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 3 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 19:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fasdnmv83.asdi@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #319144 |
Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> 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...
I initially grabbed all the html files, and then processed after that.
Still took 1-1.5 seconds to generate the PDFs from local html.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 21:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20150905212607.1efbeba4@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #319156 |
On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 19:13:39 +0000 (UTC)
owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> > 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...
>
> I initially grabbed all the html files, and then processed after that.
> Still took 1-1.5 seconds to generate the PDFs from local html.
>
I watched CPU, it is almost idle, all time is spent on downloading ;(
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 19:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <famd03.adpf@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #319158 |
Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 19:13:39 +0000 (UTC)
> owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>> > 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} ::: ${filenames}
>> >>
>> >> try --lowquality option.
>> >>
>>
>> > My link is saturated with just 4 page downloads and it is not
>> > wkhtml2pdf issue rather network speed. I get 1.4 secs per file,
>> > but it is not because I do some processing, rather my 8mbit link is
>> > saturated...
>>
>> I initially grabbed all the html files, and then processed after that.
>> Still took 1-1.5 seconds to generate the PDFs from local html.
>>
> I watched CPU, it is almost idle, all time is spent on downloading ;(
Here's an earlier version, downloading all files an using
wkhtmltopdf file:///[localhtmlfile] output.pdf
#!/bin/sh
date=$(date)
stime=`date +%s`
if [ ! -e ~/Recipes ];then
mkdir ~/Recipes
fi
tempdir=/tmp/recipes
echo "-------------- getting files ------------------"
./dogetrecipes.sh | xargs -n 1 -P 8 wget -q -P ${tempdir}
echo "----------- changing filenames ----------------"
for i in `ls ${tempdir}`;do mv ${tempdir}/${i} \
${tempdir}/$(grep canonical ${tempdir}/${i} \
|grep 'link id' |cut -f6 -d'/'); done
for i in `ls ${tempdir}`; do
mv ${tempdir}/${i} ${tempdir}/${i}.html
done
echo "--------- starting wkhtmltopdf run ------------"
echo "$(ls ${tempdir})" \
|parallel --no-notice -P 8 -a - \
wkhtmltopdf -q -n file:///${tempdir}/{} ~/Recipes/{.}.pdf
echo "--------- finished wkhtmltopdf run ------------"
count=$(ls ~/Recipes |wc -l)
etime=$(date +%s)
elapsed=$(($etime - $stime))
rate=$(echo "scale=3; ${elapsed}/${count}" |bc)
echo "${count} files in ${elapsed} seconds"
echo "${rate} seconds per file"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 19:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <df03.feoi3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #319160 |
owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 19:13:39 +0000 (UTC)
>> owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>>> > 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} ::: ${filenames}
>>> >>
>>> >> try --lowquality option.
>>> >>
>>>
>>> > My link is saturated with just 4 page downloads and it is not
>>> > wkhtml2pdf issue rather network speed. I get 1.4 secs per file,
>>> > but it is not because I do some processing, rather my 8mbit link is
>>> > saturated...
>>>
>>> I initially grabbed all the html files, and then processed after that.
>>> Still took 1-1.5 seconds to generate the PDFs from local html.
>>>
>> I watched CPU, it is almost idle, all time is spent on downloading ;(
> Here's an earlier version, downloading all files an using
> wkhtmltopdf file:///[localhtmlfile] output.pdf
> #!/bin/sh
> date=$(date)
> stime=`date +%s`
> if [ ! -e ~/Recipes ];then
> mkdir ~/Recipes
> fi
> tempdir=/tmp/recipes
> echo "-------------- getting files ------------------"
> ./dogetrecipes.sh | xargs -n 1 -P 8 wget -q -P ${tempdir}
> echo "----------- changing filenames ----------------"
> for i in `ls ${tempdir}`;do mv ${tempdir}/${i} \
> ${tempdir}/$(grep canonical ${tempdir}/${i} \
> |grep 'link id' |cut -f6 -d'/'); done
> for i in `ls ${tempdir}`; do
> mv ${tempdir}/${i} ${tempdir}/${i}.html
> done
> echo "--------- starting wkhtmltopdf run ------------"
> echo "$(ls ${tempdir})" \
> |parallel --no-notice -P 8 -a - \
> wkhtmltopdf -q -n file:///${tempdir}/{} ~/Recipes/{.}.pdf
> echo "--------- finished wkhtmltopdf run ------------"
> count=$(ls ~/Recipes |wc -l)
> etime=$(date +%s)
> elapsed=$(($etime - $stime))
> rate=$(echo "scale=3; ${elapsed}/${count}" |bc)
> echo "${count} files in ${elapsed} seconds"
> echo "${rate} seconds per file"
Oops. Wait i'll get that other script. I had several things chained
at first. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 19:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fsadfmnv83.a893@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #319165 |
owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 19:13:39 +0000 (UTC)
>>> owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>>>> > 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} ::: ${filenames}
>>>> >>
>>>> >> try --lowquality option.
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>> > My link is saturated with just 4 page downloads and it is not
>>>> > wkhtml2pdf issue rather network speed. I get 1.4 secs per file,
>>>> > but it is not because I do some processing, rather my 8mbit link is
>>>> > saturated...
>>>>
>>>> I initially grabbed all the html files, and then processed after that.
