From: Christopher A. <chr...@we...> - 2005-08-30 19:17:41
Attachments:
signature.asc
|
Hi, I noticed that the default binding for the file menu now seems to be shift-right-click. Does that mean we could now finally have shift-click do the multi-select-thing other FMs do? (I know it would still interfere with single-click-style navigation, but when this is switched on, you have to hold STRG for selecting and this slightly changes the semantics of selecting anyway, so we might as well switch off shift-selecting then). Pleeeeeeeeeeze :-) Chris BTW: Is there any possibility someone could host the ROX homepage somewhere else instead of sf.net? It is sooo darn slow all the time... |
From: Janek K. <jan...@wp...> - 2005-08-31 09:06:54
|
> BTW: Is there any possibility someone could host the ROX homepage > somewhere else instead of sf.net? It is sooo darn slow all the time... yes! it is slow for me too! and also editing is broken. Everytime when I try to fix broken hyperlink to new version of MagickThumbnail I see this: Invalid password or userid. PHP Warnings lib/WikiUser.php:270: Notice[1024]: Bad username 'cosurgi' (does not match = regular expression '/\A(?<![0-9A-Za-z=C0-=D6=D8-=F6=F8-=FF])(?:[A-Z=C0-=D6= =D8-=DE][a-z=DF-=F6=F8-=FF]+){2,}(?![0-9A-Za-z=C0-=D6=D8-=F6=F8-=FF])\z/') PS: current href to http://kulinarna.art.pl/rox/prog/MagickThumbnail.tar.bz2 is broken, it should point to: http://kulinarna.maczewski.dyndns.org/rox/ --=20 Janek Kozicki | |
From: Ken H. <ke...@ha...> - 2005-08-31 13:48:59
|
Janek Kozicki wrote: >>BTW: Is there any possibility someone could host the ROX homepage >>somewhere else instead of sf.net? It is sooo darn slow all the time... >=20 >=20 > yes! it is slow for me too! and also editing is broken. Everytime when = I > try to fix broken hyperlink to new version of MagickThumbnail I see > this: >=20 >=20 >=20 > Invalid password or userid. >=20 > PHP Warnings >=20 > lib/WikiUser.php:270: Notice[1024]: Bad username 'cosurgi' (does not ma= tch regular expression '/\A(?<![0-9A-Za-z=C0-=D6=D8-=F6=F8-=FF])(?:[A-Z=C0= -=D6=D8-=DE][a-z=DF-=F6=F8-=FF]+){2,}(?![0-9A-Za-z=C0-=D6=D8-=F6=F8-=FF])= \z/') I think your username must be a valid 'WikiWord' meaning two or more=20 words joined together where each word starts with a capital letter. e.g. JanekKozicki or KenHayber, but not janekkozicki or kenhayber |
From: Thomas L. <ta...@ec...> - 2005-08-31 18:36:23
|
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 08:17:20PM +0100, Christopher Arndt wrote: > BTW: Is there any possibility someone could host the ROX homepage > somewhere else instead of sf.net? It is sooo darn slow all the time... Or, could someone make it faster? The static pages aren't too bad, so I guess the database is the bottle-neck. We could do with an upgrade to the website anyway (the phpwiki version we use is very old). Some useful goals: - Ideally, the latest version of each page should be stored in a file, so we don't have to wait for the database to display it. - Revision control is good. - Rather than letting anyone edit anything, it would probably be better to have a few trusted editors, but let anyone add comments to the end of a page. - Has to be fast! I was quite surprised at how slow phpwiki is. I was trying it on another site, and it was unusably slow (like rox.sf.net has become now), so I built the site around phpbb instead (which is slightly different, but still getting user-editable content from a database and formatting it). It was nice and quick on the same system. Suggestions welcome... -- Dr Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 |
From: Christopher A. <chr...@we...> - 2005-09-03 18:57:56
|
Thomas Leonard schrieb: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 08:17:20PM +0100, Christopher Arndt wrote: > >>BTW: Is there any possibility someone could host the ROX homepage >>somewhere else instead of sf.net? It is sooo darn slow all the time... > > > Or, could someone make it faster? The static pages aren't too bad, so I > guess the database is the bottle-neck. We could do with an upgrade > to the website anyway (the phpwiki version we use is very old). > [...] > Suggestions welcome... What are you suggesting here? Replacing phpwiki or enhancing it? If the database is the bottleneck, a different wiki system will probably make no great difference, even if it has a good caching system. Switching the wiki system would probably also mean a lot of work migrating the current content. But if we switch and being already fairly devoted to Python, maybe we should have a look at MoinMoin? I also really like Media Wiki from a user's perspective, though I have never tried to run it myself. Chris |
From: Thomas L. <ta...@ec...> - 2005-09-03 19:16:41
|
