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 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | dunno <dunno@dunno.dunno> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 06:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <msgnfh$jda$1@news.mixmin.net> |
| In reply to | #319246 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 9/5/15, 9:48 PM, in article msggie$5m4$1@news.mixmin.net, "dunno" > <dunno@dunno.dunno> wrote: > > ... >>>>> 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. > > This was for a Usenet debate - I noted the person's HTML did not validate. > They fixed it. Then I noted their CSS did not validate. They denied it and > quickly fixed it. > > I showed them the Google cache of it and they waited a while until the cache > updated and denied it. > > Then I showed them that a WayBackMachine archive of their site did not > validate - and they said I must have just looked there and made up the > story. > > So then I showed them every single example of their site in the > WayBackMachine - all 114. And not a single one validated. More than that, it > was not just errors such as extensions tied to specific browsers, every one > had some absurd errors. > > He and his friends even accused me of forging the PDF (sounds like Peter, > eh). So I then provided a new PDF with links to the W3 archive and listed > the links in the Usenet group. > > He and his friends NEVER admitted they were lying. Of course not. Does not > matter that the proof was 100% solid. Anyway, it was just a Usenet debate - > I would not pay someone to make that. At the time I owned a copy of the tool > for other reasons. No big deal to use it for that. > > The tool was just File Maker Pro. Nothing exotic. Would love to see how > others do a similar task on Linux. > >>>> 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). > > It would be, at best, a challenge to get the recipes formatted in a readable > way. And why? Why not just what is already provided? Of course it would be formatted in a readable way as long as all information on the pages is consistent (i.e. there is header first, then empty line, then first line of recipe, etc.) >> 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. > > It changes but it was only about 60 at the most for this task. > > If you are talking a different task where you have millions of links where > you want to get data and process it I am going to bow out of that one. :) > >>>> 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. > > Fair enough. > >> Keeping track of the front page recipes is definitely a scripting task, not >> something people usually would do with Automator. > > Automator is a scripting tool. It's kind of limited. It have very good means to interact with OS X, but for more complicated tasks you'll have call bash script or AppleScript from Automator, and at some point you'll realize that there is no need for Automator at all. It's good for many things, which are already hardcoded into 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. > > Well, I am not going to get their recipes and do so... but in Automator > there is a "get text from webpage" action. Could get that and see if the > format is consistent enough for me to be able to get it into a Usenet > readable format. Then I could use AppleScript (tied to Automator) to post > via a scriptable Usenet client... or shell script to pan or the like. But there would be nothing "OS X" about it. Just one more script for one more UNIX-like OS. -- dunno
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 06:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fad.kvcz92@rooftop.invalid> |
| 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). Not hard-coding? What do you think going directly to the /print/ page for each recipe is? And you aren't grabbing that info from parsing the main page, since that "?internalSource" string does not appear in the html of the main page. You had to visit the individual pages manually and get URL for the print page. You then feed that URL to paparazzi. Funny how none of that effort is included in your run time. BTW, after downloading all the linked files to a local directory (approx 12 megs of stuff), I get wkhtmltopdf running now at 0.413 seconds per file, even though the files are still huge and it still makes some network connections. https://vid.me/zQLa Can you explain again why you refuse to show a netstat window? You could temporarily shut down any private connections while you do the video. I find it hard to believe that paparazzi is getting all this crap practically instantaneously.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 07:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fad.asdf93@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #319247 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 9/5/15, 11:14 PM, in article fad.kvcz92@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> 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). >> >> Not hard-coding? What do you think going directly to the /print/ page >> for each recipe is? And you aren't grabbing that info from parsing >> the main page, since that "?internalSource" string does not appear >> in the html of the main page. You had to visit the individual pages >> manually and get URL for the print page. > You mean the individual home and the 2 and 3 versions? No. "?internalSource" string does not appear on any of allrecipes.com, allrecipes.com/?page=2, or allrecipes.com/?page=3. That string is only on the pages for the individual recipes, where the "print" icon is found. You have to know about it in advance to feed it to paparazzi. So that's a form of hard-coding. It's not like paparazzi goes to the site and makes some intelligent choice about