On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 09:28:40PM +0200, Emanuel Rumpf wrote: > 2011/7/14 Gwenhwyfaer <gwenhwyfaer@xxxxxxxxx>: > > On 14/07/2011, Emanuel Rumpf <xbran@xxxxxx> wrote: > >>> Cuz you're using their bandwidth for your site's benefit. > >>> > >> Do you actually think those few bytes matter these days ? > > > > Yes. When you use a large image and tell the browser to resize it, you > > use up my bandwidth to download it, the vendor's bandwidth to serve > > it, and my memory to decompress it. That may well make Firefox fall > > over with an out of memory error. You are screwing everyone else > > because you can't be bothered to do the right thing. If you don't > > think that's rude, there's precious little hope for you. > > > > The objection I've heard so far is "I'd be rude". > You are the first one to actually explain the reason for that claim. So thanks. > Pages as myspace a.o. have been doing the same, but > I have to very much agree, loading that many large images (at once) is a bad > thing and likely I would have added thumbnails anyway. > Not "likely", because I'd think it's wrong, but "likely", because > time and work is involved. > > The strange thing is: > I took a lot of time gathering the links, images, etc... > Now: Instead of going ahead and improving the page themself, > for example by adding thumbnails, some are > simply complaining. > The default answer usually is: "It's a WIKI. If you want to improve it, go right ahead". -ken _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