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 07:57:46PM +0100, Christopher Arndt wrote: > Thomas Leonard schrieb: > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 08:17:20PM +0100, Christopher Arndt wrote: > > > >>BTW: Is there any possibility someone could host the ROX homepage > >>somewhere else instead of sf.net? It is sooo darn slow all the time... > > > > > > Or, could someone make it faster? The static pages aren't too bad, so I > > guess the database is the bottle-neck. We could do with an upgrade > > to the website anyway (the phpwiki version we use is very old). > > [...] > > Suggestions welcome... > > What are you suggesting here? Replacing phpwiki or enhancing it? Replacing it. We used to have the web site in CVS. You'd commit changes, and then run a command on the web-server which would 'cvs update' and run make (which generated the HTML from the XML source files, adding in headers, footers and navigation using some XSLT). This is also how the 0install.net site works now. The big advantage is that the pages are only generated once, when you update. After that, it's just serving completely static content. The downside is that it takes more work to update a page than using a wiki (assuming the wiki runs at a decent speed), and only people with CVS access can update it. One a largish site, this means that everything gets out-of-date quickly. We need people to be able to put hints and questions on pages easily (just a few clicks), as otherwise most people won't bother. Likewise, it's good if people can announce new releases of their software without waiting for me to do it. So, ideally, we'd have pages that were basically static (the old system), but with a space at the bottom for user comments / news announcements. If the database failed, you'd still be able to see the top bit. I'm sure we can find a php comment system around that's much faster than phpwiki, too (phpbb, which is pretty complex, was massively faster). > Switching the wiki system would probably also mean a lot of work > migrating the current content. Yes :-( An alternative idea is to have the wiki used just for updating. Once a page is saved, it is stored as a .html file somewhere and can be served without the database. However, the editing speed is currently the worst part. If the servers are just overloaded generally, this won't help. If the problem is locking (trying to update a page while others are trying to read it), then this might help a lot. > But if we switch and being already fairly devoted to Python, maybe we should > have a look at MoinMoin? Can we run it on sf.net, though? PHP is the only thing I've tried. > I also really like Media Wiki from a user's perspective, though I have never > tried to run it myself. I've heard it's easy to set up, and it looks good too. But would it be fast enough? -- Dr Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 |
From: Christopher A. <chr...@we...> - 2005-09-03 20:12:30
|
Thomas Leonard schrieb: > An alternative idea is to have the wiki used just for updating. Once a > page is saved, it is stored as a .html file somewhere and can be served > without the database. However, the editing speed is currently the worst > part. If the servers are just overloaded generally, this won't help. If > the problem is locking (trying to update a page while others are trying > to read it), then this might help a lot. Which comes down to the same thing: replacing phpwiki. I don't think we should hack our own solution here. There must be something available for this already... >>But if we switch and being already fairly devoted to Python, maybe we should >>have a look at MoinMoin? > > > Can we run it on sf.net, though? PHP is the only thing I've tried. Do we have to? What about hosting it somewhere else? The domains rox-desktop.org and roxdesktop.org seem to be unregistered btw. Unfortunately I can't provide the webspace... :-( Chris |
From: Ken H. <ke...@ha...> - 2005-09-03 23:32:34
|
Thomas Leonard wrote: > On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 07:57:46PM +0100, Christopher Arndt wrote: > >>Thomas Leonard schrieb: >> >>>On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 08:17:20PM +0100, Christopher Arndt wrote: >>> >>> >>>>BTW: Is there any possibility someone could host the ROX homepage >>>>somewhere else instead of sf.net? It is sooo darn slow all the time... >>> >>> >>>Or, could someone make it faster? The static pages aren't too bad, so I >>>guess the database is the bottle-neck. We could do with an upgrade >>>to the website anyway (the phpwiki version we use is very old). >>>[...] >>>Suggestions welcome... >> >>What are you suggesting here? Replacing phpwiki or enhancing it? > <snip> > > >>I also really like Media Wiki from a user's perspective, though I have never >>tried to run it myself. > > > I've heard it's easy to set up, and it looks good too. But would it be > fast enough? I don't know how to define 'fast enough' in this context, but in my (somewhat limited) experience mediawiki is faster than phpwiki. It also seems much more stable - I always had weird problems with phpwiki. As for setup, it comes with an installer that really does everything, including setting up the mysql database. I really thought it was slick. The mediawiki syntax is close enough to phpwiki that you could probably port the existing pages pretty quickly. Regarding database access speed: using the mantis (mantisbt.org) bugtracker system at work, we found that judicious use of indexes really made a noticeable performance difference. Could that be tried for the existing system? |