how to give you a print-friendly page. You know the URL structure in advance and feed it to paparazzi. This fore-knowledge is no less "cheating" than knowing the three URLs for the scrolling main page. >> You then feed that URL to >> paparazzi. Funny how none of that effort is included in your run time. > Everything is in my run time. Every. Single. Thing. >> BTW, after downloading all the linked files to a local directory (approx >> 12 megs of stuff), I get wkhtmltopdf running now at 0.413 seconds per >> file, even though the files are still huge and it still makes some >> network connections. >> >> https://vid.me/zQLa > Including download time how long is it? Irrelevant. I told you the files are local. >> Can you explain again why you refuse to show a netstat window? > No desire for you to see my IP, even my internal. What the hell difference would an internal IP make? Practically everybody uses 192.168.x.x. You're not giving away some big secret to reveal what RFC 1918 address block you're using behind your router. Sounds like you're trying to *bullshit* now. >> You could temporarily shut down any private connections while you >> do the video. I find it hard to believe that paparazzi is getting >> all this crap practically instantaneously. > LOL! You have seen the script and how it gets the files. But I have not seen any evidence that it is making *any* network connection to do so. Very easy to prove, without revealing anything private. Just show a looping netstat. BSD: while [ 1 ]; do netstat -anf inet; sleep 1; clear; done
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 08:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <adfmka93.fji@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #319256 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 9/6/15, 12:21 AM, in article fad.asdf93@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>> 12 megs of stuff), I get wkhtmltopdf running now at 0.413 seconds per >>>> file, even though the files are still huge and it still makes some >>>> network connections. >>>> >>>> https://vid.me/zQLa >> >>> Including download time how long is it? >> >> Irrelevant. I told you the files are local. > LOL! So not fair to compare it to my times when they are not. OK. Who says yours are not? You do. Without proof. A simple netstat loop will go a long way toward proving it. Hell, mine still shows network activity even when supposedly getting files from a local archive. Maybe yours will too, and then you can claim it's not local :) >>>> Can you explain again why you refuse to show a netstat window? >> >>> No desire for you to see my IP, even my internal. >> >> What the hell difference would an internal IP make? Practically everybody >> uses 192.168.x.x. You're not giving away some big secret to reveal what >> RFC 1918 address block you're using behind your router. Sounds like you're >> trying to *bullshit* now. > You see the increased network activity in my dock. Dodge. I don't see anything connecting anywhere because you refuse to show a netstat loop. What do you think anybody can do with knowledge of your private IP but no knowledge of your public IP? >>>> You could temporarily shut down any private connections while you >>>> do the video. I find it hard to believe that paparazzi is getting >>>> all this crap practically instantaneously. >> >>> LOL! You have seen the script and how it gets the files. >> >> But I have not seen any evidence that it is making *any* network >> connection to do so. Very easy to prove, without revealing anything >> private. Just show a looping netstat. >> >> BSD: >> while [ 1 ]; do netstat -anf inet; sleep 1; clear; done Guess we'll never see this, since it would destroy the charade.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 10:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <saf3.f9vae@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #319269 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 9/6/15, 1:12 AM, in article adfmka93.fji@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 9/6/15, 12:21 AM, in article fad.asdf93@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >> >>>>>> 12 megs of stuff), I get wkhtmltopdf running now at 0.413 seconds per >>>>>> file, even though the files are still huge and it still makes some >>>>>> network connections. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://vid.me/zQLa >>>> >>>>> Including download time how long is it? >>>> >>>> Irrelevant. I told you the files are local. >> >>> LOL! So not fair to compare it to my times when they are not. OK. >> >> >> Who says yours are not? You do. Without proof. A simple netstat loop >> will go a long way toward proving it. Hell, mine still shows network >> activity even when supposedly getting files from a local archive. >> Maybe yours will too, and then you can claim it's not local :) > Already provided the link: <http://youtu.be/ZWSI4nSSTVI> > (still uploading right now) > Now why not try some of my tasks? Now that you have *finally* gotten over your fear of the internet and run netstat like I asked you to do, we can move on to comparing the actual speed of conversion between paparazzi and wkhtmltopdf. [Thank you Melzzzz for forcing me to look at the network issue in more depth]. Snit, your next task is to do what I implied you were already doing, namely to have paparazzi work with a local archive. When you wake up in the morning, go ahead and set that all up run some speed tests. Hell, at the rate it's going over the network it should only take about 5 seconds for paparazzi to do all 58 files locally. The best i can get out of wkhtmltopdf is 24 seconds for 58 files using a local archive. > * From a single online recipe (or art project, lesson plan, whatever) save > it and email a PDF version where