge file sizes).
>>
>>>> but yours will
>>>> likely also be a lot "cleaner". Mine is a bit of a mess, but as we saw it
>>>> works well.
>>
>>>> Once you share yours I will make my video public:
>>>> <https://youtu.be/TH3rKDAAvsc>
>>
>>>> Looking at my script again I could have made it a LOT easier. Might test
>>>> that tomorrow and then have a MUCH better script. But whatever... it works.
>>>> :)
>>
>>> The code should work on OS X with the zenity stuff commented out.
>>> Curious if the wkhtmltopdf bug is still present in the OS X
>>> version. At the time it was mentioned, the thing apparently
>>> worked fine for Linux. Now I'm seeing what appears to be
>>> that same situation that was described for the OS X version,
>>> but on Linux.
>>
>>> #!/bin/sh
>>
>>> date=`date`
>>> #zenity --notification --text="starting... ${date}"
>>> stime=`date +%s`
>>
>>> if [ ! -e ~/Recipes ];then
>>> mkdir ~/Recipes
>>> fi
>>
>>> html="$(parallel --no-notice -P 3 -N 3 wget -q {1} {2} {3} ::: \
>>> allrecipes.com -O - \
>>> allrecipes.com/?page=2 -O - \
>>> allrecipes.com/?page=3 -O -)"
>>
>>> recipelines=$( echo "${html}" |grep /recipe/ \
>>> |perl -e 'while(<>){ $x=$_;$x=~s/^.*<a href=\"//g; $x=~s/\".*//g;print $x;}'
>>> \
>>> |uniq)
>>
>>> filenames=$(echo "${recipelines}" |cut -f4 -d'/')
>>
>>> parallel --no-notice -P 8 -N 1 --xapply \
>>> wkhtmltopdf -q -n \
>>> http://allrecipes.com/{1}/print/ /home/anon/Recipes/{2}.pdf \
>>> ::: ${recipelines} ::: ${filenames}
>>
>>> count="$(ls /home/anon/Recipes |wc -l)"
>>> etime=`date +%s`
>>> elapsed=$((${etime}-${stime}))
>>> rate=$(echo "scale=3; ${elapsed}/${count}" |bc)
>>> echo "${count} files in ${elapsed} seconds"
>>> echo "${rate} seconds per file"
>>> #zenity --info --text="${count} files in ${elapsed} seconds\n\
>>> #${rate} seconds per file"
>>
>> grrr.... left in a hard-coded homedir.
>>
>> --- getem.sh 2015-09-05 13:11:36.785604182 -0400
>> +++ getem.sh.patched 2015-09-05 13:13:13.465604143 -0400
>> @@ -21,10 +21,10 @@
>>
>> parallel --no-notice -P 8 -N 1 --xapply \
>> wkhtmltopdf -q -n \
>> -http://allrecipes.com/{1}/print/ /home/anon/Recipes/{2}.pdf \
>> +http://allrecipes.com/{1}/print/ ~/Recipes/{2}.pdf \
>> ::: ${recipelines} ::: ${filenames}
>>
>> -count="$(ls /home/anon/Recipes |wc -l)"
>> +count="$(ls ~/Recipes |wc -l)"
>> etime=`date +%s`
>> elapsed=$((${etime}-${stime}))
>> rate=$(echo "scale=3; ${elapsed}/${count}" |bc)
>>
>>
> Definitely something you would not expect a non-programmer to do.
I'm not a programmer.
> But on OS X I, as a non-programmer, was able to anyway... and end up with
> smaller files and get them faster. :)
Try it with wkhtmltopdf and see what kind of times/sizes you get.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 13:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D21099F2.5A07B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #319148 |
On 9/5/15, 11:51 AM, in article sfmnvx83.fai@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 9/5/15, 10:15 AM, in article famv93.kidppf@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 9/4/15, 12:39 AM, in article fad.viz0@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> I am responsible only for my actions, and my actions are honest. If you
>>>>>>> wish
>>>>>>> to believe my weird "fan" club about my "unquotable lies" then so be it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And you have still not shared your script. Why not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I may post it tomorrow. I need to try a few things first.
>>>
>>>>> You are spending a LOT more time on yours than I did mine...
>>>
>>>> Because there's apparently a bug in wkhtmltopdf. (Huge file sizes).
>>>
>>>>> but yours will
>>>>> likely also be a lot "cleaner". Mine is a bit of a mess, but as we saw it
>>>>> works well.
