KCLUG

kclug@kclug.org

6 participants
3282 discussions

Top 500 Supercomputers
by Brian Densmore 09 Nov '04

09 Nov '04

http://clusters.top500.org/ Although the site *still* doesn't break down the computers by OS, you will note that 3 or 4 of the top 5 are Linux machines (1,2,4?,5). Anyone know what IBM blades run? Also perusing the list you will also note that more than half of the top 500 run Linux. So we can safely say now that Linux is the dominant OS for supercomputers. I also saw an article on cnet yesterday about M$ getting ready to release their own cluster friendly version of Windows. They changed the name (surprise) from HPC to Compute Cluster Edition. Oh and it won't run on Itaniums only X86. Which begs the question, will it work on AMD chips? One thing I noticed a bit odd is that there are not more people building clusters with the AMD 64. I would think the chip would have to scream in clusters. In other news, Mozilla slashdotted itself today. The servers are clogged by downloads of Firefox 1.0. Brian D.

1 0

Reply-To (was Re: Proposed Web site redesign (beta))
by Brian Kelsay 09 Nov '04

09 Nov '04

Oddly, this is the one thing that Group Unwise does right. If I right-click on a message and choose reply, then I have a choice of reply to sender and reply to all. I use reply to all and then manually delete the individual user's mail address. Until it gets reply to list that will have to do. Brian Kelsay >>> Jeremy Turner <> 11/09/04 01:23PM >>> If the mailing list does not set the reply-to back to the mailing list, then the following happens: * If I click "Reply," I send a reply that goes back to the person. * If I click "Reply to all," I send a reply that goes to the original person, as well as the list. If I do not have a "Reply to list" option, I can use this and then trim off the extra email addresses. * The Reply-To header set by the poster is honored by the mailing list, and can be used successfully.

2 1

Reply-To (was Re: Proposed Web site redesign (beta))
by Jeremy Turner 09 Nov '04

09 Nov '04

On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 12:49:52PM -0600, Tom Bruno wrote: > I'd love to have the return address be kclug(a)kclug.org, most of the > time reply's come striaght to me when i post, and not to the list, where > they should have been. Especially when talking about Chris's wreck. > Maybe new topic? Here are my thoughts, and then I will keep silent on the mailing list. If you want to follow up with a Reply to me directly, that's fine. *Every single list* I subscribe to has had this issue brought up. There are times when I want to email a list poster directly, and there are times when I want to email back to the list for the archives. If the mailing list sets the reply-to back to the mailing list, the following happens: * Any reply-to that the list poster set is now gone. This violates the defination of the Reply-To header, meaning that Reply-To is the preferred location to reply back to the original poster. * If I click "Reply" in most email clients, it replies back to the mailing list (usually good). * If I click "Reply to all" in most email clients, it replies back to the mailing list (no new functionality), since by defination the Reply-To header is supposted to supercede the address listed in the From header. * If I click "Reply to list" (yes, it's available in most sane email clients that they won't let you use at work), I reply back to the list. * If I want to reply directly to the person who posted, I must go back to their original message and copy their email address, then go back into the new email address and paste it into the To header. This is why changing the Reply-To is a bad idea. If the mailing list does not set the reply-to back to the mailing list, then the following happens: * If I click "Reply to list," I send a reply that goes back to the list. * If I click "Reply," I send a reply that goes back to the person. * If I click "Reply to all," I send a reply that goes to the original person, as well as the list. If I do not have a "Reply to list" option, I can use this and then trim off the extra email addresses. * The Reply-To header set by the poster is honored by the mailing list, and can be used successfully. We are creatures of habit and get used to using the Reply button and want the Reply button to do different things based on a different context. We should mold our email clients to conform to the standards, not transform our email to fit our email clients. Actually this fits in well with the current thread and compliant web browsers. =) Okay, I'm done. That probably adds up to more than $.02. Jeremy