you add notes to it. Now I know this can be > done on Linux; save, open, edit, email. Just curious to see how you people > would generally do it and how streamlined the workflow would be. A couple > ways I might: <https://youtu.be/NPM_WldEBs0>. Boring. > * Make a video, as Owl and I have been, but with cursor replacement / > resizing (post production), window highlighting, zooming, arbitrary area > highlighting. For me these were done just to show something else: > <https://youtu.be/aSNpnYpmKag>. I have many other options but picked these > because they fit the real-world example I did shortly before coming up with > the "challenge". Boring. > * Getting a WayBackArchive page and getting images of all links, the HTML > validation and CSS validation from W3.org, and a active link to the archive > page, as I did here (does not have to look the exact same, of course): > <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman/sandman-archive.pdf>. Boring. > ... >>>> BSD: >>>> while [ 1 ]; do netstat -anf inet; sleep 1; clear; done >> >> Guess we'll never see this, since it would destroy the charade. > How does that egg on your face feel? I have egg on my face? > Seriously, you have major trust issues here. Your reputation is not my fault; neither is the fact that you seem to struggle to maintain it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 10:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D211C4D8.5A1B9%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #319282 |
On 9/6/15, 3:09 AM, in article saf3.f9vae@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 9/6/15, 1:12 AM, in article adfmka93.fji@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 9/6/15, 12:21 AM, in article fad.asdf93@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>>> 12 megs of stuff), I get wkhtmltopdf running now at 0.413 seconds per >>>>>>> file, even though the files are still huge and it still makes some >>>>>>> network connections. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://vid.me/zQLa >>>>> >>>>>> Including download time how long is it? >>>>> >>>>> Irrelevant. I told you the files are local. >>> >>>> LOL! So not fair to compare it to my times when they are not. OK. >>> >>> >>> Who says yours are not? You do. Without proof. A simple netstat loop >>> will go a long way toward proving it. Hell, mine still shows network >>> activity even when supposedly getting files from a local archive. >>> Maybe yours will too, and then you can claim it's not local :) > >> Already provided the link: <http://youtu.be/ZWSI4nSSTVI> >> (still uploading right now) > >> Now why not try some of my tasks? > > Now that you have *finally* gotten over your fear of the internet > and run netstat like I asked you to do, we can move on to comparing > the actual speed of conversion between paparazzi and wkhtmltopdf. > [Thank you Melzzzz for forcing me to look at the network issue > in more depth]. > > Snit, your next task is to do what I implied you were already doing, > namely to have paparazzi work with a local archive. When you wake > up in the morning, go ahead and set that all up run some speed tests. > Hell, at the rate it's going over the network it should only take about > 5 seconds for paparazzi to do all 58 files locally. The best i can get > out of wkhtmltopdf is 24 seconds for 58 files using a local archive. So you now want me to download each of those files as a local webarchive and *then* run them through Paparazzi? This is a different task - I just tried saving the URLs as local files and they are saved as HTML files meaning the images are not local. Took 5.039 seconds for 59 files. I then tried a quick Automator solution to pass those to Paparazzi and it failed. To hell with it... did it manually. Just looking at the clock it came to about 21 seconds to convert them all. That comes to about 26 seconds for the two combined... which fits with what we saw before (on the last video I saw it was 28 seconds for that). I might take on finding a way to save them as webarchives on after we do some of my tasks. Heck, I am the one who suggested we do such tasks and now we have done one of Peter's and one of yours. How fast is your internet connection? Going to speedtest.net mine is 53.40 Mbps (down). Up is a pathetic 3.44 Mbps. >> * From a single online recipe (or art project, lesson plan, whatever) save >> it and email a PDF version where you add notes to it. Now I know this can be >> done on Linux; save, open, edit, email. Just curious to see how you people >> would generally do it and how streamlined the workflow would be. A couple >> ways I might: <https://youtu.be/NPM_WldEBs0>. > > Boring. Right - it will not lead to 100 posts like your task did. Just a few. I am fine with that. >> * Make a video, as Owl and I have been, but with cursor replacement / >> resizing (post production), window highlighting, zooming, arbitrary area >> highlighting. For me these were done just to show something else: >> <https://youtu.be/aSNpnYpmKag>. I have many other options but picked these >> because they fit the real-world example I did shortly before coming up with >> the "challenge". > > Boring. LOL! More than you can handle... Linux simply had no tools to make this anything but massively cumbersome. >> * Getting a WayBackArchive page and getting images of all links, the HTML >> validation and CSS validation from W3.org, and a active link to the archive >> page, as I did here (does not have to look the exact same, of course): >> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman/sandman-archive.pdf>. > > Boring. This one would actually be pretty challenging. Now that I no longer have FileMakerPro I would find this one very challenging. Might be able to download each of the files then script them to be combined