>>>
>>>>> Once you share yours I will make my video public:
>>>>> <https://youtu.be/TH3rKDAAvsc>
>>>
>>>>> Looking at my script again I could have made it a LOT easier. Might test
>>>>> that tomorrow and then have a MUCH better script. But whatever... it
>>>>> works.
>>>>> :)
>>>
>>>> The code should work on OS X with the zenity stuff commented out.
>>>> Curious if the wkhtmltopdf bug is still present in the OS X
>>>> version. At the time it was mentioned, the thing apparently
>>>> worked fine for Linux. Now I'm seeing what appears to be
>>>> that same situation that was described for the OS X version,
>>>> but on Linux.
>>>
>>>> #!/bin/sh
>>>
>>>> date=`date`
>>>> #zenity --notification --text="starting... ${date}"
>>>> stime=`date +%s`
>>>
>>>> if [ ! -e ~/Recipes ];then
>>>> mkdir ~/Recipes
>>>> fi
>>>
>>>> html="$(parallel --no-notice -P 3 -N 3 wget -q {1} {2} {3} ::: \
>>>> allrecipes.com -O - \
>>>> allrecipes.com/?page=2 -O - \
>>>> allrecipes.com/?page=3 -O -)"
>>>
>>>> recipelines=$( echo "${html}" |grep /recipe/ \
>>>> |perl -e 'while(<>){ $x=$_;$x=~s/^.*<a href=\"//g; $x=~s/\".*//g;print
>>>> $x;}'
>>>> \
>>>> |uniq)
>>>
>>>> filenames=$(echo "${recipelines}" |cut -f4 -d'/')
>>>
>>>> parallel --no-notice -P 8 -N 1 --xapply \
>>>> wkhtmltopdf -q -n \
>>>> http://allrecipes.com/{1}/print/ /home/anon/Recipes/{2}.pdf \
>>>> ::: ${recipelines} ::: ${filenames}
>>>
>>>> count="$(ls /home/anon/Recipes |wc -l)"
>>>> etime=`date +%s`
>>>> elapsed=$((${etime}-${stime}))
>>>> rate=$(echo "scale=3; ${elapsed}/${count}" |bc)
>>>> echo "${count} files in ${elapsed} seconds"
>>>> echo "${rate} seconds per file"
>>>> #zenity --info --text="${count} files in ${elapsed} seconds\n\
>>>> #${rate} seconds per file"
>>>
>>> grrr.... left in a hard-coded homedir.
>>>
>>> --- getem.sh 2015-09-05 13:11:36.785604182 -0400
>>> +++ getem.sh.patched 2015-09-05 13:13:13.465604143 -0400
>>> @@ -21,10 +21,10 @@
>>>
>>> parallel --no-notice -P 8 -N 1 --xapply \
>>> wkhtmltopdf -q -n \
>>> -http://allrecipes.com/{1}/print/ /home/anon/Recipes/{2}.pdf \
>>> +http://allrecipes.com/{1}/print/ ~/Recipes/{2}.pdf \
>>> ::: ${recipelines} ::: ${filenames}
>>>
>>> -count="$(ls /home/anon/Recipes |wc -l)"
>>> +count="$(ls ~/Recipes |wc -l)"
>>> etime=`date +%s`
>>> elapsed=$((${etime}-${stime}))
>>> rate=$(echo "scale=3; ${elapsed}/${count}" |bc)
>>>
>>>
>> Definitely something you would not expect a non-programmer to do.
>
> I'm not a programmer.
Oh, thought you were. Well, consider it a compliment to your work.
>> But on OS X I, as a non-programmer, was able to anyway... and end up with
>> smaller files and get them faster. :)
>
> Try it with wkhtmltopdf and see what kind of times/sizes you get.
Holy cow. Just tried:
wkhtmltopdf
http://allrecipes.com/recipe/242291/easy-broccoli-bacon-salad/print test.pdf
Did not use any switches... took forever and, like yours, the file is a bit
of a mess. 338 KB and text that is hard to select. Oddly enough, though,
when I do select it I can copy and paste it and use my services on it... so
it is "real" text. Weird.
--
* OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 10:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D21076D6.5A039%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #319120 |
On 9/5/15, 9:59 AM, in article famn83.ap3@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 9/4/15, 12:39 AM, in article fad.viz0@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>
>> ...
>>>> I am responsible only for my actions, and my actions are honest. If you
>>>> wish
>>>> to believe my weird "fan" club about my "unquotable lies" then so be it.
>>>
>>>> And you have still not shared your script. Why not?
>>>
>>> I may post it tomorrow. I need to try a few things first.
