 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3A649874.DDE0F064@yahoo.com>, lem### [at] yahoo com wrote:
> Anyway, I set the program to have No firwall settings, this should
> get rid of the problem in my idea... if it works I'll contact the
> author to see how I can manage my own firewall (like I did before I
> had this software)...
I tried earlier and got a list of links to pages in various languages
saying that Apache was successfully installed...it seems to be working
now, though.
--
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/
<><
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I tried earlier and got a list of links to pages in various languages
> saying that Apache was successfully installed...it seems to be working
> now, though.
Er... I guess it doesn't... You should have seen the website... but if you seem
to be accessing my apache server, then I'm half on the right track, maybe apache
has permissions settings that allow some user according to the firwall, ie.
nobody from the outside?!
--
+-------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Simon Lemieux | http://www.666Mhz.net |
| Email : Sin### [at] 666Mhznet | Povray and OpenGL Gallery |
+-------------------------+----------------------------------+
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Seems to be working now.
Uh, 499k splash? I see it's a png, I'm guessing it's not jpeg-friendly, but you
should be able to get a much smaller size. When I link to "English Version" it
loads a seperate jpeg version too, you could reference these to the same file so
it can just use the cached copy.
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3A652931.573882D2@yahoo.com>, lem### [at] yahoocom wrote:
> > I tried earlier and got a list of links to pages in various languages
> > saying that Apache was successfully installed...it seems to be working
> > now, though.
>
> Er... I guess it doesn't... You should have seen the website...
I *did* see the web site...what I meant was that I had tried earlier,
gotten the links to Apache pages, and when I tried again immediately
before writing that message, I was able to sucessfully get to your page.
--
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/
<><
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I *did* see the web site...what I meant was that I had tried earlier,
> gotten the links to Apache pages, and when I tried again immediately
> before writing that message, I was able to sucessfully get to your page.
Ah, so it's probably a matter of not-loading from the cache or something like
it...
So that would mean that right now while my firewall is off, that everybody can
see my website?
--
+-------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Simon Lemieux | http://www.666Mhz.net |
| Email : Sin### [at] 666Mhznet | Povray and OpenGL Gallery |
+-------------------------+----------------------------------+
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Uh, 499k splash? I see it's a png, I'm guessing it's not jpeg-friendly, but you
> should be able to get a much smaller size. When I link to "English Version" it
> loads a seperate jpeg version too, you could reference these to the same file so
> it can just use the cached copy.
Oh yeah... sorry about that, totally forgot about the index.html's link to the
png... Will arrange that immediately... Apart from that, does the image sizes
are ok for the previews and everything?
--
+-------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Simon Lemieux | http://www.666Mhz.net |
| Email : Sin### [at] 666Mhznet | Povray and OpenGL Gallery |
+-------------------------+----------------------------------+
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Simon Lemieux wrote:
> Oh yeah... sorry about that, totally forgot about the index.html's link to the
> png... Will arrange that immediately... Apart from that, does the image sizes
> are ok for the previews and everything?
IMO thumbnails under 10k, I keep the ones on my site around 3-4k but they're small in
area compared to some and there's a lot of them. Backgrounds small too, "title"
graphics under 50k and images themselves under 200. Of course you always have to
consider jpeg limitations, so exceptions can be made.
It looks like your site is pretty good about that. I see you have two res. for each
one, that's always nice.
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> IMO thumbnails under 10k, I keep the ones on my site around 3-4k but they're small
in
> area compared to some and there's a lot of them. Backgrounds small too, "title"
> graphics under 50k and images themselves under 200. Of course you always have to
> consider jpeg limitations, so exceptions can be made.
>
> It looks like your site is pretty good about that. I see you have two res. for each
> one, that's always nice.
This makes me think that I could probably compress most the small images,
thumbnails, etc to 90-95% and still get a very nice image but with half the disk
size... The difference won't even be noticable!...
--
+-------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Simon Lemieux | http://www.666Mhz.net |
| Email : Sin### [at] 666Mhznet | Povray and OpenGL Gallery |
+-------------------------+----------------------------------+
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Simon Lemieux wrote:
> > IMO thumbnails under 10k, I keep the ones on my site around 3-4k but they're small
in
> > area compared to some and there's a lot of them. Backgrounds small too, "title"
> > graphics under 50k and images themselves under 200. Of course you always have to
> > consider jpeg limitations, so exceptions can be made.
> >
> > It looks like your site is pretty good about that. I see you have two res. for
each
> > one, that's always nice.
>
> This makes me think that I could probably compress most the small images,
> thumbnails, etc to 90-95% and still get a very nice image but with half the disk
> size... The difference won't even be noticable!...
You seem to tend towards RGB-type color schemes, which isn't a bad thing but isn't
jpeg
friendly. So if your file sizes are somewhat larger than normal so be it... (case in
point
most of the full-size pics on my site are around 100-150k, but the lego phalanx is
nearly
300. that's 800x600 too, and your high-res versions are bigger than that)
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> You seem to tend towards RGB-type color schemes, which isn't a bad thing but isn't
jpeg
> friendly. So if your file sizes are somewhat larger than normal so be it... (case in
point
> most of the full-size pics on my site are around 100-150k, but the lego phalanx is
nearly
> 300. that's 800x600 too, and your high-res versions are bigger than that)
I know, at first I rendered my images to ppm wich has no compression and no loss
of data... then I convert it JPEG with 0.00 compression, I made a small program
that would open an uncompressed png and a jpg... compared the two and there were
no differences. JPEG's algorithm is very efficient, even more when you have
uniform areas...
Also, my high res versions are 1280x1024...
--
+-------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Simon Lemieux | http://www.666Mhz.net |
| Email : Sin### [at] 666Mhznet | Povray and OpenGL Gallery |
+-------------------------+----------------------------------+
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