by Pages or something... but it would really push my capabilities. >> ... >>>>> BSD: >>>>> while [ 1 ]; do netstat -anf inet; sleep 1; clear; done >>> >>> Guess we'll never see this, since it would destroy the charade. > >> How does that egg on your face feel? > > I have egg on my face? Absolutely. You repeatedly insisted I was not getting the files online *and* that the "?internalSource..." junk was hard coded. Even after showing you the script and many videos of it running *and* of telling you where the "?internalSource..." was coming from you *still* could not believe it. >> Seriously, you have major trust issues here. > > Your reputation is not my fault; neither is the fact that you seem > to struggle to maintain it. I am only responsible for MY actions. What those who troll say about me is 100% irrelevant. Why would you trust that over your own interactions with me? Do not get me wrong: I am just "some guy" on the 'net... as are you. It is not as if we should trust each other with major financial advice or other things that can lead to big decisions in our lives. But you did not even trust that the "?internalSource..." stuff was not hard coded after I told you where I got it. And you did not trust I was getting the files from the web even when you could see my network traffic increasing as I ran the script. -- * 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 | Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 09:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mshgth$9r5$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #319269 |
On 9/6/2015 3:43 AM, Snit wrote: > On 9/6/15, 1:12 AM, in article adfmka93.fji@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 9/6/15, 12:21 AM, in article fad.asdf93@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: [...] > Seriously, you have major trust issues here. Why do you expect anybody to trust you, the way you twist their words in obvious and extremely stupid ways, then lie about it in a multitude of threads you create afterwards? Why should anybody trust you, Drew P. Bawls, with all the socks you post from, and then lie about posting from? I wouldn't trust you if you told me the sky is blue and water is wet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 10:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D211CC15.5A1DB%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #319306 |
On 9/6/15, 7:00 AM, in article mshgth$9r5$1@news.albasani.net, "Nobody" <nobody@invalid.com> wrote: > On 9/6/2015 3:43 AM, Snit wrote: >> On 9/6/15, 1:12 AM, in article adfmka93.fji@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 9/6/15, 12:21 AM, in article fad.asdf93@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > > [...] > >> Seriously, you have major trust issues here. > > Why do you expect anybody to trust you, the way you twist their words in > obvious and extremely stupid ways, then lie about it in a multitude of > threads you create afterwards? > > Why should anybody trust you, Drew P. Bawls, with all the socks you post > from, and then lie about posting from? > > I wouldn't trust you if you told me the sky is blue and water is wet. > You reference your own socks, blame them on me, and repeat the gag about my unquotable lies, all to get attention. Remember when you talked about eating shit just to get attention? You have not changed. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 18:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <msij43$a3k$4@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #319370 |
On 9/6/2015 12:55 PM, Snit wrote: > On 9/6/15, 7:00 AM, in article mshgth$9r5$1@news.albasani.net, "Nobody" > <nobody@invalid.com> wrote: > >> On 9/6/2015 3:43 AM, Snit wrote: >>> On 9/6/15, 1:12 AM, in article adfmka93.fji@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 9/6/15, 12:21 AM, in article fad.asdf93@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>> Seriously, you have major trust issues here. >> >> Why do you expect anybody to trust you, the way you twist their words in >> obvious and extremely stupid ways, then lie about it in a multitude of >> threads you create afterwards? >> >> Why should anybody trust you, Drew P. Bawls, with all the socks you post >> from, and then lie about posting from? >> >> I wouldn't trust you if you told me the sky is blue and water is wet. >> > You reference your own socks, blame them on me, and repeat the gag about my > unquotable lies, all to get attention. That's role reversal mixed in with a load of lies. > Remember when you talked about eating shit just to get attention? You have > not changed. WTF?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ronb <ronbNOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 19:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <msi3tl$q7a$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #319306 |
On Sun, 06 Sep 2015 09:00:15 -0500, Nobody wrote: > I wouldn't trust you if you told me the sky is blue and water is wet. I think the universe would crack if he told the truth. -- Zero tolerance for LYING WinDrones & iCultists
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 21:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <msi54q$vsa$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #319306 |