>
>> You are spending a LOT more time on yours than I did mine...
>
> Because there's apparently a bug in wkhtmltopdf. (Huge file sizes).
So use a different tool. I have tried two of them... and still have
wkhtmltopdf if I wanted. I have a self-imposed "rule" to not install any new
software for these tasks - though if I had to I would break it and note it
publicly. As I have said, I have updated software I already had but not
installed anything I did not have at all before.
>> but yours will likely also be a lot "cleaner". Mine is a bit of a mess, but
>> as we saw it works well.
>>
>> Once you share yours I will make my video public:
>> <https://youtu.be/TH3rKDAAvsc>
>>
>> Looking at my script again I could have made it a LOT easier. Might test that
>> tomorrow and then have a MUCH better script. But whatever... it works. :)
>
> The code should work on OS X with the zenity stuff commented out.
> Curious if the wkhtmltopdf bug is still present in the OS X
> version.
Looking at the site, it is. I even downloaded the file but did not install
it. Was thinking of playing with it.
> At the time it was mentioned, the thing apparently
> worked fine for Linux. Now I'm seeing what appears to be
> that same situation that was described for the OS X version,
> but on Linux.
>
> #!/bin/sh
>
> date=`date`
> #zenity --notification --text="starting... ${date}"
> stime=`date +%s`
>
> if [ ! -e ~/Recipes ];then
> mkdir ~/Recipes
> fi
>
> html="$(parallel --no-notice -P 3 -N 3 wget -q {1} {2} {3} ::: \
> allrecipes.com -O - \
> allrecipes.com/?page=2 -O - \
> allrecipes.com/?page=3 -O -)"
>
> recipelines=$( echo "${html}" |grep /recipe/ \
> |perl -e 'while(<>){ $x=$_;$x=~s/^.*<a href=\"//g; $x=~s/\".*//g;print $x;}' \
> |uniq)
>
> filenames=$(echo "${recipelines}" |cut -f4 -d'/')
>
> parallel --no-notice -P 8 -N 1 --xapply \
> wkhtmltopdf -q -n \
> http://allrecipes.com/{1}/print/ /home/anon/Recipes/{2}.pdf \
> ::: ${recipelines} ::: ${filenames}
>
> count="$(ls /home/anon/Recipes |wc -l)"
> etime=`date +%s`
> elapsed=$((${etime}-${stime}))
> rate=$(echo "scale=3; ${elapsed}/${count}" |bc)
> echo "${count} files in ${elapsed} seconds"
> echo "${rate} seconds per file"
> #zenity --info --text="${count} files in ${elapsed} seconds\n\
> #${rate} seconds per file"
Thanks... will dig through that later. And, as promised, my very messy one
is now made public: <https://youtu.be/TH3rKDAAvsc>.
It is outdated and refers to you not trusting - you have now said you accept
it.
Also added a new one which shows the script with the pre-set URLs... and it
breaks down my time for each step (and the script has been updated some).
<http://youtu.be/oZArdpwjUCc>
26.55 seconds for 40 files
Average of 0.66 seconds / file
Includes:
€ Renaming the files to be recipe names
€ Small file sizes
€ Text you can select and do a dictionary search
--
* OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 20:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20150905200334.75cbbd7e@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #319126 |
On Sat, 05 Sep 2015 10:39:18 -0700
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 9/5/15, 9:59 AM, in article famn83.ap3@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> On 9/4/15, 12:39 AM, in article fad.viz0@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> ...
> >>>> I am responsible only for my actions, and my actions are honest.
> >>>> If you wish
> >>>> to believe my weird "fan" club about my "unquotable lies" then
> >>>> so be it.
> >>>
> >>>> And you have still not shared your script. Why not?
> >>>
> >>> I may post it tomorrow. I need to try a few things first.
> >
> >> You are spending a LOT more time on yours than I did mine...
> >
> > Because there's apparently a bug in wkhtmltopdf. (Huge file sizes).
>
> So use a different tool. I have tried two of them... and still have
> wkhtmltopdf if I wanted. I have a self-imposed "rule" to not install
> any new software for these tasks - though if I had to I would break
> it and note it publicly. As I have said, I have updated software I
> already had but not installed anything I did not have at all before.
>
> >> but yours will likely also be a lot "cleaner". Mine is a bit of a
> >> mess, but as we saw it works well.
> >>
> >> Once you share yours I will make my video public:
> >> <https://youtu.be/TH3rKDAAvsc>
> >>
> >> Looking at my script again I could have made it a LOT easier.