1 0

Proposed Web site redesign (beta)
by Steven Hildreth 09 Nov '04

09 Nov '04

Hi, I am working on updating the KcLUG website to be a dynamic content site via the XOOPS engine, other than a few graphics needed here and there I think it is ready for beta-viewing by the group. you can access the beta-site here; http://www.kclug.org/~shildreth/ I have created a Forum topic here (read only for public, to post a comment create a login; http://www.kclug.org/~shildreth/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1&foru… Not to sound ungrateful for any comments/suggestions, but lets try to make them constructive and productive to making a modern, updated, technical site for our group. I know you you Linux guys (myself included) tend to argue over semantics versus content ;) Thanks! Steven (Tallen)

9 13

RE: Proposed Web site redesign (beta)
by Dustin Decker 09 Nov '04

09 Nov '04

> -----Original Message----- > From: kclug-bounces(a)kclug.org [mailto:kclug-bounces@kclug.org] On Behalf > Of Steven Hildreth > Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 11:52 AM > To: Jason Clinton > Cc: kclug(a)kclug.org > Subject: Re: Proposed Web site redesign (beta) [snip] > My position is that if it renders well in Mozilla, Firefox, Konqueror > and IE that is ensuring a wide enough target audience. Sure the Links > guys will get pissed, but realistically I think we should ensure > operability with the 99% audience - not degrade the overall visual > impression for all to appease the 1% I have to agree with Steven on this to some extent. I'm not a purist anyway. I too have worked with CMS systems, mostly just PostNuke and Mambo. I know that PostNuke has a module available which produces a "hand held friendly" representation of the website. (Compare http://www.1on1security.com/ with http://www.1on1security.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=AvantGo&file=index for example.) Perhaps we can strike a balance between the two... if the 1% is "intelligent" enough to use Links/Lynx, then they can find the appropriate module - we can even place the link where such browsers readily locate it, etc. Thoughts? [Grrr.. I really wish hitting "reply" would respond to the list, rather than the poster - but at least now I am not so thoughtless as to not consider the blind - made me at least mindful of them as I re-post this to the list.] [/me tosses a 5 gallon can of gas on the fire, and giggles from the sidelines.] Dustin

3 3

RE: Proposed Web site redesign (beta)
by Brian Densmore 09 Nov '04

09 Nov '04

I just checked out the first page anyway in Lynx and it displays just fine, although it sets a cookie. I don't know if it is blind-friendly or not, and am not sure even how to determine if it is or is not. It would be nice to be able to make the site available to the widest audience. [same disclaimer as Tom] > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Bruno > > I like this idea, have a <for blind> link at the top in the > first few > lines of the page, that is w3c compliant. Then we can write > something > for the blind pages that pulls the articles out of the sql database. > Still dynamic, same content just different look (not violating > seperate-content principle or whatever jason was talking > about), and we > still get the nice look. Sure it'll take a little work, > but... what do > we do.. sit around and argue in the IRC channel anyway. > > Don't take that as me volunteering to do it. I don't have > a clue. If > it came to it though, i could probably learn. >

2 1

RE: Proposed Web site redesign (beta)
by Tom Bruno 09 Nov '04

09 Nov '04

I just downloaded one of the major screen reading browsers from IBM. Seems that it reads tables just fine. Tells you which side of the table you are on and all kinds of stuff, really cool. Handles the site very well. Home Page Reader 3.02 And lynx displays the page fine i'd say. As long as all the table columbs have headers so the blind can know what section of content they are in.