Snit wrote: > On 9/6/15, 7:00 AM, in article mshgth$9r5$1@news.albasani.net, "Nobody" > <nobody@invalid.com> wrote: > >> On 9/6/2015 3:43 AM, Snit wrote: >>> On 9/6/15, 1:12 AM, in article adfmka93.fji@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 9/6/15, 12:21 AM, in article fad.asdf93@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>> Seriously, you have major trust issues here. >> >> Why do you expect anybody to trust you, the way you twist their words in >> obvious and extremely stupid ways, then lie about it in a multitude of >> threads you create afterwards? > > A take on the "unquotable lies" gag. Which have been quoted hundreds of times,though >> Why should anybody trust you, Drew P. Bawls, with all the socks you post >> from, and then lie about posting from? > > A take on the "everyone is Snit" gag. No. Naturally not. Just you and your many socks >> I wouldn't trust you if you told me the sky is blue and water is wet. > > I do not doubt you have trust issues. Many people who are deeply dishonest > assume others will be as well. > Why do you speak of yourself? After all, you are the most dishonest person ever to post on usenet
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 09:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mshj08$dvi$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #319256 |
On 9/6/2015 2:21 AM, owl wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 9/5/15, 11:14 PM, in article fad.kvcz92@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 9/5/15, 8:04 PM, in article msgaff$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). >>> >>> Not hard-coding? What do you think going directly to the /print/ page >>> for each recipe is? And you aren't grabbing that info from parsing >>> the main page, since that "?internalSource" string does not appear >>> in the html of the main page. You had to visit the individual pages >>> manually and get URL for the print page. > >> You mean the individual home and the 2 and 3 versions? > > No. "?internalSource" string does not appear on any of allrecipes.com, > allrecipes.com/?page=2, or allrecipes.com/?page=3. That string is only > on the pages for the individual recipes, where the "print" icon is > found. You have to know about it in advance to feed it to paparazzi. > So that's a form of hard-coding. It's not like paparazzi goes to > the site and makes some intelligent choice about how to give you > a print-friendly page. You know the URL structure in advance and feed > it to paparazzi. This fore-knowledge is no less "cheating" than > knowing the three URLs for the scrolling main page. > >>> You then feed that URL to >>> paparazzi. Funny how none of that effort is included in your run time. > >> Everything is in my run time. Every. Single. Thing. > >>> BTW, after downloading all the linked files to a local directory (approx >>> 12 megs of stuff), I get wkhtmltopdf running now at 0.413 seconds per >>> file, even though the files are still huge and it still makes some >>> network connections. >>> >>> https://vid.me/zQLa > >> Including download time how long is it? > > Irrelevant. I told you the files are local. > >>> Can you explain again why you refuse to show a netstat window? > >> No desire for you to see my IP, even my internal. > > What the hell difference would an internal IP make? Practically everybody > uses 192.168.x.x. You're not giving away some big secret to reveal what > RFC 1918 address block you're using behind your router. Sounds like you're > trying to *bullshit* now. He's reliving his nightmare from the past. According to Peter IIRC, Snit set up a fake Web site forged to appear to be from another person. People were able to use simple commands to move to move to portions of his server he would have preferred to have kept private and unknown. This is how "Snit" was revealed to be Micheal Glasser, the Prescott Computer Guy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 12:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20150906120338.610e14a6@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #319247 |
On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 06:14:50 +0000 (UTC) owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > > BTW, after downloading all the linked files to a local directory > (approx 12 megs of stuff), I get wkhtmltopdf running now at 0.413 > seconds per file, even though the files are still huge and it still > makes some network connections. Yeah, it seems that web page is huge. I looked now and wget just downloads toplevel pages, while wkhtmltopdf downloads whole site. Downloading such huge page takes long therefore long times.... > > https://vid.me/zQLa > > Can you explain again why you refuse to show a netstat window? Heh. Yeah it would be interesting to see his download speed. > You could temporarily shut down any private connections while you > do the video. I find it hard to believe that paparazzi is getting > all this crap practically instantaneously. I have 8mbit link it takes more than one second to download whole page... >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 21:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <afmd9.sdim@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #319280 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 9/6/15, 3:03 AM, in article 20150906120338.610e14a6@maxa-pc, "Melzzzzz" > <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 06:14:50 +0000 (UTC) >> owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >>> >>> BTW, after downloading all the linked files to a local directory >>> (approx 12 megs of stuff), I get wkhtmltopdf running now at 0.413 >>> seconds per file, even though the files are still huge and it still >>> makes some network connections. >> >> Yeah, it seems that web page is huge. I looked now and wget just >> downloads toplevel pages, while wkhtmltopdf downloads whole site. >> Downloading such huge page takes long therefore long times.... > Can you use wget to download to local files then wkhtmltopdf to convert > those files? That's what I did. >>> >>> https://vid.me/zQLa >>> >>> Can you explain again why you refuse to show a netstat window? >> >> Heh. Yeah it would be interesting to see his download speed. > Already posted... about 50 Kbps. So you're on a dialup modem? >>> You could temporarily shut down any private connections while you >>> do the video. I find it hard to believe that paparazzi is getting >>> all this crap practically instantaneously. >> >> I have 8mbit link it takes more than one second to download whole >> page... Amazing that paparazzi on a dialup can outperform wkhtmltopdf over broadband.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 23:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <msiaf6$m2e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #319401 |