> >> Might test that tomorrow and then have a MUCH better script. But
> >> whatever... it works. :)
> >
> > The code should work on OS X with the zenity stuff commented out.
> > Curious if the wkhtmltopdf bug is still present in the OS X
> > version.
>
> Looking at the site, it is. I even downloaded the file but did not
> install it. Was thinking of playing with it.
>
> > At the time it was mentioned, the thing apparently
> > worked fine for Linux. Now I'm seeing what appears to be
> > that same situation that was described for the OS X version,
> > but on Linux.
> >
> > #!/bin/sh
> >
> > date=`date`
> > #zenity --notification --text="starting... ${date}"
> > stime=`date +%s`
> >
> > if [ ! -e ~/Recipes ];then
> > mkdir ~/Recipes
> > fi
> >
> > html="$(parallel --no-notice -P 3 -N 3 wget -q {1} {2} {3} ::: \
> > allrecipes.com -O - \
> > allrecipes.com/?page=2 -O - \
> > allrecipes.com/?page=3 -O -)"
> >
> > recipelines=$( echo "${html}" |grep /recipe/ \
> > |perl -e 'while(<>){ $x=$_;$x=~s/^.*<a href=\"//g;
> > $x=~s/\".*//g;print $x;}' \ |uniq)
> >
> > filenames=$(echo "${recipelines}" |cut -f4 -d'/')
> >
> > parallel --no-notice -P 8 -N 1 --xapply \
> > wkhtmltopdf -q -n \
> > http://allrecipes.com/{1}/print/ /home/anon/Recipes/{2}.pdf \
> > ::: ${recipelines} ::: ${filenames}
> >
> > count="$(ls /home/anon/Recipes |wc -l)"
> > etime=`date +%s`
> > elapsed=$((${etime}-${stime}))
> > rate=$(echo "scale=3; ${elapsed}/${count}" |bc)
> > echo "${count} files in ${elapsed} seconds"
> > echo "${rate} seconds per file"
> > #zenity --info --text="${count} files in ${elapsed} seconds\n\
> > #${rate} seconds per file"
>
> Thanks... will dig through that later. And, as promised, my very
> messy one is now made public: <https://youtu.be/TH3rKDAAvsc>.
So it's paparazzi ws wkhtml2pdf ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 18:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <adfmvi9.iidf@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #319126 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 9/5/15, 9:59 AM, in article famn83.ap3@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 9/4/15, 12:39 AM, in article fad.viz0@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>>>> I am responsible only for my actions, and my actions are honest. If you
>>>>> wish
>>>>> to believe my weird "fan" club about my "unquotable lies" then so be it.
>>>>
>>>>> And you have still not shared your script. Why not?
>>>>
>>>> I may post it tomorrow. I need to try a few things first.
>>
>>> You are spending a LOT more time on yours than I did mine...
>>
>> Because there's apparently a bug in wkhtmltopdf. (Huge file sizes).
> So use a different tool. I have tried two of them... and still have
> wkhtmltopdf if I wanted. I have a self-imposed "rule" to not install any new
> software for these tasks - though if I had to I would break it and note it
> publicly. As I have said, I have updated software I already had but not
> installed anything I did not have at all before.
>>> but yours will likely also be a lot "cleaner". Mine is a bit of a mess, but
>>> as we saw it works well.
>>>
>>> Once you share yours I will make my video public:
>>> <https://youtu.be/TH3rKDAAvsc>
>>>
>>> Looking at my script again I could have made it a LOT easier. Might test that
>>> tomorrow and then have a MUCH better script. But whatever... it works. :)
>>
>> The code should work on OS X with the zenity stuff commented out.
>> Curious if the wkhtmltopdf bug is still present in the OS X
>> version.
> Looking at the site, it is. I even downloaded the file but did not install
> it. Was thinking of playing with it.
>> At the time it was mentioned, the thing apparently
>> worked fine for Linux. Now I'm seeing what appears to be
>> that same situation that was described for the OS X version,
>> but on Linux.