From: Thomas L. <ta...@ec...> - 2005-09-04 09:11:25
|
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 04:31:50PM -0700, Ken Hayber wrote: > Thomas Leonard wrote: > >On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 07:57:46PM +0100, Christopher Arndt wrote: [...] > >>I also really like Media Wiki from a user's perspective, though I have > >>never tried to run it myself. > > > >I've heard it's easy to set up, and it looks good too. But would it be > >fast enough? > > I don't know how to define 'fast enough' in this context, but in my > (somewhat limited) experience mediawiki is faster than phpwiki. It also > seems much more stable - I always had weird problems with phpwiki. As > for setup, it comes with an installer that really does everything, > including setting up the mysql database. I really thought it was slick. OK, I've put one up here... have a play... http://rox.sourceforge.net/wiki It doesn't seem super-fast... -- Dr Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 |
From: Christopher A. <chr...@we...> - 2005-09-04 12:10:52
|
Thomas Leonard schrieb: > OK, I've put one up here... have a play... > > http://rox.sourceforge.net/wiki > > It doesn't seem super-fast... Indeed, it is not! Is there a debugging mode you can turn on, so one can see the page execution time and maybe even the time spent for the database access? The documentation is somewhat vague: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Configuration_settings_index#Debug.2Flogging Chris |
From: Ken H. <ke...@ha...> - 2005-09-04 15:08:14
|
Christopher Arndt wrote: > Thomas Leonard schrieb: > >>OK, I've put one up here... have a play... >> >>http://rox.sourceforge.net/wiki >> >>It doesn't seem super-fast... > > > Indeed, it is not! Hmmm, agreed, but it still feels faster than before. Doesn't it? I ported the rox main page over to see how it looks and feels. I'm having trouble saving edits though. > > Is there a debugging mode you can turn on, so one can see the page execution > time and maybe even the time spent for the database access? > > The documentation is somewhat vague: > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Configuration_settings_index#Debug.2Flogging > > Chris > |
From: Christopher A. <chr...@we...> - 2005-09-04 15:30:25
|
Ken Hayber schrieb: > Christopher Arndt wrote: > >>Thomas Leonard schrieb: >>>It doesn't seem super-fast... >> >>Indeed, it is not! > > Hmmm, agreed, but it still feels faster than before. Doesn't it? View homepage: Served by sc8-pr-web2.sourceforge.net in 4.40 secs. Goto edit homepage: Served by sc8-pr-web9.sourceforge.net in 18.51 secs. Save homepage: Served by sc8-pr-web9.sourceforge.net in 7.10 secs. Glorious! ;-) Chris |
From: Ken H. <ke...@ha...> - 2005-09-04 15:38:46
|
Christopher Arndt wrote: > Ken Hayber schrieb: > >>Christopher Arndt wrote: >> >> >>>Thomas Leonard schrieb: >>> >>>>It doesn't seem super-fast... >>> >>>Indeed, it is not! >> >>Hmmm, agreed, but it still feels faster than before. Doesn't it? > > > View homepage: Served by sc8-pr-web2.sourceforge.net in 4.40 secs. > Goto edit homepage: Served by sc8-pr-web9.sourceforge.net in 18.51 secs. > Save homepage: Served by sc8-pr-web9.sourceforge.net in 7.10 secs. > > Glorious! ;-) Sarcasm? A big problem is sf.net itself which is extremely variable in performance terms for lots of different projects. I wonder if my experience was based on my editing and previewing the same page several times - I was getting the benefit of caching. |
From: Ken H. <ke...@ha...> - 2005-09-04 18:38:10
|
Ken Hayber wrote: > Christopher Arndt wrote: > >>Ken Hayber schrieb: >> >> >>>Christopher Arndt wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Thomas Leonard schrieb: >>>> >>>> >>>>>It doesn't seem super-fast... >>>> >>>>Indeed, it is not! >>> >>>Hmmm, agreed, but it still feels faster than before. Doesn't it? >> >> >>View homepage: Served by sc8-pr-web2.sourceforge.net in 4.40 secs. >>Goto edit homepage: Served by sc8-pr-web9.sourceforge.net in 18.51 secs. >>Save homepage: Served by sc8-pr-web9.sourceforge.net in 7.10 secs. >> >>Glorious! ;-) > > > Sarcasm? > > A big problem is sf.net itself which is extremely variable in > performance terms for lots of different projects. I wonder if my > experience was based on my editing and previewing the same page several > times - I was getting the benefit of caching. I put up a few more pages so people could get a decent test (taste?). But SF is unbearable now - even for the real site - so YMMV. |