>>>> Still took 1-1.5 seconds to generate the PDFs from local html.
>>>>
>>> I watched CPU, it is almost idle, all time is spent on downloading ;(
>> Here's an earlier version, downloading all files an using
>> wkhtmltopdf file:///[localhtmlfile] output.pdf
>> #!/bin/sh
>> date=$(date)
>> stime=`date +%s`
>> if [ ! -e ~/Recipes ];then
>> mkdir ~/Recipes
>> fi
>> tempdir=/tmp/recipes
>> echo "-------------- getting files ------------------"
>> ./dogetrecipes.sh | xargs -n 1 -P 8 wget -q -P ${tempdir}
>> echo "----------- changing filenames ----------------"
>> for i in `ls ${tempdir}`;do mv ${tempdir}/${i} \
>> ${tempdir}/$(grep canonical ${tempdir}/${i} \
>> |grep 'link id' |cut -f6 -d'/'); done
>> for i in `ls ${tempdir}`; do
>> mv ${tempdir}/${i} ${tempdir}/${i}.html
>> done
>> echo "--------- starting wkhtmltopdf run ------------"
>> echo "$(ls ${tempdir})" \
>> |parallel --no-notice -P 8 -a - \
>> wkhtmltopdf -q -n file:///${tempdir}/{} ~/Recipes/{.}.pdf
>> echo "--------- finished wkhtmltopdf run ------------"
>> count=$(ls ~/Recipes |wc -l)
>> etime=$(date +%s)
>> elapsed=$(($etime - $stime))
>> rate=$(echo "scale=3; ${elapsed}/${count}" |bc)
>> echo "${count} files in ${elapsed} seconds"
>> echo "${rate} seconds per file"
> Oops. Wait i'll get that other script. I had several things chained
> at first. :)
That one above pulls from these (I think that's all :):
anon@sandpit:~$ cat dogetrecipes.sh
#!/bin/sh
for i in `./getrecipes.sh`; do echo "http://allrecipes.com"$i"print/"; done
anon@sandpit:~$ cat getrecipes.sh
#!/bin/sh
parallel --no-notice -P 3 -N3 wget -q {1} {2} {3} ::: \
allrecipes.com -O one.html \
allrecipes.com/?page=2 -O two.html \
allrecipes.com/?page=3 -O three.html
cat one.html two.html three.html > recipes.html
grep /recipe/ recipes.html |\
perl -e 'while(<>){ $x=$_;$x=~s/^.*<a href=\"//g; $x=~s/\".*//g;print $x;}'|\
uniq
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 13:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <661611bc-f54f-4c31-8592-a31915d73867@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #319168 |
On Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 1:55:33 PM UTC-6, owl wrote:
> owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> >> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 19:13:39 +0000 (UTC)
> >>> owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>>> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> >>>> > 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} ::: ${filenames}
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> try --lowquality option.
> >>>> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> > My link is saturated with just 4 page downloads and it is not
> >>>> > wkhtml2pdf issue rather network speed. I get 1.4 secs per file,
> >>>> > but it is not because I do some processing, rather my 8mbit link is
> >>>> > saturated...
> >>>>
> >>>> I initially grabbed all the html files, and then processed after that.
> >>>> Still took 1-1.5 seconds to generate the PDFs from local html.
> >>>>
>
> >>> I watched CPU, it is almost idle, all time is spent on downloading ;(
>
> >> Here's an earlier version, downloading all files an using
> >> wkhtmltopdf file:///[localhtmlfile] output.pdf
>
> >> #!/bin/sh
>
> >> date=$(date)
> >> stime=`date +%s`
>
> >> if [ ! -e ~/Recipes ];then
> >> mkdir ~/Recipes
> >> fi
>
> >> tempdir=/tmp/recipes
>
> >> echo "-------------- getting files ------------------"
>
> >> ./dogetrecipes.sh | xargs -n 1 -P 8 wget -q -P ${tempdir}
>
> >> echo "----------- changing filenames ----------------"
>
> >> for i in `ls ${tempdir}`;do mv ${tempdir}/${i} \
> >> ${tempdir}/$(grep canonical ${tempdir}/${i} \
> >> |grep 'link id' |cut -f6 -d'/'); done
>
>
> >> for i in `ls ${tempdir}`; do
> >> mv ${tempdir}/${i} ${tempdir}/${i}.html
> >> done
>
> >> echo "--------- starting wkhtmltopdf run ------------"
>
> >> echo "$(ls ${tempdir})" \
> >> |parallel --no-notice -P 8 -a - \
> >> wkhtmltopdf -q -n file:///${tempdir}/{} ~/Recipes/{.}.pdf
>
> >> echo "--------- finished wkhtmltopdf run ------------"
>
> >> count=$(ls ~/Recipes |wc -l)
> >> etime=$(date +%s)
> >> elapsed=$(($etime - $stime))
> >> rate=$(echo "scale=3; ${elapsed}/${count}" |bc)
> >> echo "${count} files in ${elapsed} seconds"
> >> echo "${rate} seconds per file"
>
> > Oops. Wait i'll get that other script. I had several things chained
> > at first. :)
>
> That one above pulls from these (I think that's all :):
>
> anon@sandpit:~$ cat dogetrecipes.sh
> #!/bin/sh
> for i in `./getrecipes.sh`; do echo "http://allrecipes.com"$i"print/"; done
>
> anon@sandpit:~$ cat getrecipes.sh
> #!/bin/sh
> parallel --no-notice -P 3 -N3 wget -q {1} {2} {3} ::: \
> allrecipes.com -O one.html \
> allrecipes.com/?page=2 -O two.html \
> allrecipes.com/?page=3 -O three.html
>
> cat one.html two.html three.html > recipes.html
>
>
> grep /recipe/ recipes.html |\
> perl -e 'while(<>){ $x=$_;$x=~s/^.*<a href=\"//g; $x=~s/\".*//g;print $x;}'|\
> uniq
We know egghead isn't aware of it, given his statements/questions, but a lot goes into creating a PDF. If your resolution and color space are different that his, that alone with accounts for a good chunk of it, not to mention image compression and fonts (which can get really nasty).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 23:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20150905231428.4d151511@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #319168 |
On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 19:55:29 +0000 (UTC)
owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> >> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 19:13:39 +0000 (UTC)
> >>> owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>>> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> >>>> > 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} ::: ${filenames}
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> try --lowquality option.