>>
>> #!/bin/sh
>>
>> date=`date`
>> #zenity --notification --text="starting... ${date}"
>> stime=`date +%s`
>>
>> if [ ! -e ~/Recipes ];then
>> mkdir ~/Recipes
>> fi
>>
>> html="$(parallel --no-notice -P 3 -N 3 wget -q {1} {2} {3} ::: \
>> allrecipes.com -O - \
>> allrecipes.com/?page=2 -O - \
>> allrecipes.com/?page=3 -O -)"
>>
>> recipelines=$( echo "${html}" |grep /recipe/ \
>> |perl -e 'while(<>){ $x=$_;$x=~s/^.*<a href=\"//g; $x=~s/\".*//g;print $x;}' \
>> |uniq)
>>
>> filenames=$(echo "${recipelines}" |cut -f4 -d'/')
>>
>> parallel --no-notice -P 8 -N 1 --xapply \
>> wkhtmltopdf -q -n \
>> http://allrecipes.com/{1}/print/ /home/anon/Recipes/{2}.pdf \
>> ::: ${recipelines} ::: ${filenames}
>>
>> count="$(ls /home/anon/Recipes |wc -l)"
>> etime=`date +%s`
>> elapsed=$((${etime}-${stime}))
>> rate=$(echo "scale=3; ${elapsed}/${count}" |bc)
>> echo "${count} files in ${elapsed} seconds"
>> echo "${rate} seconds per file"
>> #zenity --info --text="${count} files in ${elapsed} seconds\n\
>> #${rate} seconds per file"
> Thanks... will dig through that later. And, as promised, my very messy one
> is now made public: <https://youtu.be/TH3rKDAAvsc>.
WHere does that string "?internalSource" appear? I don't see it in
any of the html.
> It is outdated and refers to you not trusting - you have now said you accept
> it.
> Also added a new one which shows the script with the pre-set URLs... and it
> breaks down my time for each step (and the script has been updated some).
> <http://youtu.be/oZArdpwjUCc>
> 26.55 seconds for 40 files
> Average of 0.66 seconds / file
> Includes:
> € Renaming the files to be recipe names
Mine does that.
> € Small file sizes
wkhtmltopdf *should* do that, but does not. Some of these where
nearly 1MB.
> € Text you can select and do a dictionary search
wkhtmltopdf generates *some* text that is selectable.
Just not for that text where it has to do that crazy vector
font stuff.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 13:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D2109BC2.5A07D%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #319147 |
On 9/5/15, 11:50 AM, in article adfmvi9.iidf@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: ... >> Thanks... will dig through that later. And, as promised, my very messy one >> is now made public: <https://youtu.be/TH3rKDAAvsc>. > > WHere does that string "?internalSource" appear? I don't see it in > any of the html. If you look at the link you get when you click on an image you will see it... the grab Link URLs shows that. >> It is outdated and refers to you not trusting - you have now said you accept >> it. > >> Also added a new one which shows the script with the pre-set URLs... and it >> breaks down my time for each step (and the script has been updated some). > >> <http://youtu.be/oZArdpwjUCc> > >> 26.55 seconds for 40 files >> Average of 0.66 seconds / file > >> Includes: >> € Renaming the files to be recipe names > > Mine does that. Ah, yes... I see in your videos it does. >> € Small file sizes > > wkhtmltopdf *should* do that, but does not. Some of these where > nearly 1MB. So use another choice. Isn't one of the big advantages to Linux choice? I used two other choices and then only used wkhtmltopdf later to test it.... and, yes, it sorta sucks. >> € Text you can select and do a dictionary search > > wkhtmltopdf generates *some* text that is selectable. > Just not for that text where it has to do that crazy vector > font stuff. Are you willing to share one of your files? Curious if it is the same as mine where the text is slow and odd to select but I still select it as text. wkhtmltopdf just seems a lousy tool. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 20:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <adv3f.jv0@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #319182 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 9/5/15, 11:50 AM, in article adfmvi9.iidf@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: ... > Are you willing to share one of your files? Curious if it is the same as > mine where the text is slow and odd to select but I still select it as text. > wkhtmltopdf just seems a lousy tool. allrecipes.com owns the copyright to those files. I can't publish them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 19:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20150905195835.195fdc44@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #319120 |
On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 16:59:50 +0000 (UTC)
owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > On 9/4/15, 12:39 AM, in article fad.viz0@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>
> > ...
> >>> I am responsible only for my actions, and my actions are honest.
> >>> If you wish to believe my weird "fan" club about my "unquotable
> >>> lies" then so be it.
> >>
> >>> And you have still not shared your script. Why not?
> >>
> >> I may post it tomorrow. I need to try a few things first.
>
> > You are spending a LOT more time on yours than I did mine...
>
> Because there's apparently a bug in wkhtmltopdf. (Huge file sizes).
>
> > but yours will
> > likely also be a lot "cleaner". Mine is a bit of a mess, but as we
> > saw it works well.