owl wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 9/6/15, 3:03 AM, in article 20150906120338.610e14a6@maxa-pc, >> "Melzzzzz" <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: > >>> On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 06:14:50 +0000 (UTC) >>> owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> BTW, after downloading all the linked files to a local directory >>>> (approx 12 megs of stuff), I get wkhtmltopdf running now at 0.413 >>>> seconds per file, even though the files are still huge and it still >>>> makes some network connections. >>> >>> Yeah, it seems that web page is huge. I looked now and wget just >>> downloads toplevel pages, while wkhtmltopdf downloads whole site. >>> Downloading such huge page takes long therefore long times.... > >> Can you use wget to download to local files then wkhtmltopdf to convert >> those files? > > That's what I did. > >>>> >>>> https://vid.me/zQLa >>>> >>>> Can you explain again why you refuse to show a netstat window? >>> >>> Heh. Yeah it would be interesting to see his download speed. > >> Already posted... about 50 Kbps. > > So you're on a dialup modem? Amazing, isn't it? My connection is 1000 times as fast. My mobile phone has *much* higher speed that Snit Glassers "highspeed" connection, about 500 times as fast Imagine that he shares that link with his "neighbor" >>>> You could temporarily shut down any private connections while you >>>> do the video. I find it hard to believe that paparazzi is getting >>>> all this crap practically instantaneously. >>> >>> I have 8mbit link it takes more than one second to download whole >>> page... > > Amazing that paparazzi on a dialup can outperform wkhtmltopdf over > broadband. Well, it can't. OSX is very slow on disk speed. And not much better on network speed. Snit Glassers figures have to be faked
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 21:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fsamdjk8.araf3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #319401 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 9/6/15, 2:04 PM, in article afmd9.sdim@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 9/6/15, 3:03 AM, in article 20150906120338.610e14a6@maxa-pc, "Melzzzzz" >>> <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: >> >>>> On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 06:14:50 +0000 (UTC) >>>> owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> BTW, after downloading all the linked files to a local directory >>>>> (approx 12 megs of stuff), I get wkhtmltopdf running now at 0.413 >>>>> seconds per file, even though the files are still huge and it still >>>>> makes some network connections. >>>> >>>> Yeah, it seems that web page is huge. I looked now and wget just >>>> downloads toplevel pages, while wkhtmltopdf downloads whole site. >>>> Downloading such huge page takes long therefore long times.... >> >>> Can you use wget to download to local files then wkhtmltopdf to convert >>> those files? >> >> That's what I did. > OK. >>>>> >>>>> https://vid.me/zQLa >>>>> >>>>> Can you explain again why you refuse to show a netstat window? >>>> >>>> Heh. Yeah it would be interesting to see his download speed. >> >>> Already posted... about 50 Kbps. >> >> So you're on a dialup modem? > Um, 50 Mbps. Stupid error on my part. Maybe comes from using the old 56K > modems. :) > During the day down to about 30 Mbps. My ISP sucks. Two tests for me in the last hour show 9.79 Mbps and 6.85 Mbps. Crap DSL. IIRC mine peaks at 12. So we know where the performance difference is coming from now. That's why tests of local archive would be better. >>>>> You could temporarily shut down any private connections while you >>>>> do the video. I find it hard to believe that paparazzi is getting >>>>> all this crap practically instantaneously. >>>> >>>> I have 8mbit link it takes more than one second to download whole >>>> page... >> >> Amazing that paparazzi on a dialup can outperform wkhtmltopdf over broadband. > Well, now that I cleared up my silly good does it make more sense? :) If you're paying for 50Mbps and only getting 50Kbps, you should raise hell about it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 22:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fdsn0.afo@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #319401 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 9/6/15, 2:28 PM, in article D211FE17.5A232%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com,
> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Can you explain again why you refuse to show a netstat window?
>>>>>
>>>>> Heh. Yeah it would be interesting to see his download speed.
>>>
>>>> Already posted... about 50 Kbps.
>>>
>>> So you're on a dialup modem?
>>
>> Um, 50 Mbps. Stupid error on my part. Maybe comes from using the old 56K
>> modems. :)
>>
>> During the day down to about 30 Mbps. My ISP sucks.
> Just checked... whole 62 files come to about 6 MB, and that is after
> conversion to PDF so likely more than is downloaded. Really not a big deal
> even at 30 Mbps.
My archive tree was 12MB, and even then it still makes network connections
for something. Maybe I left something was left out of my wget options.