> >>>> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> > My link is saturated with just 4 page downloads and it is not
> >>>> > wkhtml2pdf issue rather network speed. I get 1.4 secs per file,
> >>>> > but it is not because I do some processing, rather my 8mbit
> >>>> > link is saturated...
> >>>>
> >>>> I initially grabbed all the html files, and then processed after
> >>>> that. Still took 1-1.5 seconds to generate the PDFs from local
> >>>> html.
> >>>>
>
> >>> I watched CPU, it is almost idle, all time is spent on
> >>> downloading ;(
>
> >> Here's an earlier version, downloading all files an using
> >> wkhtmltopdf file:///[localhtmlfile] output.pdf
>
> >> #!/bin/sh
>
> >> date=$(date)
> >> stime=`date +%s`
>
> >> if [ ! -e ~/Recipes ];then
> >> mkdir ~/Recipes
> >> fi
>
> >> tempdir=/tmp/recipes
>
> >> echo "-------------- getting files ------------------"
>
> >> ./dogetrecipes.sh | xargs -n 1 -P 8 wget -q -P ${tempdir}
>
> >> echo "----------- changing filenames ----------------"
>
> >> for i in `ls ${tempdir}`;do mv ${tempdir}/${i} \
> >> ${tempdir}/$(grep canonical ${tempdir}/${i} \
> >> |grep 'link id' |cut -f6 -d'/'); done
>
>
> >> for i in `ls ${tempdir}`; do
> >> mv ${tempdir}/${i} ${tempdir}/${i}.html
> >> done
>
> >> echo "--------- starting wkhtmltopdf run ------------"
>
> >> echo "$(ls ${tempdir})" \
> >> |parallel --no-notice -P 8 -a - \
> >> wkhtmltopdf -q -n file:///${tempdir}/{} ~/Recipes/{.}.pdf
>
> >> echo "--------- finished wkhtmltopdf run ------------"
>
> >> count=$(ls ~/Recipes |wc -l)
> >> etime=$(date +%s)
> >> elapsed=$(($etime - $stime))
> >> rate=$(echo "scale=3; ${elapsed}/${count}" |bc)
> >> echo "${count} files in ${elapsed} seconds"
> >> echo "${rate} seconds per file"
>
> > Oops. Wait i'll get that other script. I had several things
> > chained at first. :)
>
> That one above pulls from these (I think that's all :):
>
> anon@sandpit:~$ cat dogetrecipes.sh
> #!/bin/sh
> for i in `./getrecipes.sh`; do echo
> "http://allrecipes.com"$i"print/"; done
>
> anon@sandpit:~$ cat getrecipes.sh
> #!/bin/sh
> parallel --no-notice -P 3 -N3 wget -q {1} {2} {3} ::: \
> allrecipes.com -O one.html \
> allrecipes.com/?page=2 -O two.html \
> allrecipes.com/?page=3 -O three.html
>
> cat one.html two.html three.html > recipes.html
>
>
> grep /recipe/ recipes.html |\
> perl -e 'while(<>){ $x=$_;$x=~s/^.*<a href=\"//g;
> $x=~s/\".*//g;print $x;}'|\ uniq
>
>
>
I have made script just to download files and I might add that it
downloads *far less* then through wkhtmltopdf. I guess that tool
downloads more even you have predownloaded initial files.
I watched network activity and it is at maximum all the time conversion
works, but I didn't try conversion tool on local files.
I guess culprit is that tool downloads something more, question is what?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 23:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20150905232854.04a7083c@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #319192 |
On Sat, 05 Sep 2015 14:19:26 -0700
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 9/5/15, 2:14 PM, in article 20150905231428.4d151511@maxa-pc,
> "Melzzzzz" <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>
> >> That one above pulls from these (I think that's all :):
> >>
> >> anon@sandpit:~$ cat dogetrecipes.sh
> >> #!/bin/sh
> >> for i in `./getrecipes.sh`; do echo
> >> "http://allrecipes.com"$i"print/"; done
> >>
> >> anon@sandpit:~$ cat getrecipes.sh
> >> #!/bin/sh
> >> parallel --no-notice -P 3 -N3 wget -q {1} {2} {3} ::: \
> >> allrecipes.com -O one.html \
> >> allrecipes.com/?page=2 -O two.html \
> >> allrecipes.com/?page=3 -O three.html
> >>
> >> cat one.html two.html three.html > recipes.html
> >>
> >>
> >> grep /recipe/ recipes.html |\
> >> perl -e 'while(<>){ $x=$_;$x=~s/^.*<a href=\"//g;
> >> $x=~s/\".*//g;print $x;}'|\ uniq
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I have made script just to download files and I might add that it
> > downloads *far less* then through wkhtmltopdf. I guess that tool
> > downloads more even you have predownloaded initial files.
