mailing list archives
Re: decreased caching efficiency?
From: Christian Kuhtz <ck () arch bellsouth net>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 11:35:52 -0400
I do indeed use the revenue to pay for bandwidth but the pictures, by and large
(its a work in progress) have been tuned for file size; still takes time to decompress but hey,
what can I do. Also the projected load vs. the bandwidth is such that I have a LOT more room left. The users get a
reasaonbly large bitmap in a reasonably small file. ImageMagick is nifty set of programs. The problem I have is
pirates who collect images and use them for other purposes.
the pictures...well, I actually don't want them hanging around on the user's disk once the browser is no longer on
I haven't figured out how to make that happen other than expiration of 1 minute or something.
isn't there a HUGE difference between piracy and transient storage? Intent
You do point out that while I pay fixed cost for bandwidth (my server is behind a DSL circuit) others might use the
technology to host where they pay for usage as it occurs. An quandary.
A quandry to which whoever pays can respond accordingly. Anything from
optimizing delivery of your site to cutting it off completely. Sure, that's
an extreme, but don't you agree?
Christian Kuhtz Architecture, BellSouth.net
<ck () arch bellsouth net> -wk, <ck () gnu org> -hm Atlanta, GA
"Speaking for myself only."
Re: decreased caching efficiency? Lincoln Dale (Oct 20)