I built the archive with this:
wget -E -H -k -K -p -P /tmp/recipes http://allrecipes.com/recipe/36766/beef-and-
bean-chimichangas/print/
wget -E -H -k -K -p -P /tmp/recipes http://allrecipes.com/recipe/241716/chicken-
francesa/print/
...
(for all 58)
anon@sandpit:~$ du -abh /tmp/recipes |tail -1
12M /tmp/recipes
anon@sandpit:~$
anon@sandpit:~$ find /tmp/recipes -type f |wc -l
281
anon@sandpit:~$
The meat of my test script is:
files=$(find /tmp/recipes/allrecipes.com -name index.html)
filenames=$(echo "${files}" |cut -f7 -d'/')
parallel --no-notice -P 8 -N 1 --xapply \
wkhtmltopdf -q -n \
file:///{1} ~/Recipes/{2}.pdf \
::: ${files} ::: ${filenames}
Fairly consistent at 24-25 secs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 23:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fadmnv8.jifda@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #319407 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 9/6/15, 3:37 PM, in article fdsn0.afo@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 9/6/15, 2:28 PM, in article D211FE17.5A232%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com,
>>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> Can you explain again why you refuse to show a netstat window?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Heh. Yeah it would be interesting to see his download speed.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Already posted... about 50 Kbps.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you're on a dialup modem?
>>>>
>>>> Um, 50 Mbps. Stupid error on my part. Maybe comes from using the old 56K
>>>> modems. :)
>>>>
>>>> During the day down to about 30 Mbps. My ISP sucks.
>>
>>> Just checked... whole 62 files come to about 6 MB, and that is after
>>> conversion to PDF so likely more than is downloaded. Really not a big deal
>>> even at 30 Mbps.
>>
>> My archive tree was 12MB, and even then it still makes network connections
>> for something. Maybe I left something was left out of my wget options.
>> I built the archive with this:
>>
>> wget -E -H -k -K -p -P /tmp/recipes
>> http://allrecipes.com/recipe/36766/beef-and-
>> bean-chimichangas/print/
>> wget -E -H -k -K -p -P /tmp/recipes
>> http://allrecipes.com/recipe/241716/chicken-
>> francesa/print/
>> ...
>>
>> (for all 58)
>>
>> anon@sandpit:~$ du -abh /tmp/recipes |tail -1
>> 12M /tmp/recipes
>> anon@sandpit:~$
>>
>> anon@sandpit:~$ find /tmp/recipes -type f |wc -l
>> 281
>> anon@sandpit:~$
>>
>> The meat of my test script is:
>>
>> files=$(find /tmp/recipes/allrecipes.com -name index.html)
>> filenames=$(echo "${files}" |cut -f7 -d'/')
>>
>> parallel --no-notice -P 8 -N 1 --xapply \
>> wkhtmltopdf -q -n \
>> file:///{1} ~/Recipes/{2}.pdf \
>> ::: ${files} ::: ${filenames}
>>
>> Fairly consistent at 24-25 secs.
>>
> I went back to my tool that let me do this without JavaScript... worked for
> a while and now gives me blank pages?!?!?! Maybe I will re-install it?
> Weird. It gave me about 30 seconds for 60 files or so... or about 1/2 second
> per file (between 0.5 and 0.6). And that was with downloading.
doh! I just remembered the VM i'm running my tests in was assigned
a single 1-core CPU. MY host system is a single-quad-core, that
shows 8 logical cores with hyperthreading. (not really sure whether
-P 8 helps here over what -P 4 would show). I'm going to re-configure
the VM temporarily to use all cores and see how that affects things.
> Now we are down to network speeds and CPU / disk speeds and the like... we
> both are able to do it and do it fairly well (though with yours you likely
> cannot do the text-selection to get definitions and the like).
> I will grant that Linux has faster disk access (HFS+ sucks).
> So why don't we move to a new task? I have suggested several and they are
> either outside your abilities or "boring" as you say. So do a quick, boring
> one.
> I certainly have gone FAR above and beyond in doing this task for you and
> showing you time and time again I was not cheating in any way.
> What I find most funny is even with the proof Peter is still so amazed by
> what OS X can do he insists what he sees it doing cannot be real. THAT made
> all of this worth it. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 23:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <msdfv.90a3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #319410 |
owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 9/6/15, 3:37 PM, in article fdsn0.afo@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> On 9/6/15, 2:28 PM, in article D211FE17.5A232%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com,
>>>> "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can you explain again why you refuse to show a netstat window?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Heh. Yeah it would be interesting to see his download speed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Already posted... about 50 Kbps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you're on a dialup modem?