> > I watched network activity and it is at maximum all the time
> > conversion works, but I didn't try conversion tool on local files.
> > I guess culprit is that tool downloads something more, question is
> > what?
>
> Do not know - but Owl said he tried it on local files as well.
>
> I still do not know why he does not just use a different choice for
> the download / conversion. That one seems to suck... so use something
> else.
>
>
Look it is impossible to take 1 second to convert file to pdf
no matter how inefficient. Tool downloads something from net
no matter what...
As I said, download of print pages takes 12 secs no matter how
inefficient conversion shouldn't took more than additional 12-20 secs .
It is downloading something *huge*.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 00:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20150906000201.6a6e4106@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #319198 |
On Sat, 05 Sep 2015 14:51:52 -0700 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 9/5/15, 2:28 PM, in article 20150905232854.04a7083c@maxa-pc, > "Melzzzzz" <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: > > >>> I have made script just to download files and I might add that it > >>> downloads *far less* then through wkhtmltopdf. I guess that tool > >>> downloads more even you have predownloaded initial files. > >>> I watched network activity and it is at maximum all the time > >>> conversion works, but I didn't try conversion tool on local files. > >>> I guess culprit is that tool downloads something more, question is > >>> what? > >> > >> Do not know - but Owl said he tried it on local files as well. > >> > >> I still do not know why he does not just use a different choice for > >> the download / conversion. That one seems to suck... so use > >> something else. > > > > Look it is impossible to take 1 second to convert file to pdf > > no matter how inefficient. Tool downloads something from net > > no matter what... > > Have you tried with a local HTML file... all local images, etc.? I > have not. > > > As I said, download of print pages takes 12 secs no matter how > > inefficient conversion shouldn't took more than additional 12-20 > > secs . It is downloading something *huge*. > > So try it locally. > Tried locally downloaded file, but it pulls huge file from internet still....resulting in wait for download of more than one second...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 01:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20150906012435.74be2bc2@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #319199 |
On Sat, 05 Sep 2015 16:20:13 -0700 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 9/5/15, 3:02 PM, in article 20150906000201.6a6e4106@maxa-pc, > "Melzzzzz" <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, 05 Sep 2015 14:51:52 -0700 > > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > > > >> On 9/5/15, 2:28 PM, in article 20150905232854.04a7083c@maxa-pc, > >> "Melzzzzz" <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: > >> > >>>>> I have made script just to download files and I might add that > >>>>> it downloads *far less* then through wkhtmltopdf. I guess that > >>>>> tool downloads more even you have predownloaded initial files. > >>>>> I watched network activity and it is at maximum all the time > >>>>> conversion works, but I didn't try conversion tool on local > >>>>> files. I guess culprit is that tool downloads something more, > >>>>> question is what? > >>>> > >>>> Do not know - but Owl said he tried it on local files as well. > >>>> > >>>> I still do not know why he does not just use a different choice > >>>> for the download / conversion. That one seems to suck... so use > >>>> something else. > >>> > >>> Look it is impossible to take 1 second to convert file to pdf > >>> no matter how inefficient. Tool downloads something from net > >>> no matter what... > >> > >> Have you tried with a local HTML file... all local images, etc.? I > >> have not. > >> > >>> As I said, download of print pages takes 12 secs no matter how > >>> inefficient conversion shouldn't took more than additional 12-20 > >>> secs . It is downloading something *huge*. > >> > >> So try it locally. > >> > > > > Tried locally downloaded file, but it pulls huge file from internet > > still....resulting in wait for download of more than one second... > > > > > Even when you tell it to work with a LOCAL file it tries to grab > networked data. Not good... you are sure the full source was local > (no links to remote images or scripts or the like). > > Nope. I did not edit local files. But still wget downloads far less.... What is symptomatic is that execution time is not as high as real time spent on conversion. I would say program is slow if it actually spends that much time executing, but alas CPU is almost idle....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 02:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20150906021221.5d90fc0e@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #319215 |
On Sat, 05 Sep 2015 16:56:07 -0700 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 9/5/15, 4:24 PM, in article 20150906012435.74be2bc2@maxa-pc, > "Melzzzzz" <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: > > >>> Tried locally downloaded file, but it pulls huge file from > >>> internet still....resulting in wait for download of more than one > >>> second... > >>> > >> Even when you tell it to work with a LOCAL file it tries to grab > >> networked data. Not good... you are sure the full source was local > >> (no links to remote images or scripts or the like). > > > > Nope. I did not edit local files. But still wget downloads far > > less.... What is symptomatic is that execution time is not as high > > as real time spent on conversion. I would say program is slow if it > > actually spends that much time executing, but alas CPU is almost > > idle.... > > Still does not answer why you stick with this dog of a program. Why > not use another choice? I have shown two others... ones I already had > on my system. > > I just installed it to try owl's script ;) I never have need to work with pdf's let alone convert web page to pdf ... All I do with pdfs is just read them ... Does one of your choices works on Linux? Paparrazi is OSX only as it uses Cocoa... What are alternatives on Linux?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 02:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20150906023347.30404759@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #319219 |