1 0

Re: Proposed Web site redesign (beta)
by Brian Kelsay 09 Nov '04

09 Nov '04

This was my point, but I forgot to write the stuff about the dynamic content. I was thinking it, didn't you get the TCP/ESP message? My wireless connection must be getting flaky. I'd like to add that if it were not for the new speedy, local server, we could not have such a near real time conversation as this. I'm loving it. I'm glad all those pieces came together. Brian Kelsay >>> Tom Bruno <> 11/09/04 12:32PM >>> I like this idea, have a <for blind> link at the top in the first few lines of the page, that is W3C compliant. Then we can write something for the blind pages that pulls the articles out of the SQL database. Still dynamic, same content just different look (not violating separate-content principle or whatever Jason was talking about), and we still get the nice look. Sure it'll take a little work, but... what do we do.. sit around and argue in the IRC channel anyway. Don't take that as me volunteering to do it. I don't have a clue. If it came to it though, I could probably learn.

1 0

RE: Proposed Web site redesign (beta)
by Brian Densmore 09 Nov '04

09 Nov '04

> -----Original Message----- > From: Steven Hildreth > > Is w3/wia and w3/HTML compliance a requirement of the replacement > offering? Never was mentioned to me when I offered to create a new > modern, dynamic replacement site. > > No CMS stock package I have found (I have tested several for a > previous project including; PhpNuke, PostNuke, Slashcode, eGroupare, > Mambo, and XOOPS) generates either w3/wia or w3/HTML compliant code. > > My position is that if it renders well in Mozilla, Firefox, Konqueror > and IE that is ensuring a wide enough target audience. Sure the Links > guys will get pissed, but realistically I think we should ensure > operability with the 99% audience - not degrade the overall visual > impression for all to appease the 1% > > Other opinions? Am I understanding this correctly, does Links not support displaying tables? If this is the case then I say the authors of Links are the ones that need to worry about compliance. That said, I do believe that the tables should be free of stylesheets and whatnot. As an example, take my website. I use stylesheets and stuff (although I do have some troubleshooting to do with IE) and the content is dynamically created. I use tables and my website displays quite nicely <pat on the back> in Lynx (IMHO). It really comes down to separating advanced functionality from global functionality. Nearly all useable websites use tables. Any browser that doesn't should be discarded for something more web friendly. All that said, I do feel that any kclug site should display well in a non-graphical browser. It think it would be worth testing the website in Lynx to make sure it displays decently, but I certainly would make that a requirement. I do sometimes use Lynx, like from firewall boxes and other boxes with no X. So the site should at least work in text mode. besides it's just good design to separate the gui from the data and all CMS worth their weight would support that approach. Also w3/wia doesn't say don't use tables for layout, but not to use tables for layout if it would be confusing and bad ways (paraphrasing). $0.02, Brian D.

1 0

Re: Proposed Web site redesign (beta)
by Brian Kelsay 09 Nov '04

09 Nov '04

We have had blind Linux users in the past attend meetings. They use Lynx as far as I know and redirect to text to speech or to some sort of Braille reader device that uses a serial port. never seen one up close, but have read about them. We would need the static pages still and have them linked from a link that occurs at the top of the page so they could get to it easily. We have similar users here at the USDA and so all pages must be run thru Bobby and a couple of other validators. Somehow they make the stuff work, but we don't have a user forum as far as I know. A best practice that you may want to use, would be to have a static from page with a link to the forum portion or something similar. Kind of the reverse of having a Flash intro page, if you get my meaning. Brian Kelsay >>> Steven Hildreth <> 11/09/04 11:52AM >>> Is w3/wia and w3/HTML compliance a requirement of the replacement offering? Never was mentioned to me when I offered to create a new modern, dynamic replacement site. No CMS stock package I have found (I have tested several for a previous project including; PhpNuke, PostNuke, Slashcode, eGroupware, Mambo, and XOOPS) generates either w3/wia or w3/HTML compliant code. My position is that if it renders well in Mozilla, Firefox, Konqueror and IE that is ensuring a wide enough target audience. Sure the Links guys will get pissed, but realistically I think we should ensure operability with the 99% audience - not degrade the overall visual impression for all to appease the 1% Other opinions? Regards, Steven (Tallen)

2 1

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

KCLUG