>>>>>
>>>>> Um, 50 Mbps. Stupid error on my part. Maybe comes from using the old 56K
>>>>> modems. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> During the day down to about 30 Mbps. My ISP sucks.
>>>
>>>> Just checked... whole 62 files come to about 6 MB, and that is after
>>>> conversion to PDF so likely more than is downloaded. Really not a big deal
>>>> even at 30 Mbps.
>>>
>>> My archive tree was 12MB, and even then it still makes network connections
>>> for something. Maybe I left something was left out of my wget options.
>>> I built the archive with this:
>>>
>>> wget -E -H -k -K -p -P /tmp/recipes
>>> http://allrecipes.com/recipe/36766/beef-and-
>>> bean-chimichangas/print/
>>> wget -E -H -k -K -p -P /tmp/recipes
>>> http://allrecipes.com/recipe/241716/chicken-
>>> francesa/print/
>>> ...
>>>
>>> (for all 58)
>>>
>>> anon@sandpit:~$ du -abh /tmp/recipes |tail -1
>>> 12M /tmp/recipes
>>> anon@sandpit:~$
>>>
>>> anon@sandpit:~$ find /tmp/recipes -type f |wc -l
>>> 281
>>> anon@sandpit:~$
>>>
>>> The meat of my test script is:
>>>
>>> files=$(find /tmp/recipes/allrecipes.com -name index.html)
>>> filenames=$(echo "${files}" |cut -f7 -d'/')
>>>
>>> parallel --no-notice -P 8 -N 1 --xapply \
>>> wkhtmltopdf -q -n \
>>> file:///{1} ~/Recipes/{2}.pdf \
>>> ::: ${files} ::: ${filenames}
>>>
>>> Fairly consistent at 24-25 secs.
>>>
>> I went back to my tool that let me do this without JavaScript... worked for
>> a while and now gives me blank pages?!?!?! Maybe I will re-install it?
>> Weird. It gave me about 30 seconds for 60 files or so... or about 1/2 second
>> per file (between 0.5 and 0.6). And that was with downloading.
> doh! I just remembered the VM i'm running my tests in was assigned
> a single 1-core CPU. MY host system is a single-quad-core, that
> shows 8 logical cores with hyperthreading. (not really sure whether
> -P 8 helps here over what -P 4 would show). I'm going to re-configure
> the VM temporarily to use all cores and see how that affects things.
Wow!
anon@sandpit:~$ ./test7.sh
58 files in 10 seconds
.172 seconds per file
anon@sandpit:~$
That's after setting VM to 1 processor with 4 cores.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-07 00:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <adfmnv80.3arf@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #319415 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 9/6/15, 4:38 PM, in article msdfv.90a3@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>> I went back to my tool that let me do this without JavaScript... worked for >>>> a while and now gives me blank pages?!?!?! Maybe I will re-install it? >>>> Weird. It gave me about 30 seconds for 60 files or so... or about 1/2 second >>>> per file (between 0.5 and 0.6). And that was with downloading. >> >>> doh! I just remembered the VM i'm running my tests in was assigned >>> a single 1-core CPU. MY host system is a single-quad-core, that >>> shows 8 logical cores with hyperthreading. (not really sure whether >>> -P 8 helps here over what -P 4 would show). I'm going to re-configure >>> the VM temporarily to use all cores and see how that affects things. >> >> Wow! >> anon@sandpit:~$ ./test7.sh >> 58 files in 10 seconds >> .172 seconds per file >> >> anon@sandpit:~$ >> >> That's after setting VM to 1 processor with 4 cores. > OK, that is pretty impressive. Just out of curiosity I might download and > try Paparazzi and see how fast it is. I thought paparazzi is what you were running? > About 1/2 second per file WITH downloading and converting. And selectable > text. > Now shown with netstat: <http://youtu.be/IfZIa6PqRFo> Changing the VM to use 4 cores did *not* help me running it over the network even though the network connections were parallelized. Yours is definitely going to be faster since your network connection is 5x as fast as mine, and this test is very network-dependent. BTW, the -P 8 definitely helps, because with a setting of 4 cores on the VM, the -P 8 showed about 0.17 - 0.18 sec/file, whereas using -P 4 slowed it to 0.275; so these 8 logical cores actually work, and I won't laugh at the below listing for this 4-core CPU anymore. Host: $ grep processor /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 processor : 1 processor : 2 processor : 3 processor : 4 processor : 5 processor : 6 processor : 7 $ anon@sandpit:~$ grep processor /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 processor : 1 processor : 2 processor : 3 anon@sandpit:~$ Hmmm...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 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