On Sat, 05 Sep 2015 17:15:32 -0700 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 9/5/15, 5:12 PM, in article 20150906021221.5d90fc0e@maxa-pc, > "Melzzzzz" <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, 05 Sep 2015 16:56:07 -0700 > > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > > > >> On 9/5/15, 4:24 PM, in article 20150906012435.74be2bc2@maxa-pc, > >> "Melzzzzz" <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: > >> > >>>>> Tried locally downloaded file, but it pulls huge file from > >>>>> internet still....resulting in wait for download of more than > >>>>> one second... > >>>>> > >>>> Even when you tell it to work with a LOCAL file it tries to grab > >>>> networked data. Not good... you are sure the full source was > >>>> local (no links to remote images or scripts or the like). > >>> > >>> Nope. I did not edit local files. But still wget downloads far > >>> less.... What is symptomatic is that execution time is not as high > >>> as real time spent on conversion. I would say program is slow if > >>> it actually spends that much time executing, but alas CPU is > >>> almost idle.... > >> > >> Still does not answer why you stick with this dog of a program. Why > >> not use another choice? I have shown two others... ones I already > >> had on my system. > >> > >> > > I just installed it to try owl's script ;) I never have need to work > > with pdf's let alone convert web page to pdf ... > > All I do with pdfs is just read them ... > > Does one of your choices works on Linux? Paparrazi is OSX only as it > > uses Cocoa... > > What are alternatives on Linux? > > Don't know... just keep hearing how there are so many choices on > Linux. For this task I know of at least three choices on OS X so I > figured there must be at least that many on Linux. Are there not? Nope, nobody bothered to write this one seems to me. wkhtmltopdf is done and everybody is satisfied ;p I am really interested now what it actually does and why it is not efficient as Paparazzi. They both use webkit to render pages, strange... Will look into source, as I can't say anything conclusive. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ronb <ronbNOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 01:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <msg3da$91q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #319221 |
On Sun, 06 Sep 2015 02:33:47 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote: > On Sat, 05 Sep 2015 17:15:32 -0700 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> > wrote: > >> On 9/5/15, 5:12 PM, in article 20150906021221.5d90fc0e@maxa-pc, >> "Melzzzzz" <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: >> >> > On Sat, 05 Sep 2015 16:56:07 -0700 Snit >> > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On 9/5/15, 4:24 PM, in article 20150906012435.74be2bc2@maxa-pc, >> >> "Melzzzzz" <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>>>> Tried locally downloaded file, but it pulls huge file from >> >>>>> internet still....resulting in wait for download of more than one >> >>>>> second... >> >>>>> >> >>>> Even when you tell it to work with a LOCAL file it tries to grab >> >>>> networked data. Not good... you are sure the full source was local >> >>>> (no links to remote images or scripts or the like). >> >>> >> >>> Nope. I did not edit local files. But still wget downloads far >> >>> less.... What is symptomatic is that execution time is not as high >> >>> as real time spent on conversion. I would say program is slow if it >> >>> actually spends that much time executing, but alas CPU is almost >> >>> idle.... >> >> >> >> Still does not answer why you stick with this dog of a program. Why >> >> not use another choice? I have shown two others... ones I already >> >> had on my system. >> >> >> >> >> > I just installed it to try owl's script ;) I never have need to work >> > with pdf's let alone convert web page to pdf ... >> > All I do with pdfs is just read them ... >> > Does one of your choices works on Linux? Paparrazi is OSX only as it >> > uses Cocoa... >> > What are alternatives on Linux? >> >> Don't know... just keep hearing how there are so many choices on Linux. >> For this task I know of at least three choices on OS X so I figured >> there must be at least that many on Linux. Are there not? > > Nope, nobody bothered to write this one seems to me. wkhtmltopdf is done > and everybody is satisfied ;p I am really interested now what it > actually does and why it is not efficient as Paparazzi. They both use > webkit to render pages, strange... > Will look into source, as I can't say anything conclusive. Well, the day I want to start saving recipes in PDF format I'll look into a Mac. And you can file under that one under "Don't give a shit, never will." -- Zero tolerance for LYING WinDrones & iCultists
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 03:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20150906032403.500fc313@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #319229 |
On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 01:03:38 +0000 (UTC) ronb <ronbNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, 06 Sep 2015 02:33:47 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote: > > > On Sat, 05 Sep 2015 17:15:32 -0700 Snit > > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > > > >> On 9/5/15, 5:12 PM, in article 20150906021221.5d90fc0e@maxa-pc, > >> "Melzzzzz" <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: > >> > >> > On Sat, 05 Sep 2015 16:56:07 -0700 Snit > >> > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On 9/5/15, 4:24 PM, in article 20150906012435.74be2bc2@maxa-pc, > >> >> "Melzzzzz" <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>>>> Tried locally downloaded file, but it pulls huge file from > >> >>>>> internet still....resulting in wait for download of more > >> >>>>> than one second... > >> >>>>> > >> >>>> Even when you tell it to work with a LOCAL file it tries to > >> >>>> grab networked data. Not good... you are sure the full source > >> >>>> was local (no links to remote images or scripts or