>
> > Once you share yours I will make my video public:
> > <https://youtu.be/TH3rKDAAvsc>
>
> > Looking at my script again I could have made it a LOT easier. Might
> > test that tomorrow and then have a MUCH better script. But
> > whatever... it works. :)
>
> The code should work on OS X with the zenity stuff commented out.
> Curious if the wkhtmltopdf bug is still present in the OS X
> version. At the time it was mentioned, the thing apparently
> worked fine for Linux. Now I'm seeing what appears to be
> that same situation that was described for the OS X version,
> but on Linux.
Have you tried with --lowquality option?
>
> #!/bin/sh
>
> date=`date`
> #zenity --notification --text="starting... ${date}"
> stime=`date +%s`
>
> if [ ! -e ~/Recipes ];then
> mkdir ~/Recipes
> fi
>
> html="$(parallel --no-notice -P 3 -N 3 wget -q {1} {2} {3} ::: \
> allrecipes.com -O - \
> allrecipes.com/?page=2 -O - \
> allrecipes.com/?page=3 -O -)"
>
> recipelines=$( echo "${html}" |grep /recipe/ \
> |perl -e 'while(<>){ $x=$_;$x=~s/^.*<a href=\"//g;
> $x=~s/\".*//g;print $x;}' \ |uniq)
>
> filenames=$(echo "${recipelines}" |cut -f4 -d'/')
>
> parallel --no-notice -P 8 -N 1 --xapply \
you should do all at once to hide download latencies....
> wkhtmltopdf -q -n \
> http://allrecipes.com/{1}/print/ /home/anon/Recipes/{2}.pdf \
> ::: ${recipelines} ::: ${filenames}
try --lowquality option.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 20:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20150905203958.4639ce63@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #319132 |
On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 19:58:35 +0200
Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 16:59:50 +0000 (UTC)
> owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > > On 9/4/15, 12:39 AM, in article fad.viz0@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> > > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > ...
> > >>> I am responsible only for my actions, and my actions are honest.
> > >>> If you wish to believe my weird "fan" club about my "unquotable
> > >>> lies" then so be it.
> > >>
> > >>> And you have still not shared your script. Why not?
> > >>
> > >> I may post it tomorrow. I need to try a few things first.
> >
> > > You are spending a LOT more time on yours than I did mine...
> >
> > Because there's apparently a bug in wkhtmltopdf. (Huge file sizes).
> >
> > > but yours will
> > > likely also be a lot "cleaner". Mine is a bit of a mess, but as we
> > > saw it works well.
> >
> > > Once you share yours I will make my video public:
> > > <https://youtu.be/TH3rKDAAvsc>
> >
> > > Looking at my script again I could have made it a LOT easier.
> > > Might test that tomorrow and then have a MUCH better script. But
> > > whatever... it works. :)
> >
> > The code should work on OS X with the zenity stuff commented out.
> > Curious if the wkhtmltopdf bug is still present in the OS X
> > version. At the time it was mentioned, the thing apparently
> > worked fine for Linux. Now I'm seeing what appears to be
> > that same situation that was described for the OS X version,
> > but on Linux.
>
> Have you tried with --lowquality option?
>
> >
> > #!/bin/sh
> >
> > date=`date`
> > #zenity --notification --text="starting... ${date}"
> > stime=`date +%s`
> >
> > if [ ! -e ~/Recipes ];then
> > mkdir ~/Recipes
> > fi
> >
> > html="$(parallel --no-notice -P 3 -N 3 wget -q {1} {2} {3} ::: \
> > allrecipes.com -O - \
> > allrecipes.com/?page=2 -O - \
> > allrecipes.com/?page=3 -O -)"
> >
> > recipelines=$( echo "${html}" |grep /recipe/ \
> > |perl -e 'while(<>){ $x=$_;$x=~s/^.*<a href=\"//g;
> > $x=~s/\".*//g;print $x;}' \ |uniq)
> >
> > filenames=$(echo "${recipelines}" |cut -f4 -d'/')
> >
> > parallel --no-notice -P 8 -N 1 --xapply \
>
> you should do all at once to hide download latencies....
>
> > wkhtmltopdf -q -n \
> > http://allrecipes.com/{1}/print/ /home/anon/Recipes/{2}.pdf \
> > ::: ${recipelines} ::: ${filenames}
>
> try --lowquality option.
>
My link is saturated with just 4 page downloads and it is not
wkhtml2pdf issue rather network speed. I get 1.4 secs per file,
but it is not because I do some processing, rather my 8mbit link is
saturated...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web