Re: "Linux Knowledge Base"

["Aaron D. Turner" <aturner@best.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


On Thu, 24 Dec 1998, Micah Yoder wrote:

> "Aaron D. Turner" wrote:
> 
> > The perldoc is quite good for modules generally.  You may want to invest
> > in the O'Reilly "Perl Resource Kit" ($100) which is a 4 volume set of the
> > most popular perldocs.  If you like reading dead trees, it's an awesome
> 
> That would be nice.  I do have O'Reilly's panther book - Advanced Perl
> Programming.

Gawd that's a deep book.  I'm still working on it myself.  It doesn't
cover many CGI concepts though.  CGI Programming also by O'Reilly is a
good book too.  Oh, and for the Perl Programming Reference- get the Unix
version.   There's a Win32 version too.
 
> > reference.  As long as I have someone helping me code who has some decent
> > DB experience to tell me when my coding ideas are never going to work,
> 
> Yeah...  I have a pretty good idea of the process of connecting to a DB
> with Perl and getting data out of it.

OK.

> > that's good enough for me.  Do you have any CGI.pm experiance?
> 
> I've used it a little.  But aren't we using mod_perl?  That would
> eliminate the need for CGI.pm.  Maybe the interface is the same...

mod_perl and CGI.pm are for two different things.  mod_perl speeds up
execution of CGI's on the server by avoiding a fork/recompile each time.
CGI.pm is a developer tool to make writing CGI's and forms easier in Perl.  
We will use both.

> > Don't worry about the loading size too much.  Both Mike and Alan (my
> > friend doing the logo) have a lot of experience playing with images so
> > they compress well but retain their quality.  Harsh is good as long as
> > it's constructive.  If you don't like it say so.  But if you don't feel
> > qualified, then hopefully someone else will take this.  (I'll keep you
> > plenty busy writing Perl! :-)
> 
> Yep, I'd criisize constructively.  I do want it to load quickly, but if
> they're good at image compression that's fine.
> 
> I'd say we should allow maybe up to 40-50K of graphics on the main
> page...no more.

With that strict of a limit, there won't be any rendered buttons- they'll
have to be fonts.  Not complaining, just an observation.  One thing to
consider though, is how much caching we can do.  If we use the same images
over and over again, we can afford a large over all size.  A good example
is www.gimp.org wihch is well 100K.

- -- 
Aaron Turner           | Either which way, one half dozen or another. 
aturner@pobox.com      | Check out the Red Hat Linux User's FAQ Online!
www.pobox.com/~aturner | http://www.pobox.com/~aturner/RedHat-FAQ/
All emails from this account are PGP signed.  Lack of a signature is "bad".
PGP Key fingerprint = FB E1 CE ED 57 E4 AB 80  59 6E 60 BF 45 1B 20 E8



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBNoKyIjM3jpXy1kJtAQGqYAP+L8C5MVtricPemBVpeyp0EGsSUBb52TE4
Isp21jEo8Ro+CEZO2XxgF+CYJaZOPz9G9YC8holCPOBg7Y7zfyrviOfBkxIy1DgI
w1Ziwq3zeo7ObKdms63QdlMR6MWWVMb2zrxDXVLrPsBtxV9Rrb8BaAs2kqzb9G0J
NlLZLg/hnnk=
=qFtt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----