the like). > >> >>> > >> >>> Nope. I did not edit local files. But still wget downloads far > >> >>> less.... What is symptomatic is that execution time is not as > >> >>> high as real time spent on conversion. I would say program is > >> >>> slow if it actually spends that much time executing, but alas > >> >>> CPU is almost idle.... > >> >> > >> >> Still does not answer why you stick with this dog of a program. > >> >> Why not use another choice? I have shown two others... ones I > >> >> already had on my system. > >> >> > >> >> > >> > I just installed it to try owl's script ;) I never have need to > >> > work with pdf's let alone convert web page to pdf ... > >> > All I do with pdfs is just read them ... > >> > Does one of your choices works on Linux? Paparrazi is OSX only > >> > as it uses Cocoa... > >> > What are alternatives on Linux? > >> > >> Don't know... just keep hearing how there are so many choices on > >> Linux. For this task I know of at least three choices on OS X so I > >> figured there must be at least that many on Linux. Are there not? > > > > Nope, nobody bothered to write this one seems to me. wkhtmltopdf is > > done and everybody is satisfied ;p I am really interested now what > > it actually does and why it is not efficient as Paparazzi. They > > both use webkit to render pages, strange... > > Will look into source, as I can't say anything conclusive. > > Well, the day I want to start saving recipes in PDF format I'll look > into a Mac. And you can file under that one under "Don't give a shit, > never will." > You missed the point. This is not OS issue as wkhtmltopdf is equally slow on OSX & Linux...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 09:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <msgqr1$17j$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #319233 |
The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser snotted: > On 9/5/15, 6:24 PM, in article 20150906032403.500fc313@maxa-pc, "Melzzzzz" > <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: > >>>>> Don't know... just keep hearing how there are so many choices on >>>>> Linux. For this task I know of at least three choices on OS X so I >>>>> figured there must be at least that many on Linux. Are there not? >>>> >>>> Nope, nobody bothered to write this one seems to me. wkhtmltopdf is >>>> done and everybody is satisfied ;p I am really interested now what >>>> it actually does and why it is not efficient as Paparazzi. They >>>> both use webkit to render pages, strange... >>>> Will look into source, as I can't say anything conclusive. >>> >>> Well, the day I want to start saving recipes in PDF format I'll look >>> into a Mac. And you can file under that one under "Don't give a shit, >>> never will." >>> >> >> You missed the point. This is not OS issue as wkhtmltopdf is equally >> slow on OSX & Linux... > > But on OS X there is more choice. > > I have not just the choice of wkhtmltopdf, but also these: > * Paparazzi!: <https://derailer.org/paparazzi/> > * url2pdf: <http://www.scottmadethis.net/interactive/url2pdf/> What makes you think that wkhtmltopdf is the only choice on linux? It isn't
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 06:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fdamv83.kodf9@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #319229 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 9/5/15, 6:03 PM, in article msg3da$91q$1@dont-email.me, "ronb" > <ronbNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> I just installed it to try owl's script ;) I never have need to work >>>>> with pdf's let alone convert web page to pdf ... >>>>> All I do with pdfs is just read them ... >>>>> Does one of your choices works on Linux? Paparrazi is OSX only as it >>>>> uses Cocoa... >>>>> What are alternatives on Linux? >>>> >>>> Don't know... just keep hearing how there are so many choices on Linux. >>>> For this task I know of at least three choices on OS X so I figured >>>> there must be at least that many on Linux. Are there not? >>> >>> Nope, nobody bothered to write this one seems to me. wkhtmltopdf is done >>> and everybody is satisfied ;p I am really interested now what it >>> actually does and why it is not efficient as Paparazzi. They both use >>> webkit to render pages, strange... >>> Will look into source, as I can't say anything conclusive. >> >> Well, the day I want to start saving recipes in PDF format I'll look into >> a Mac. And you can file under that one under "Don't give a shit, never >> will." > LOL! Sour grapes. > Listen, ronb, this was a hand picked tool Owl selected. And it is a good > example of where Linux offers less real choice. Great example of what I have > been talking about. How about showing a "great example" of a netstat window while your "choice" does its thing?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 09:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mshkak$h3g$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #319229 |
On 9/5/2015 8:03 PM, ronb wrote: > On Sun, 06 Sep 2015 02:33:47 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote: > >> On Sat, 05 Sep 2015 17:15:32 -0700 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On 9/5/15, 5:12 PM, in article 20150906021221.5d90fc0e@maxa-pc, >>> "Melzzzzz" <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 05 Sep 2015 16:56:07 -0700 Snit >>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 9/5/15, 4:24 PM, in article 20150906012435.74be2bc2@maxa-pc, >>>>> "Melzzzzz" <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> Tried locally downloaded file, but it pulls huge file from >>>>>>>> internet still....resulting in wait for download of more than one >>>>>>>> second... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Even when you tell it to work with a LOCAL file it tries to grab >>>>>>> networked data. Not good... you are sure the full source was local >>>>>>> (no links to remote images or scripts or the like). >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope. I did not edit local files. But still wget downloads far >>>>>> less.... What is symptomatic is that execution time is not as high >>>>>> as real time spent on conversion. I would say program is slow if it >>>>>> actually spends that much time executing, but alas CPU is almost >>>>>> idle.... >>>>> >>>>> Still does not answer why you stick with this dog of a program. Why >>>>> not use another choice? I have shown two others... ones I already >>>>> had on my system. