On Tuesday 29 Jul 2003 20:23, Toad wrote:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 04:59:30PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the 1 MB limit is okay.
See for example yesterday's TFEE container. It is about 400 KB and it
consists of some 3 HTML and 1 CSS that sum up to nearly 2 MB!
This seems
- Original Message -
From: Gordan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] container maximum
On Tuesday 29 Jul 2003 20:23, Toad wrote:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 04:59:30PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the 1
On Wednesday 30 Jul 2003 17:34, Niklas Bergh wrote:
But I must admit that single-file zipping would be a nicer way to do
it.
I am more in favour of tar.bz2 format. It would be measurably more
compact for compressible data, with little speed penalty to speak of.
As a windows user I
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Niklas Bergh wrote:
I am more in favour of tar.bz2 format. It would be measurably more compact
for compressible data, with little speed penalty to speak of.
As a windows user I am not too fond of that idea though
As a Windows user, you run the same virtual machine
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Gordan wrote:
Here is what I propose. ZIP archives to be replaced with tar archives. Then,
on a lower, node level, at insert time, the file being inserted is checked.
If it's mime type or extension are indicative of compressed content, we
simply insert the file as is.
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Gordan wrote:
Here is what I propose. ZIP archives to be replaced with tar archives.
Why? Wouldn't an uncompressed/compressed zip be easier to produce since the
required code already is present in java?
Then, on a lower, node level, at insert time, the file being
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 11:25:58AM +0100, Gordan wrote:
On Tuesday 29 Jul 2003 20:23, Toad wrote:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 04:59:30PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the 1 MB limit is okay.
See for example yesterday's TFEE container. It is about 400 KB and it
consists of some
Dear god, please don't switch to bz2. I don't care how many bytes are
saved, I don't care about CPU cycles used, all I care about is ease of
use and that would add unnecesary layers of complexity. It seems that
around here normal users are constantly at risk of being disenfranchised
by
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 03:44:40PM -0500, Richard Reveley spake thusly:
saved, I don't care about CPU cycles used, all I care about is ease of
use and that would add unnecesary layers of complexity. It seems that
bzip is just as easy to use as gzip. They work exactly the same. What's
the
On Wednesday 30 July 2003 18:33, Todd Walton wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Gordan wrote:
Here is what I propose. ZIP archives to be replaced with tar archives.
Then, on a lower, node level, at insert time, the file being inserted
is checked. If it's mime type or extension are indicative of
On Wednesday 30 July 2003 19:03, Niklas Bergh wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Gordan wrote:
Here is what I propose. ZIP archives to be replaced with tar archives.
Why? Wouldn't an uncompressed/compressed zip be easier to produce since the
required code already is present in java?
Yes, this
On Wednesday 30 July 2003 21:44, Richard Reveley wrote:
Dear god, please don't switch to bz2. I don't care how many bytes are
saved, I don't care about CPU cycles used, all I care about is ease of
use and that would add unnecesary layers of complexity.
If you were following what was being said
On Wednesday 30 July 2003 21:48, Tracy R Reed wrote:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 03:44:40PM -0500, Richard Reveley spake thusly:
saved, I don't care about CPU cycles used, all I care about is ease of
use and that would add unnecesary layers of complexity. It seems that
bzip is just as easy to
On Wednesday 30 July 2003 20:12, Toad wrote:
But I must admit that single-file zipping would be a nicer way to do
it.
I am more in favour of tar.bz2 format. It would be measurably more
compact for compressible data, with little speed penalty to speak of.
A massive speed penalty,
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 10:59:28PM +0100, Gordan spake thusly:
Similarly pkzip is no easier or more difficult to use than tar or bzip2.
Exactly. And since they are the same we may as well pick the one with the
best performance.
--
Tracy Reed
http://ultraviolet.org
pgp0.pgp
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 11:06:28PM +0100, Gordan wrote:
On Wednesday 30 July 2003 20:12, Toad wrote:
But I must admit that single-file zipping would be a nicer way to do
it.
I am more in favour of tar.bz2 format. It would be measurably more
compact for compressible data, with
- Original Message -
From: Toad [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:23 PM
Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] container maximum
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 04:59:30PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the 1 MB limit is okay.
See for example yesterday's TFEE
On Saturday 26 July 2003 00:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the 1 MB limit is okay.
See for example yesterday's TFEE container. It is about 400 KB and it
consists of some 3 HTML and 1 CSS that sum up to nearly 2 MB!
Which arguably means that the site is not suitable for the application
I think the 1 MB limit is okay.
See for example yesterday's TFEE container. It is about 400 KB and it
consists of some 3 HTML and 1 CSS that sum up to nearly 2 MB!
But I must admit that single-file zipping would be a nicer way to do
it.
As for the fear of the activelinks forcing 1 MB
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 04:59:30PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the 1 MB limit is okay.
See for example yesterday's TFEE container. It is about 400 KB and it
consists of some 3 HTML and 1 CSS that sum up to nearly 2 MB!
But I must admit that single-file zipping would be a
20 matches
Mail list logo