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I just installed it to try owl's script ;) I never have need to work >>>> with pdf's let alone convert web page to pdf ... >>>> All I do with pdfs is just read them ... >>>> Does one of your choices works on Linux? Paparrazi is OSX only as it >>>> uses Cocoa... >>>> What are alternatives on Linux? >>> >>> Don't know... just keep hearing how there are so many choices on Linux. >>> For this task I know of at least three choices on OS X so I figured >>> there must be at least that many on Linux. Are there not? >> >> Nope, nobody bothered to write this one seems to me. wkhtmltopdf is done >> and everybody is satisfied ;p I am really interested now what it >> actually does and why it is not efficient as Paparazzi. They both use >> webkit to render pages, strange... >> Will look into source, as I can't say anything conclusive. > > Well, the day I want to start saving recipes in PDF format I'll look into > a Mac. And you can file under that one under "Don't give a shit, never > will." Can you post a video of that? :-D
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 03:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20150906034042.1abd666f@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #319221 |
On Sat, 05 Sep 2015 17:56:53 -0700 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 9/5/15, 5:33 PM, in article 20150906023347.30404759@maxa-pc, > "Melzzzzz" <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: > > >>> I just installed it to try owl's script ;) I never have need to > >>> work with pdf's let alone convert web page to pdf ... > >>> All I do with pdfs is just read them ... > >>> Does one of your choices works on Linux? Paparrazi is OSX only as > >>> it uses Cocoa... > >>> What are alternatives on Linux? > >> > >> Don't know... just keep hearing how there are so many choices on > >> Linux. For this task I know of at least three choices on OS X so I > >> figured there must be at least that many on Linux. Are there not? > > > > Nope, nobody bothered to write this one seems to me. wkhtmltopdf > > is done and everybody is satisfied ;p > > Fair enough. I am, of course, just teasing... but it is a good > example of what I mean by Linux *not* having the greater choice > people in COLA sometimes claim it does. Does having 50 different DEs > really help here... even if half of them were not based on GNOME I > doubt it would help at all. Does having 1000 distros, half based on > Ubuntu, help? Nope. When it comes to getting work done these things > are generally not that big of a benefit. > > Where the DE and related system elements do help is the services they > provides to programs... Peter noted one with the desktop PDF > converter. Hey, THAT might work... save the files as full web > archives or whatever and then convert them locally. > > I could do that, too, but would be a lot slower than my current way. > > Anyway, with the save and print a single recipe as a PDF with > comments, this is an area where the choices provided by the OS X > system make things easier. Full stop. You are now entering territory where you make wrong conclusions on false premises. I said - nobody bothered to write more efficient implementation, and that does not means nobody will (or correct existing program). This is just one example which can lead to better implementation... Not that people are doing this massively so that performance matters, so far didn't matter...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dunno <dunno@dunno.dunno> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 03:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <msgaff$op2$1@news.mixmin.net> |
| In reply to | #319221 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 9/5/15, 5:33 PM, in article 20150906023347.30404759@maxa-pc, "Melzzzzz" > <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: > >>>> I just installed it to try owl's script ;) I never have need to work >>>> with pdf's let alone convert web page to pdf ... >>>> All I do with pdfs is just read them ... >>>> Does one of your choices works on Linux? Paparrazi is OSX only as it >>>> uses Cocoa... >>>> What are alternatives on Linux? >>> >>> Don't know... just keep hearing how there are so many choices on >>> Linux. For this task I know of at least three choices on OS X so I >>> figured there must be at least that many on Linux. Are there not? >> >> Nope, nobody bothered to write this one seems to me. wkhtmltopdf >> is done and everybody is satisfied ;p > > Fair enough. I am, of course, just teasing... but it is a good example of > what I mean by Linux *not* having the greater choice people in COLA > sometimes claim it does. Does having 50 different DEs really help here... > even if half of them were not based on GNOME I doubt it would help at all. > Does having 1000 distros, half based on Ubuntu, help? Nope. When it comes to > getting work done these things are generally not that big of a benefit. There are alternative tools on Linux, but the task itself is kind of cumbersome. If I had to generate a lot of PDFs (let's say it's some work project), first thing I would do is to make sure I'm not dealing with HTML. I would use a pipeline: - download HTML file - use Lynx or Links to render HTML to clear text (effectively stripping out all HTML tags) - use awk or sed or Perl to make sure only necessary text is going to be processed in the next step - use TeX or LaTeX to process text to PostScript or PDF This approach would not save images, though. Should there be any? If I have to do it just once a day, I would go with whatever OS and browser have to offer, even if it would take few more seconds. > Where the DE and related system elements do help is the services they > provides to programs... Peter noted one with the desktop PDF converter. Hey, > THAT might work... save the files as full web archives or whatever and then > convert them locally. > > I could do that, too, but would be a lot slower than my current way. > > Anyway, with the save and print a single recipe as a PDF with comments, this > is an area where the choices provided by the OS X system make things easier. > Shown a lot of other examples of that, too. Lots of choices on OS X which I > do not see on Linux... and not many on Linux I do not see on OS X - which is > not to say none. I *wish* Apple would implement windows snapping to each > other as is done with GNOME and GNOME forks. That is a cool feature I would > use often. > >> I am really interested now what it actually does and why it is not >> efficient as Paparazzi. They both use webkit to render pages, strange... >> Will look into source, as I can't say anything conclusive. > > Peter actually had a decent thought of pre-set page sizes for Papararazi. I > had not fiddled with that. Was set before to its default 1024 x 768 (or > maybe I set it that way years ago... whatever). > > Set it to 2560 x 1440 (27" Thunderbolt display). > > <http://youtu.be/SLfMu3uLJ-U> > > 38.481 seconds for 58 files > 0.66 seconds per file. > > No noticeable difference. > > Size of files... an example is the Asian Coleslaw went from 92 KB to 94 KB, > so again nothing significant at all. > > The layout is different and the images more crisp. If I was doing this for a > real purpose and not just to fulfill Owl's hand-picked task I might play > with sizes to find the best layout. They also have cropping - did not play > with that, either. > -- dunno
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dunno <dunno@dunno.dunno> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 04:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <msggie$5m4$1@news.mixmin.net> |
| In reply to | #319237 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 9/5/15, 8:04 PM, in article msgaff$op2$1@news.mixmin.net, "dunno" > <dunno@dunno.dunno> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 9/5/15, 5:33 PM, in article 20150906023347.30404759@maxa-pc, "Melzzzzz" >>> <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>> I just installed it to try owl's script ;) I never have need to work >>>>>> with pdf's let alone convert web page to pdf ... >>>>>> All I do with pdfs is just read them ... >>>>>> Does one of your choices works on Linux? Paparrazi is OSX only as it >>>>>> uses Cocoa... >>>>>> What are alternatives on Linux? >>>>> >>>>> Don't know... just keep hearing how there are so many choices on >>>>> Linux. For this task I know of at least three choices on OS X so I >>>>> figured there must be at least that many on Linux. Are there not? >>>> >>>> Nope, nobody bothered to write this one seems to me. wkhtmltopdf >>>> is done and everybody is satisfied ;p >>> >>> Fair enough. I am, of course, just teasing... but it is a good example of >>> what I mean by Linux *not* having the greater choice people in COLA >>> sometimes claim it does. Does having 50 different DEs really help here... >>> even if half of them were not based on GNOME I doubt it would help at all. >>> Does having 1000 distros, half based on Ubuntu, help? Nope. When it comes to >>> getting work done these things are generally not that big of a benefit. >> >> There are alternative tools on Linux, but the task itself is kind of >> cumbersome. > > I think that was part of the point of Owl's picking it. It is not a task > with a straight forward solution. Heck, I am pretty sure he thought I would > have no clue how to do it and would just give up. When I first presented it > to him he was convinced I cheated... but I did not. Heck, I held myself to > higher standards than he did by NOT allowing the hard coding of the URLs > (there are three). > >> If I had to generate a lot of PDFs (let's say it's some work >> project), first thing I would do is to make sure I'm not dealing with HTML. > > In this case, though, you are. And the same might be the same for an art > project site or lesson plan site. > > Or in my case I wanted all the links from a WayBackArchive site, plus the > HTML and CSS validation from W3.org and an active link and all on one page > of a PDF. I was able to do that, too: > > <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman/sandman-archive.pdf> > > I no longer have an updated version of that tool, and it costs more than I > want to spend, but that could have been used for the recipe task as well. You can even write special purpose tool for that. It all depends on how often task have to be done. If we're talking of money then there is a possibility to just pay someone to do the job for you and forget about it. >> I would use a pipeline: >> >> - download HTML file >> - use Lynx or Links to render HTML to clear text (effectively stripping >> out all HTML tags) >> - use awk or sed or Perl to make sure only necessary text is going to be >> processed in the next step >> - use TeX or LaTeX to process text to PostScript or PDF >> >> This approach would not save images, though. Should there be any? > > For recipes - yes. Owl and I discussed that. Also should keep basic > formatting. Sounds like you would lose all that. No, TeX and LaTeX both are able to do very good job on formatting. That's what they are for, actually. It just would be not the same style(s) as in website's CSS file. They also can work with images, for that I will have to add one more step (saving the images). The main point is to not process raw HTML because it's very costly, especially if we're talking of thousands or millions of PDFs per day. >> If I have to do it just once a day, I would go with whatever OS and browser >> have to offer, even if it would take few more seconds. > > If you are just saving one recipe a day likely not worth scripting. Agreed. > But say you want to do this to keep track of the front page recipes on the > site. Whatever. I have no need for it but it was Owl's task / challenge. :) I have very limited access to Internet right now, because I'm currently in the middle of nowhere, so I'm not watching your videos. However, I might check it next time I get around of WiFi hot spot. Keeping track of the front page recipes is definitely a scripting task, not something people usually would do with Automator. Fortunately, both OS X and Linux provides all the means to write such scripts, and even more complicated ones. How about automatically posting every new recipe from the front page to the rec.food.cooking newsgroup? :) That would be a hard task for Automator script. -- dunno
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 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